Nice Republicans finish last

Now I’ve seen it all. The New York Times (you know, that paper we right-wing morons are too stupid, closed-minded and bigoted to read) this morning featured an article by Jim Rutenberg entitled “Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now.” His complaint? Those of us on the right who criticized candidate Obama are now — are you ready? — being just too damnably decent to President-elect Obama.

Okay, let me get this straight. We are not supposed to put the partisan rhetoric of the election behind us, graciously accept the will of the electorate, and give Mr. Obama a chance to prove that he means what he says about being our president, too? I guess Mr. Rutenberg wants those of us on the right to do what leftists did in 2004, slapping “He’s not MY President” and “Buck Fush” bumper stickers on their cars, and calling the President a lying, warmongering, borderline retard who resembles a chimpanzee.

Sorry, Mr. Rutenberg, but that’s just not our style. We’re not going to make it easy for you to belittle us by getting down in the gutter and being poor sports. Our electorate may be misguided, but they’re still the electorate, and they have made their choice. Our accepting that choice with grace and a spirit of conciliation upsets leftists because it make it more difficult for them to demonize us.

They like to call us hypocrites who spout Christian values but do not live by them. Sorry, Mr. Rutenberg, but some of us do live by them.  Or at least some of us try to, though we don’t always succeed. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t change it.

Comments 16

  1. Dan wrote:

    I read that whole article and I really don’t see where you’re taking offense. Its just a fairly straight forward accounting of the facts – that most conservatives have backed off their campaign rhetoric. You seem to think the NYT exists solely to excoriate conservatives or something, I don’t get it. You come across like you’re going out looking for reasons to be offended after you were so magnanimous in defeat.

    Also if you missed it I’m hoping you’ll reply to my question posted in response to your entry about Krugman.

    Posted 10 Nov 2008 at 10:07 pm
  2. Brigette Russell wrote:

    My magnanimity in defeat was directed to Mr. Obama, and so far, he has not done anything to make me want to retract it. You think I’m looking for reasons to be offended. I say these NYT reporters are looking for reasons to criticize conservatives. We conservatives have been exceptionally polite since the election, and Mr. Rutenburg acknowledges this, but he paints it as inconsistency, even (in Rep. Bachman’s case) hypocrisy. You and I are reading this article through our respective ideological lenses, Dan. I ackowledge that ideology colors my reactions. Do you acknowledge that it colors yours?

    Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 2:02 am
  3. Brigette Russell wrote:

    About the Krugman comment — I’ll be posting a follow-up piece on the future of the GOP, and that should address your objections. Haven’t done it yet because I have three sick children.

    Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 2:04 am
  4. Dan wrote:

    Of course ideology colors perceptions. It just seems to me that you’re erecting strawmen here. The entire premise of your post is wrong in my opinion. Rutenberg is just reporting what he sees happening, not criticizing anyone for being too nice or not nice enough. Its just an article about how after the irrationality of the campaign season, reason sets in after the election.

    You’re also painting with a very broad brush when you claim that liberals all drive around with “Not my president” bumper stickers on and that no conservatives do. During the Clinton years I saw plenty of “MY president is a Jewish Carpenter!” and “Charton Heston is MY president!” bumper stickers up in the Albuquerque NE heights. That kind of nonsense isn’t limited to just one party.

    Also I don’t know about California but here, the backlash against Bush didn’t start in earnest until after he invaded Iraq. People were upset about the 2000 election (because it was so astoundingly close and because of how poorly it was run and how questionably it was decided) but for the most part were willing to give Bush a chance to be the “compassionate conservative” that he campaigned as. Unfortunately for nearly everyone on the planet he didn’t govern the way he campaigned.

    Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 3:55 pm
  5. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Also I don’t know about California but here, the backlash against Bush didn’t start in earnest until after he invaded Iraq. People were upset about the 2000 election (because it was so astoundingly close and because of how poorly it was run and how questionably it was decided)”

    Funny, in 2004, when given a chance to express their “backlash” against President Bush, they sure had a funny way of doing it.

    Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 6:30 am
  6. Dan wrote:

    Are you referring to when the GOP used religious wedge issues and the pretense that terrorist attacks were more likely to occur under Kerry to scare people into narrowly re-electing Bush by the thinnest margin in the history of the state? How’d that work out for you this time?

    Regardless, you’re ignoring the point. Most Dems didn’t just reject Bush outright. They rejected him after he proved that he’s and incompetent who surrounded himself with corruption and more incompetence. This national GOP meme – that conservatives are more gracious in defeat and willing to give Obama a chance (at least until he doesn’t pander to their crazy religious desires) ignores two things: Most Dems did the same until Bush completely reversed himself on nearly all his campaign promises following 9/11 and that both of Bush’s wins were much narrower and one of them outright fraudulent than Obama’s landslide last week.

    I’m seeing this everywhere I go – conservatives patting themselves on the back for not threatening to leave the country or whatever. It’s pretty pathetic. Congratulations, you’re more magnanimous in a landslide defeat that rejected the incompetence of your party’s leadership than some Dems were after a loss that was chiefly attributable to the GOP dominated Supreme Court.

    By the way I saw my first “Obama is not MY President!” (jesus fish) bumper sticker of the year on the way to work today. So much for that huh?

    Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 4:03 pm
  7. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Regardless, you’re ignoring the point. Most Dems didn’t just reject Bush outright. They rejected him after he proved that he’s and incompetent who surrounded himself with corruption and more incompetence. This national GOP meme”

    I’m sorry, you stated this all occured before the 2004 election though. I pointed out that despite all their “misgivings” as you had pointed out they seemed pretty comfortable re-electing the man in 2004.

    And you’re correct, he didn’t govern well. He was more of a liberal big-government Democrat than a fiscal conservative.

    Oh well, let’s give Obama a chance to see how he does. What do you say?

    Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 10:53 pm
  8. Dan wrote:

    Who was the last small-government conservative president in your opinion Bowden? The closest I can come up with is Ford.

    I’m happy to hear you’re going to give Obama a chance but what chance.

    Posted 13 Nov 2008 at 3:34 pm
  9. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Who was the last small-government conservative president in your opinion Bowden? The closest I can come up with is Ford.

    I’m happy to hear you’re going to give Obama a chance but what chance.”

    What do you mean by “What chance”? I’m willing to give him a year to enact the correct legislation and work out the problems in the economy and the foreign policy.

    I will criticize him when he’s wrong prior to that though.

    Let’s just say I’ll give him more of a chance than the liberals ever gave President Bush.

    Posted 13 Nov 2008 at 6:59 pm
  10. Dan wrote:

    Which “the liberals” are you talking about that never gave Bush a chance? Plenty of us gave him a chance in 2000-2001. As it turns out of course, he didn’t deserve the chance we gave him and will most likely go down in history as the worst president of the entire modern era.

    This is what I’m trying to get across to you. *You* may be giving Obama a chance, but there are plenty of conservatives that aren’t, or are only pretending they will until they can see what he actually does so that they can know what to be against.

    Basically, your saying “the liberals” didn’t give Bush a chance is no more valid than me saying “the conservatives” won’t give Obama a chance.

    Posted 13 Nov 2008 at 10:46 pm
  11. Bowden Russell wrote:

    ” Plenty of us gave him a chance in 2000-2001. As it turns out of course, he didn’t deserve the chance we gave him and will most likely go down in history as the worst president of the entire modern era.”

    Oh please. You found one non-Obama voter with a “He’s not my President” sticker on his car, assumed said driver was a Republican, and used that as evidence of the entire Republican movement being un-diplomatic over their loss.

    From day one of the Bush Administration the liberals were screaming,”Selected, not elected”. Day one.

    The hate factor is about 5-1 from Dems to Reps Dan.

    No, he won’t go down as the worst. No one can take that away from Jimmy “Hostage” Carter.

    Note, the Bush administration didn’t start having troubles until the Democrats took over congress in 2007.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:00 am
  12. Dan wrote:

    That’s some awesome revisionist history you’re engaged in Bowden. Where is the evidence that liberals never gave Bush a chance? Your own anecdotal observations?

    I’ve listened to Rush and Hannity and the local guy (on 770KOB) Villanucci quite a bit since Nov 4 and 80% of their callers are already calling for Obama’s head. Rush and Hannity both personally blamed Obama for the stock market drop in the middle of last week.

    Carter came into office under very bad circumstances and didn’t handle it well, but the hostage crisis can be laid at Eisenhower’s feet, not his. Or are you one of those people that think that all things happen in a vacuum? Are you under the impression that the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with US intervention? Are you also one of those people who think the 9/11 attacks were completely unprovoked and were done because they “hate us for our freedom?”

    Things were crappy under Carter but at no point during his administration did we invade a foreign country for no reason whatsoever and at no point under his administration was the US & world economy in danger of complete collapse. Carter was not a good president, but Bush Jr is Carter squared.

    The degree of self-delusion you have to be operating under to believe that the Bush admin didn’t start having troubles until the Dems took congress back is astounding. Which Dem was at fault for the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld? Alberto Gonzales? Scooter Libby? The attempt to shoehorn the completely unqualified Harriet Myers into the Supreme Court? Was it Nancy Pelosi that appointed a horse breeder with no relevant experience to head FEMA? Was it Harry Reid who engaged in a propaganda campaign to invade Iraq based entirely on lies and forgeries? Do you really need me to enumerate all the ways in which Bush has been a total disaster which have nothing to do with the Democrats?

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:00 pm
  13. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “That’s some awesome revisionist history you’re engaged in Bowden. Where is the evidence that liberals never gave Bush a chance? Your own anecdotal observations?”

    Dan,

    YOu can’t have it both ways. You used your one sighting of an anti-Obama supporter as evidence of Obama derangement syndrome on the right. I retort in kind and you call me a “revisionist” and delusional.

    If the shoe fits buddy. I can see you can dish it out, but Lord knows you can’t take it.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 6:37 pm
  14. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Interesting story on what electing Democrats to Washington gets you, From AP:

    AP ^ | 13 Nov 2008 | Martin Crutsinger

    Posted on Friday, November 14, 2008

    Government begins budget year with record deficit of $237.2 billion, reflecting bailout

    The federal government began the new budget year with a record deficit of $237.2 billion, reflecting the billions of dollars the government has started to pay out to rescue the financial system.

    The Treasury Department said Thursday that the deficit for the first month in the new budget year was the highest monthly imbalance on record. It was far bigger than analysts expected, over four times larger than the October 2007 deficit of $56.8 billion, and more than half the total for all of last year.

    The big surge reflected the government spending $115 billion to buy stock in the nation’s largest

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 6:39 pm
  15. Dan wrote:

    Hahaha. Bush and the GOP set six different budget deficit records *and* the Bush admin is the originator of the bailout plan but somehow its all the Democrats fault, right? Then again just a month ago you were still flogging the idea that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen even though he had released his birth certificate three months earlier so I suppose one can’t expect logic from the insane.

    I love your crocodile tears over the budget deficit which is caused almost entirely by the Bush bailout plan and the $150B we’re spending per year in Iraq, another Bush legacy. Where were your cries of outrage while Bush and the GOP were adding $4 Trillion to the federal debt in just 7 years?

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 8:59 pm
  16. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “I suppose one can’t expect logic from the insane.”

    Well I’ve tried, and failed, to engage you in rational, polite discourse.

    Obviously, the more you lose an internet debate, the more personal your attacks become. You should know Dan that the last act of the desperate mind is the personal insult.

    Congratulations for proving my point.

    I won’t bother with you anymore.

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 2:50 am

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1

  1. From Nice Republicans finish last at Republicans On Best Political Blogs on 10 Nov 2008 at 5:42 am

    […] Nice Republicans finish last Now I’ve seen it all. The New York Times (you know, that paper we right-wing morons are too stupid, closed-minded and bigoted to read) this morning featured an article by Jim Rutenberg entitled “Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now. … […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *