« John Kerry’s “Sensitive” War On Terror | Home | What The F**K? »
Bush Haters Wrapping Themselves In The Flag
By Matt Margolis | August 7, 2004
You hear often accusations from the left that Republicans and George W. Bush “wrap themselves in the flag” or something along those lines, most recently we hear it from John Kerry:
[John Kerry] accused Bush and his team of “wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth,” declaring: “We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.”
This kind of stupidity by Kerry and the Democrats is really annoying. You know why? During the entire Democrat primary season we got bombarded with various messages implying that removing Bush was a form of patriotism. To this day, liberals continue pushing that theme. I’ve seen bumpers like “Vote Patriotic, Dump Bush” or some variation of that.
So it’s okay for liberal/Democrat to wrap himself in the flag but not for a Republican?
Today, I was reminded of this hypocrisy by a Letter to the Editor in a local paper, titled “True Patriots Will Vote For Kerry”, which was concluded with this paragraph:
I love our country, honor those who serve it, and accept it as true that the most patriotic thing Americans can do is deny Bush four more years in office.
Liberals do not own the flag any more than Republicans. It is nevertheless curious to me how liberals are so desperate to wrap themselves (and their causes) with the flag - the same flag they are hell bent on having the right to burn.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
August 7th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Out of curiosity, do you know that it’s the “democrats” and not the “liberals” that are the opposite party?
Here, let me put it this way.
Some liberals are democrats.
Most democrats are liberals.
However, not all liberals are democrats.
Really Matt, you should be on top of this.
August 7th, 2004 at 5:21 pm
Hence, when necessary I was inclusive of both:
So it’s okay for liberal/Democrat to wrap himself in the flag but not for a Republican?
August 7th, 2004 at 6:00 pm
Lines 1 and 3 are identical, just rephrased.
I believe that proper way to identify this group is either by calling them a Union between the liberal set and the Democrat set. Or, in conversational English, simply call them liberal Democrats.
Class dismissed.
August 7th, 2004 at 7:27 pm
A. I agree with you on this particular issue, the flag belongs to no particular party.
B. I’m a Liberal Democrat.
C. I’m looking for directions to a web forum of a particular sort. I’m looking for directions to a web forum where I can trade thoughts, assertions, opinions, and facts with the other side. I am willing to question my own views, and would expect generosity in return.
I have never seen this country so divided. We ALL want what is best for America, we just differ in the vision of what a best America is, and how to create it.
I just want to find a few folk who would be willing to put down the pitch fork, step away from the angry mob, And see if we can work this out.
I have a hunch the media is getting more polarized every day. I have a hunch we have half the facts, and you guys have the other half. I have a hunch that we could agree on something.
Just a hunch. Could be wrong.
-Chicago43
August 7th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Chicago43…I do believe there is common ground and it has been demonstrated in the past…welfare reform, no child left behind, the war in Iraq. All of which had overwhelming bi-partisan support. There will be some major tax reform legislation introduced in Bush’s next term that also has bi-partisan support. I think what has caused the current raft of division is that when John Kerry thought he was not going to get the nomination because of Howard Dean, he began reversing himself on a lot of issues to appeal to the very fringe liberal elements of the Democratic party. This approach of trying to be all things to all people really gets him into some impossible situations. (’I voted for it before I voted against it!)
One of the reasons there is so much ‘anyone but Bush’ sentiment is that he never equivocates on his position once he is convinced it is the correct one. This causes a real problem for people who do not believe in moral absolutes, that anything can be justified given the right set of circumstances. This is the background Kerry operates under and just makes those of us who do believe in right and wrong shudder. I mean we just got rid of a president who tried to justify lying under oath to congress by splitting the meaning of the word ‘is’. Kerry is just coming across to those of us on the Conservative side as just another apologist and it quite frankly is scary to think of another Clinton administration.
August 7th, 2004 at 9:43 pm
Hi ed,
Thanks for your prompt and courteous response, not so sure what kind of reception I would get here.
So much to comment on… don’t know where to begin. How about The Clinton thing.
Good a place as any. Please feel free to challenge my facts ( that’s part of why I’m doing this here)
A. Fact: Ken Starr spent 50 million tax payer dollars to investigate Whitewater, a failed real estate deal in which clintost LOST 60,000 dollars. When that fishing trip turned up nil, the investigation turned into the Lewinsky affair. All total, the 4 1/2 year Starr investigation Cost 80 Million taxpayer dollars.
SOURCE :http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/
B. Fact: 50 Million Dollars was spent to investigate the Columbia Space shuttle tragedy in which seven people died.
SOURCE: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
C. The Bush admin fought the formation of the 9-11 commission for 10 months, finally reversed course and approved its formation.
3 million dollars was what they got. Commission Chairman Tom Kean asked for another 11 million, just to keep paying the light bills on this thing, and was rejected.
SOURCE: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
So here’s my own personal opinion on the clinton impeachment.
80 Million dollars and 4-1/2 years was spent to find something the president would want to lie about, which was the whole point, to get him on the stand catch him in a lie, and toss him out. If I remember correctly, Clinton fired a misslle or two aimed at Osama during the Monica thing, and was accused of trying to divert the publics attention to the much more important issues surrounding the blue dress. I see Clinton as a guy who did an amazing job, and did it with one hand on the wheel and the other hand fending off ridiculous attacks. That’s just my take on it, but I must add, as I am the lone injun round these parts…this view is shared by many.
Now, what does that have to do with the 9-11 commission? It’s a usefull comparison. Please explain to me Why the Bush Administration fights the formation of the commission, then underfunds it. Yet conservatives still manage to claim moral high ground on spending 80 million dollars and 4-1/2 years to find something the president would have to lie about. I can spend 30 minutes on google and find 10 Bush lies. For a Liberal Dem, this is just “Welcome to Crazy World”
FWIW
-Chicago43
August 8th, 2004 at 7:31 am
Two things on Clinton.
One, the only problem with Clinton is that…well, lets face it. On military issues, he outright sucked. Many a soldier was not a fan of his.
And, for a tad bit more humour, Clinton didn’t disgrace the White House-he pimpied it up
August 8th, 2004 at 10:24 am
Kyle-
Intrested in what information you have on Clinton’s military issues…i sense the conversation splintering off, but that’s okay. I’m here to get a view from the other side of the fence.
Pimpied? Okay… I appreciate a good joke. He f’d up, did a stupid thing and got caught he deserves a little ribbing. But 80 Million dollars? Great goofy in the sky,
If I were judged by half of how I behaved in the entire 10 year period in my twenties, I’d never leave the house.
So thanks for the giggle Kyle… allow me to return the favor. When asked about the expense of the investigation a Starr spokesman said ” The monumental effort required to conduct the investigation of Monica Lewinsky and others required an unusual commitment of resources.”
- You have to admit, that’s a good one.
Then I could mention the giggles about Henry Hyde, the male escort service that was given midnight tours in the Reagan Whitehouse, and oh yeah the coronation of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon in the Dirksen Federal Building…but now that would be taking this consersation a whole nuther direction. I can play the “disgrace the whitehouse”card as well anybody, but you know what, It’s different this time around. People died. People are still dying. This election is too important to waste time hashing out what ought to be common sense, People of power have sex with those who don’t… all the F***ing time in politics. You guys just dumped Ryan because he had committed the fatal error of prositioning his
own wife for sex. Didnt he get the memo explaining that’s what interns are for?
Like I said, It’s different this time around. let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
Still wondering why the Bush admin fought the formation of the 9-11 commision, then only alloted 3 mil for this. 3000 people died.
People are still dying. All kidding aside, this is a really big deal for all of us. If you want to understand people in politics, what motivates them, follow the money.
-Chicago43
August 8th, 2004 at 11:55 am
Why is it that all these Clinton lovers want to whine about all the money it took to investigate Clinton, but they never want to admit that it would have only cost about 50 cents if Clinton had told the truth from the start?
And for those of you who think perjury is no big deal, I hope you get taken to the cleaners in a divorce some day by a spouse who lies her ass off while under oath.
August 8th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
Chicago43, I don’t have time to go into it at detail right now but your facts are considerabley scewed. Clinton did lie to Congress under oath. This is not the same thing as lying to his wife about the affair. It was an extremely serious offense for which he was impeached in the Congress. The republicans made a serious mistake not going ahead and confirming it in Congress because they wanted a weakened Clinton the last two years and did not want Gore to become the effective incumbant in the next election.
Most of the legal issues were actually Hillary’s not Bill’s issues. But in regards to the Whitewater deal, the Clinton’s should have lost a lot more than they did but were limited to just 60k because their buddies took the loss for them. Limiting a loss on the surface to most people does not seem like that big a deal, but how many people (myself included) would trade their right arms to have limited the losses with the internet bubble bursting?
One of the reasons bush was opposed initially to the 9/11 commission is for the very reason of what has come out of it….36 of the 41 proposals in the 9/11 report have either already been enacted or are being set up already by the administration. The remaining two big recommendations National Terrorism Center and a Central Intelligence Head were already being considered for months now in special sessions of congress (the National Center is actually not that much different than the Joint Terrorism clearing house the administration already established.)
And finally the determination of those months of partisan questioning? No one was really to blame and it could not have been prevented.
Not really that great a way to spend that much money other than to give some peace of mind to the victims families.
August 8th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
Correction, meant to say not confirming it in the Senate.
August 8th, 2004 at 1:43 pm
Ed,
A.Thanks for setting me straight on the fine print of the Clinton impeachment.
B. Your explaination of Whitewater sounds a bit like what happened with Bush at Harken Energy. Maybe we could go into that sometime. I am pressed for time as well.
C. You have presented a plausible explanation for my questioning the Bush Admins stance regarding the 9-11 commission.
Robert,
You make a fine point. Perjury is a very big deal. I agree with you.
August 8th, 2004 at 8:50 pm
Ed, if you are still listening in….
Allow me to squeeze in one last thought for you , then I will lay low for a while. I know it’s bad manners for a newcomer to dominate a thread.
I have been chewing on what you said about moral absolutes all day. You said…”This causes a real problem for people who do not believe in moral absolutes, that anything can be justified given the right set of circumstances. This is the background Kerry operates under and just makes those of us who do believe in right and wrong shudder. “ I really get what you are saying, I’m sort of with you, and I imagine you being quite a decent person in all regards.
I invite you to consider something for just a moment. There was a time, not too long ago, when a whole bunch of people in northern states said slavery was wrong. A whole bunch of people in the southern states slavery was not wrong. Both sides thought they had sole possession and ownership of what “right” meant. What has changed since then? The context has changed. The context, or as you say, the circumstances, are always changing. Who will declare today that any man has an inherent right to own a slave? And then came the fight over civil rights , and so on and so on, we will always have this kind of debate. So I invite you to just consider that, and you’ll get whatever you get out of it.
You informed me what makes you shudder regarding Kerry. This is helpful for me. I see a Bush sticker on a car and I just don’t get it. I am starting to get it. Allow me the same courtesy. When I hear W say “Terrorists hate freedom” I dont hear a strong man firm in his convictions, a new sherrif in town,ready to hang em high around the globe. I hear a simpleton, unaware of the complexities around him, or worse yet, somebody clever enough to turn an attack from Al-Qaeda into a free ticket to get us into the Julius Caesar business. This is what makes us shudder.
You gave me something to think about, I see the other side a little differently now, hope I can return the favor
-chicago43
August 8th, 2004 at 9:50 pm
I wish that the libs had wrapped themselves in the flag, and [i]then[/i] decided it was OK to burn it, instead of the reverse order
August 9th, 2004 at 9:05 am
Chicago43, I appreciate the nod and I definitely give one back to you. I have tried to get people to explain the ‘anybody but Bush’ syndrome and few have. I believe Bush does have a tendancy to try and boil issues to down to their main crux. I do not beleive it is simplifying the situation when he says that ‘Terrorist hate freedom.’ I think he is just drilling down to the heart of the problem. As you have pointed out, we can all have differences of opinion on topics and come to a mutual understanding, but in order to do that, we have to have the freedom to do so. Terrorism tries to force you to do something or think some way through intimidation and if that doesn’t work, ultimately elimination. Either way it is removing your freedom to live, believe a different way. You have the right to act/believe any way you like as long as it does not infringe on my right to do the same. That is the heart of what this country was founded on, and what the terrorists seek to destroy. I understand there are many other issues at hand….but freedom in it’s most basic aspect is the one that is so critical and worth sacrificing our men and women for. I can say this because I served in the military and my oldest son is currently stationed in Germany with the army and slated for Afghanistan.
I think also Bush has what Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert has described as a little bit of ‘Texas cocky’ that puts some people off. I admit I am a little blind to that being a native Texan and so probably have it myself!
Slavery was not a new issue in the Civil War, nor was it the first time more enlightened individuals had to stamp it out. It is interesting you used that example. Again Freedom was the heart of the issue. Slavery still exists today in the the form of the Islamists who would subject their ‘wives’ to beatings, debasement, forced manual labor, preventing them from reading or writing so that they will be at a disadvantage, etc all in the name of religion. This is no different than what was done to the blacks brought from Africa. Freedom still cries out, and when we hear that cry we HAVE to answer.
August 9th, 2004 at 12:16 pm
Slavery was one of many issues during the Civil War, but it became the central issue when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. A brilliant maneuver, it forced the issue of slavery and ensured Europe would never side with the South, and at that point the South was doomed. The most remarkable thing about that war is that the South still hasn’t gotten over it after 139 years. I’ve been to England and no one screamed in my face that we should be under the rule of the Crown. Japan doesn’t yell about the return of the Rising Sun. Germans don’t go around defending the Holocaust. Spain doesn’t claim legal right to Puerto Rico. Yet the South still acts as if committing treason (that’s what the Stars and Bars, stands for) against the United States of America is some kind of continuing struggle. The South lost and they got shellacked. They need to get over it already. And the Confederate Battle flag doesn’t conjure up romantic images of freedom, it conjures up images of filthy toothless trailer trash married to their sisters.
Bush never waivers in his message, but in practice he does it all the time. He alternately scoffs at the UN and then begs for its help, says “We found them!” referring to WMDs and then says it doesn’t matter that there weren’t any, says he doesn’t want the government to be people’s nanny and then tries to shut down those who speak against him, and says gay marriage should be left to the states then introduces a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.
Finally Bush comes from that town in Texas called New Haven, Connecticut. He’s a Yankee New England blue-blood, not a Southerner. That Prairie Chapel Ranch was bought in 1999 and it’s a fromer pig farm. The cattle are the former owner’s, there are no horses on the ranch because Bush doesn’t ride, the tractor and haystack you see in photos haven’t moved in four years, the “ranch house” was built in 1999, when he’s using that chainsaw to “clear brush” you’ll notice his leather work gloves are absolutely pristine, and Bush is as much a Texas Cowboy as he is a Brooklyn wiseguy–he’s not.
August 9th, 2004 at 12:52 pm
Carnival of the Bush Bloggers 25
The Carnival of the Bush Bloggers: August 9, 2004 Edition
August 9th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
Ed,
I must say thank you for your service to this country, and to your sons service to this country. Every so often I find myself struggling to find bigger better words, so let me just say ‘thank you is not big enough”. I have, we all have, the luxury of debating what is right or wrong because folks like you and your son took a stand to preserve the freedom for us to do so.
The problem for us today, is that there are folks who are not interested in having a seat at the table to discuss how the world should be. They want to blow-up the table of diplomacy with everybody sitting at it. So there’s no sitting down and working it out sometimes. The only response to this kind of a thing is force. I think this is where we agree with each other.
I do see a real difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. But, like I said earlier, I don’t want to overwork this thread, just wanted to confirm what I agree with you on, and say thanks for your service and your sons service.
-Chicago43
Jay,
I applaud your passion, but …
Here is the punchline about righteous indignation. It makes no difference for the other side, and keeps you angry. Anger is just pissin in your own punchbowl.
-chicago43
August 9th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Jay, let me agree with Chicago43 here, not sure what your diatribe was addressing as nobody was advocating the south’s position in the Civil War. They were dead wrong and those misguided souls who still cling to it are exactly as you described and their only way to try and lift themselves up is to apparently try and tear someone else down.
As far as Bush not being born in Texas, that is true…HOWEVER he did grow up there in Midland and Houston and after attending Yale served in the Texas National Guard. Then after going to get his Master’s from Harvard, he returned to Texas and has lived there ever since including stints as joint owner of the Texas Rangers and 6 years as the Texas governor. Not natural born, but god, what more would he have do to be called a Texan? And since I am from there (born and raised), I think I probably have a decent view of it.
As far as your rant about Bush, it is all unsupported opinon of yours. If you can’t back it up with examples…don’t waste people’s time. Specifically I would love to hear when Bush ever begged the UN for anything, he has tried to include them in the process, but has made it clear we are prepared to go it alone.
August 9th, 2004 at 3:41 pm
Chicago43, I have tried reasoned debate on this blog before. I tried to argue that the capture of Saddam would not end the insurgency and I got called gay. It didn’t end, it got worse but no one admitted it. I mentioned the August 6, 2001 memo and got called a liar. I mentioned Bush reading “My Pet Goat” and got called anti-American. Like Bush, they never admit they are wrong on anything. So why not rattle these guys a little bit with the truth (i.e. Bush isn’t from Texas)?
August 9th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Ed, I’d show examples or post links and all you’d do is call me gay or say I hate America.
August 9th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
Jay,
You feel like you failed. Were you trying to win something?
In every angry mob you will find at least a few who are willing to put down the pitchfork, stop yelling, step off to the side, and have a real discussion. Ed here seems to be one of those folks. Some folks really like the pitchfork. And nobody, nobody, likes feel like somebody is trying to convert them. There is almost always losing in that game.
I am here to bounce thoughts around, to test my own set of opinions, assertions and facts out with the opposition. If I have questionable evidence, if my facts or reasoning are faulty, somebody here will be generous enough to set me straight right quick, and I have just learned something. If I happen to give the other side something to think about, to see our view of things up close, not as shouts from over the hill, then that’s frosting on the cake. There is no losing in the game I am playing.
I do expect a little name calling, I know where I am. If somebody here calls me a fag. I’ll be sure to let my wife know.
Keep at it soldier, maybe just change your mission a bit.
-Chicago43
August 9th, 2004 at 8:12 pm
Actually Jay, I would like to see the examples. I love this stuff…both sides. I won’t call you gay unless you like hit on me or something. If I thought you hated America I would not have bothered to respond to you. The fact that you are out here participating in the debate is evidence you care very much. I wish more people would join the debate instead of voting based on the way someone talks or looks.
August 22nd, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Clinton did tell the truth about whitewater, which is where most of the 80 million was spent … just so you’se know.
August 22nd, 2004 at 8:41 pm
testing
September 3rd, 2004 at 4:48 pm
I can’t talk much about politics because I don’t pay too much attention to the news and everything that is said. But I am from the South and can defend where I am from. The rebel flag is not just something filthy toothless trailer trash married to their sisters take pride in. I am by far not one of those people you are speaking of and I have more than one confederate flag. It is something that represents the south. It doesn’t represent slavery and hatred. I am proud I am from the south and can claim myself as a country boy. It is a way of life that should not be forgotten. Just because we farm, raise cattle, and hunt does not mean we are stupid. There may be many people here that are not so intelligent and aren’t as fortunate as some of us to have had a good family to teach them morals and about what is right or wrong. But you should have compasion for those people and thank God you are not in that situation. And I know that most yankees probably think farmers and the like are stupid and can’t do anything. You’re wrong. Farmers are very intelligent business men that make alot of money. Anyway I tend to go off on a tangent and forget what I am saying. But we are proud to be from a place where everyone says “Hi” as you pass and you can drive around on a dirt road and look at cotton fields for miles. That is a part of us that we will never let go. We do not have to let in the liberals. If the south ran the country it would be a much better place. And NO, I’m not saying we should have slavery. We just don’t give into something because one person says it is right. While we are at it, why don’t we just legalize crystal meth and see how the country turns out. Give Kerry a little while to find out how many people do that stuff and he will be trying to legalize it.
Oh and by the way, I go to school at “Ole Miss.” I’m sure that you believe the name should be gotten rid of and the rebel mascot should be done away with also. But the way I feel about it, if you don’t like it, don’t go to school there. The southern tradition is the reason I am at that school.
-Josh
November 5th, 2004 at 1:39 am
Hi all,
Another patriotic liberal joining the chat…
I’ve been searching for meaning in what has happened in the past few days. Part of me honestly believed that Kerry would win this election and when he didn’t I felt physically sick, like America (not just Democrats) had lost something. I just don’t understand Bush’s appeal. His domestic and foreign policies seem destined to weaken America and jeopardize our position as a superpower. It feels a bit like we’re the big bully at school that kicks people’s asses because we don’t like the way they look. Am I wrong?
I was imported here when I was 8 y.o. and can honestly say that I love this country. I joined the Air Force as a legal “alien” and took the oath of allegience a few years later to become a citizen. You could say that I wasn’t simply born American, I CHOSE this country. I want us to prosper and grow and to remain strong internally and externally. It seems to me that we’re heading in the wrong direction.
That said, I’m really interested in hearing the why’s of casting a vote for Bush. What am I not understanding? Thanks.
November 17th, 2004 at 5:20 am
First of all, I’d like to thank everyone for being civilized and respectful here since there are numerous other blogs that seem to be nothing more than name calling contest.
In regards to Bush pushing away the U.N and then “begging them for help”, I don’t recall a time when that ever occured. Bush never “begged” the U.N for anything, but he did invite the U.N to join the U.S in ridding the world of an evil, tyranical, dangerous dictator By the way, why should we seek the permission of such an incompetent and corrupt organization? Let’s not forget that this is the same organization that set by and did absolutely nothing for twelve years ignoring Saddam’s blatant defiance of the very resolutions the U.N itself passed after the first Gulf War(while murdering and torturing innocent men, women and children for his own pleasure) Maybe it was because it would interfere with their juicy illegal business deals they(France, Germany, Russia)were enjoying with Saddam. Nor shall we forget the Duefler report which exposed the corruption of The Oil for Food Program, what a surprise… Furthermore, it concluded that the sanctions were ineffective and Saddam was seeking to restart his nuclear program the minute the sanctions were lifted which would have been guaranteed through his paid influence with certain major players(France, Germany, and Russia)in the U.N. This would also explain their reluctance and refusal to help the U.S in overthrowning Saddam’s regime. They simply had too much money to lose and did not want to be exposed for the corrupt phonies they really are. This is something that was vaguely mentioned in the Main Stream Media. I’m sure if it had been Haliburton and Cheney (instead of France, Germany, and Russia) involved in these scams, there would be non- stop coverage and investigations for months. Liberals have been shouting for the last year and a half “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!” (yet seem to care less about the torture and slaughter of innocent Iraqis under Saddam)without any shred of evidence to suggest that oil was the primary motivator for this war; yet, when faced with cold, hard evidence, they are silent once again. Where is their passion for “justice” and “honesty” now? Where’s the public outcry? Why aren’t they demanding these countries be held accountable for their illegal actions?Perhaps it’s because the real culprits are their beloved Euro-Socialist friends. I wonder how much Iraqi blood was spilled under Saddam while France, Germany, and Russia were enjoying watching their bank accounts skyrocket at the expense of Iraqi citizens through the “Oil for Food Program”. Yet, liberals demand we respect and seek the permission of these pillars of truth and honesty. What a joke.