Bush Derangement Syndrome vs. the Obama Hate Machine

In a recent column, David Corn bemoans what his friend Jonathan Alter refers to as the “Obama Hate Machine (OHM).” Corn concludes, “That's an appropriate name for the right-wing attack network that will throw any charge it can concoct -- regardless of the facts -- at the president.”

This from the man who, in 2004, penned The Lies of George W. Bush, where, in the introduction he declares, “George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. He has mugged the truth—not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly.”

According to Corn, among Bush’s top ten lies were:

-“I have been very candid about my past.”

-“I’m a uniter not a divider.”

-“We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th.”

-Number 1: “It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House.”

Of course these statements—the best Corn had, mind you—are not lies at all, but things with which he simply disagreed. The mental manipulation necessary to turn such words into “lies” certainly qualifies one for what is now known as “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Consider these statements about President George W. Bush:

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore

“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton

“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean

“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”—Jimmy Carter

“The man's father is a wonderful human being; I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid

“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson

“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards

“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark

The OHM, Corn claims, is “led by a wide-ranging collection of conservative media outfits, right-wing bloggers, and GOP partisans.” However, Bush Derangement Syndrome was not led by a wide-ranging collection of liberal media outfits, left-wing bloggers, and Democratic partisans, but, as evidenced above, by the very leaders of the Democratic Party. Also, Obama himself, nearly two years after being elected, continues to call upon BDS to further his liberal agenda.

Several times prior to the 2010 midterm Obama invoked Bush in an attempt to try to turn the election for the democrats, and he is still at it! What’s the definition of insanity?!

“The Obama Hate Machine is never slowed by the absurdities it manufactures,” cries Corn. “It just keeps spewing crap.” Why is he so upset? I thought “spewing crap” was as popular with liberals as killing the unborn, encouraging illegal immigration, and reelecting Charlie Rangel.

The hypocrisy of the left is well established, but I thought Corn was smart enough not to get this caught up in it. It goes to show how desperate the left is getting.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Bust the Filibustering

Now that the current election cycle has come and gone, what are the talk shows going to talk about? What are Rush, Hannity, Al Franken, and Michael Moore going to do with their time? What are editors going to editorialize about? I believe one of the more interesting things to watch politically for the next several months will be the battle over the federal judiciary that will take place in the U.S. Senate.

There has been much talk lately concerning the process of approving federal judges. The president nominates judges at the federal level, and the senate must approve them (by a simple majority). As has been frequently noted in the media recently, democrats in the senate have been filibustering some of the nominees, not allowing them to come up for a vote. Republicans, with a slight majority in the senate, have had the necessary votes for approval, so the democrats see this as their only method to keep certain judges off the bench.

Republicans have been unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster, so they have been at the mercy of the democrats when it has come to particular judicial nominees. However, the dynamics of the recent election may bring an end to this filibustering.

I don’t think the fact that Bush won the election, with a majority of the popular vote, is the most significant factor in sending a message to democrats in the senate. I think it helps, but I think the fact that republicans gained four seats in the senate, and defeated Tom Daschele (the minority leader and chief architect of their policy of blocking judicial nominees) in the process sends the most powerful message to democrats. That message is: democratic senators from largely conservative states, as Daschele was, may not want to find themselves labeled as Daschele was—a liberal and an obstructionist.

The republican gains still give them only 55 senate seats—not enough to overcome a filibuster. The measures they take to combat the filibustering will be very fascinating to watch.

President Bush won 31 states in his successful reelection bid. These states represent 62 senate seats. In addition, there are nine current republican senators from states the president lost. That means, of the 55 republican senators, 46 are from states he won. Therefore, there are 16 senators that are democratic but are from states that Bush won. Five of these won in this past election, so that leaves 11 as targets to pressure to stop the filibustering.

Five of these 11 will be up for reelection in 2006, so they will be the ones really feeling the heat. They are: Nelson (FL), Conrad (ND), Nelson (NE), Bingaman (NM), and Byrd (WV). Not all of these represent states won soundly by Bush, but the senators from Nebraska and North Dakota will probably especially take note of what happened to Senator Daschele. The remaining six, up for reelection in 2008, are from AK, IA, LA, MT, SD, and WV. So, most of these 11 are from states that went solidly for Bush. It would appear that the president might find it a little easier to get the 60 votes it seems he now needs to get his judges approved.

However, there are other factors to examine. Some of the nine republican senators that are from states Bush lost are not solidly behind his agenda. Republican Lincoln Chafee (RI) reportedly didn’t even vote for George W. Bush. In protest of some of the current Bush’s policies, he said he would cast his vote for George Bush I. Nevertheless, when it came to judicial nominees these nine always backed the president.

Also, it may not be easy to sway voters in certain states based solely on how their senator voted in the judicial nomination process. What they’ve done for their state will weigh heavily. However, the defeat of Daschele almost assuredly emboldens republicans when it comes to their efforts to defeat democrats in solidly red states.

There is still another option open to republicans. If they are unable to sway enough democrats to their side they can invoke what has been called the “nuclear” option. Under this procedure, the senate's presiding officer, Vice President Cheney, would find that a supermajority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would certainly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority—or 51 votes from the senate GOP's new 55-vote majority—to sustain a ruling of the chair. This is a rarely used maneuver and has explosive potential, hence the “nuclear” tag.

Whatever method the republicans use to push through Bush’s judicial nominees, the political intrigue should be high. Stay tuned.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com