Video: Tammy Bruce responds to Bill Maher’s hateful rhetoric
posted at 11:45 pm on February 21, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor” Wednesday night to respond to Bill Maher’s vicious attack on President Bush.
Brent Baker at Newsbusters wrote about Maher’s appearance on “The Tonight Show” Tuesday night:
Maher pointed out how MSNBC’s “Joe Scarborough did a whole week of panel discussions on whether he was an idiot.” Maher elaborated: “The people who were defending him were saying, ‘well, he’s just inarticulate.’ But inarticulate doesn’t explain foreign policy. I mean, it’s not that complicated. The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage. He is a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain half-wit who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence.”
Pathetic.
Tammy writes about Maher here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Excellent post Ian.
More evidence that the Left sees Republicans, and President Bush, as their true enemy. The likes of Mahr and Devito seem to have more in common with enemies such as Iran, and opponents such as Hugo Chavez, than with the government of the United States and our President.
omegaram on February 21, 2007 at 11:57 PM
I thought of a bunch of clichés to try to describe how Maher would do in a intellectual struggle between him and the President. Nothing fits……..
I pity Bill Maher.
TwinkietheKid on February 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Yes, I used “struggle” on purpose. It is a word Maher’s kind will understand.
TwinkietheKid on February 22, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Maher’s comments are typical of the Left.
Frank Miller was right when he said he had never seen anything like “Bush hate”.
It’s irrational and viscious.
.
.
Thanks for posting Ian.
angryamerican on February 22, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Ian, I was hoping someone at HA would have this, and you all never let us down………
Tammy Bruce was spot on.
One of my degrees is in Psychology, and one of my Master’s corses was in Criminal/Patholical Psychology….. not saying I am a Psychologist in any way shape or manner, her position was based on a hypothosis, and then back it up with their facts, their own words actually.
Where do you go when you have nothing but hate?
It will be interesting to see how our “celebrity class” will function when President George W. Bush is no longer in the White House……..
Any bets???
PinkyBigglesworth on February 22, 2007 at 12:28 AM
When Clinton was president, Maher relentlessly attacked anyone who disparaged Clinton. He focused much of his incoherent anger at Kenneth Starr, but dumped a lot on Newt and anyone who spoke against Clinton
Ironically, it was a half-critical comment about Clinton that lost him his ABC gig.
Ever since BushHitler and CheneyHaliburton were elected, Maher has made a very good living Bush-bashing–but lately he’s begun to take himself seriously as some sort of political guru.
Janos Hunyadi on February 22, 2007 at 12:31 AM
does anyone else find it ironic that she expresses disbelief that celebrities hate bush when they don’t personally know him, yet she then proceeds to diagnose those celebrities (whom she doesn’t know) with malignant narcissism? Sure it may be odd to “hate” someone you’ve never met, but its even odder to diagnose someone with a disorder whom you’ve never met.
crr6 on February 22, 2007 at 12:42 AM
“Malignant” — a beautiful description of Maher.
georgej on February 22, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Aren’t you doing the same thing with your comment?
And to answer your question – no. The Hollywood elites’ disdain for Bush is over the top, and is not supported by any logic (it’s always Bush’s fault – for crying out loud, many of these people were blaming him for the hurricanes in ‘05). It’s only natural for somebody who doesn’t think like that, to try and understand why they would say some of the things they say.
Rick on February 22, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Ideologically speaking that woman is quite sexy.
Theworldisnotenough on February 22, 2007 at 1:08 AM
During the first two years of Clinton, when the Demos still had their majority in Congress, the media went after talk radio and religious leaders, but were clearly bored half to death from a dearth of targets.
I predict the Murtha-ized Demos along with victory in Iraq and/or a war with Iran will chase the Demos out of their tenuous and temporary majority
Janos Hunyadi on February 22, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Good point. (Please forgive me for derailing Ian.) What do the Democrats do with Iran looming in 2008? The next two years could see Bush building a case against Iran for sanctions while the left goes all “WMD” on him. How will this make them look in 2008? Weak on defense and unwilling to face an enemy. They’ll be forced into a last minute “pro America we can defend you, really we can” rhetoric. Which will be in stark contrast to Guiliani’s position, a position that won’t be meandering with the polls mind you. Heh that would give the moonbats a collective migraine.
Keep finding those Iranian arms shipments.
Theworldisnotenough on February 22, 2007 at 1:38 AM
I love Tammy. And I love hearing the Left being talked about as the mental (or emotionally disturbed) patients they in fact are. There’s simply no other way to explain or deal with their so-called “views”, which couldn’t be more irrational if they tried. Though it may not all be childhood issues – a lot of what the Left is, is simply the darker side of humnan nature expressing itself.
Great to see them psychoanalyzed instead of taken seriously. Only in America.
Halley on February 22, 2007 at 1:39 AM
I can’t keep it straight. Is President Bush a half-wit moron who has trouble sitting upright or a diabolical fascist who lied us into war?
Mallard T. Drake on February 22, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Same as they always do, talk tough now, when it is politically convenient, but when you have to fight, and it gets tough, blame the Republicans and look for a way to appease the enemy.
But what happens if a Dem is in the White House?????
Don’t know about you lads, but I am keeping my powder dry, as of now……..
PinkyBigglesworth on February 22, 2007 at 2:09 AM
I had the displeasure of being within feet of Maher and I have to say that he has a huge head and tiny little body. I mean he looked like a PEZ dispenser. His feet would dangle if he sat on a dime. Having said that I think that Maher is an angry leprechaun with very little to offer in the of intellectual thought. In short, (pun intended) he’s not worth the time to put down.
x95b10 on February 22, 2007 at 2:40 AM
For now I disagree with Tammy Bruce on the reason for the hatred. I disagree with her psychoanalytical approach. I think it’s more simplistic: Anyone who disagrees with them is evil. I guess I do agree with her narcism analysis, just not the father figure adversity.
But guess what. I even though I disagree with her, I don’t hate her! I read her blog every day. I will continute to read her blog every day. I bought her books and love them. I remain a fan of Tammy Bruce.
Ergo, I’m not a Liberal. :)
hadsil on February 22, 2007 at 3:37 AM
Because of the high standards of decorum here at Hot Air, I cannot fully describe Bill Maher. I’ll just say, I will stick to the class of my President, George Walker Bush, and grin and know who is the better man. History will tell the truth, and I doubt Maher’s name lasts another 10 years.
R D on February 22, 2007 at 3:55 AM
Maher is a vicious hatefilled SOB and never ceases to amaze me with his venom. I think it’s all about publicity though. Sadly nothing is outrageous enough to make a big splash these days, but I have a feeling that he was at least partly hoping to make it in to the news (which he kind of did by being on O’Reilly, but you know what I mean).
What’s disappointing is that he’s supposed to be funny… but how many times and for how many years have we been hearing “Bush is an idiot”? It wasn’t an argument to begin with, and it still isn’t. Get some new effing material people.
That all being said, and while I don’t think President Bush is an idiot, you’ve got to admit he’s said some pretty hilarious things, and credit where it’s due, Letterman uses them regularly in his “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches”, in which out of context short clips are played to make the president sound dumb… Lucky for us, someone on YouTube has combined a lot of the clips in to one hilarious compilation for us:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGJaeFMKuBw
RightWinged on February 22, 2007 at 4:22 AM
Sorry, RightWinged. I usually like what you say, but that clip wasn’t that funny and Letterman is just as bad as the rest of the Hollyweird Brain Trust on the “Bush is hateful and stupid” train.
Tammy comes across on TV just as strong as on radio–I love her!
(In fact, I told her on election night in the chat room here that I never thought I could love a former-Democrat lesbian, but she rocks!)
Maher was told at least once before by Christopher Hitchens that saying “Bush is stupid” isn’t thoughtful political analyses, but he just keeps on doing it, as do his little friends…
I suppose that Clenis is thought to be the paradigm of presidential intelligence, but I can’t think of a thing he said besides “I did not have sexual relations with that woman….” and I don’t know what he did as president except pass welfare reform (Newt Gingrich made him do that), regulate the holes in Swiss cheese and pass a law mandating top-loading washing machines and funding midnight basketball.
Oh, and he probably sold missile secrets to China, gave North Korea the very tools they needed to go nuclear plus food aid, left Osama free to kill us, went to world conferences where he tried to negotiate away American supremacy, and got us into a war in Bosnia and Kosovo on the wrong side where our interests weren’t threatened (nor was the purported “ethnic cleansing” proven) only to ignore the real ethnic massacre in Rwanda.
He spent $500 million on foreign trips, especially to Africa, but didn’t give them any aid, while “stupid” Bush has given Africans $15 million to fight AIDs.
Everybody “liked” Clenis because he told them what they wanted to hear (whole lot of nothing) and had low expectations of us, just as he had of himself.
President Bush, with his faith-based approach to governance, let the American people and other nations know that things would be required of us by our God, that we are responsible; Hollyweird, with their obvious complete dearth of morals and standards of personal excellence, reacted like the bad little children they are.
The comedians aren’t funny and the actors and actresses can’t act and their personal lives are a mess, so I’m not listening to them or buying what their selling–it’s Turner Classic Movies for me and the Hollywood stars of the 1940’s who supported this country in wartime!
But Bravo to Tammy and Bill for exposing the problem yet again.
Jen the Neocon on February 22, 2007 at 5:30 AM
Hmmmmmm……..
Maher grew up and became a comedian.
Bush grew up and became President of the most powerful country in the world.
Why does anyone care what Maher says? This is the guy who dressed up at a Halloween party as a conservationist who had just been tragically killed weeks before and thought it would be funny.
.
GT on February 22, 2007 at 5:58 AM
Bush is simultaneously a dolt and is masterfully manipulating the gullible press according to the “documentary” News War.
Neo on February 22, 2007 at 6:06 AM
“Malignant narcissism”…I like it!
ballz2wallz on February 22, 2007 at 6:59 AM
Tammy would make a better case if she would remember that she called John McCain a “self serving, opportunistic pig” early last year.
Not a defense of Maher, by the way, who disgusts me, and who traffics in this stuff by the bucket.
But anyone who blogs engages in name calling at some point or other — self included.
I’m not a great fan of McCain, but I think after five years in the Hanoi Hilton, he deserves better rhetorical treatment than that.
The Colossus on February 22, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Maher is a joke. Nothing more. This culture of thinking hollyweird celebrities are anything but self-indulgent twits who know anything about politics and foreign policy is sad.
jdsmith0021 on February 22, 2007 at 7:46 AM
I’m certainly no expert, but I’m not sure I agree with the Tammy Bruce “father figure theory” on why Maher hates President Bush.
The main reason Maher acts this way is that he still hasn’t gotten over what happened to him and his ABC TV show when he made those stupid comments after 9/11.
Like many in Hollywood, they’ve had their ass kissed so much throughout their life that they feel their opinions on ANYTHING are more informed and should be taken more seriously.
Unlike me of course…
asc85 on February 22, 2007 at 8:07 AM
“History will tell the truth”
========================================
Unfortunately, that will depend on who writes the history books. It doesn’t look good at this point.
stenwin77 on February 22, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Tammy is basing her opinion about Maher on a statement Maher made about how his dad shoved religion down his throut as a kid.
She has more evidence to diagnose maher, than Maher has to say what he says about Bush.
Stenwin77,
True, but now we have the internet blogger. The thoughts of regular americans about events as they happen will forever be archived and will stand as a hedge against any MSM rewrite of history.
csdeven on February 22, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Ain’t it grand!
Limerick on February 22, 2007 at 8:42 AM
While I agree completely about Letterman… He’s one of the biggest POSs on television, I still find those clips hilarious. It annoys me in a sense, the same way the entire Daily Show does, in that the audiences are generally stupid enough to think they’re being told the truth about something, yet their stupidity doesn’t stop them from being able to vote and cancel out ours. Even still, I can’t get enough of those Bush clips.
RightWinged on February 22, 2007 at 8:47 AM
My diagnosis is that Maher (like all libs) suffer from CFS Syndrone – Can’t Fix Stupid
Wil on February 22, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Maher reacted just like all the moonbats on HuffPo did when they learned Helen Thomas had lost her front row seat. They didn’t even read the article to realize that it was her peers that asked her to move, and she had no problem with that. The lefties just started wildly blaming Bush for it. It was just another case of purely emotional reaction not based in fact.
Sven on February 22, 2007 at 9:01 AM
As ususal Tammy is great. What is unforgivable is that so many people get their view of the world from so-called celebrities and people like Maher. And they are raising the next generation! In my sons sixth grade class only two out of 22 kids support President Bush. The majority think he is “dumb, stupid, an idiot”. Where do 11 year olds get that idea from? They have no respect for the office of the president, or for adults in general. Its truly an abomination.
ctmom on February 22, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Continuing the Father Figure analysis, here’s something my wife first thought about the Bushaters. They were kind of mad at him for the 2000 election. But when the Towers were falling and Washington was under attack, all the Libs were hiding behind the President. “Save us Father Bush. Go get them Grandpa Rumsfeld.” Remember the God Bless America songfest on the Capitol steps?
They can’t stand the fact that they were glad Bush was there to make the tough decisions. If you recall, in late ‘01 and early ‘02, Rumsfeld was like a rock star. There were magazines touting how “sexy” he was. The Libs want to erase that memory and they do so by lashing out at him regardless of what he does.
When I used to take my oath of enlistment, I recall the phrase “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I used to think that a domestic enemy was something like the Unibomber. I have reconsidered that opinion in the last few years. There are many in our midst, whether they know it or not.
TugboatPhil on February 22, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I SOOooo **HEART** Tammy.
She is THE SINGLE MOST LOGICAL VOICE in the New Media. Her credibility almost above question and even as a Democrat lesbian she can call a spade a spade. What is not to love…AND she’s easy on the eyes. (Don’t go there guys…)
seejanemom on February 22, 2007 at 9:09 AM
crr6,
Tammy Bruce was the President of the California chapter of NOW, and her personal experience with Leftist activists allowed her to observe how the Left thinks and operates.
She intimately knows the Leftist mindset, and her diagnosis of Malignant Narcissism is spot on.
Buy Danish on February 22, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Tammy nails it – and Maher.
SpartRan on February 22, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I’ve always liked the way Tammy is so strongly opinionated, she just lets it fly. What do they say, she’s a former Democrat? I wish she would bill herself as a former lesbian some day.
Jeff on February 22, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I don’t hate Bush and I think it’s ridiculous when people take Streisand and Devito types to be an actual source of information, and some of those guys are indefensible. Devil’s advocate: it cracks me up that y’all are always so deeply offended by people bashing Bush and making it personal. Don’t you feel the same about the Clintons? Can you honestly tell me that people who believe Bush can do no right are any different than folks still hating on Clinton (Bill)? I’m sure that I’ll hear loads about how Clinton’s policies are still eroding America to this day, despite the fact we’ve had 6 years to reverse them.
SouthernDem on February 22, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I don’t like Clinton because of his character, he lied directly and knowinly to the face of the American people. They claim President Bush lied, he made decisions based on intelligence, something a President has to do. What impresses me about President Bush is how he stands by his convictions and doesn’t sway with the political climate. And I know he truly has the death of every Military Man and Woman on his shoulders, you don’t hear the stories about him crying with the families and about how much of a compassionate human being he is.
Sven on February 22, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Tammy is a liberal, a liberal that is true to her liberal cause. I have always thought she was the most dangerous liberal in America. She makes sense and she is intelligent.
When she made resigned from NOW. the California organization was the strongest women’s group in America…built by her. It was one of the bravest move I ahave ever seen a liberal make. That is the liberal that should be in Pelosi’s place.
I don’t support all of her stands, but I would rather have her as a enator than many Republicans. She has the huevos.
right2bright on February 22, 2007 at 9:55 AM
The best part, is we will see how Maher takes this shot to his little ego. Guys like him can dish it out, but they buckle when it is given to him. He has met his match with Tammy, and he knows it. Her credentials as a liberal, and supporter of liberal causes, trumps his mindless theatrics.
Everytime he opens his sarcastic mouth, people will think of him as that poor little abused and abandoned boy. Over conpensating for his lack of manhood.
right2bright on February 22, 2007 at 10:03 AM
malignant is a good choice of adjective. I venture to add that the indulgence of the sixties – the chopping away of social norms to “express oneself” is also mixed in with this. We have a generation of people who from wealth and comfort are spoiled. They were not held to classical norms – holding one’s tongue, being respectful of others, etc etc. All that was tossed away in order to focus on the self. “Scream therapy” ring any bells? The traditional approach (time-tested and reliable) was to be “stoic.” (shut up and bear it)
We have a new generation of kids, produced by these people who literally do not even know how to greet people properly, shake hands, say, “How do you do.” They look at authority as something to be hated, making no distinction between good authority that holds a society together and bad authority that destroys it.
So, I think it goes beyond just the father figure. All that anti–authority, the “I” is more important at all times than anything, anyone else, is simply being directed as a collective tool against targetted people. Look at the infantile posturing of the White House Press Corps, acting as if they have to be personally acknowledged and personally appeased on every single issue.
naliaka on February 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Too much talk going on about this idiot. Hit him in his pockets. Boycott HBO or any other venue that gives him a stage. To include hotels/motels in Las Vegas.
oldelpasoan on February 22, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I’m pretty sure you saying nice things about a liberal is one of the signs of Apocalypse!
SouthernDem on February 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Everything Tammy said made sense, except for the part about her being a liberal.
infidel4life on February 22, 2007 at 10:28 AM
In the New World Order, conservatives are to be treated as children in adult conversation. It is okay to be seen, but not heard from.
Lawrence on February 22, 2007 at 10:31 AM
There’s a fair point in there somewhere about how conservatives reacted to Clinton. I was an early suffer of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but have since recovered. The fact of the matter is that hatred and emotion, while always a part of politics, needs to be controlled and when it isn’t bad politics results. Look, Clinton is, by most reputable accounts, a man of low character and morals who, nevertheless (and with the help of a GOP Congress) largely governed from a mainstream, albeit center-left perspective. I don’t hate him anymore and in fact, it would be an honor to meet him and shake his hand. Someday, moonbats might see that their over-the-top rage and insults ultimately reflect more on them than they do on the target of their impotent rants.
Maher and his ilk just look silly and irrelevant. It’s like watching a grown man throw a temper tantrum at the grocery store because his wife won’t let him buy the expensive import beer. Pathetic.
Fred on February 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
She’s awesome. Malignant narcisism. I love it. Just perfect.
WriterMom on February 22, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I think she is right about the father figure thing. Also that the left hates Bush because he has Principal, Ideals, and Standards – something the left simply abhors. And the fact that he is a Christian and ‘faith based’ (and not ‘poll’ based like Billary and Osama…)
CrazyFool on February 22, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Tammy’s position is right in this post; but damn, I thought she was some kind of writer.
Was it distracting to anyone else trying to get through this?
Sorry to beat this to death, but this sentence is about a poorly constructed as I can imagine. Who knew she needed to rely so heavily on editors? or are her books written this way as well? Sorry, I’ve never read her before.
Actually, no he doesn’t. Yes, he served honorably in Viet Nam, but his behavior since he has become a politician has been reprehensible. He has been completely self-serving, to the detriment of the nation.
Nails Maher? So is she a lesbian, or isn’t she?
If she has huevos, is she still considered a lesbian? or a tranny?
urbancenturion on February 22, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Man, Tammy rocks. That is all.
DaveS on February 22, 2007 at 11:16 AM
The Maher, the carrion.
mymanpotsandpans on February 22, 2007 at 11:27 AM
It’s nothing I’m proud of, but I find her fairly sexy in general.
Yes, I’ve read her bio. So no need to pile on here….
Anton on February 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Now for a more serious post:
I think her “malignant narcissism” idea may explain the behavior of some folks on the left, but don’t think it explains Bush derangement syndrome. I think BDS stems from the President’s expressions of Christian faith and his “manly Texan” persona.
I have several friends in the Northeast who are fairly conservative in their lives and professions, if not in their thinking. Some of them are even gun owners. They range in religious orientation from “raised Catholic but now fundamentalist agnostic” to members of a Conservative Jewish synagogue. None are Protestant.
I can talk issues with these folks all day long and find many areas of agreement. In the areas of disagreement, they can be polite — even sympathetic with my views.
When the name “George Bush” comes up, however — watch out! They all sneer with hatred and say the most foolish things.
The cultural bias of our Northeastern educated class, and their cousins in California, is just knee-jerk dismissal and contempt for red-state Christianity. Add a Texas or Southern accent, and the assumption that you’re an idiot is just automatic.
I had a professor once who was a retired senior offical from NASA with a Stanford MBA. Raised in rural South Carolina, he never shed his accent. He liked to tell a story about moving to Campbridge, Mass to run a NASA resarch program at MIT during the moon-shot days. He said of his neighbors, “I opened my mouth, and they knew me for an idiot. I didn’t mind — they were raised that way and didn’t know any better.”
Of course, I’m biased. Like Bush, I was raised and educated as an Ivy League Northeasterner. Then I came to my senses and moved south….
Anton on February 22, 2007 at 12:06 PM
After reading Ms Bruce’s comments, I checked her bio to see where she got her psychiatric training.
Imagine my surprise….
honora on February 22, 2007 at 12:08 PM
SouthernDem, I don’t think you really speak for your party in your sweet, Southern manner. I think you should spend sometime with these people. Your hero Bill is the reason we have fewer military today and have to spend a lot of time and money to build up our equipment. I remember having to take parts from 7 different tanks to get one to run because Billy Boy slashed and burned the Services. I saw good people, NCOs leaving a power vaccum after being given their “golden parachutes” in the mid 90’s. I had an injury and had to go but I was around long enough to see the wide swarth of destruction he caused. Tammy Bruce has it right-these people have their heads stuck so far up their butts that they can’t see what’s happening in the world. SD, I would challenge you to come out here to HI and see the Dem party in action. I know how the Southern Dems are as well-most of my family on my mother’s side lives there. Again, you’re sadly mistaken if you don’t think that Maher is on par with 98% of the dems.
Catie96706 on February 22, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Read what Bill Whittle (himself a pilot) has to say on the subject:
As Insty says, read the whole thing. Read everything Whittle writes. Trust me, it’ll be worth your time.
The Monster on February 22, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I’m quite offended by your generalization and oversimplification. I’m a Jewish Northeasterner, with a Masters from an Ivy League school. I voted for George Bush in 2004, and I seem to be one of the few people in the United States who supports what we’re doing in Iraq. I have a number of friends who live nearby and think the same way.
So your claim that we have a “knee-jerk dismissal and contempt for Red-State Christianity” is completely off-base. Something sexy and provocative to say, but off-base, and bordering on a “victim culture” remark.
Are there some in the Northeast who think the way you say? Absolutely. I’m sure if I said that Southerners have a “knee-jerk dismissal and contempt for Blue-State values,” I’d be totally off-base on that one too.
asc85 on February 22, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I always find it humorous that people in the entertainment industry feel the need to personally debase and belittle politicians they don’t like. Billy Maher is simply another pitiful little person who is grasping for some attention before he joins so many others like him in the dustbin of history, long forgotten and little liked. With all his shortcomings in the “public arena”, President Bush is still the President of the United States and Billy Maher is simply another outspoken “casting couch success”. ‘Nuff said.
Chief1942 on February 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM
If you like Tammy’s diagnosis, check out “Dr. Sanity:”
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
Spurius Ligustinus on February 22, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Alright Mallard,
I’m only going to write this once. The answer is . . . it depends. . . it depends on who is speaking and whom they are speaking to. Got it? O.K.
Troy Rasmussen on February 22, 2007 at 1:42 PM
I can’t keep it straight. Is Bush a half-wit moron who has single-handedly destroyed the Republican Party, sincerely believes that illegal immigration is good for this country, and who sincerely believes Americans are better off by rewarding 30 million law breakers, or is he more likely a smart man who is helping to orchestrate a partnership for open borders with Mexico while flipping the finger to the 85% of the population who despise him for it?
I can’t keep it straight. One minute, NAU bashers are suggesting he’s a half-wit moron who simply believes in what he’s doing, and the next they’re defending him as a genius.
Which is it? I’m moved closer each day to accepting the belief that … “The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage. He is a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain half-wit who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence.”
Although I believe liberals have come to their conclusion based solely on hatred for anything conservative, the conclusion would seem to be accurate all the same.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM
ROFL!
WriterMom on February 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM
That’s the first time I’ve ever been called “sexy and provocative.” Thanks!
I wasn’t trying to offend or provoke (except a little bit of a joke in my last sentence about moving south). I’m just speaking from my experience of someone who grew up in NY but now has an outsider’s perspective. It sounds like I’d enjoy meeting you and your friends.
So what do you think explains the hatred of Bush? I’m sure you can think of someone you know who disagrees with you (and me) on Iraq, but can do so in a civil fashion. Yet if you mention Bush, that same person will suddenly become quite emotional and filled with contempt.
Anton on February 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Spurius Ligustinus, I love Dr. Sanity. She’s amazing. Her stuff on narcisism is exceptionally brilliant.
WriterMom on February 22, 2007 at 2:06 PM
It’s the same thing as when Reagan was belittled by the left, and called stupid, a moron etc. The people who get deranged when you talk about Bush-for the most part-have no moral compass. You scratch the surface and find that they are self-loathing bunch. But it’s not just about Bush, get them started on “settlers”, or Israel, and you will see the same thing. These people refuse to believe that there is real evil in the world, and are ignorant of history.
WriterMom on February 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM
And with that, it appears that I have killed the thread. Oh well then-back to work….
WriterMom on February 22, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Malignant Narcissism
That’s a good term for what I would describe as childish fits of rage.
People who use insulting and demeaning terms to describe another person are allowing their anger to project their frustrations at their inability to achieve a desired goal, like a child screaming and stomping their feet when told to go to bed or put away a toy when they would rather stay up and play. It is nothing more than an emotional outlet for frustration. I think that anyone with children would understand what I mean.
I would classify Bill Maher’s outbursts as an attempt to release the frustration he feels at having Bush as a two term President. His choice for President was not elected and so he has unresolved anger over that failure and is responding to the rage he feels by verbally assaulting the President. I saw the same type of behavior in my children while they are growing up, like when they would yell at each other when they didn’t get something they wanted. Think of when a child says “I Hate YOU!” because you told them they can’t go outside. They don’t really mean what they say, they are just using hurtful terms in an attempt to vent their frustration. You made me feel bad so I’ll make you feel bad too. I remember doing things like that when I was a child. That behavior ended when I matured.
Unfortunately for Bill Maher and other like him, they never outgrew that self-obsessed behavior and still do not realize that they can’t always have everything their way. The feel frustrated when thing don’t go the way they want, so they attack anyone they feel is responsible. That’s self-obsessed behavior that can be self-destructive or, as Tammy Bruce has termed, Malignant Narcissism.
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 2:17 PM
You mean far lefties? I did: I was a member of SDS back in college as a freshman. I have since grown up. Oh the stories I could tell.
Not my hero, he did plenty I disagree with and plenty I liked. Just like W.
I can’t disagree with that, but Repubs were in total power for six years. If we still don’t have sufficient military, it’s no longer solely on Clinton.
Of course most Dems only think of W as a simple buffoon, just as most Repubs only think of Clinton as a womanizing liar. Either way, it’s wrong.
SouthernDem on February 22, 2007 at 2:18 PM
The problem is that Bush is not liked on either side.
Liberals hated him from day one, simply because he claimed to be conservative and then because they ALWAYS feel elections are stolen when they lose. Liberals are simply unable to accept defeat. Any defeat MUST be the result of something sinister, thus you have foaming at the mouth riots on your hands.
But Bush is disliked by conservatives also. Not because we went to Iraq, but because we are not fighting the war like we should be, which is to win. He’s not backing up his words, which were “if you’re not for us, you’re against us.”
On top of that, he’s completely ignored conservatives on the immigration issues, made a mockery of the Supreme Court nomination with Harriet Myers, and even if you don’t count the money spent on the war, he spends money like Ted Kennedy. The corruption within his administration is real, no matter how bad it hurts.
You don’t get numbers like this just by being hated by liberals. BDS is a contagious disease and conservatives seem to be growing more at risk of infection each day. You need to wonder why that is?
The man just possibly might be a moron.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I consider myself a conservative yet I don’t ‘dislike’ the president. I greatly admire him, although I do not agree on all of his policies.
I don’t understand what poll your using to determine whether people like or dislike the President. The poll question your link provided asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” Where is the poll result asking whether you LIKE the President? Don’t confuse the two questions.
I don’t approve of the way my wife handles household finances (she’s not very good at it, sorry Hunny!) or her cooking (she could burn water, sorry again Hunny!) but I still love my wife.
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM
That could be. I have a problem with phony liberals (leftists). Liberals who truly believe they are helping society, and truly believe their convictions, and not just taking opposite sides of conservatives, have my respect. They have a ligitimate belief, different than mine, but still ligitimate. Tammy is that type of liberal, I think Lieberman leans that way.
Most liberals (leftists) check to see which way we (conservatives) believe and than take the opposite view. That to them is being a liberal. They think liberal is the opposite of conservative. That is why global warming is a left/right issue. That is why the war is a left/right issue. The ending of suffering of tens of thousands of people, the education and the freedom given to women should have been embraced by the left, but it can’t because the leftists feel they have to be opposite the right. They are basically poll takers, that is why they have a difficult time academically expaining their postitions. Taking to the streets, shouting down our speakers, breaking into houses and beating up conservatives, that is the way they define their postitions.
Tammy does it intelligently, a totally different (excuse the pun) gender of debate.
right2bright on February 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
To say someone who graduated from one of the top universities in the U.S., and was bright enough to be chosen to fly fighter jets, as being stupid or a dolt, someone who has the ability to lead a nation, being called those names is foolish. But it is not wrong to say someone who is a womanizer is a womanizer. You still must think it is ok for a married president, while running the country, to bring a young woman and do what he did in the oval office. That is a losing argument to most level headed people.
I would never say Clinton was stupid (maybe made stupid decisons), nor say he was a dolt or incoherent or whatever people who hate him say. But he did let the nation down, and was punished for it. And we were punished for his lack of attention to his job.
right2bright on February 22, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Well, I guess I should have been more clear with my wording, but I think most people assume you’re discussing the man’s actions when you say “like” or “dislike” him. But yes, I was referring to the fact that his “job approval ratings are in the low 30’s and falling, and almost every poll shows that 85% of Americans do not want amnesty.
Bush seems to live in his own little world and he has absolutely no concern for what Americans (of either party) want. This actually validates many of the claims made by BDS sufferers. Obviously, the difference between liberal BDS sufferers and conservative victims is that liberals react much like the zombies in 28 Days Later, while conservatives sit at home and whine about it, while doing nothing.
As we continue to watch all of the issues that concern us be ignored … I’m really not sure which is worse at this point.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Clinton is anything but stupid. The man is a genius. Unfortunately, he’s simply evil. I don’t believe Bush is stupid either. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and I think those of us who want to believe he has good intentions are being extremely naive.
Now Carter? That’s about as stupid as they come.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Thanks for your clarification Anton…I feel better now!
Not sure I can explain the hatred of Bush. To be honest, among the people I know, I can either have a rational conversation about politics and Bush, or I can’t. At least in my experience, I haven’t found people who separate out like you’re describing.
On the one hand, it seems the rancor is worse now than it was 100 years ago, but then when you read about Grover Cleveland being attacked in his campaign for having an illegitimate child (he still won though), I’m not sure. My only theory is that things started getting especially bad with Clinton. My theory is that since Clinton, no President has really won with a mandate. In 1992, Perot played a big factor in Clinton winning, and also was a smaller factor in 1996. In 2000, that was obviously a very close election, as was 2004. Because it’s so tight, people are thinking, “if only…” And they have plenty of support in that regard.
My comments about this phenomena are certainly NOT gospel! I wish politicians could be more statesman-like again, but that doesn’t appear to be happening anytime soon.
asc85 on February 22, 2007 at 3:24 PM
This is the Maher who, after 9/11, said that the jihadist terrorists (who cut the throats of helpless flight attendants and pilots and then crashed three jetliners full of civilians into the WTC and Pentagon )had “courage”?
Maher’s moral compass is stuck on sociopathically stupid.
By his calculus Jeffrey Daumer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were also “courageous”… because they showed the same ‘psychopathic ruthlessness and utter contempt for life (their own included) in order to methodically stalk and destroy innocent people with pleasure.
That he dressed up as a blood-soaked victim of a freakish accident (while the guy’s surviving young daughter could see his joke’) this past Halloween only reveals the smallness of his soul.
Criticizing anyone else is the last indulgence Bill can afford.
profitsbeard on February 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
You sound just like the BDS sufferers. You don’t like some of his policies so you claim that he is “living in his own little world.” How is that any different from someone claiming that his is [insert appropriate insult here] like Maher is doing?
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM
This is similar to his approval rating in 2004 when “Only 37 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States ” according to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/war.bush.kerry/index.html
I guess his low approval numbers didn’t really count for much as he was reelected that same year.
Don’t put too much stock into poll results, they do not accurately reflect people’s opinion of Bush as President. If they did, Kerry would be President right now.
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Wasn’t that my point? Didn’t I say that myself? My point is, that it’s not only liberals who are suffering from BDS anymore.
It’s not exactly accurate to compare those two questions. Asking someone if they’re happy with how things are going for the country, and asking them if they like the job the President is doing will sometimes get completely opposite answers.
During Clinton’s first four years, I would guess that there were probably many conservatives who wouldn’t have been in agony over how things were going, but if you had asked them about Clinton they would have vomited at your feet.
Against who exactly? John Friggin Kerry? Give me a break. Is that really saying much? And I know you must realize that the reason he won was due to one thing, and that’s the fact that people were scared to death of Islamic extremism. Well, that and the fact that Kerry was a complete imbecile. If we hadn’t been at war … Kerry would have won that election by a landslide. Do you really doubt that?
See above.
And you might take a look at the mid-term results. Do you not think that’s a sign of how conservatives are feeling?
Also of importance to note is that almost every pro-American, patriotic, and otherwise conservative website or group is consistently bashing Bush. The only people who seem to be supporting Bush are family members and those who seem to be willing to follow the man regardless of where he takes them. Ironic, being that these are mostly the same people who make a habit of accusing liberals of being sheep and being blind to Clinton’s actions.
My God! Excuse the pun, but even the Evangelicals are abandoning Bush.
If you’re not going to accept poll results, then what are you basing your opinion on?
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Southern Dem, I don’t think of Clinton as a womanizer I think of him as a fool. As I said, I was in my last 10 days and I was sitting at a desk when the Col. came in and asked me if I wanted to go on a scavenger hunt for parts for a tank. I could maybe even ride in the tank for a few minutes if I could get all the parts to it (I know this is sexist but he said as a “cute girl” you can talk the other units out of stuff they’re not using). I did, got my ride and had fun.
Yes, the Republicans were in charge of the Congress but moving any defense spending through when all they were trying to do was go the BRAC route, was tedious at best.
Do I think everything Clinton did was a zero, of course not. But I keep remembering how in the 80’s everyone on the left said Reagan was a dolt as well. He was right and I hope that one day we will look upon W the same way. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with much of what’s happened since he’s been in charge but I do in the WOT.
Catie96706 on February 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Here’s a question.
How many conservative blogs would suddenly stop posting the comical and mocking Photoshops of people like Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or Ted Kennedy if they were ever elected President?
How many of the conservative blogs would suddenly stop calling Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Ted Kennedy morons, stupid, idiots, traitors, or whatever?
I absolutely hate the fact that people like Maher use their national television shows to publicly bash the President of the U.S., but if we’re honest about it … not many of us would have had a problem with it if they had showed the same enthusiasm for mocking Clinton when he was staining a certain blue dress.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Gregor, just curious – what is equivalent in GW to “staining a certain blue dress”?
Entelechy on February 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Always mixed emotions about Tammy Bruce. She is very clear-headed and able to comprehend ideologies she doesn’t agree with, a trait entirely foreign to the socialist flock.
She nailed it by identifying the linkage between the left’s hatred and discussions of faith. If Bush had been Giuliani, but made all the same policy decisions, would the left have hated him as much? I say no, it’s the faith thing that fires up BDS, and Tammy provides a good argument to support same.
Gregor, you make a valid point to an extent, and yes, that’s become the nature of partisan politics. I assert that the difference comes when scandal after scandal get swept under the rug, when lie after lie get ignored by the “watchdog” media, when one policy blunder after another are perpetrated on the public with only personal power-brokering as a goal. So when adultery in the Oval Office becomes public knowledge, you bet I’m up for mocking it.
Freelancer on February 22, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I judge someone on what I see, not from what polls tell me. I use my own judgment as to how I rate a President, I don’t rely upon the opinion of others.
Personally, I like the President and support most of his policies. I don’t have to like every single policy to have a favorable opinion of him.
I was trying to point out that poll numbers have little meaning when applied to how many people actually support a President. You can say anything you want about Kerry, but Bush WAS reelected no matter what the polls were saying about his chances and/or his approval ratings. That tells me that the polls were wrong and people held a favorable opinion of Bush when they voted. You don’t vote for someone when you don’t hold a favorable opinion of them, I don’t care who the opponent is.
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Gregor, Your comparing blog posters to national celebrities. That’s kind of a uneven comparison, is it not?
You said it yourself:
That’s a far cry from posting something on HotAir or other blogs. These people are using TV to spread their hatred and a lot of people see that every day. How does that compare to the limited audience that blogs represent? Think about it, millions of TV viewers Vs. thousands of blog readers. Which venue has a bigger effect on public opinion?
RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 6:17 PM
I resent what you’re implying, that our Conservative values are only as valid as the last election which is very far from the truth.
Likewise, the venal natures of the Lib Dems you cited are rather intransigent, too.
I had a conservative blog and I would post more, not less, comments and pictures highlighting the many evil characteristics of these scallawags and scoundrels even if they were to get elected to high office–God forbid!
I don’t say things because they’re “in vogue” about my country and my president and our officials and I’d like to think that most commenters here don’t either–we feel genuinely convicted about all or at least most of the ideas we express here. I know I do.
We are dealing with very serious issues these days of life and death and peace and war and what we want our country (and the world) to look like today and tomorrow while still keeping faith with our ancestors and the Founding Fathers with what has gone before.
If we make fun or sport here from time to time, it’s what you call comic relief.
And some of the name-calling is deserved.
The difference between Clinton and Bush–Prove “Bush is stupid.”
We’ll wait. tap.tap.tap.
Meanwhile, contemplate the fact that Clinton really was impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, obstructing justice and suborning perjury, resulting in his (temporary) disbarment from the Supreme Court and in the State of Arkansas.
Jen the Neocon on February 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Absolutely nothing. Bush is far worse. Bush is selling out the entire country on illegal immigration and open borders. I’d take a blue dress over that any day.
My point was not to compare the two actions. My point was to give the example that we would have been laughing our a$$es off if Maher had been humiliating Clinton as badly as he does Bush.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 6:59 PM
That’s fair enough. I definitely don’t base my opinion of a person on poll numbers. But the poll numbers give you an indication that Bush is not well liked by either side, and that’s all I was saying. Our discussion wasn’t about what “you” think of the President. Our discussion was about his approval ratings with conservatives. My point had been simply that his numbers are low within the conservative crowd, and not just with liberals.
I would totally disagree with that. People are sometimes forced to vote for the better of two evils. For example, most conservatives can’t stand John McCain, but if McCain were to win the GOP nomination and run against Hillary, do you think conservatives would vote for Hillary? Not a chance. Would that somehow suggest that conservatives were more fond of McCain than initially thought? No. It just means they were not about to allow the other clown to win.
Bush won a second term because Americans knew that John Kerry was a complete joke. There was really no choice, and I would say that the fact that a man like Kerry came as close as he did to winning the Presidency is very indicative of Bush’s weakness. Even in the first election, what does it say about Bush that he could barely beat out Al Gore. OMG! What if Bill Clinton had been allowed to run continuously? Do you think Bush could have beat him? We’ll never know for sure, but I don’t think it would have been close, and that’s sad.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I agree with you 100%. Blogs are designed for two way conversation and debate. I think it’s totally improper for television personalities to go that far.
To be clear though, I wasn’t saying I supported the practice. I just think we need to be careful to not be hypocritical when it goes the other way. If we’re going to attack Maher for his attacks on Bush, we can’t allow ourselves to fall on the floor laughing when a person in his position does the same thing to a Democratic President.
Honestly, I don’t even think I’m being fair, because I’ve watched people like Hannity doing much the same thing and I find myself cheering him on. So I’m just as guilty.
I think we sometimes excuse it by saying “but we’re right and they are wrong.” We feel that it’s okay to call John Murtha a traitor scumbag deuchbag because “that’s what he really is” and then the same people label liberals as traitors for saying the same things about Bush.
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Jen, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t suggesting that conservatives would “stop” posting the mockery. I was suggesting exactly what you said you would do, which is to actually “increase” the attacks.
That was the point I was making. We can’t attack them for doing it, while doing the same thing ourselves. Now keep in mind that I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it. I’m saying that we should not “attack them” for doing it, because we’re doing the same thing.
The “same thing” being … “saying mean and nasty things about them.”
Grrr! I’m confusing myself even. I’m sorry. I’m very tired.
Look at my blogs. You can tell that I don’t have a problem attacking liberals, either with words or with Photoshopped pics. But you won’t find me ranting about it when someone posts Photoshopped pics of Bush either. I might get pissed if the article or photo is misleading or incorrect in it’s accusation, but I won’t attack them based on having dared to say “bad things about Bush.”
Gregor on February 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM
He was impeached. He was NOT found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeached means brought to trial by the House, or charged; the Senate conducts the trial, i.e. determining guilt.
Stunning.
honora on February 23, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Wrong again, honora. The Senate vote was to decide whether to remove him from office which he escaped by 5 votes.
Impeached=guilty? I dunno, but being disbarred from arguing cases as a lawyer and being forever hung with the label “impeached” works as guilty enough for me.
Is there any doubt that Clinton suborned perjury, obstructed justice and committed high crimes and misdemeanors as president? I don’t think so, so “guilty” or “not guilty” is more legal semantics.
Jen the Neocon on February 23, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Wrong again, honora. The Senate vote was to decide whether to remove him from office which he escaped by 5 votes.
Impeached=guilty? I dunno, but being disbarred from arguing cases as a lawyer and being forever hung with the label “impeached” works as guilty enough for me.
Is there any doubt that Clinton suborned perjury, obstructed justice and committed high crimes and misdemeanors as president? I don’t think so, so “guilty” or “not guilty” is more legal semantics.
Jen the Neocon on February 23, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Legal semanitics? Well why bother with the protocol at all?
Impeached means to bring to trial, the underlying assumption therefore is that “guilt” has yet to be assigned.
honora on February 23, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »