July 19, 2004

Spite vs. Hat

Some describe Bush as “all hat and no cattle.” I think that there are a couple of other descriptions that are more accurate.

As in his recent tiff with the NAACP he shows a fair bit of spite.

Perhaps he is “all spite and no nose.” Certainly one could point to a number of his actions and see spite in them. He can’t be described as “magnanimous” or “big” with his political opponents as president. (Reportedly, this is former First Lady Barbara’s influence)

I dunno. While it’s common to view Bush as a lightweight, I ht ink he’s a heavyweight when it comes grudges.

Posted by James at July 19, 2004 4:04 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

I still say he's a post turtle.

Posted by: Patti M. at July 19, 2004 4:26 PM

Gosh, I'm venturing into unfamiliar territory by actually defending our Boy Emperor but were I he, I too would have said no the the NAACP.

He has absolutely nothing in common with them and he's better off staying away. It's an election year and political considerations reign supreme.

The illusion that the NAACP was the voice of all American blacks has long since been shattered. (Remember the chapter president from CA who was deposed for being a Republican? How about the Bird ad in Texas?)

They don't like him. They're not going to vote for him. It would have been a hostile audience and he wouldn't be 2 feet outside the builidng before they began attacking him.

Posted by: Steve at July 19, 2004 4:36 PM

Steve, he does have something in common with members of the NAACP--he's an American, and he's the president of the United States of America.

You don't get to be president of just those who like you. If it worked that way, I'd run for prez myself because all the wing nuts would be on Wing Nut Island, surrounded by the Cone of Silence.

It just doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Patti M. at July 19, 2004 4:54 PM

Tangent: James, what's with the time signature? I show it's really 3:32 PM.

Posted by: Patti M. at July 19, 2004 4:55 PM

True, Bush can't mend all the fences you've been lighting on fire your whole career.

But if you're going to campaign as a uniter, you would think an invitation from a group such as the NAACP would be seen as an opportunity (at least to show balls.)

I don't remember you campaigning as a uniter.

Posted by: James at July 19, 2004 5:21 PM

The time on the server hosting Aces Full is not even close to being right. Unfortunately, it's out of my control.

Posted by: James at July 19, 2004 5:31 PM

Of course I meant "Bush can't mend all the fences he's been lighting on fire his whole career." (and specifically his career as president)

Posted by: James at July 19, 2004 5:36 PM

I have to disagree, Steve. Being President opens you to all kinds of criticism. If you can't listen to an opposing view, you really shouldn't be in that office. He also needs to remember that the leaders of the organization aren't the entirety of the mebership. There are moderate members and they are justifiably pissed at the snub.

Posted by: briwei at July 19, 2004 11:48 PM

Patti: I agree. He's an American and so are they. But he doesn't have to address the NAACP to court black votes any more than John Kerry has to go with bowed head to the Christian Coalition convention. (Or the NRA convention, for that matter)

Concerned Women for America has a larger membership base than NOW, when can we expect Senator Kerry to address them?

Bri: This isn't really about listening to them. Had he gone, he would have been addressing them. He doesn't have to listen to an opposing view on social programs (or anything else) to be president.

Just as John Kerry does not have to submit himself to lectures by a hostile audience full of anti-abortion zealots.

Posted by: Steve at July 20, 2004 8:12 AM

Hmmm, my response didn't show up. I'll wait a few minutes before re-posting.

Posted by: Steve at July 20, 2004 8:16 AM

Steve: I'm going to have a progressive woman's rant now. Of _course_ John Kerry doesn't have to speak to the Concerned Women for America--they're wing nuts from Planet 1950. In other words, their views are anachronistic, and speaking to them would be a huge waste of time. Why dignify views that are so far from the mainstream by speaking to this group? It would be like when Bushie spoke at Bob Jones University.

These people are really out there. If htye don't understand it, it must be bad. Take their view on stem cell research. They're against it. Well, they're ok with adult stem cells. Well, there's a bit of a problem with that. There are only 70 lines available through the NIH, and only 17 of these are useful for research. All of them contain contaminants, i.e., they are not fit for use in humans.

It must be nice to make pronouncements about medical research when you're healthy. I wouldn't know, as I have multiple sclerosis. Embryonic stem cell research is precisely the kind of science on which I and millions of Americans depend. Those of us with incurable diseases, or the parents of children with same, hope for breakthroughs from this kind of research every day.

They're against the morning after pill. Sex dirty and bad and only for procreation. If you get pregnant, that's your punishment. Of course, Wendy Wrignt of CWA couched her arguments to the FDA Advisory Committee in protective words. The morning after pill, which she refers to as "MAP," will result in "increases in sexually transmitted diseases in regions that have allowed easy access to [it]" and my favorite objection: "The potential for the morning-after pill to be slipped to women without their knowledge or consent; and the probability of the ready availability of the morningafter pill being used to exploit and coerce women particularly minors to engage in risky sexual activity.

What's this? A contraceptive micky? Good lord. And exploitation? Yep, all those predatory monsters are very concerned with preventing pregnancy when they rape girls and women.

Don't even mention RU486.

As for queers, well, they've "hijacked the civil rights bus."

What are they for? Well, free speech in houses of worship, of course! What most people would consider political speech is just free speech, and no cause for houses of worship to lose their tax exempt status.

Read all about these points at www.cwfa.org, if you would like.

So the difference here is speaking to a well-respected group whose members hold fairly mainstream and reasoned views versus speaking to a group who has strange outlier views on basic concepts (scientific research, equal rights, etc.).

To me, the difference is clear.

Posted by: Patti M. at July 20, 2004 10:14 AM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved