January 23, 2009

I hate, too

Originally published February 2, 2004

I sometimes find it difficult to wrap the fact around my mind that assholes such as this guy actually get paid to write.

One quality I simply cannot stand in a writer is a smarmy self-righteousness that makes me reach for the barf-bag.

People say I hate Bush. That may or may not be true. I use the word hate a lot, but I think it means different things to different people. Genuine hatred is not high on my list of personal emotions. If I consider someone bad, all I ask of them is that they stop being bad. If they can do that, I have no further quarrel with them.

The point I hope to get to in this little essay is that those of us who dislike Bush did not simply get up one morning and decide we were going to hate him. He had to earn our antipathy.

And he's done that. In spades.

You hated Bush from day one, you lying shit. "Antipathy" is a nice word, but you don't feely antipathy. You're a San Fransisco liberal. You hate and then grin and giggle about it, because you are among friends who hate the same things you do.

One of my initial thoughts, when I became aware of Bush early in 2000, was, "He seems to be a Republican I could vote for." On first impression, he seemed to have all his father's good qualities and none of his bad. So he started out on my good side.

Lying sack of shit. You would have voted for Gore if died before the election.

When that surplus vanished, Bush cut taxes anyway and sent "refund" checks out with borrowed money. And the big beneficiaries were people in Bush's circle: the rich and the very rich.

I started to get angry with Bush when he started his term as president by effectively cutting off American funds to foreign organizations that might provide abortions for poor people.

I rest my case. This guy is a San Fransisco Nancy boy. Imagine him hating Bush. I'll bet my Cracker ass that the nutlog loved Clinton.

Bush quickly made it clear he was going to pander to America's fourth branch of government, the Christian fundamentalist extremists. By doing so, he showed his contempt for one of the most important principles set forth in our Constitution, the avoidance of a state religion.

But sanctimonious Democrats don't pander to labor Unions, Pro-Choce groups. the ABA contributitors, the Teacher's Unions or environmentslists, who are the craziest religious groups of all. Nope, the Democrats have principles and don't pander to extremists. They wouldn't touch Botox with a 10-foot pole because they are so honest.

It wasn't long after that turn that Bush, for patently religious reasons, put a damper on stem-cell research. His actions effectively stopped American scientists from finding life-saving treatments through such efforts. In my opinion, Bush's decision was cruel and inhumane, but certainly worthy of a man who had once mocked the pleas of a woman about to be executed in Texas.

That was it for me. His total disdain for environmental protection was frosting on the cake. Even though the proof kept coming, I didn't need any more evidence of his lack of concern for human life outside of his elite social group.

Bush and I disagree on this subject. Stem cell research can produce tremendous human benefits in the future. I don't know where the "total distain for environmental protection" came from, but it's a liberal writer and he is demanded to fit shit like that drollop in the article somewhere. Such drivel proves his impartiality.

Hatred for a Republican president is not a knee-jerk liberal emotion. Opposition, yes, but not hatred. This Bush fellow is a special case.

Yeah, just like Eisenshower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. You hated them all, shitbird. That's what you do for a living, and I don't believe that you do it very well.