Paul Burgess Hates You

October 31, 2006 5:45 AM

Paul Bugess,director of foreign-policy speechwriting at the White House from October 2003 to July 2005, probably hates you. And now he is fed up and wants you to know just how much he hates you.
posted by nofundy (153 comments total)

It's funny how all these people end up becoming parodies of themselves in the end.

Pathetic.
posted by psmealey at 5:49 AM on October 31, 2006

Interesting. Time to ramp up the hatred.

Wondering who's planning what for Nov. 8th.
posted by eriko at 5:49 AM on October 31, 2006

Aargh, missed an "r"! Sorry.

BTW, George Bush and Dick Cheney may think you are a terrorist, or at least want terrorists to win, if you vote Democratic.

President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.
posted by nofundy at 5:50 AM on October 31, 2006

These are the people I now hate--these people who seek to control our national security. The best of them are misinformed. The rest of them are liars.

Well, at least he and I have one thing in common.
posted by you just lost the game at 5:54 AM on October 31, 2006

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:56 AM on October 31, 2006 [3 favorites]

"...the highest calling of any free nation--the profession of arms."

Oh yeah. Well, if you think war is our noblest profession, no wonder you don't mind bashing teachers and journalists. The "calling" to war is "higher", after all, than the calling to truth.
posted by Topkid at 5:56 AM on October 31, 2006

Well, to be fair, if I spent two years of my life justifying the most incompetent US Foreign Policy in decades, I'd hate everybody, too. Self-loathing eventually spills out.
posted by jscalzi at 5:58 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

mmmmm coolaid is sweet on the lips.
posted by nola at 5:58 AM on October 31, 2006

He doesn't have to vote a straight Republican ticket. Diebold'll do that for him automatically.

Also, it's almost amusing how he trips all over himself trying to express his hatred. It's like he can't decide which logical fallacy he wants to spew first. They're stacked up, nested and puzzled together towards the end of the article in such densely knit layers you couldn't tease them apart with the Sword of Justice in one hand and Diogenes' lamp in the other.

Almost amusing, if not that it were indicative of a gross, systemic failure of thought and rationality left, right and center.
posted by loquacious at 5:59 AM on October 31, 2006 [4 favorites]

I don't give a rat's ass what some ex-speechwriter thinks.
posted by crunchland at 6:03 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm curious to know who his researchers and fact-checkers are...
posted by peeedro at 6:06 AM on October 31, 2006

Can't someone post some _decent_ analysis or thought from the conservatives, to balance this out now?
posted by rsanheim at 6:06 AM on October 31, 2006

rsanheim, all of the "decent though from conservatives" these days seems to amount to "you should vote Democratic to teach them a lesson, and maybe they'll straighten up."
posted by rxrfrx at 6:08 AM on October 31, 2006

This is as close as you're going to get, buddy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:09 AM on October 31, 2006

He has a point, you know. I hear the liberal candidate for dog-catcher is proposing selling the meat to schools for taco-tuesdays.
posted by jmgorman at 6:12 AM on October 31, 2006

dear paul

well, that was certainly interesting to learn that you hate me and millions of other americans ... unfortunately, i have examined my feelings on you and your opinions and have discovered only apathy and indifference ...

it's all been said before ... it's all been defended before ... and none of it is working ... iraq continues to go to hell, the country continues to go broke and you and the people you hate so much continue to yell at each other pointlessly

come back when you actually have an idea to express, will you?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:14 AM on October 31, 2006

I'm really not sure what it gets you to call people like Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and Harry Belafonte liars. They may espouse points of view that some find abhorrent, but they aren't willfully misrepresenting facts, as far as I am able to discern. People like Burgess better fit the "liar" moniker than any of his targets do.

Interestingly, I saw Belafonte on Bill Maher last Friday, and he was simply stunning. He spoke so movingly and eloquently about the state of the civil rights movement and social justice in general today. I saw none of the "lunatic left" label that mainstream media so frequently (and thoughtlessly) hangs on him.
posted by psmealey at 6:15 AM on October 31, 2006

This guy is the perfect mouth piece for an organization that pretty much believes that nothing is too good for our troops.

Fortunatly, they haven't figured out how to give them less than nothing yet.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:16 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

What the hell is wrong with these people? The Republicans control all the branches of government but the blame for the countries problems goes to college professors and calypso singers? As far as a know, not a single 'liberal" that he mentioned holds public office or has any real power. The capacity of the right to refuse to take responsibility for their own screw-ups is really staggering.
posted by octothorpe at 6:18 AM on October 31, 2006 [13 favorites]

Right back at'cha shithead.

But I love how he conflates "liberals" with Cindy Sheehan and a couple of has-been actors who like Chaves as the epitome of liberalism.
posted by delmoi at 6:19 AM on October 31, 2006

So I gather that all it takes to qualify one as a presidential speech writer is the ability to string together a bunch of clichés and strawmen? Nice.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:26 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

You know, I went into this article expecting that I would hate Paul Burgess at the end of it, just as much as he hates me. Instead, I find myself pitying him. He's clearly not well. I'll even go so far as to make an armchair diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, or an illness close to it. I hope his family and loved ones get him the care he needs before it's too late.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:27 AM on October 31, 2006

Wow, you would think this was from the Onion or something, but this guy actually believes what he is saying.
posted by caddis at 6:29 AM on October 31, 2006

I'm a big fan of this logic:

...it would have been criminal negligence had the president not enforced the U.N.'s resolutions and led the coalition into Iraq. Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their [troops] deaths are not in vain, either.
posted by dead_ at 6:30 AM on October 31, 2006

Geez. I wonder how he feels about us libertarians.

I'm sure glad there aren't any hateful liberals out there.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:30 AM on October 31, 2006

I'm really not sure what it gets you to call people like Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and Harry Belafonte liars.

Well, ward churchill was outed as a plagerist and actual academic cheat, from what I understand. Which makes this list so helarious.

I mean we have Sheehan, famous as an 'icon' but not as any kind of thinker or leader. I guess you could say she is treated with sympathy by many on the left, but she has never really done or said anything terrible. She’s certainly not a polished leader type.

Then you have ward Churchill who most people on the left have never heard of. The only way I even know who he is by hearing about him on occasional fox news viewing or reading right-wing blogs. He’s like an Emmanuel Goldstein of the right

Harry Belafonte? I heard he likes Chaves and... that’s all I’ve heard about his political views. He’s not well known, he’s not a leader, whatever.

Yet on the right wing you have people like Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, and the whole rouges gallery. The proper comparison would be with people like John Stewart, Colbert, Kos, Garofalo, Olberman, Al Franken and so on. He doesn’t go up against those people, but rather these easy target strawmen.

Of course, that doesn’t stop him from hating all democrats. Idiot.
posted by delmoi at 6:33 AM on October 31, 2006

I'll even go so far as to make an armchair diagnosis

Wow, Faint of Butt ... even Frist had to look at a video of Terry Schiavo before he made a diagnosis. Have you ever considered a career in the governing of the Senate?
posted by crunchland at 6:33 AM on October 31, 2006

I'm sure glad there aren't any hateful liberals out there.

Carville is married to big republican, so he can't really be that hateful.
posted by delmoi at 6:34 AM on October 31, 2006

I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie:

OK, let's see:

that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq

That's true.

that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action

This follows from the first one.

that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD

This is also largely true, there was some lip service towards democratizing Iraq near the beginning, but no plan, and the PR emphasis was on WMDs until long after it was clear there were none.

that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud

Excepting the UK nobody else was really on board, were they?

that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.

He certainly did, or don't you remember how he railroaded the UN?
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:35 AM on October 31, 2006

And this year I'm voting a straight Republican ticket right down to dog catcher, because I've had it.

Oh, that's a funny way to put it because I've been saying I will never again vote Republican for so much as dog catcher. If only we were in the same district, we could both stay home next week!
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:36 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

That's what happens when you drink the administration Kool-Aid. Eventually you're so caught up in the various Big Lies that you are no longer able to perceive and analyze reality for what it is.

I feel sorry for that guy. If I were a religious person I'd pray for him to recover the sanity he evidently lost through his work in the White House. Then again if my words were responsible for so many thousands of deaths I'd probably prefer to be insane than face up to my responsibilities too.
posted by clevershark at 6:36 AM on October 31, 2006

Obviously the guy is a fuckwit, but this is a shit post.
posted by peacay at 6:36 AM on October 31, 2006

I'd vote for a Republican dog-catcher. It'd be funny to see some guy in a business suit running after stray mutts.
posted by clevershark at 6:37 AM on October 31, 2006 [2 favorites]

There was a really nasty squashed possum in my street today. I'd be happy to vote for a Republican dead-animal collector.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:38 AM on October 31, 2006

Carville is married to big republican, so he can't really be that hateful.

Perhaps he has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. I suspect most people in politics do.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:40 AM on October 31, 2006

Down they go!

I spoke with someone deep on the inside of the Democratic machine on Saturday. The persons is essentially one of the six most informed people in the nation as to what is going on out there. This person's message? The GOP is in deep, deep shit.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:41 AM on October 31, 2006

Wow. Looking through that (rather boring) rant, I can honestly say that being on the "hate" list of a petty shit like Paul Burgess probably means you're doing something right.

Oh, and delmoi? Ward Churchill is an outspoken academic who has been systematically witchhunted by the Right because he talks about things like, as the one book of his I've read is titled, "A Little Matter of Genocide" (that of the American Indians, natch). The charges against him are based on scouring his copious (there are hundreds or thousands in each book) footnotes and challenging the fact that he draws conclusions opposite to those of the reviewer from the historical record.
posted by graymouser at 6:41 AM on October 31, 2006

Ironmouth: If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a tied senate and a 25 seat gain in the house, giving the Dem's a 10 seat majority.
posted by empath at 6:46 AM on October 31, 2006

that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq

No one says it out loud. I don't belive the president knew, but someone did, or they wouldn't have called off the U.N. Weapons inspectors. As the inspections continued it became increasingly obvious that WMD were not there. Before the inspections started, I assumed they might exist, or were even likely to exist. The day the inspectors left, I knew they weren't there. And I was right. Am I smarter then everyone in the administration? Or just the decision makers? I suppose it's possible.

that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action

We know he lied by omission.

that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud

He was a unilateralist, but he managed to collect a few hangers-on for various reasons (support for conservatism and militarism (spain) synchopathy (UK) a desire to be a world player (Ukraine, Poland) token support in exchange for whatever (everyone else who sent handfuls of troups))

that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD

I hadn't heard that. My impression was that that was their original plan, democratize and get access to the oil. Remember that there are many people involved and they all have different motives. And that single people can have more then one desire at once.

I do know that the war was sold as a hunt for WMDs.

that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.

Duh.
posted by delmoi at 6:47 AM on October 31, 2006

"I'm a uniter, not a divider!"
posted by jperkins at 6:48 AM on October 31, 2006

He's angry. And shrill. We're not supposed to like angry and shrill people, right?


I now hate Howard Dean... who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won't win in Iraq, bets his party's future on our nation's defeat.

It's all so ... so... enraging when those rascally Democrats keep bringing up policy failures of those in office, isn't it?

But hey, it's better than betting the nation's future on the foreign policy miscalculations of leadership that didn't (and in some cases, apparently still doesn't) know the damn difference between Sunni and Shi'ite.
posted by namespan at 6:53 AM on October 31, 2006

Republicans are united this year -- in saying that despite Republicans having been in control of all three branches of government since the 2000 elections everything bad that's happened since then has been the fault of the Democrats. Yes, those cunning dems have found a way to wreck everything despite being in control of nothing. They're quite crafty you know.
posted by clevershark at 6:54 AM on October 31, 2006

"You can't give up hope just because it's hopeless! You gotta hope even more and cover your ears and go 'blah, blah, blah, blah'." - Philip J. Fry, Paul Burgess
posted by clevershark at 6:55 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

Oh, how beautiful. A shitty and rabid right wing rant gets us defenders of Ward Churchill.

Graymouser, did you miss the part about Churchill being a plagiarist and a fabricator? Or is that just part of the right wing conspiracy?
posted by nasreddin at 6:58 AM on October 31, 2006

Wow, I can just see these guys sitting around the White House, gritting their teeth, tearing at the hair and stomping around in a fury. Makes me smile. :)
posted by gigbutt at 6:58 AM on October 31, 2006

You know, if I'd been writing George Bush's speeches over the past couple of years I would not want to be drawing too much attention to myself right now.
posted by fire&wings at 7:01 AM on October 31, 2006

What does a Bush speechwriter have to be proud of?

Rarely is the question asked, "Is our children learning?"

Oooh! Oooh! I wrote that one.

I have a general theory: Republicans grade on the curve.

Anne Coulter does have that Dr. Elsa Schneider action going to her but she couldn't stack boxes to reach a banana.

And I am very happy for Grace Jones for resurrecting her career - but did we have to make her Secretary of State?

These people are casting call rejects from the bad Captain Kirk episode of Star Trek.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:10 AM on October 31, 2006

Well it was you damn dirty hippies who forced George Bush to start that war, his hands were tied. And now look at it. Damn dirty hippies.
posted by grytpype at 7:12 AM on October 31, 2006

Oh, and I hadn't even read this yet:

Second, no soldier dies in vain who goes to war by virtue of the Constitution he swears to defend. This willingness is called "duty," and it is a price of admission into the highest calling of any free nation--the profession of arms. We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far. Not one was in vain. Not one.

You know what? I'm sure that there are people on the left who've used the phrase "died in vain" regarding our soldiers, because if there's one thing the left can't seem to do well, it's get it's finger on the pulse of the proper language of gratitude towards our soldiers. That doesn't mean they respect them any less than many on the right, who — just like Burgess does here — cynically use the well-placed respect most of America genuinely has for our servicemen, while not showing they give a damn for their actual well-being and safety.

I respect the soldiers who've fought in Iraq, who've kept faith with the promise they made for their country, who've done what they were asked to do even when it didn't make good sense. I'm pretty damn convinced that we owe the successes we've had in Iraq directly to the talent and discipline of the men and women in the ranks of the services who've somehow been able to take unsound planning from the top and turn it into some victories. And I don't think any soldier who's died doing that has died in vain.

But let's put it a different way, Mr. Paul "Hate You" Burgess. Yes, every one of those soldiers died with the honor of giving their lives living up to the promises they made this country, and there's nothing vain about that. But not one of those soldiers had to die the way they did if we'd had better leadership, leadership that kept faith as well as our soldiers do with the foundation principles of America.

So great, vote your straight ticket with the leadership that's abandoned those principles while giving lip service to them. The evidence that your soul is thoroughly corroded isn't just your hate, it's also in the fact that you can't even see the hypocrisy of the situation.
posted by namespan at 7:13 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

Republicans are united this year

No. That's precisely the problem. Republicans aren't united. Lots of conservative folks are royally pissed off at the administration and congress for its mishandling of the war, ethics problems, and uncontrolled spending. Their only hope is to tell them "Ok, you don't like us, but you like these other guys even less." And that's exactly what this rant in a backwater newspaper is trying to do.
posted by crunchland at 7:13 AM on October 31, 2006

sing the praises of Central American dictators

Um, if he's thinking of Chávez, he's actually South American.

Not that facts seem to very high up on his priority list.
posted by signal at 7:13 AM on October 31, 2006

And I am very happy for Grace Jones for resurrecting her career - but did we have to make her Secretary of State?

That was uncalled for. Grace Jones is a very nice lady and a talented actress.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:14 AM on October 31, 2006

I never used to feel hatred for people such as Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, or other pop-culture notables who, for example, sing the praises of Central American dictators while calling President Bush the greatest terrorist on earth. I do now.

I assume he's talking about Chavez, current President of Venezuela. But for a foreign policy speechwriter, shouldn't he know that Venezuela is in South America?
posted by NationalKato at 7:15 AM on October 31, 2006

on preview, what signal said.
posted by NationalKato at 7:16 AM on October 31, 2006

I saw a comment tag the other day on another site that I needed to wiki to understand: fud. Apparently, it stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It is a "marketing technique" used to manipulate people...and apparently it works very well.

I think this is a lesson that this man recites every morning when he wakes up and every night before he goes to sleep.

I, for one, am quite sick and tired of it.
posted by PreacherTom at 7:17 AM on October 31, 2006

Sign that man up with a free republic account!
posted by Artw at 7:19 AM on October 31, 2006

Well......... At least we now know the president likes speech writers who are stupid assholes.
posted by WoWgmr72 at 7:22 AM on October 31, 2006

Ironmouth: If I were a betting man, I'd bet on a tied senate and a 25 seat gain in the house, giving the Dem's a 10 seat majority.

Huh? It hardly matters. A 1 seat majority in both houses is a hundred times better then a 40 seat majority in the house and none in the senate.
posted by delmoi at 7:23 AM on October 31, 2006

I assume he's talking about Chavez, current President of Venezuela. But for a foreign policy speechwriter, shouldn't he know that Venezuela is in South America?

LOL.
posted by delmoi at 7:24 AM on October 31, 2006

We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far.

I find it creepy that he chose to tweak out hostile deaths in Iraq (2308) from the death total as though the other deaths didn't count.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:24 AM on October 31, 2006

Consider the fact that the OpEd piece is showing up in the Fredricksburg Free Lance-Star, and not, say, the Washington Times. While the outburbs and rural areas of Virginia are definitely in play in a hotly contested senatorial race this election day (where the balance has been see-sawing for weeks), Fredricksburg lies pretty much right on the border between the red and blue areas of the commonwealth. Nevertheless, he's probably pretty much preaching to the choir.
posted by crunchland at 7:26 AM on October 31, 2006

Er, you do know that it's not strictly necessary to defend everyone Burgess maligns in order to disagree with him, right? 'Cause, Churchill really is kind of a nutjob, and an intellectually dishonest one at that.

Though, his promises to speak at college campuses DID bring Fred Phelps' lovable band of yokels out to protest, so I guess he must be doing SOMETHING right.
posted by Mayor West at 7:29 AM on October 31, 2006

NationalKato writes "But for a foreign policy speechwriter, shouldn't he know that Venezuela is in South America?"

Truthiness > facts, for a Bush speechwriter.
posted by clevershark at 7:31 AM on October 31, 2006

What a fuckwad.
posted by beerbajay at 7:31 AM on October 31, 2006

PreacherTom writes "I saw a comment tag the other day on another site that I needed to wiki to understand: fud. Apparently, it stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It is a 'marketing technique' used to manipulate people...and apparently it works very well."

The Hate Half-Hour always produces such harmonious unity!
posted by clevershark at 7:33 AM on October 31, 2006

wow, this guy is scary
posted by Vindaloo at 7:34 AM on October 31, 2006

Paul's just feeling the first pangs of disillusionment after having lived under an insulated rock with nothing but evil henchmen for friends. He crawled out; the sun hurts; he hates the sun; these things take time.
posted by K'an at 7:35 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't know about the rest of you, but his powerful writing has convinced me.

I now hate myself.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:41 AM on October 31, 2006

To write speeches, you have to really believe (or make yourself believe) in order to get the words out, to make the points in a passionate way. Sort of like being a lawyer. (When I write a brief, by the end I believe in my client in a really unconditional way, because I've had to get my mind there to write the brief properly. Later, before, I see things in a more nuanced way.)

I worry about the sentiments he expresses, though. Not about this speechwriter guy, whatever. But I assume there is a core of Bush supporters/Republicans who believe that the Democrats/those who are trying to oust the current leadership are putting their party/power above the soldiers/nation/foreign policy. If you really believed that (I don't, of course), you would really hate in a deep way, because it would be pretty evil for someone to put their quest for party power above greater national interests.

I wonder if this kind of hatred is just an inevitable result of trying to get these people out of office (which I believe is paramount). Or if there is something that can be done to minimize the hatred -- more careful/considered language? Ala namespan's comments, above.

But yes, putting the above aside, this is a Kool-aid situation.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 7:41 AM on October 31, 2006

Hatred - one more Republican value from the party of moral values.
posted by caddis at 7:44 AM on October 31, 2006

If this is not a hoax it's pitiful.
Come to think of it - it's pitiful either way...
posted by speug at 7:44 AM on October 31, 2006

PreacherTom; may I point you to definition number 3 in this link. Appropriate usage for those that use the tactic of fud for political and marketing purposes.
posted by Gratishades at 7:48 AM on October 31, 2006

So really, this is a real editorial?
What the fuck?
posted by Lord_Pall at 7:50 AM on October 31, 2006

Comdey gold.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:55 AM on October 31, 2006

Lord_Pall writes "So really, this is a real editorial?
"What the fuck?"

Apparently yes (link is at the bottom of the page). Then again this appears to be a paper whose "fair and balanced" opinion page only displays voices from the right.
posted by clevershark at 7:56 AM on October 31, 2006

Dear America,

Look to your Left, far to the left. Ok, now look to your Right, far to your right.

See those folks on the far side of each and every issue? They are all crazy. Left or Right, every last one is a loon.

If you can, if there is any one who fits the bill, vote moderate.
posted by BeerGrin at 8:06 AM on October 31, 2006

A pathetic little screed from a pathetic little man.
posted by moonbiter at 8:06 AM on October 31, 2006

Well, look. This guy is a nobody, and the rants about Ward Churchill, Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan et al are clearly distractions, read meat for the base or Ann Coulter's greatest hits, if you will.

What's troubling here is the bit about Howard Dean:

I now hate Howard Dean... who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won't win in Iraq, bets his party's future on our nation's defeat.

This clearly means to lay the groundwork for the betrayal myth or they "liberals stabbed us in the back" phenonenon - which is almost certain to come later, if the Dems regain any kind of power in DC.

You'll start hearing this nonsense from greater voices than Burgess's if it comes to that, but this is where it begins.
posted by psmealey at 8:11 AM on October 31, 2006

Paul Bugess, director of foreign-policy speechwriting at the White House from October 2003 to July 2005...

I just can't imagine why he lost his job...
posted by tkolar at 8:16 AM on October 31, 2006

But... surely he can't hate ME! I'm so lovable!
posted by Greg Nog at 8:19 AM on October 31, 2006

Apparently he was too deluded even for the Bush White House.
posted by clevershark at 8:19 AM on October 31, 2006

What the hell is wrong with these people? The Republicans control all the branches of government but the blame for the countries problems goes to college professors and calypso singers?
--posted by octothorpe

Hilarious and true. Don't hate the people pointing out the problems, hate the people who caused the problems in the first place. The Cheney Republicans have had their chance to lead the country and look what happened:

*North Korea tests a Nuke
*Iran refining more Uranium than ever
*Osama Bin Laden still on the loose
*The Taliban retaking parts of Afghanastan
*Civil War in Iraq

Do you feel safer after six years of Republican rule? I sure don't.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:24 AM on October 31, 2006

Well, now we know who drank all the Kool-Aid at that White House potluck a few years ago. Bastard didn't leave any for David Kuo.
posted by dw at 8:25 AM on October 31, 2006

Left or Right, every last one is a loon.

I'd say that where all the good ideas come from, but it takes a while for them to drift into the mushy moderate, and sometimes the moderatation leaves the implementation poorer.

The mushy middle is why we went into Iraq in the first place . . . the loons on the right were saying "let's roll!", the loons on the left were saying "no fucking way", the moderates were all "durr, I guess I'm for it if we have UN support" . . . then once we went in anyway "well, we've got to support the mission now I guess".

Is Single-Payer health insurance a 'moderate' policy?
Privatization of Social Security? (I'm actually for this if it were done by people I trusted)
Reducing the entanglement of State and Religion? (With 60%+ of the country wanting the teaching of ID alongside evolution, the 'moderate' viewpoint ought to accomodate them, right?)

I really can't think of any issue where the moderate view is correct. I respect Goldwater Conservatism for its vision, Bushism for the naked (and successful!) avarice and wanton violence, but what passes for the extreme left (Howard Dean . . . Russ Feingold . . . Gore) in this country has been Right -- these past few years.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:31 AM on October 31, 2006

You have to wonder about somebody writing this. When they read it over, do they sit back and say to themselves: "yup... that sounds like one of the good guys talking."

My guess is that Malkin, Coulter, and Limbaugh don't read their work over either.
posted by Rusty Iron at 8:31 AM on October 31, 2006

Coulter particularly, she actually won't let people edit her anymore, and it shows. She's degenerated into near-incomprehensibility.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:33 AM on October 31, 2006

And he's a bad writer too. But that makes sense.
posted by luckypozzo at 8:33 AM on October 31, 2006

('course, I'm a left-libertarian so I'm forced to say that)
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:34 AM on October 31, 2006

"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
-- Richard Nixon
posted by StarForce5 at 8:36 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

I love how he says now he's voting Republic 100%. As if he might have voted either way before.

He writes like someone who put his faith in the left and then was betrayed, not someone who's been making a living fighting against everything the left stands for.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:36 AM on October 31, 2006

What this reflects is the administrations view that anyone who disagrees with their opinions on policy is somehow a political enemy.

I now hate Howard Dean, the elected leader of the Democrats, who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won't win in Iraq, bets his party's future on our nation's defeat.

I would agree with Dean. I'll gladly bet on the US defeat in IRaq. I don't want that outcome, but it is difficult to conceive of a strategy for victory that doesn't involve a decades-long war of attrition, or an escalation on our part. We can't win this war because no one knows what "winning" involves. They've had 6 years to articulate what that means, and they haven't done it. Perhaps there is no such thing as winning over there.

I believe that the administration's strategy at this point is to maintain the current status quo in iraq for another two years, let the democrats win, and blame the loss of the war or the consequences of an "early" withdrawl on the dem 2008 adminstration. Their fear of a democratic congress is not based a fear of not being able to move a policy agenda forward, it's a fear of hearings and investigations that are going to uncover some ugly things.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:37 AM on October 31, 2006

Fuzzy Monster, don't forget that they were the guys in charge during the first and only foreign terrorist attack on US soil. I mean, it IS, after all, their job to protect the country. A job that they failed SPECTACULARLY at, on Sept 11, 2001.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:39 AM on October 31, 2006

My guess is that Malkin, Coulter, and Limbaugh don't read their work over either.
posted by Rusty Iron at 11:31 AM EST on October 31


My guess is that they don't actually write it themselves in the first place. That, or they write drunk/high.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:39 AM on October 31, 2006

Dear Paul,

Die in a fire.

Sincerely,
posted by photoslob at 8:41 AM on October 31, 2006

What does "winning in Iraq" actually mean these days? And as far as dying in vain, and with no snark intended, getting killed in stupid friendly fire incidents would seem to mean dying in vain. Or am I missing something?
posted by etaoin at 8:42 AM on October 31, 2006

Second, no soldier dies in vain who goes to war by virtue of the Constitution he swears to defend.

Waht a tortured construction. "goes to war by virtue of the Constitution"? What does that mean? Is there every a US soldier or marine who goes to war but does not go by virtue of the foundational document of this country?

This willingness is called "duty," and it is a price of admission into the highest calling of any free nation--the profession of arms. We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far.

Thanks for explaining the word duty, because I'm seven years old. And it is the "highest calling"? Way to insult the vast majority of Americans who never served and never had any desire to. I guess all the lawyers, doctors, artists, etc were just aspiring to mediocrity.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:47 AM on October 31, 2006

Phrases like dying in vain are meaningless. The U.S., the idea of it, is not under any threat, except from withing. Nuclear war with the soviets wouldn't destroy the constitution or American values (whatever they are). NSA wiretaps, and illegal detentions do that. Not terrorists.

But notice how they are using these lofty turns of phrase, like "duty" and "calling", to justify the governmet depolying the military and restricting your liberty to defend the private property of a few wealthy interests.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:50 AM on October 31, 2006

Any time, any place, with any weapons, Mr. Burgess. Let's really see how you do at this noble "profession of arms." Or are you yet another member of the 101st Fighting Chickenhawk Keyboardist Brigade? Thought so. Your bravery knows no limits.

So, yeah, right back atcha. I hate you too. And all your friends. Traitors, to a one. It would be an honor to kick your ass. Please name your venue.

"Hate" is the right word. You are, Mr. Burgess, at least honest. It's what I've been feeling, steadily, since you all stole the election in 2000, after trying to destroy Clinton for years.

Now come and get it, missy.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:51 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

Is this really what things look like from the right? Doesn't it strike folks on the right as shrill, petty, and simple-minded too?
posted by Shutter at 8:53 AM on October 31, 2006

Hate is a waste of energy. Hate is a distraction. That is what this administration obviously about. Wasting energy and distracting. The only things they are competent at is appealing to the lowest common denominator and the worst demons of our nature and getting elected.

What this guy never mentions ONCE is how to solve a single real foreign policy problem. He wrote speeches about foreign policy but he articulates no solution to a single policy crisis.

He only alludes to what is in his mind one "problem." The problem of pluralism. Which in a democratic society is THE key principle that defines the system. And that's what he hates the most. That there exists a dissenting opposition.

These people have no interest in living in a free society. They can't solve the problems with their narrow selfish philosophy so rather then examine WHY that is or how they can adapt they're approach to problems they entrench themselves with power and deny there ARE problems. Other than you. The guy who says "Hey, I think we have a problem."
posted by tkchrist at 8:54 AM on October 31, 2006 [4 favorites]

"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
-- Richard Nixon
posted by StarForce5 at 11:36 AM EST on October 31

Did Tricky Dick really say that? Wow, then he did it.
posted by caddis at 8:57 AM on October 31, 2006

When you're on top you can always dismiss criticism as "shrill, petty and simple-minded". This op-ed (among other things) seems a clear sign that the Republicans can see the landslide coming.
posted by clevershark at 8:58 AM on October 31, 2006

Good point, tkchrist. This guy does not care in the least about the future of Iraq, the basic thrust of his vision is that everyone should talk the same about Iraq; if we're ALL on board, how could we not fail to do ANYTHING we want? The immediate corollary is that if we do 'fail' in some aspect (any outcome we don't like at the time), it is directly due to those who did not support the party.

psmealey's allusion to the Dolchstosslegende is quite apt.

Has anyone ever spoken to some of these Milošević-loyalists that are still carping about his betrayal, what a great man he was, etc? I think the few Bush loyalists may be in a similar position in some years.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:02 AM on October 31, 2006

Hate is not a distraction or a waste of energy when it is appropriately aimed. Hating the shrill, treasonous Burgessite far-right fear-mongering militaristic sort *is* energizing, and compelling. Hate motivates, as the Republicans have long realized. Okay, I give in. I hate them too. Let's have at it.

Those people are not Americans. They are alien monsters in our midst. Enough of them. Be gone.

I would like to see them all waterboarded.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:15 AM on October 31, 2006

I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq...

Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their deaths are not in vain, either.

Unless, of course, you keep sending in firemen after you know that.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:16 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

Actually, I find his honesty quite refreshing. If only, say, Tony Snow could break down into a sniveling rage and lash out at reporters every day, boy would that be something.
posted by fungible at 9:22 AM on October 31, 2006

But he's so cuddly. (I know. Wrong Paul Burgess. He probably didn't play in 10cc either).
posted by klangklangston at 9:31 AM on October 31, 2006

And according to his Wiki bio, he was a marine.
posted by klangklangston at 9:32 AM on October 31, 2006

don't forget that they were the guys in charge during the first and only foreign terrorist attack on US soil.

fingers_of_fire, I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't carry so much weight when you use false statements. WTC bombing, 1993.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:39 AM on October 31, 2006

Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
posted by brain_drain at 9:43 AM on October 31, 2006

Hate is not a distraction or a waste of energy when it is appropriately aimed.

I used to think that. And you know what? I just got old. I just got in trouble with the law. It didn't solve a single thing.

The only thing we have on this planet that is worth anything is our time. I don't want my last seconds on the earth spent rasping out Ahabs "From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee" line.

It's corny and kind of pussy but I'd rather leave this world knowing I did something positive with my brief little mortal coil.

We need to move forward from this historical stain. Punish the most guilty, forgive everybody else and start fixing this broken world. Or at least try to.
posted by tkchrist at 9:55 AM on October 31, 2006

Get used to that kind of rhetoric. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of that kind of self-righteous indignation over the next few years from people who know better--or ought to--about the bed that America's ruling party has made for itself.
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 10:05 AM on October 31, 2006

Or simpler: Hatred is a path to the dark side.
posted by butterstick at 10:11 AM on October 31, 2006

This guy is the perfect example of the unAmerican among us. He and his ilk are the ones who really hate America - they are incapable of brooking any dissention or disagreement. The whole "marketplace of ideas" concept is alien to them. Myopic, self-centered and fascistic to the core. A real American (and a real man, for that matter) understands that a person's argument should rise or fall on it's merits. Shooting the messenger is just too easy. I guess it's easier than dissecting one's own opinion.

PS- If one is going to make the argument that "winning" in Iraq is good, and "losing" is bad, it helps if one can define what constitutes "winning" and what constitutes "losing".
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:17 AM on October 31, 2006

This is a joke, right?
posted by puppygalore at 10:34 AM on October 31, 2006

I don't care if he was a commando, I'll still kick his fat butt.

Sorry, tkchrist, but the Pangloss routine doesn't cut it for me. The world *is* (as Bush keeps reminding us) full of evil people who don't deserve forgiveness (unless you're, say, a "Christian," which is kinda funny considering). They deserve to be hated, and destroyed. And many of them have an R after their names.

Ahab's rage was futile. This is different.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:40 AM on October 31, 2006

Kirth Gerson, you are absolutely right. Thanks for the correction. Amend my post to say something to the effect of "you can add to the list of the administrations 'accomplishments' failing dramatically at their sworn duty to protect the United States on September 11, 2001."
posted by fingers_of_fire at 10:43 AM on October 31, 2006

Is this really what things look like from the right?

I've been reading RedState.com a lot recently in the runup to the elections, just basically trying to get a handle on how those on the far right construct their worldview: I mean, they're looking at more or less the same set of facts that I am, so how do they come to their conclusions? They are not unintelligent people, after all.

So far, they all seem to be wallowing in a toxic sludge composed of patriotism, flag waving, and cursing the traitorous media/liberals/Democrats who are sabotaging and undermining the Global War on Terror. Because They Just Don't Get It. We are at WAR, dammit! If you support Pelosi you might as well put a sign on your front lawn saying "Welcome Terrorists to Middle America!" What the hell is wrong with you lefty fools that you can't see that! Think of our children, for Christ's sake!

So yeah, Burgess would fit in quite nicely over there, and I'm sure you can find a number of "Hell yeah!" type tributes on redstate.com if this little op-ed number has made its way around the right-wing blogs today.
posted by jokeefe at 10:43 AM on October 31, 2006

Baggage handler, bagpiper, architectural historian. Is there anything he can't do?

Paul Burgess is a fucking retard. (If this apparently genuine, yet Onion-esque article is to be believed).

The absurdity of the times we live in embarrasses and humiliates me.
posted by turducken at 10:50 AM on October 31, 2006

No point in Democrats/non-Bush Republicans getting all het up about this. Burgess is patently preaching to the converted-but-wobbly. Bet you anything that at this very moment, his screed is getting cut and pasted into a thousand blogs and Freep-alike sites, and into tens of thousands of emails, all in a spontaneous or semi-organised fashion. If he helps convince a few thousand wavering Republicans to stay the course at the ballot box, he'll have earned himself whatever he's been offered for helping out his old buddies once more.

In other words, Burgess doesn't really hate you. He just doesn't give a shit about you.
posted by senor biggles at 10:59 AM on October 31, 2006

Ahab's rage was futile. This is different.

No, it isn't. Channeling rage towards a certain group of people is no less futile than channeling it towards a white whale. What gets you mad are the muddle-headed irrational idealism they embody, and that won't go away even if the current cast of co-conspirators do. The danger is in believing that it will, and that's one of those beliefs that seems near and dear to those we dislike the most.

Terrorist incident? Hate bin Laden (until some months down the line when you can go back to being "not that concerned about him")! Iraq got you down? Hate Zarqawi (even more now that he's already dead)! And there are apparently no problems with the country that can't be solved by hating gays (well, only the liberal ones anyway).

With all that there seem to be more terrorist incidents than before, Iraq's pace in sinking towards civil war has accelerated, and marginalizing gays during the last election doesn't seem to have been much help in curing the ills of the nation. Funny how that works out. Hate hasn't solved any of those problems, not that I know.

Sure, hate's a great motivator. It just doesn't appear to motivate one to do anything that'll actually help. A well-thought-out approach appears to be a better way to actively get something done. Sure, there are always people that will rush to heed the hue and cry of hate, but generally those aren't the ones you want on your side anyway.
posted by clevershark at 10:59 AM on October 31, 2006

They've infected me. I'm now a hater, too.

Dammit, I hate when peacenik, tolerant individuals instill hate in our powerful, rich, snobbish elite. Think I'll go bomb an NPR station, get mine back.
posted by Football Bat at 11:00 AM on October 31, 2006

caddis wrote "Did Tricky Dick really say that? Wow, then he did it."

Depends on when he said it, caddis - sometimes you only learn lessons after the fact. Some people can look at what they did wrong and issue warnings to others not to repeat that history. History majors often know this, unless they were C students who didn't pay attention but majored in history anyway. Then, when they become President, they forget all of the history they were supposed to have learned, making stupid asinine mistakes and leading the country down the dark path to polarization, kneejerk reactionism and unnecessary violence in parts of the world that history would warn against getting into a fight with.

But that wouldn't happen in America, unless the goddamn liberals tricked us into it. How I hate them. It is all their fault.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:01 AM on October 31, 2006

Btw, for anyone who is indeed interesting in pursuing the roots of right wing or religious support for Bush, this nice man on RedState has offered an explanation yesterday. It's addressed to "curious liberals", so I'm sure he wouldn't mind me linking it/quoting it here. Ready? Here goes:

I’m going to explain, for every curious liberal, as briefly as possible why the vast majority of Evangelicals support the GOP, whether it is run by Bush, a Mormon, or an Atheist:

Christians believe that Man is fallen, and that Man collectively given power through the state is accumulating that corruption. Therefore, Christians believe the state should be very limited, and that the state can not solve societies ills. The poor should be helped through private organizations and through the church, not the state.

From that presupposition, generally speaking, Bush and the GOP’s policy of more tax-cuts and less government verse the Dem’s policy of less tax-cuts and more government is appealing to evangelicals who believe man is fallen.
Read more here.

You're welcome!
posted by jokeefe at 11:07 AM on October 31, 2006

From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee

I'm getting mighty tired of all this PC white whale bashing.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:24 AM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]

From that presupposition, generally speaking, Bush and the GOP’s policy of more tax-cuts and less government verse the Dem’s policy of less tax-cuts and more government is appealing to evangelicals who believe man is fallen.

That's chock-full of truthiness, that is.
posted by clevershark at 11:28 AM on October 31, 2006

Paul Burgess Hates You

Eh. He can get in line like everyone else.
posted by mkultra at 11:36 AM on October 31, 2006

Bush and the GOP’s policy of more tax-cuts and less government verse the Dem’s policy of less tax-cuts and more government is appealing to evangelicals who believe man is fallen.

Here is where he fails: the GOP has no such policy. The GOP taxes as high or higher than the Democrats did when they were in power (although they may defer the taxes through deficit spending, you have to pay in the future) and they have increased federal spending to a degree that was illegal until they retroactively changed the upper limit of their spending authority (wish I could do that.)

Republicans, when confronted with this obvious fact, will often counter that the bulk of these expenses are due to the war, which, if you bother to look it up, is false, most is due to Republican pork.

To me, this seems pretty standard among Republican supporters: they still oppose all the same things they used to and support the same things they used to; they just haven't realized for some reason that the GOP no longer (if it ever really did) supports those values.

For instance, the GOP is ostensibly against gay marriage, but they couldn't campaign against it if they outlawed it. The GOP's vision of 'privatization' does not mean reducing government authority over some spheres, it means giving the government the authority to cut deals with a specific set of corporations who share executives with the government. Nothing at all resembling free market policies.

How does the GOP manage to maintain the illusion that it is what it is so clearly not?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:37 AM on October 31, 2006

Liberals are still stuck with the tag "tax and spend" from when they had all the power and they indeed did tax and spend. That the truth about the GOP is finally being understood by conservatives appears to be part of their undoing in this coming election.
posted by caddis at 11:41 AM on October 31, 2006

By the time I got to the end of that essay, I was reading it in a Niedermeyer voice. It just naturally happened.
posted by jrossi4r at 11:47 AM on October 31, 2006

P-p-pledge p-p-in!?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:49 AM on October 31, 2006

paul burgess trying to check us liberals? he'd best check himself, because when you dis your fellow americans you dis yourself. Fool.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:08 PM on October 31, 2006

jokeefe's thing makes sense to me. Government is godless, so when it helps people it crowds out charitable godly organizations.

The Christians would LOVE to (again) run our social services for us, for obvious reasons.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:12 PM on October 31, 2006

“It's corny and kind of pussy...”

Not in the least. These are the times that try men’s souls.
Ever read the full text of the Crisis ?

Times seem not to have changed much. Many of the leaders of the loyal opposition are, today, out of touch and more willing to engage in useless acrimony than earnest debate or - more importantly - honest work.
Whether this is because they are being baited or not is irrelevent. They seem more than willing to participate. (And one must wonder if that is by design.)
Consider Kerry’s remarks: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The facts of the matter aside - this kind of rhetoric is more suited to the Vietnam era. Understand - I’m not arguing whether or not what he’s saying is true or not - simply that it’s reflective of Kerry’s (et.al) position and methodology. The snappy patter about Bush living in a “state of denial” the hackney’d “katrina” reference/analogy etc. etc. Like that doesn’t seem facile to anyone raised in the computer era bombarded every day by the most sophisticated mind control techniques ever invented to buy/use/etc.
The only thing that will work (beyond something MORE sophisticated of course) is honesty and directness, and perhaps real passion. Which, for example, seems to be Obama’s appeal. He wants to be in office of course, but he seems to stand for something beyond the empty rhetoric to serve getting elected. (Whether one agrees with his position is another story - and indeed - ‘seems’ ).

But few in the Democratic leadership are directly addressing the relevent issues. And indeed, when they do it’s this 30 year old “how to talk to ‘The Kids’” schtick.
I’m astonished Kerry hasn’t peppered his speeches with “’X’, man” or referred to “the Establishment.”

This is not at all to defend the Republican position. Indeed, to (mis)quote Wolfgang Pauli - they’re not right, they’re not even wrong.
Hatred obfuscates clear thought and honest principles more efficiently than nearly any other state of mind.
The Bhagavad Gita is a decent treatment of the subject of fighting without hatred and upholding righteousness regardless of personal feelings, pursuits, etc. (Yes, it’s a spiritual text, but it has plenty o’ wisdom for secular action)
“To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be in thee any attachment to inaction”

And on the subject of anger as well:
“When a man dwells in his mind on the object of sense, attachment to them is produced. From attachment springs desire and from desire comes anger. From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence and from the destruction of intelligence he perishes”

(Not as succinct as the Nixon quote tho - sorry)

I think it was said here a bit ago - would you rather be effective or satisfy your ego (or words to that effect).
This is a classic example that if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. One can’t merely oppose “them.” Hate leads to hate, and even if you win - then where are you?

“Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”
- Thomas Jefferson

The key is to act without regard for the consequences, without anger, and without concern for little dogs like Burgess yapping at you.
We all know he’s full of shit. And even if his statements were at all accurate - they’re counterproductive. Oh, it might seem like he matters and what he says matters, but he’ll be buried and forgotten and his words will fade and people will still turn to the men who did and said things that mattered, even if they died before their time.

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:31 PM on October 31, 2006

Smedleyman writes "The only thing that will work (beyond something MORE sophisticated of course) is honesty and directness, and perhaps real passion. Which, for example, seems to be Obama’s appeal. "

In the context of what you're saying... I've heard Obama give a few interviews on his current book tour, and he seems to be arguing for exactly the kind of political culture that you're advocating here.

I guess the question is whether a majority of Americans can be convinced to leave behind simplistic acrimony in favor of a mature political debate. Obama seems like the guy to convince them to do so; the man certainly talks a good game. But hate just feels so damn good. Endorphins and all.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:41 PM on October 31, 2006

We were waiting for an Octobr Surprise. Many thanks to Mr. Paul Burgess. I cannot think of a better reason for the undecided to vote for the Dems. If his Op Ed is in any way representative of the thought process of the mid- to upper- eschalon thinking of the right, I think this small-minded, embarassing, sad rhetoric would be the final straw and cause the undecided to vote for compassion and a party that, while not "faith-based," extolls the virtues of the human condition, love, intelligence, and democracy, far-better than the Republicans, and far better than than some sad, bitter policy wonk.Unlike the offensive TV ads currently running, and getting far too much air-time via the MSM, I hope this Op-Ed gets picked up by the news wires. As a last thought, can't we all just get along? There is so much real, sad, hatred in the world right now. Mankind needs a 24 hour time-out. I am not especially religious, but I think the world would be far better off if everyone stopped by a local church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship (I'd pick Central Park,) and spent an hour focusing on something good and positive. I have no idea what that would be. Maybe puppies.Please, no flaming. I know I'm naive. But think about puppies.
posted by davidinmanhattan at 1:09 PM on October 31, 2006

I guess the question is whether a majority of Americans can be convinced to leave behind simplistic acrimony in favor of a mature political debate.

Dude, a majority of americans can't even be convinced to vote, much less engage in a "mature political debate".
posted by signal at 1:18 PM on October 31, 2006

What a jackass.
posted by Shanachie at 1:19 PM on October 31, 2006

Mmmmmmmmm.... puppies.

(Not a snark, I'm right there with you davidinmanhattan.)
posted by jokeefe at 1:26 PM on October 31, 2006

They are not unintelligent people, after all.

Views differ.
posted by Sparx at 1:34 PM on October 31, 2006

I'm getting mighty tired of all this PC white whale bashing.

Thank you. I rarely laugh out loud so insanely -- that made my day. I turned 4X today (a gentleman never tells). But my knees turned 65. I needed that laugh. (Though my co-workers have warily scooted several more feet away from me.)

As for this hate thing.

I understand hating Bush. It is an intelligent response to a serious threat. Indulge it briefly, satisfy it. And let it pass. Then get to work fixing what makes you angry. Hate will only cloud your thinking.

Like grocery shopping on an empty stomach. Or going on a first date with a raging boner.
posted by tkchrist at 1:50 PM on October 31, 2006

If this idiot is talking about Chavez in his "Central American Dictator" remark (which he probably is), he should realize that not only is that guy in S. America (as others have pointed out), but he is also an elected official.

Foreign leader you don't agree with != dictator, genius.

This guy is an idiot. No surprise there, he worked for Bush. By why the fuck did this thing get published? What's next for this paper, a stirring opinion piece on how conservatives are fascists, or Jews are trying to destroy America?

Shouldn't the op-ed section at least make some small concessions to societal decency and truth? Once upon a time it would have been outrageous to publish this shit. No longer. Hating half of America based upon perceptions that bear no resemblance to reality gets you prime op-ed real estate in the Free Lance-Star.

For fuck's sake.
posted by teece at 1:55 PM on October 31, 2006

jokeefe writes "Mmmmmmmmm.... puppies."

How can you eat puppies?

I mean, there's hardly any meat on those tiny little things.
posted by clevershark at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2006

A professional speechwriter who gets to "tell it like it is," uncensored, should be able to produce something shocking, riveting, irresistable.

So how come this editorial sucks so fucking much?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:39 PM on October 31, 2006

If this idiot is talking about Chavez in his "Central American Dictator" remark (which he probably is), he should realize that not only is that guy in S. America (as others have pointed out), but he is also an elected official.

Indeed. When I think of "Central American Dictators", I think of, you know, Anastasio Somoza. Who, strangely enough, was a big buddy of the US government. Perhaps Burgess is referring to El Salvador, and how the US Goverment worked tirelessly to unseat the dictatorship there?

Oh, wait, right.

Yeah, I'm drawing a bit of a blank here.
posted by jokeefe at 2:58 PM on October 31, 2006

How can you eat puppies?

I mean, there's hardly any meat on those tiny little things.

One word, clevershark: crock pot.
posted by jokeefe at 2:59 PM on October 31, 2006

Sounds like Paul needs a hug. Or a nap.
posted by effwerd at 3:14 PM on October 31, 2006

"President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday ...."

By now even the far-right Republicans acknowledge that Dems have atleast 50% of America with them. Assuming Dems take control of atleast one chamber of House, doesn't the war-against-terror imply that Bush should be waging a war at home first? I mean, why go thousand of miles across the seas, to fight them there..when they are right here in your backyard? No surprise this coming from The Chump.
posted by forwebsites at 3:20 PM on October 31, 2006

So how come this editorial sucks so fucking much?

EX - speechwriter, and bizarro Toby Ziegler, both are out of work now.
posted by crunchland at 3:36 PM on October 31, 2006

Kennedy had Sorensen. Bush, fittingly, had this person.
posted by matteo at 3:50 PM on October 31, 2006

Or going on a first date with a raging boner.

Is that hair gel?
posted by Cyrano at 4:02 PM on October 31, 2006

Anyone got a picture of this charming gentleman?
posted by slater at 12:34 AM on November 1, 2006

Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their [troops] deaths are not in vain, either.

Bush: leading you into a burning building.
posted by dreamsign at 6:47 AM on November 1, 2006