(no subject)

[emmagrant01]

Oh, this really gives me confidence in my the President. I mean, dude. 0_o

ETA: Hi, people. Just so you know, I am MOCKING the man here. I'm enjoying an opportunity to make fun of him. I'm not making any deep political statements. It's simply funny -- and if you can't see that, maybe you should take a step back for a moment.

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Well, curiously, when you write a small note during a conference, you don't expect people with a telephoto lense to go and read it over your shoulder. I suppose considering the habits of the press towards him (did people ever do this to Clinton?) he should, but I rather like that he's still not become the paranoid freak others *coughcoughNixoncoughcough* in his job were.

Anyway. Bush gets judged by his bladder, Clinton was by his prostate (and assorted glands.) All hail responsible political coverage!

[gmth.livejournal.com]

I suppose considering the habits of the press towards him (did people ever do this to Clinton?)...

You're kidding, right? The press has been far FAR more lenient to Bush over the past few years than they EVER were to Clinton. He's getting roasted now, yeah, because they're finally catching up to what an incompetent he really is. Clinton couldn't make a move for eight years without the press slamming him for it.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

The press? Lenient? To Bush? Are we living in the same universe?

Meanwhile, let me quote Tina Brown on Clinton in the supposedly sober New Yorker: His glamour is undersung. A man in a dinner jacket with more heat than any star in the room. He is vividly in the present tense and dares you to join him there...

[gmth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we're in the same universe but not in the same country. Maybe the press in Europe has been harder on Bush than they have here, but let me assure you, much of the mainstream media here is far more likely to speak favorably of Bush than they ever were to do the same for Clinton.

That's a great quote. It's also *one* quote from a fairly liberal magazine. I'm certain I can pull many quotes along the same lines that have been written about Bush over the years. That proves nothing.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

In media with a comparable stature as the New Yorker? You're on! Winner gets a four-course lunch in Paris! :-)

[gmth.livejournal.com]

From Time magazine: Bush ran big and bold and specific all at the same time, rivaling Reagan in breadth of vision and Clinton in tactical ingenuity. He surpassed both men in winning bigger majorities in Congress and the statehouses. And he did it all while conducting an increasingly unpopular war, with an economy on tiptoes and a public conflicted about many issues but most of all about him.

From Esquire magazine: It happened again this morning. I saw a picture of our president—my president—and my feelings about him were instantly rekindled. The picture was taken after his speech to the graduating seniors at the Air Force Academy. He was wearing a dark suit, a light-blue tie, and a white shirt. His unsmiling visage was grim and purposeful, in pointed contrast to the face of the elaborately uniformed cadet standing next to him, which was lit up with a cocky grin. Indeed, as something more than a frozen moment—as a political statement—the picture might have served, and been intended to serve, as a tableau of the resolve necessary to lift this nation out of this steep and terrible time. The cadet represented the best of what America has to offer, all devil-may-care enthusiasm and willingness to serve. The president, his hair starting to whiten, might have represented something even more essential: the kind of brave and, in his case, literally unblinking leadership that generates enough moral capital to summon the young to war.

There. I provided twice as many quotes as you did. Lunch is on you, then?

I'm out. Sorry to have been unpleasant in your journal, Emma.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Lunch is definitely on me. When did pigs start looping around Notre Dame in serried formation did they run these pieces? My word.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I think you're taking this a wee bit too seriously. Everyone, you included, knows I hate Bush. I have hated him for years, and I have many, many reasons for doing so. After the election, I was a little tired of posting about it on my LJ, because I was so disappointed that I just didn't want to think about politics any more.

And so this post is simply me poking fun at a public figure I do not like. THAT IS ALL IT IS. It isn't a serious political statement. It isn't a call to action. It is mockery, plain and simple. It's no different than Jay Leno telling a Bill Clinton joke on late night TV.

And you know what? I laughed at those. I didn't get my panties in a twist. I adored Clinton as a President, even if I didn't think much about his personal life. When he did something stupid, I laughed, because it was funny. And when he made political moves others disagreed with, I got serious about defending his ideas.

If I were a Bush supporter, I would probably have found this episode endearing. I would have thought it made him look like an average person who got caught picking his nose, or something. So it blows MY mind that so many Bush supporters are now going out of their way to explain and defend his bathroom-permission note-writing, when there are so many other huge and damaging things he's done that could use some justification.

That just tells me you Bush supporters are on the defensive. And looking at his poll numbers, I can see why.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Naaahhh, I just wanted to flex a muscle or two without the thing getting too out of hand, which it would if someone started me on reasons not to hand Iraq on a platter to al-Qaeda, f'rinstance. (Not going to argue it here, I promise.) As a Bushie, I find the episode very very mildly sweet, mostly irrelevant; but it's the constant hammering to make out that Bush has an IQ at room temperature, which he doesn't, which grates. I'd like it if people read his speeches and then argued against; but the slyer method of denying him any capacity to function as an adult, thinking human being (Michael Moore does nothing but that) is a bit disturbing.

Not personal, anyway, and now we return you to your scheduled programming of boyluv and gay Jedi...

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Hoo, boy. I wasn't going to respond to this, but...

I appreciate your enthusiasm and committment to what you believe in, truly. I also appreciate what seems to be an effort to jump to my defense. But I also need to say that shezan is someone I consider a friend, despite the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye on politics. I respect her opinion and I understand where she is coming from. I'm pretty sure she feels the same about me, else she wouldn't be here.

Frankly, it's disturbing to see someone come in and bash her like this, in a way that plays to the worst stereotypes about conservatives. Just because she is a Bush supporter doesn't mean she is anti-gay, an evangelical Christian, someone who would shoot a doctor who performs abortions, someone who would burn a cross on a black person's lawn, etc. She's an intelligent, educated person. And she isn't an American citizen either -- English isn't her first language, yet she communicates very well. Sure, sometimes I wish she wouldn't fly off the handle at people who comment on my LJ, but I really, truly believe she does so out of frustration for being sterotyped as a conservative, time and time again. And I don't blame her, because I have been in that very situation more times than I can count. It's not fun. I'm sure you understand that.

One more thing: if you really want to change people's minds about issues that are important to you, calling them names and likening their political opinions to those of Nazis really doesn't help. A calm, thoughtful, well-presented case and a willingness to listen get you a lot further.

So while I really do appreciate your conviction and support, I'm going to ask you to leave her alone. Okay? Thanks. :-)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

*melts*

You went to bat for me! I'm so touched! (no, I'm not being ironic, I mean this.) Seriously, of course I feel enough in common with you that I am happy to be here. George Orwell, who write many, many, many brilliant things, used to say that there always were people he couldn't imagine not being friends with on the other side, and some crashing imbeciles on his own; and this applies everywhere.

And I would have made the point that the only two times when Bush is actually on the record for stating his personal take on gays & transgender folk, he was actually surprisingly sensitive, as even the NY Times's Maureen Dowd, definitely no Bushie, relates:

President Bush seems pretty unfazed by different orientations. At his recent Yale reunion, among the classmates he greeted at the White House was one Yalie who had changed from a man to a woman.

According to news reports, the president did not blink and warmly greeted the alum, saying: "Now you've come back as yourself."

The same goes with the private tapes that were sold by a previous Bush associate, as reported by a lot of media, but still online on the liberal Australian broadsheet The Age:

Wead suggests that Bush had promised a leading evangelical that he would not appoint any gays to senior posts in the Administration - Bush says: "No, what I said was I wouldn't fire gays... I'm not going to discriminate against people."

I know it sounds strange to many, but here are gay conservatives. And yes, I am a straight woman who loves slash...

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Sure, sometimes I wish she wouldn't fly off the handle at people who comment on my LJ

*sheepish grin*

It's the Russian ancestry, see? And the Left Bank French habits...

but I really, truly believe she does so out of frustration for being sterotyped as a conservative, time and time again

Actuzlly, I can deal with that, because it's always amusing to surprise people (it actually amuses me no end to drop in the middle of a Paris dinner-party that yes, I like Dubya...); what gets my goat is people calling "Fascist" a government they happen not to have voted for, but against whom they can perfectly safely vote again in the next elections...

[shezan.livejournal.com]

someone who would burn a cross on a black person's lawn

Erm, historically, wasn't this usually perpetrated by people who called themselves Democrats? I mean, the KKK - not invented by Republicans. (Killing abortion doctors, alas, yes, by some Republicans, but indeed I do find it revolting and would even if I weren't pro-choice, which I am.)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

historically, wasn't this usually perpetrated by people who called themselves Democrats?

Yes and no.

Prior to the Civil Rights era, the south was predominantly Democratic and predominantly segregated. When President Johnson (aka LBJ, who was a Democrat and a Texan) started to push for desgregation, his advisors told him he would lose the South for the party. And that's exactly what happened: the Democrats became the party of desgregation, civil rights, and protest against the War in Vietnam (which drove many Democrats against LBJ ultimately), and the southern whites who were pro-segregation ran to the Republican party in outrage.

The South has been mostly Republican ever since, and current political lines can be traced back to that time. When I was a child, some very old white people and most black people were Democrats, while everyone else was a Republican. The old Dixiecrats who didn't abandon the party for its deseg stance have mostly died off by now, leaving party differences largely a matter of color -- except for that elusive and mostly white "intellectual elite", which I probably fall into...