I’m getting some interesting responses off my Hate-Bush-First rant. Smokehouse has a series he started yesterday called Pretty Well Sums it Up where he nitpicks some of my language a bit, and exposits extensively on other points.
I haven’t gotten a satisfactory response from the Libber’s yet. There was a member named Jimbo who responded back with “I don’t see the connection between the article you responded to and the hate-Bush-first mentality.”
This is disturbing to me to find that members of the LP don’t know anti-Bush-rhetoric when they see it. Rather than re-writing my article again, I’ll just post it below and maybe we’ll get some responses from the RIC or something.
First of all, Jim, a lot of the responses weren’t direct responses to just what was in this post, but to the category of hate-Bush-first posts that I’ve seen around here. I’ve seen more than my fair share of posts from Frank Gonzales regarding vote-hacking and such.
But to directly address the inspirations for each point:
1) Is self explanatory.
2) Was inspired by the line in the beginning of the forth paragraph: “Considering your support of our criminal government hasled to the death, destruction and misery of millions of people on this planet, that is basically a no-brainer.” And no, that’s not an opinion. That’s the crux of that point – if it’s not close, they can’t cheat. We know both sides cheat in ALL elections. To think otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The election wasn’t won by creative cheating, it was lost by ineffective campaigning.
3) Yes, three is an opinion, but I’m just telling you what everyone else is thinking. I can line up hordes of conservatives and go “Hey, what do you think about the incessent attacks on the President?” and they all say the same thing. I’m not making it up, I’m just relaying information.
4) Again, four is not an opinion, it’s a fact. In fact, four is the exact reason why this hate-Bush-first strategy exists! I’m not sure how much everyone here knows about the national strategy for campaigns, but the whole idea of this vitriol is to polarize the parties. Libertarians are a party of disillusioned people from a variety of parties – the last thing you’d want to do is polarize your base.
5) See three.
If you truly believe that this was a rant inspired by someone’s son coming back from Iraq, then you are very gullible. I want you to just go through the past posts by both Frank Gonzales as well as all the posts on LewRockwell.com by Michael Gaddy. See if you can find one single pro-conservative article on there at all. Let’s list a few of his titles, shall we?
The Only Possible Excuse for War, Challenging James Dobson, Liars who Take Us to War, With the Vigilantes, Breeding Ground for Tyrants, Is There Another ‘Tet’ in Our Future, Indians Should Know Better (than to send their sons to fight for D.C.), and an Inherently Evil Enterprise.
I’m not trying to support the war here (that’s not the scope of this piece), but everything he says in all his articles flies in the face of logic, reason, statistics, and good taste. Through his creative phrasing of the facts, he makes it sound as if these covert and overt operations have increasing killed more and more people since Vietnam. We *know* this is not the case. Iraq II is the first war, conflict, or operation to break the historical downward trend of numbers of casualties and deaths. Furthermore, we know that people who *would* try to cite statistics on this to make the same point are lumping in non-combat with combat deaths. It simply doesn’t make sense to view Iraq II as a costly war in the same breath as Vietnam or World War II.
Of course the debate comes in where our going there is concerned, but certainly not in the casualty rates like Gaddy was making the points of. This factless approach Gaddy takes to anti-war persuasion is in my opinion a natural evolution of the hate-Bush-first because his paper bears many of the same tell-tale phrases as the hate-Bush-firsties, and it’s also devoid of logic and fact, while playing on emotions and fears of the readers.
You said, however, that most of my points were opinions, not facts. Most importantly, who says that my opinions can’t be reasons, as long as they logically follow? Most persuasive arguments and debates are filled with opinions. I didn’t know it was against the rules to talk about them here. If that is in fact the case, I’ll make a note of it. I must say that I’m a bit disappointed that no one at all is making a valid attempt to agree or disagree with my points on this. I’d like to know if the Libertarians are a party of hate-Bush- firsters or if someone actually agrees with me. Seriously. My long standing participation and affiliation in the party is starting to become at stake here. I understand tolerance of divergent views, but when we’re not willing to call a spade a spade (i.e. hating-Bush-first as non-productive and something that turns people off, essentially), then I’m not sure I want to be identified with a group that enjoys that sort of behavior.
/mark “rizzn” hopkins