Bush Bashing...when is it bad when is it criticism?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-07-29 07:21pm

You hear it like some fucking mantra on Fox News, the NY Post has a Bush Bash meter for every night of the convention, its constantly trotted out by oundits on both sides. Bush Bashing seems to be bad. If you listen to O'Reilly and others, if there's ANY BUsh Bashing then the Democratic convention has somehow betrayed America.

When did bashing Bush or any president for that matter become something tantamount to treason or slander? When is it wrong to point out the flaws in a president, afterall didn't the Republicans essentially call Clinton an immoral leader when Dole was running against him? So why the sudden sanctity of Bush.

In other words, is valid crtiticism Bush bashing? Because frankly that seems like utter bullshit because the whole point of an opposition party is to point out the flaws in the other side. Or are certain crititques considered crossing the line into bashing? Where or what is that line?

And the worst part is the rising specter of the thought that the president needs to be treated with utmost respect, excuse me that smacks of some sort of monarchist ideals about leadership. If he's a dumbass, I could truly care less whether he's the pope or the president.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-07-29 07:26pm

In other words, is valid crtiticism Bush bashing? Because frankly that seems like utter bullshit because the whole point of an opposition party is to point out the flaws in the other side. Or are certain crititques considered crossing the line into bashing? Where or what is that line?

The difference between bashing and valid criticism is whether or not the criticism is true.

For example, it's valid criticism to say that Bush led us into war based on faulty intelligence and false assumptions and that the conduct of the war could have been handled better.

It's bashing to say that Bush led us into war in order to enrich Halliburton because there is no proof that the accusation is true.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-29 09:28pm

Glocksman wrote:
In other words, is valid crtiticism Bush bashing? Because frankly that seems like utter bullshit because the whole point of an opposition party is to point out the flaws in the other side. Or are certain crititques considered crossing the line into bashing? Where or what is that line?
The difference between bashing and valid criticism is whether or not the criticism is true.

For example, it's valid criticism to say that Bush led us into war based on faulty intelligence and false assumptions and that the conduct of the war could have been handled better.

It's bashing to say that Bush led us into war in order to enrich Halliburton because there is no proof that the accusation is true.

What, other than Halliburton making a profit on the war, and the American tax payer footing the bill

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-07-29 09:33pm

Actually the democrats themselves came out and said they didnt want to Bush Bash, they didnt want it in the convention. They hyped it up themselves...and Ive seen analysis on both CNN and Fox concerning whether certain speeches followed the "rule" or not.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-29 09:46pm

Kerry has wisely decided to seize the moral high ground here. Bush and Cheney, to my knowledge, have not had their names mentioned once in any speeches. I don't even recall references to "my opponents" or anything like that. The speeches have been mostly about the state that the country is in right now and what Kerry is going to do about it. If Bush and his cronies are looking to paint themselves as wounded innocents, they'll get no ammunition from the DNC.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-07-29 09:54pm

UNless they listened to Al last night

But the republicans are vowing to be nice, too. This is gonna be boring!!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-07-29 10:56pm

Crown wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
In other words, is valid crtiticism Bush bashing? Because frankly that seems like utter bullshit because the whole point of an opposition party is to point out the flaws in the other side. Or are certain crititques considered crossing the line into bashing? Where or what is that line?
The difference between bashing and valid criticism is whether or not the criticism is true.

For example, it's valid criticism to say that Bush led us into war based on faulty intelligence and false assumptions and that the conduct of the war could have been handled better.

It's bashing to say that Bush led us into war in order to enrich Halliburton because there is no proof that the accusation is true.
What, other than Halliburton making a profit on the war, and the American tax payer footing the bill

Halliburton may be making money off of the war, but no one has come close to proving the accusation that the war was launched in order to enrich the company.

In the absence of proof, such accusations are either 'Bush-Bashing' or speculation about his motives, depending upon how its phrased.

There's plenty to hit GWB with that is indisputable without muddying the waters with suppositions that may or may not be true.