Anti War Left Shows Bad Form

Yes, they did show bad form. It wasn't polite, and it's not the kind of behavior I'm glad to see.

The demonstration wasn't aimed at the new citizens, however. It was aimed at Bush. Pres. Bush wasn't in the area the day before, nor would he be the day after, the ceremony. I can understand why they siezed the moment.

The polite thing to do would have been to demonstrate silently. The point of demonstrating, though, is to attract attention.. Had they not become rowdy, there would have been no media coverage, and their efforts would have been for nought.

While I agree that the incident wasn't pretty, I can also understand that being pretty couldn't result in an effective demonstration.
That's why I'm not much of a demonstrator. I'm too chicken to want to get caught in the dilemma.

How do you know these people were "Left' btw?
There are quite a few conservative opponents to the war, too.
Are conservative incapable of bad form?

Of course conservatives are capable of bad form, they have made equally distasteful protests at public events.

But in this case the group was from Code Pink, at least according to the CNN and MSNBC reports.

Some acknowledgment that "bad form" is not the exclusive provenance of "the left" up there in the actual post might have been in order.

President Bush, for what it's worth, rarely exposes himself to the public in this manner--probably because he knows he'll draw this type of response.

Are conservative incapable of bad form?

Actually no. Remember that when President Obama takes office. The treatment Bush is receiving will be the same that Obama gets.

As our economy begins to melt down, as gasoline goes to 5 and 6 bucks a gallon. AS our trade deficit widens because of Oil prices and the dollar plunges this will ALL be OBAMA's fault. JUST as the recession that was beginning under Clinton when Bush took office was Bush's fault.

The gop will continue to hammer the tree hugging democrats for not drilling and not build nuclear energy and not building more refineries. The result will be for congress to act in a partisan manner where they have a majority in congress to SEIZE and NATIONALIZE the oil companies and the gasoline refineries because they are convinced they are out to screw the American people.

FAR FETCHED???? You decide.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

In addition Maxine Waters goes on record threatening to "Nationalize" refineries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

Neocon--

I seem to recall that nobody wants a nuke plant or an oil refinery to be built in their own back yard.

FAR FETCHED???? You decide.

George

Perhaps its time to ask them again given 5, 6 or 7 bucks gasoline when before we were asking them when gasoline was 50 cents a gallon.

Neocon--

Indeed, it may in fact be the time to ask them. Although it seems to me they've been asked more recently than when gas was 50 cents a gallon.

By the way, you know how you're blaming Clinton for the recession in the early part of President Bush's first term? Maybe you'll also blame Bush for the recession in the early part of the next President's term?

Look I live in a town with a refinery that is about 1 mile as the bird flies from my house. It employs thousands and you hardly know its there. It has not exploded, nor has it destroyed property values.

The talking points just keep flying. But thats okay. Under king Obama the democrats will just nationalize the industry and build refineries in Beverly hills......Wait no.......your right they would not want it there. Build another one here where I live. 2 more.........three more. They provide great jobs and they bring commerce to the city.

Ill gladly accept a nuke plant too if it ensures Americas continued economic survival.

BP began construction on its $3.8 billion expansion plan earlier this month, after it received its air permit construction approval from IDEM.

Several people and groups have lashed out against the permit, under which the refinery would decrease emissions of four pollutants but would hike sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead. The first appeal of the permit came last week from the Calumet Project and the Global Community Monitor. The groups claimed that the permit fails to protect the minority and poor residents living near the refinery.

BP is trying to upgrade and update their refinery with 3.8 billion dollar expansion project in which they can expand the amount of gasoline they produce. Once again this will spend years in courts as the tree huggers block progress and the rest of the country falls into economic chaos.

And gas prices have what in common with an anti war demonstration?

One example of bad form is using every single comment thread, regardless of topic, like a personal diary for political rants. It would be much better form to set up their own wevsite, instead of hijacking another's.

Yep, it was in very bad taste. They should have let those new citizens have their moment, President Bush or not.

How many active members does Code Pink have - by "active" I mean those who actually disrupt events? I'd venture to say just a couple dozen.

They're a force multiplier, but I'm just not sure which political side they actually benefit. On the one hand, I see stories online that fail identify the disruption at the naturalization ceremony as the same Code Pinkers who always disrupt President Bush and other Republicans, thus giving the casual reader the impression "Wow, every one hates Bush, where ever he goes." So that benefits would benefit the political left.

On the other hand, when the Code Pinkers are identified (or when people figure it out for themselves), some Independents nust conclude: "Well, there goes more crazy lefties / liberals," thus tarring millions of people with the actions of a minuscule (but apparently well-funded) group of pretty repulsive people.

My apologies for the spelling and grammatical errors just above, which is something that sometimes irritates me when I see it in others.

Just a couple points:

First of all, why Patrick do you use the word, "hate" in describing the protesters? I agree with those here who have suggested the naturalization ceremony wasn't the best venue in that it is unfair to the new citizens, and yet Bush makes himself so inaccessable any protesters are limited in their options. But more specifically, what is your basis for using the word, "hate"? If that is indeed the correct word, then you will have no trouble defending it's use.

Secondly, Neocon, this comment of yours: "The treatment Bush is receiving will be the same that Obama gets." This sounds like you've made up your mind before the man even takes office! GWB has an established and verifiable record which has accounts for the disrespect he gets. If Obama is our next president, why not withhold judgement until he actually creates a record of governing? If you've already decided, then you've also given up rights to be considered credible in judging him.

Kryon,
If a police horse is incontinent on Main St, some will automatically blame the lefty radicals. It's what passes for political thinking these days.

What incentive is there, then, for groups like this to behave well? It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And gas prices have what in common with an anti war demonstration?

Has not the mantra of the antiwar been that WE ARE IN IRAQ FOR OIL.

I think it has everything to do with gasoline prices.

Well I used the word hate because I think there is a difference between civil protest and using profanities and insults in the manner these protesters did.

I also consider it hateful to disrupt a ceremony like this. There were many other protesters who stationed themselves on the route to the ceremony and protested there. That way they made their point w/o disrupting the day for those who had worked so hard to get it.

Patrick, in the absence of direct interviews or video clips of the protest, my understanding of your use of the word, "hate", is necessarily limited to your own personal definition. Pardon me if I don't automatically accept that usage as accurate. I agee with you, the venue was not appropriate, but I can also understand why a president who so rarely allows himself to be exposed to a genuine, representative cross-section of society is sought out by his detractors where and when opportunity permits.

Neocon, I am still awaiting a response to the comment/question I posed to you earlier...

Patrick,
I agree with you. The behavior was lousy.
On the other hand, the well behaved demosntrators got no attention, not from the media and not from the President. Demonstrators don't demonstrate for the sake of each other's affirmation.
Did the President issue an 'I hear you' statement to the polite crowd? No.
What to conclude then, except that you have to be rude to get attention?

Looking at it another way, one could say that you are criticizing a symptom without considering the causes of the disease.

Yes, their form was bad. (Distinguish it from J-Sat's gratuitous epee' thrust.) The sun rose again and those at the low tail of the bell curve were up to their usual nuttiness. (May the Left someday expel such people, for whom it is known, even if this defies the most ridiculously broad and loose practice of "inclusion" and of "tolerance.")

* * *
"Are conservative incapable of bad form?

Actually no. Remember that when President Obama takes office. The treatment Bush is receiving will be the same that Obama gets."

The probably is near zero, based on years of experience with Bush and Reagan versus Carter and (yes) Clinton. (Divergence is possible during the most heated moments on conservative talk radio, but their personalities are nowhere as crazy as the likes of Randi Rhodes.) No rational person would bet it would be anywhere close to the same thing.

* * *

"SEIZE and NATIONALIZE the oil companies and the gasoline refineries"

Only idiots like Hinchey ("Social Security will be more valuable in the years to come if we leave it alone") and the late Gus Hall are in favor of such radical nonsense, even if it was on childish peoples' lips during the Iranian revolution-related energy crunch. (Maybe a few even thought of it during the 1970s, but they are on the true fringe.)

* * *

"If a police horse is incontinent on Main St, some will automatically blame the lefty radicals."

C O R R E C T I O N : Some will say "It's Bush's fault!" (like Bhutto's assassination)

* * *

"If Obama is our next president, why not withhold judgement until he actually creates a record of governing? "

He won't have handlers and likely won't be cloistered as Bush is (with Cheney doing much more and often doing what Bush should be doing himself if he could), and it will be intriguing to see who he brings with him to run his administration and the executive branch. It will be many retreads (Carter-Clinton) and fixtures in DC, despite the superficial packaging of "change" that fools only the fool-able; he doesn't dare move much farther left (Krugman as Treasury Secretary???) or most normal, decent Americans will revile his administration (Clinton's lesson learned).

* * *

"I used the word hate because I think there is a difference between civil protest and using profanities and insults in the manner these protesters did."

The Left, while using "hate" to describe its opponents (and dishonestly placing themselves on a higher moral plane when they're usually lower, appealing to base instincts and motives, many darker), in fact has on its far end the truly hateful -- these people hate Bush and hate others such as the Religious Right (they're silent about the radical elements of the Religious Left and blatantly political black churchmen like Obama's pastor that he's trying to elude by broadening his religious appeal currently).

Or as another author put it, the hatred is simply the most extreme form of 1960s-radical "therapeutic alienation." It's a good end in and of itself to consider the USA bad, evil, wrong in various ways (even when in the case of these people they are wrong almost 100% of the time). This is just the most pathological variant of it. (Kind of like the much-smaller radical right who links gays, whom God hates, and deaths in the Iraq war along with AIDS due to religious transgressions. It's mentally diseased nonsense.)

* * *
"I can also understand why a president who so rarely allows himself to be exposed to a genuine, representative cross-section of society is sought out by his detractors where and when opportunity permits"

You cannot honestly blame Bush for this and you are ridiculously superficial if you merely call these extremist scum "detractors" as if they were the same as those who wrinkle their nose or scowl (or in my friend in DC's case, sprint away from the Presidential limo in DC as if it contained toxic waste or something dangerously radioactive) when they see or hear, or hear of, Bush. These radicals are hardly mere "critics" or "detractors" any more than Lee Harvey Oswald was of JFK.

* * *

"Has not the mantra of the antiwar been that WE ARE IN IRAQ FOR OIL."

Do even those idiots still believe that? Have we only seized the oil fields and sealed them off (tthe way we _failed_ to seal Iraq's borders!) and let the rest of the country fend for itself all these years? [sigh] Do they believe that we're that way in the entire Middle East, even though we didn't seize the oil fields there in 1973?

"Looking at it another way, one could say that you are criticizing a symptom without considering the causes of the disease."

The origin can be found in the 1960s radicalism of liberalism in the USA and the rest of the West. No "big bang" moment can be identified but the year 1968 is suitable if one has an unreasonable demand for more precision.

Jspencer

Secondly, Neocon, this comment of yours: "The treatment Bush is receiving will be the same that Obama gets." This sounds like you've made up your mind before the man even takes office! GWB has an established and verifiable record which has accounts for the disrespect he gets. If Obama is our next president, why not withhold judgement until he actually creates a record of governing? If you've already decided, then you've also given up rights to be considered credible in judging him.

The gop fried Bill Clinton for about 6 years. The democrats have went have Bush with a hate filled rhetoric.

What goes around comes around. Barak Obama will be castigated unmercifully. Bill Clinton was a good president and they had him impeached..........You know its coming. Its just a matter if they will actually give him 100 days or start from day one.

There is no 'tit-for-tat' going on between the left and t.he right. The extremists on both sides are simply assholes.

Thanks neocon for responding to my request. I think AustinRoth has it partly right, and while you are correct about the GOP frying WJC for years, the difference is (I really get tired of laboring this point) that WJC was an average president and GWB has been a very bad president. It was clear during the 90s that many republicans were truly full of hate for WJC in the classic sense of the word. I remember those times well, and there was a concerted effort to destroy him well before the oval office incident came to light. In the case of GWB, I admit, the democrats were aghast that someone as problematic and unqualified as he would be chosen for the republican candidate, yet after he showed how incapable he was of governing, their fears were realized. So was there hate coming from them? Probably not until he had a great deal of blood on his hands and not until it became clear how badly he was dragging the country down the wrong road, but mostly the reaction was too all the bad choices, and especially his arrogance in the face of those choices. So is that hate? Is pointing out failure on such a grand scale the same as hating someone for the simple fact of their ideology? I don't think so.

It was clear during the 90s that many republicans were truly full of hate for WJC in the classic sense of the word.

Correct but somehow you seem to be implying that because Bush has not been in the antiwar/far lefts opinion an average president that he deserves the treatment he is getting and it is therefore not hate but somehow constructive criticism or some such rubbish??????

The facts are simple. Heir, Oberfuhrer, Shrub, Mein Fuhrer, American Taliban, Chimperor in Chief, Emperor, King are legitimate tags? They imply no hate.

You seem to say he is unqualified to be president. If that is so then how do you justify Obama being qualified when he has even less experience then Bush.

I am not defending Bush so much as saying that simply what goes around comes around and you see it everyday here at TMV and elsewhere the hate for all Things Bush. Don't believe me. Just Read Shaun Mullens update on the Bush Torture Regime.

"Bush Torture Regime."

Introducing torture into the American story does qualify as something above and beyond the usual politics. The chickens will be coming home to roost for some time to come beczuse of that one
Torture as a symbol of his regime is of Bush's own choosng

"The origin can be found in the 1960s radicalism "

And that sprang out of the ground for no reason whatsoever? Hardly.
Radicalism springs up when peaceful means have no effect. or there is no outlet for the frustration of injustice.

The Communist Party arose because the aristocrats were blind and deaf to the suffering they were inflicting. .
Castro came to power because of the dictatorship that preceded him.

Conservatives just love to start history at the reaction stage. They have no stamach for what the reaction was a reaction to.

The US is darned lucky to have only radicalism to moan about. It could have been a full fledged revolution.
If you don't like the Chavez's of the world, don't give their like the excuse to rise to power. Or flip back a few pages in history to see how one thing leads to another.Cause-effect/casue-effect/cause-effect.