If You Hate Bush, Please Try These Titles

The Hatemonger's Quarterly has a list of prospective titles for anti-Bush books, including the following:

?Killing Babies: A Day in the Life of Our Current President?

?George Bush is the Most Odious Dictator of All Times, Even Though Other Odious Dictators Would Never Allow Me to Publish This Book If it Were about Them?

?Bring Peace Unto the World: Kill Bush?

Whole list here.

Comments

[dhex]

i think there will continue to be some bush haterisms going on, as NOTBUSH has become an important part of their identity for many. while clinton was accused of some truly screwball stuff, it's not like bush hasn't been linked to everything from skin cancer to tooth decay.

though i think part of this is due to the inability of john kerry to rouse anything but NOTBUSH, whereas hatred of clinton was either ideological or purely of the reactionary, anti-sex, eschatological whackjobs who populate this great country of ours.

[Don]

"I don't know. I find it less likely, though. Bush hatred is focused on things he did as president and as a candidate - screwing with intelligence, starting a war, misleading the public about his implications, etc."

Nonsense. Bush hatred began well before 2000, and peaked in 2000 when Gore lost the election (a local peak--it's peaking again). A large part of the Bush hatred was due to the close nature of the 2000 election.

[Phil]

What Don said. I was hearing this same stuff about Bush -- "draft-dodging, coke-snorting, money-wasting, dim-witted son of privilege whose grandfather was a Nazi collaborator" -- well before a vote was ever cast in 2000.

Joe, I'll bet you $50 we're still seeing the Bush-hating stuff at least four years after he's out of office.

[Ken Shultz]

As working titles, may I suggest:

"Why We Torture: Moral Clarity and the War of Fear"

and

"Profiles in Incompetence"

[B.P.]

Yeah, no conspiracy theories about stealing elections, authorizing pipelines through Afghanistan, business deals with Bin Laden, etc., etc. in connection with Bush these days.

I was in bookstores in four airports last week, all of which were littered with literally dozens of "Bush is an evil warlord who has plunged us into a new dark ages"-type books. Everyone has one out now. I dislike Bush as much as any good libertarian, but I don't construct a life of fantasy around it. At least hate the prick on the merits.

[Mark S.]

Here are some of my titles:

"The Bush Family Cookbook: 500 Recipes For Iraqi And African-American Children."

"Bush's Inadequacy: Revelations Of A Scorned Sorority Chick"

"Strange Aeons: The Secret Pact Between George W. Bush And Great Cthulhu"

...and for the children's book section:

"Geroge W. Bush Is A Stinky Doo-Doo Head."

[joe]

Don, Phil, I think you're conflating normal attack dog campaigning with the Hate Bush/Hate Clinton phenomenon. George W. Bush didn't get attacked any worse in 2000 than Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, or George H. W. Bush.

There was a clear shift in tone after the election debacle, but Bush hatred didn't really get moving until 2002.

I'm not taking any bit that lets you move the goal posts like that, Phil.

[Britton]

I didn't hate Bush until he started his smear campaign to make Courtney Love look like an unfit mother.

[Phil]

Moving what goal posts? Clinton has been out of office nearly four years, and you're complaining about the anti-Clinton stuff still coming out. I'm proposing the same time period for Bush. You have terms you like better? Throw them out there. Put your money where your mouth is.

Seriously, though -- if Bush-hatred was not already in full swing prior to the election in 2000, where did all those protestors that we saw in the Fahrenheit 9/11 footage come from? They just arose ex nihilo during those 35 days?

[joe]

That's the goal-post moving I'm talking about: you're now counting normal political opposition as "Bush hatred."

[Phil]

I think you're drawing a distinction without a difference, or trying to propose some sort of Clintonian Exceptionalism, or something. The Bush stuff, just as you claim for Clinton, " . . . was primarily focused on personal stuff, got going before he even took office, and expanded to draw in his presidential activities . . . " So what's the difference?

What would you accept as evidence of "Bush-hatred?" If you won't accept actual, you know, examples, you're setting a rather high bar.

[Phil]

By the way, my friend Michael Moore told me that the protests and near-riots on Inauguration Day were unique in American history. How does that count as "normal political opposition?"

[joe]

When did you start getting your history from Michael Moore?

I'm distinguishing Bush hatred from Clinton hatred on the following theory: Bush hatred was motivated by his behavior as president, and came to encompass him as a person. Clinton hatred was motivated by hatred of Clinton as a person, and came to encompass his actions as president. Team Bush's behavior surrouding the contested vote count clearly fits more into "actions as president" than who is as a person.

Still, the opposition towards Bush in early 2001 was a molehill next to the mountain of hatred that followed his push for an Iraq war.

[kevrob]

Perhaps the Clinton-hating will subside once Billy-boy actually leaves the public stage. Bubba was bloviating on Letterman just last night, doing his whole legacy-salvaging act, including making affirmative declarations that Sandy Berger didn't do anything illegal at the National Archives, something he is in no position to know about, one way or the other.

If GWB loses in the fall, he will undoubtedly retire to his ranch, maybe replace Bud Selig as Commissioner of baseball, and otherwise drop off the national political radar. Had he not goofed up with the nasty divorce, I'd predict that Jeb Bush would be the new target, as he made a run at the White House. If George gets back in and finishes a second term, there will be maximum frothing all through it, but all will train their rhetorical guns at the possible 2008 nominees.

Kevin

[Phil]

Hey, I just follow the Zeitgeist when it comes to history. Anyhoo, maybe we just experienced different types of people and different corners of the Internet prior to Nov. 2000, but I was seeing Bush hatred from a not-insignificant number of people that was indistinguishable in tone, volume and frequency from what you see today. And it all focused on the personal.

I'm still up for that bet.

[jr.]

yeah, "Bush haters" pointing out the war in Iraq's failure (billions of dollars spent, a lot unaccounted for and very little security in that country to show for it, for example) is a 'personal' attack.

Jeez.

[joe]

Do you think there will still be new hate-Bush books being published years after his term ends, like the hate-Clinton books that keep coming out?

[dan]

What would the be title of the latest 'hate clinton book'?

[joe]

I believe it's called "Dereliction of Duty" or somesuch military term. I saw it plugged on FauxNooz last week.

[wellfellow]

Joe,

Do you NOT think there will still be new hate-Bush books being published years after his term ends, like the hate-Clinton books that keep coming out?

[MJ]

"There was a clear shift in tone after the election debacle, but Bush hatred didn't really get moving until 2002."-joe

BS, it was always there. The left had a visceral dislike of the man from at least the moment it became clear he'd be the GOP nominee. They accused him of being sympathetic to a trio of racist murderers because he wouldn't support a hate crime law, for crying out loud. If it got worse in '02, it was because the left saw the congressional elections and FL gubanatorial election as referendums on Bush, and they were shocked to come out on the short end on those too.

[joe]

I don't know. I find it less likely, though. Bush hatred is focused on things he did as president and as a candidate - screwing with intelligence, starting a war, misleading the public about his implications, etc. You don't hear the crazy conspiracies about Whitewater, cocaine smuggling, ordering hits against personal friends, his marriage, yadda yadda yadda. Ergo, once he is no longer a political player, the public interested in hating him will become much smaller.

The other side of the coin is the brisk trade in Clinton-hater-hater books, like "Blinded by the Right" and "The Hunting of the President." The way Clinton haters carried out their efforts (Arkansas project et al) spawned an anti-anti-Clinton industry, quite distinct from ordinary (ordinary?) Democratic politics. Whereas the counter-strike to Bush hatred has been incorporated into the daily operations of the RNC and White House. Once Bush is gone, these troops will move on.

[Phil]

Yeah, there's certainly no market for books or major motion pictures about George W. Bush's National Guard service or alleged cocaine use or failed oil businesses or ownership of the Texas Rangers or relationship with the Saudi Arabian royal family. All of which, apparently, occurred between Jan. 19, 2001 and this morning.

[zorel]

mostly agree with Joe on this one. Once Bush is out of office, he will "move on" and the Bush haters and anti- Bush haters will also move on.

The problem with Clinton is, other than "moving on" from the crimes, he (and his wife) are not really moving on. They are here in public life on the center stage, and shouldn't expect their opponents to move on.

(personally I am for Bill Clinton to stick around and somehow use his name/fame/charisma for some beneficial purpose - and building a better legacy for himself. such talent shouldn't have to go waste! Even a loser like Carter built a better legacy by sticking around and doing stuff)

[wellfellow]

Joe,

Perhaps there won't be the Bush hating books after he's gone, I'd guess because of the oversaturation. I think when he's gone both parties will be happy to not have to keep talking about it.

[joe]

But you see, Phil, the Clinton-hating industry got going even before he took the oath. In the early Fall of 1992, the Washington Times ran a story accusing him of being a KGB agent. While Bush hatred is based on things he did in office, and has expanded to draw in all sorts of unrelated matters, Clinton hatred worked the opposite way; it was primarily focused on personal stuff, got going before he even took office, and expanded to draw in his presidential activities.

Clinton hating has gone beyond his presidency, because it was about things that went beyond his presidency. Bush hatred is about his performance in office; once he no longer is in office, performing, I don't think the haters will have much motivation to keep the fire burning. Whereas Clinton, just being private citizen Bill Clinton, is enough to motivate his haters to action.

[thoreau]

I think the Bush-haters will move on for an entirely different reason: They'll start writing books about the new President. If it's Kerry in 2005 or some other Democrat in 2009 they'll be writing books about why we need to implement that President's agenda ASAP or the world will end. If it's a GOP successor in 2009 they'll stay in attack mode but switch targets.

[gaius marius]

i think if clinton had lost in '96, he'd have passed on into the ether noiselessly. there's something about eight years as opposed to four that means transcendant vitriol. the opposition never gets its revenge in the field, and so it is left to eternal revisionism.

should dubya win in november, i think the level of partisan vitriol and speculation on all sides will escalate to new lows, as it were -- and dubya will be mythologized/deomnized anew.

[garym]

If we're talking about longevity, let's not forget Quayle-bashing. I know someone who kept singing a song about his misspelling of "potato" years after he was out of office.

[Andrew]

I think you are all wrong. Bush hatred will die after November 2004...just as Reagan hatred began to subside after Nov 1984.

To an extent, that is. When Reagan died recently, coffeeshop kids who couldn't have been conceived at the time could still recite Chomskyite mantras on the Horrific 80's.

How about you joe? Was Reagan the Devil, himself? Or have you gotten over that nonsense by now?