Freerepublic: Rascist interlocutors organize against immigrants.

I read one of the threads there. Here is the kind of comments I read:

To date, I haven't seen a single coherent argument against entering the U.S. legally.

And you won't Imal, because in Mehico they are probably telling them we 'owe' them, besides they are too lazy to do it the legal way!


13 posted on 09/25/2003 11:33 AM PDT by JustPiper (Ted needs a drink- Our "W" is NOT a ONE term President !!!)

I agree the place is spewing hate at a rapid pace. I will write SPLC.

That forum, the Free Republic is the incubator of facism. They keep growing in size and the operations. FReepers (the denisons if that place) have been coming here to INDYmedia and disrupting where they can. They coordinate their efforts to ruin the efforts of those politically left of them via backroom forums and their private E mail system imbedded in their forum.

I recomend everyone go look at that forum as see for yourself. Do a searce on "poll" and see all the polls they "FReep" or go to and skew the results. You think they are merely happy with that activity? Guess again.

Any real and comprehensive exploration of the content and growth of FReepers as a political force scares anyone who does one. Unless you like them, then you join them.

Incidently, INDYmedia is banned from mention, HTML linkage, and posting of INDYmedia articles is banned. That should tell you something right there too.

We know what they're up to. They've been infiltrated. One of their most outspoken activists is really our mole. That's how we stay one step ahead. We know where they live. We know what their cars look like. We're not worried. They're too vulnerable and cowardly to pose a real threat.

You can say you infiltrated, but I doubt it. I have been on that forum in different account names and you don't get into a position of importance without being provably a rightie. (I've been banned many times even when I am well behaved and say nothing out of the ordinary)

<p>Cafe Paranioa (term of endearment for the place) has thousands and thousands of active accounts. Most of the posts are short, terse one liners (example: "Yeah, kill the Hildabeast and jail the IPOTUS!")

<p>How can you infiltrate when their system works to keep posters a herd of inarticulate, angry morons afraid to say too much as it is so obvious bannings occur there on a whim or for very little cause.

<p>If you actually have infiltrated, shut up and exercise operational security. Undoubtibly they know of this and other FReeper topic threads routinely.

<p>If you are a FReeper trying to calm the unwashed leftie masses clicking on INDYmedia, It won't work.

Here is an example of a FReeped poll. If you want to go there and vote too to even things out abit, have at it.

I found this one funny as it has hate verbiage which they try to moderate unsuccessfully out of the body Free Republic because they know it would kill the patient.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991089/posts

Thanks for making us aware of this group. I went there and read some of the content and I am appaled. I will write the Southern Poverty Law Center and let them know about these folks. Free speech is one thing but openly espousing hatred is not acceptable.

From FreeRepublic forum 9-28-2003





I for one have to give credit where it is due. White supremist organizations have been rooted out and basically imasculated for their principled stand on this issue. They have been telling it like it is for years and have suffered their own destruction because of the way they went about it. The rest of society is starting to see the light, unfortunately it may be just a little late. I am not a proponent of skinheads or neo-nazi groups, but it is now possible to understand some of what they have been saying for years, in light of what uncontrolled immigration can, will, and has done to our society.


58 posted on 09/28/2003 6:45 AM PDT by wita

the problem with a belief in racial superiority is that if you look for the superior race.. chances are it is not yours.

Here is a nasty, rasist and Islamic phobic post that is a good example of the best of Free Republic's worst:


<p><hr size=1 noshade=1><a name="3">
<small>To: <b>Brian S</b></small><br>
<p>We can make the Muslims stop hating us:<p><img src="http://www.minresco.com/jpg/ablast.jpg"><p> About the only reliable way...<p> --Boris

<p>Link to it in that <a
href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991007/posts?page=3#3>forum

Here is an image JustPiper posted regarding his feelings about illegal immigrants:

<p><img
src=http://pested.unl.edu/amerroa.jpg>

<p><a
href=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990765/posts?page=12#12>Link to post

<p>These two postsfrom today should give you a good idea about the true nature of the sort of people you find becoming FReepers.

This comment was made in regards to fellow participants in a rally against the Freedom Marchers:

To: Missouri

"Except for wearing hoods and burning crosses they sucked!"


121 posted on 09/28/2003 7:23 PM PDT by JustPiper (Who is Minding Our Border's!!! 1-800- Shock Fences!!!)

This was posted in response to an article about a radio show host who was fired for calling a black mayor a monkey. Read the comments on this thread. these freepers are totally defending the rascist remarks of the talk show host(the remarks get worse).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991783/posts


He should have used the acceptable word, baboon.


4 posted on 09/29/2003 4:02 PM PDT by george wythe

Another Freeper hate post. There are thousands like this there.


"What is going on here? Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the nationand Craig at leastonce upon a time was one of the most righwing members of the Senate. Why aren't the people of a state as small (in population)as Idaho in a rage over this. Are wetbacks that vital to the economy? Are repubs all cowards? Is Idaho about tobecome Mexiforniaed?"


6 posted on 09/26/2003 12:22 PM PDT by robowombat

This is a comment made in regards to the Freedom Ride posted on Freerepublic 9/29/2003:

"I wanted to head down there but couldn't. I wanted to crack some heads of the intolerant lefties that I knew would harass those on the right that don't care if ILLEGALS have rights."



17 posted on 09/29/2003 11:28 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Health insurance, a good economy and quality education are meaningless if you are DEAD!)

freerepbulic.com wont let people link to SF-IMC?

Click here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3751908d3af4.htm

The Free Republic has filed suit against us because they were identified as a “HATE GROUP” in a press release sent out to the media. The details of the lawsuit are below. We are currently looking for information that identifies Freepers as a HATE GROUP. The information on this thread has been useful. If you have more information, please send it directly to me at my email address below. I am named in the MILLION DOLLAR lawsuit and we can use all the help we can get to defend ourselves against this group that is based in Fresno.

In Solidarity,

Mike Rhodes
MikeRhodes [at] Comcast.net

*************************************
Here is what the Free Republic sent to the media last week:

CHARLES L. DOERKSEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
________________

ROWELL BUILDING
2100 Tulare Street, Suite 410
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone 559 233 3434
Facsimile 559 233 3939
E-mail doerksen [at] lightspeed.net




September 22, 2003




PRESS RELEASE

At 9:10 a.m. today, Free Republic LLC filed a Notice of Claim with the City of Fresno, arising from the Human Relations Commission’s news release of September 12, 2003, labeling it a "hate group." A copy of the Notice of Claim, without exhibits, is attached hereto.


The Notice of Claim, which is a legally required first step in filing a lawsuit against a public entity, puts the City of Fresno on notice that Free Republic LLC intends to file a lawsuit for defamation against (1) the City of Fresno, (2) the Human Relations Commission, and (3) Debbie Reyes, Chair of the Human Relations Commission.


Questions regarding this matter may be directed to this office, and additionally, Mr. Doerksen, as well as representatives of Free Republic LLC, can be made available in front of City Hall at 4:00 p.m., today, September 22, 2003, to answer questions if interest in this is expressed.




NOTICE OF CLAIM
(Government Code § 900, et seq.)


TO:
Rebecca Klisch
City Clerk
CITY OF FRESNO
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721

This claim is being presented pursuant to Government Code Section 900, et seq., Miller v. Hoagland (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 57, 61-62 (filing claim as prerequisite for defamation action against public entity and its employees), and all pertinent code sections, statutes and laws of the State of California.


A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT:


Free Republic, LLC
Post Office Box 9771
Fresno, California 93794


B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM CLAIMANT DESIRES

NOTICES TO BE SENT:


Charles L. Doerksen
Attorney at Law
2100 Tulare Street, Suite 410
Fresno, California 93721

Robert J. Taylor, Jr.
Attorney at Law
1200 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 295
Camarillo, California 93010


C. DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE

CLAIM:


Claimant is an independent, grass-roots, conservative organization. Its purpose is to root out political fraud and corruption, to roll back decades of governmental largesse, and to champion causes which further conservatism in the United States of America.


This claim arises from defamatory oral statements and/or more permanent publications made by and/or disseminated by the City of Fresno, by and through its Human Relations Commission, and certain public employees and/or agents of the City of Fresno acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency, the identities of which are currently unknown (hereinafter, collectively the "City of Fresno"). Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno is composed of up to 17 members appointed by the City Council and the Mayor, and has a budget for the 2003 fiscal year estimated at $193,100. Each Council member appoints two members while the Mayor appoints three members. The specific identities of such public employees/agents are currently unknown, but are expected to include, at a minimum, Debbie Reyes, Chair, Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno.


On or about September 12, 2003, the City of Fresno disseminated a News Release entitled, "Human Relations Commission News Release," a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the "Release"). The Release refers to claimant as "a hate group." In addition, the Release states: "This group has also planned a ‘Free Republic Hate Rally Picnic’ in District 6," and accuses claimant of making "threats of violence toward any minority groups that interfere with their rally or picnic." The Release constitutes a false and unprivileged fixed representation to the eye which exposes claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, causes it to be shunned or avoided, and has a tendency to injure claimant in its occupation, trade or business. In addition, the Release charges claimant with a crime in that it accuses claimant of making "threats of violence" towards minority groups.


Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Fresno has made other false and unprivileged statements, either orally or by writing, printing, or other more permanent medium, which have exposed claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which have caused claimant to be shunned or avoided, and have injured it in its occupation, trade or business. (As used in this Notice of Claim, the term "Publication" shall hereinafter refer to the Release as well as to all other defamatory oral statements and/or more permanent publications made by and/or disseminated by the City of Fresno.)


D. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES:


Defamation. The City of Fresno (previously defined to include the City of Fresno, and certain public employees and agents of the City of Fresno acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency, the identities of which are currently unknown), wrongly referred to claimant as "a hate group" and accused claimant of planning a "hate rally" and making "threats of violence toward any minority groups that interfere with their rally or picnic," notwithstanding the City of Fresno’s failure and inability to produce even a scintilla of competent evidentiary or legal support for such defamatory statements. True and correct copies of articles from The Fresno Bee, dated September 14 and 16, 2003, are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and "C," respectively, and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the "Articles"). The Articles attribute statements to Mayor Autry that (1) there is no evidence that claimant is a hate group, (2) the Human Relations Commission is "using the City of Fresno as a tool to attack people without cause," (3) describing the Publications as "inflammatory, reckless, irresponsible and dangerous," and (4) explaining "the worst thing you can say is they’re a hate group." Furthermore, Debbie Reyes, Chair, Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno, has admitted that her "proof" for making the Publications was not "solid." (See Fresno Bee article dated September 16, 2003.)


The Publications are false and unprivileged statements, either orally or by writing, printing, or other more permanent medium, which have exposed claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which have caused claimant to be shunned or avoided, and have injured it in its occupation, trade or business. As a result of the defamatory Publications, claimant is entitled to be compensated by the City of Fresno (and the responsible public employees/agents).


The Publications constitute defamation (i.e. libel and/or slander per se) based upon Civil Code Sections 45 and 46 (as well as other statutory and judicial authority):




Libel. The California Legislature has defined libel as a "false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Cal. Civ. Code § 45.)

Slander. The California Legislature has defined slander as "a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: (1) Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; … (3) Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits." (Cal. Civ. Code § 46.)

E. AMOUNT OF CLAIM:


Claimant seeks general damages for loss of reputation, shame and mortification. Claimant seeks special damages with respect to damages it has suffered to its business, trade, profession or occupation. Finally, claimant requests exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the responsible public employees/agents for making the defamatory Publications with actual malice. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the public employees/agents possessed a state of mind arising from the ill will toward the claimant, and did not have a good faith belief in the truth of the defamatory Publications. Accordingly, the acts of public employees were made with actual malice, and were fraudulent and justify the imposition of punitive damages.


Claimant’s damages are currently unknown, but are anticipated to be well in excess of $1,000,000, but regardless, are in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of an unlimited civil case.


F. WITNESSES/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY:


At this time, claimant believes that the following persons, in addition to its members (including but not limited to Jim Robinson), would have knowledge regarding the events of this claim and/or participated in the acts and/or omissions which caused the injury to claimant:


Debbie Reyes, Chair, Human Relations Commission, City of Fresno

Human Relations Commission members – Lucille Gahvejian and Shirley Rowe (appointed by Mayor Alan Autry); Enrique Reade and Reina C. Pineda (appointed by Council Member Tom Boyajian); Dr. David Roy (appointed by Council Member Brian Calhoun); Ethel King (appointed by Council Member Cynthia Sterling); Dr. Sudarshan Kapoor (appointed by Council Member Brad Castillo); Gail A. Gaston (Vice-Chair) and Arthur Dyson (appointed by Council Member Mike Dages); and Cary Catalano and Rudy Mosqueda (appointed by Council Member Henry T. Perea).

Alan Autry – Mayor, City of Fresno

Fresno City Council members – Tom Boyajian, Brian Calhoun, Cynthia Sterling, Brad Castillo, Mike Dages, Jerry Duncan, and Henry T. Perea.

Nicholas DeGraff – Member, Peace Fresno

Mike Rhodes – Editor, Community Alliance magazine

Dated: September ___, 2003


_________________________
Charles L. Doerksen,

Robert John Taylor, Jr.,
Attorneys for claimant
Free Republic, LLC

Here are two posts to a thread titled: Nation of Aztlan Endorses Cruz Bustamante

yonif

Just like Palestinians is right. I had no idea. If you follow that link to the Atzlan site, there are several articles and graphics
showing solidarity with their "occupied" Palestinian "brothers." The Israeli flag with the Star of David replaced by the Swastika
is a lovely touch, too. Personally, I think these MEChistas are way too cowardly to take any kind of action that might put their bronze butts at risk.
But you never know.

19 posted on 09/30/2003 9:52 PM PDT by MNLDS (Moving to Turkmenistan, where all the jobs are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: yonif

Speaking as a former Mexican (dual citizenship lost this past March) all I can say is... Mecha traitors deserve to be shot.

Btw, who here was hoping that Gary Coleman got into the debates just so we could hear him say "Whaja talkin' bout
Bustamante?"

37 posted on 09/30/2003 10:28 PM PDT by ChicagoHebrew [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Mike and No Shortage:

The Freepers coninue to fling their scrubby little turds at Hispanics, Gays,Native americans and all others who don't meet their narrow definition of what a good American is.

We will be more than happy, we will be thrilled to continue reading the comments on FreeRepublic and posting a cross-section of their vile hatred.

The citizens of Fresno who identified FreeRepublic as a hate group deserve to be supported and commended.

From what I can discern, the administrators are scrambling to clean up the site. But it is too late as activists have been documenting a pattern of hate speech past and present.


The results of the lawsuit will be that FreeRepublic will be further exposed as a beacon of hate. they are going to have a hard time coming out of this looking good.

How can you say a word when the various IndyMedias are full of Jew hating NeoNazis and terrorist sympathizers, America haters, and racist hate spewers of all things white?

When your kind shouts of "racism" ultimately it's to cull favoritism of your own kind, which makes you a racist too. If you have an angle, then you're a racist, a Nationalist, whatever. That is, unless you're an immobilized Borg.

More Freeper Comments
by No shortage of hate there Monday September 29, 2003 at 08:06 PM

This was posted in response to an article about a radio show host who was fired for calling a black mayor a monkey. Read the comments on this thread. these freepers are totally defending the rascist remarks of the talk show host(the remarks get worse).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991783/posts

He should have used the acceptable word, baboon.

4 posted on 09/29/2003 4:02 PM PDT by george wythe

-------------------

The word "baboon" was used because for a frigging week there's been this radio ad for another shitty ABC show called "It's All Relative", where someone says he's a Irish American Catholic.... and a homo sounding Leftist pipes up and says "baboon".


And last week on Harvards campus some Leftist had a sign saying "It's okay to hate Bush".

It's okay for all you bedwetters to hate, right?

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030929&s=chait092903

THE CASE FOR BUSH HATRED.
Mad About You
by Jonathan Chait
Post date: 09.18.03
Issue date: 09.29.03


I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism--"I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies"--conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.

There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling." Columnist Robert Novak described it as a "hatred ... that I have never seen in 44 years of campaign watching."

Yet, for all its pervasiveness, Bush hatred is described almost exclusively as a sort of incomprehensible mental affliction. James Traub, writing last June in The New York Times Magazine, dismissed the "hysteria" of Bush haters. Conservatives have taken a special interest in the subject. "Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush--a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological--unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around," writes Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine. "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from." Even writers like David Brooks and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard--the sorts of conservatives who have plenty of liberal friends--seem to regard it from the standpoint of total incomprehension. "Democrats have been driven into a frenzy of illogic by their dislike of George W. Bush," explains Caldwell. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks, noting that Democrats have grown "so caught up in their own victimization that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering."

Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.

One reason Bush hatred is seen as inherently irrational is that its immediate precursor, hatred of Bill Clinton, really did have a paranoid tinge. Conservatives, in retrospect, now concede that some of the Clinton haters were a little bit nutty. But they usually do so only in the context of declaring that Bush hatred is as bad or worse. "Back then, [there were] disapproving articles--not to mention armchair psychoanalysis--about Clinton-hating," complains Byron York in a National Review story this month. "Today, there appears to be less concern." Adds Brooks, "Now it is true that you can find conservatives and Republicans who went berserk during the Clinton years, accusing the Clintons of multiple murders and obsessing how Vince Foster's body may or may not have been moved. ... But the Democratic mood is more pervasive, and potentially more self-destructive."

It's certainly true that there is a left-wing fringe of Bush haters whose lurid conspiracy-mongering neatly parallels that of the Clinton haters. York cites various left-wing websites that compare Bush to Hitler and accuse him of murder. The trouble with this parallel is, first, that this sort of Bush-hating is entirely confined to the political fringe. The most mainstream anti-Bush conspiracy theorist cited in York's piece is Alexander Cockburn, the ultra-left, rabidly anti-Clinton newsletter editor. Mainstream Democrats have avoided delving into Bush's economic ties with the bin Laden family or suggesting that Bush invaded Iraq primarily to benefit Halliburton. The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard.

A second, more crucial difference is that Bush is a far more radical president than Clinton was. From a purely ideological standpoint, then, liberal hatred of Bush makes more sense than conservatives' Clinton fixation. Clinton offended liberals time and again, embracing welfare reform, tax cuts, and free trade, and nominating judicial moderates. When budget surpluses first appeared, he stunned the left by reducing the national debt rather than pushing for more spending. Bush, on the other hand, has developed into a truly radical president. Like Ronald Reagan, Bush crusaded for an enormous supply-side tax cut that was anathema to liberals. But, where Reagan followed his cuts with subsequent measures to reduce revenue loss and restore some progressivity to the tax code, Bush proceeded to execute two additional regressive tax cuts. Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state.
And, while there has been no shortage of liberal hysteria over Bush's foreign policy, it's not hard to see why it scares so many people. I was (and remain) a supporter of the war in Iraq. But the way Bush sold it--by playing upon the public's erroneous belief that Saddam had some role in the September 11 attacks--harkened back to the deceit that preceded the Spanish-American War. Bush's doctrine of preemption, which reserved the right to invade just about any nation we desired, was far broader than anything he needed to validate invading a country that had flouted its truce agreements for more than a decade. While liberals may be overreacting to Bush's foreign policy decisions-- remember their fear of an imminent invasion of Syria?--the president's shifting and dishonest rationales and tendency to paint anyone who disagrees with him as unpatriotic offer plenty of grounds for suspicion.

It was not always this way. During the 2000 election, liberals evinced far less disdain for Bush than conservatives did for Al Gore. As The New York Times reported on the eve of the election, "The gap in intensity between Democrats and Republicans has been apparent all year." This "passion gap" manifested itself in the willingness of many liberals and leftists to vote for Ralph Nader, even in swing states. It became even more obvious during the Florida recount, when a December 2000 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Gore voters more willing to accept a Bush victory than vice-versa, by a 47 to 28 percent margin. "There is no great ideological chasm dividing the candidates," retiring Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan told the Times. "Each one has his prescription-drugs plan, each one has his tax-cut program, and the country obviously thinks one would do about as well as the other."

Most Democrats took Bush's victory with a measure of equanimity because he had spent his campaign presenting himself as a "compassionate conservative"--a phrase intended to contrast him with the GOP ideologues in Congress--who would reduce partisan strife in Washington. His loss of the popular vote, and the disputed Florida recount, followed by his soothing promises to be "president of all Americans," all fed the widespread assumption that Bush would hew a centrist course. "Given the circumstances, there is only one possible governing strategy: a quiet, patient, and persistent bipartisanship," intoned a New Yorker editorial written by Joe Klein.
Instead, Bush has governed as the most partisan president in modern U.S. history. The pillars of his compassionate-conservative agenda--the faith-based initiative, charitable tax credits, additional spending on education--have been abandoned or absurdly underfunded. Instead, Bush's legislative strategy has revolved around wringing out narrow, party-line votes for conservative priorities by applying relentless pressure to GOP moderates--in one case, to the point of driving Vermont's James Jeffords out of the party. Indeed, when bipartisanship shows even the slightest sign of life, Bush usually responds by ruthlessly tamping it down. In 2001, he convinced GOP Representative Charlie Norwood to abandon his long-cherished patients' bill of rights, which enjoyed widespread Democratic support. According to a Washington Post account, Bush and other White House officials "met with Norwood for hours and issued endless appeals to party loyalty." Such behavior is now so routine that it barely rates notice. Earlier this year, a column by Novak noted almost in passing that "senior lawmakers are admonished by junior White House aides to refrain from being too chummy with Democrats."

When the September 11 attacks gave Bush an opportunity to unite the country, he simply took it as another chance for partisan gain. He opposed a plan to bolster airport security for fear that it would lead to a few more union jobs. When Democrats proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security, he resisted it as well. But later, facing controversy over disclosures of pre-September 11 intelligence failures, he adopted the idea as his own and immediately began using it as a cudgel with which to bludgeon Democrats. The episode was telling: Having spent the better part of a year denying the need for any Homeland Security Department at all, Bush aides secretly wrote up a plan with civil service provisions they knew Democrats would oppose and then used it to impugn the patriotism of any Democrats who did--most notably Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee veteran running for reelection who, despite his support for the war with Iraq and general hawkishness, lost his Senate race thanks to an ugly GOP ad linking him to Osama bin Laden.

All this helps answer the oft-posed question of why liberals detest Bush more than Reagan. It's not just that Bush has been more ideologically radical; it's that Bush's success represents a breakdown of the political process. Reagan didn't pretend to be anything other than what he was; his election came at the crest of a twelve-year-long popular rebellion against liberalism. Bush, on the other hand, assumed office at a time when most Americans approved of Clinton's policies. He triumphed largely because a number of democratic safeguards failed. The media overwhelmingly bought into Bush's compassionate-conservative facade and downplayed his radical economic conservatism. On top of that, it took the monomania of a third-party spoiler candidate, plus an electoral college that gives disproportionate weight to GOP voters--the voting population of Gore's blue-state voters exceeded that of Bush's red-state voters--even to bring Bush close enough that faulty ballots in Florida could put him in office.

But Bush is never called to task for the radical disconnect between how he got into office and what he has done since arriving. Reporters don't ask if he has succeeded in "changing the tone." Even the fact that Bush lost the popular vote is hardly ever mentioned. Liberals hate Bush not because he has succeeded but because his success is deeply unfair and could even be described as cheating.

It doesn't help that this also happens to be a pretty compelling explanation of how Bush achieved his station in life. He got into college as a legacy; his parents' friends and political cronies propped him up through a series of failed business ventures (the founder of Harken Energy summed up his economic appeal thusly: "His name was George Bush"); he obtained the primary source of his wealth by selling all his Harken stock before it plunged on bad news, triggering an inconclusive Securities Exchange Commission insider-trading investigation; the GOP establishment cleared a path for him through the primaries by showering him with a political war chest of previously unthinkable size; and conservative justices (one appointed by his father) flouted their own legal principles--adopting an absurdly expansive federal role to enforce voting rights they had never even conceived of before--to halt a recount that threatened to put his more popular opponent in the White House.

Conservatives believe liberals resent Bush in part because he is a rough-hewn Texan. In fact, they hate him because they believe he is not a rough-hewn Texan but rather a pampered frat boy masquerading as one, with his pickup truck and blue jeans serving as the perfect props to disguise his plutocratic nature. The liberal view of Bush was captured by Washington Post (and former tnr) cartoonist Tom Toles, who once depicted Bush being informed by an adviser that he "didn't hit a triple. You were born on third base." A puzzled Bush replies, "I thought I was born at my beloved hardscrabble Crawford ranch," at which point his subordinate reminds him, "You bought that place a couple years ago for your presidential campaign."

During the 1990s, it was occasionally noted that conservatives despised Clinton because he flouted their basic values. From the beginning, they saw him as a product of the 1960s, a moral relativist who gave his wife too much power. But what really set them off was that he cheated on his wife, lied, and got away with it. "We must teach our children that crime does not pay," insisted former California Representative and uber-Clinton hater Bob Dornan. "What kind of example does this set to teach kids that lying like this is OK?" complained Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.

In a way, Bush's personal life is just as deep an affront to the values of the liberal meritocracy. How can they teach their children that they must get straight A's if the president slid through with C's--and brags about it!--and then, rather than truly earning his living, amasses a fortune through crony capitalism? The beliefs of the striving, educated elite were expressed, fittingly enough, by Clinton at a meeting of the Aspen Institute last month. Clinton, according to New York magazine reporter Michael Wolff, said of the Harken deal that Bush had "sold the stock to buy the baseball team which got him the governorship which got him the presidency." Every aspect of Bush's personal history points to the ways in which American life continues to fall short of the meritocratic ideal.

But perhaps most infuriating of all is the fact that liberals do not see their view of Bush given public expression. It's not that Bush has been spared from any criticism--far from it. It's that certain kinds of criticism have been largely banished from mainstream discourse. After Bush assumed office, the political media pretty much decided that the health of U.S. democracy, having edged uncomfortably close to chaos in December 2000, required a cooling of overheated passions. Criticism of Bush's policies--after a requisite honeymoon--was fine. But the media defined any attempt to question Bush's legitimacy as out-of-bounds. When, in early February, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe invoked the Florida debacle, The Washington Post reported it thusly: "Although some Democratic leaders have concluded that the public wants to move past the ill will over the post-election maneuvering that settled the close Florida contest, McAuliffe plainly believes that with some audiences--namely, the Democratic base of activists he was addressing yesterday--a backward-looking appeal to resentment is for now the best way to motivate and unite an often-fractious party." (This was in a news story!) "It sounds like you're still fighting the election," growled NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." "So much for bipartisanship!" huffed ABC's Sam Donaldson on "This Week."
Just as mainstream Democrats and liberals ceased to question Bush's right to hold office, so too did they cease to question his intelligence. If you search a journalistic database for articles discussing Bush's brainpower, you will find something curious. The idea of Bush as a dullard comes up frequently--but nearly always in the context of knocking it down. While it's described as a widely held view, one can find very few people who will admit to holding it. Conservatives use the theme as a taunt--if Bush is so dumb, how come he keeps winning? Liberals, spooked, have concluded that calling Bush dumb is a strategic mistake. "You're not going to get votes by assuming that, as a party, you're a lot smarter than the voters," argued Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed last November. "Casting Bush as a dummy also plays into his strategy of casting himself as a Texas common man," wrote Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne in March 2001.

Maybe Bush's limited brainpower hasn't hampered his political success. And maybe pointing out that he's not the brightest bulb is politically counterproductive. Nonetheless, however immaterial or inconvenient the fact may be, it remains true that Bush is just not a terribly bright man. (Or, more precisely, his intellectual incuriosity is such that the effect is the same.) On the rare occasions Bush takes an extemporaneous question for which he hasn't prepared, he usually stumbles embarrassingly. When asked in July whether, given that Israel was releasing Palestinian prisoners, he would consider releasing famed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, Bush's answer showed he didn't even know who Pollard is. "Well, I said very clearly at the press conference with Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Abbas, I don't expect anybody to release somebody from prison who'll go kill somebody," he rambled. Bush's unscripted replies have caused him to accidentally change U.S. policy on Taiwan. And, while Bush's inner circle remains committed to the pretense of a president in total command of his staff, his advisers occasionally blurt out the truth. In the July issue of Vanity Fair, Richard Perle admitted that, when he first met Bush, "he didn't know very much."

While liberals have pretty much quit questioning Bush's competence, conservatives have given free rein to their most sycophantic impulses. Some of this is Bush's own doing--most notably, his staged aircraft-carrier landing, a naked attempt to transfer the public's admiration for the military onto himself (a man, it must be noted, who took a coveted slot in the National Guard during Vietnam and who then apparently declined to show up for a year of duty). Bush's supporters have spawned an entire industry of hagiographic kitsch. You can buy a twelve-inch doll of Bush clad in his "Mission Accomplished" flight suit or, if you have a couple thousand dollars to spend, a bronze bust depicting a steely-eyed "Commander-in-Chief" Bush. National Review is enticing its readers to fork over $24.95 for a book-length collection of Bush's post-September 11, 2001, speeches--any and all of which could be downloaded from the White House website for free. The collection recasts Bush as Winston Churchill, with even his most mundane pronouncements ("Excerpted Remarks by the President from Speech at the Lighting of the National Christmas Tree," "Excerpted Remarks by the President from Speech to the Missouri Farmers Association") deemed worthy of cherishing in bound form. Meanwhile, the recent Showtime pseudo-documentary "DC 9/11" renders the president as a Clint Eastwood figure, lording over a cringing Dick Cheney and barking out such implausible lines as "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me. I'll be here!"

Certainly Clinton had his defenders and admirers, but no similar cult of personality. Liberal Hollywood fantasies--"The West Wing," The American President--all depict imaginary presidents who pointedly lack Clinton's personal flaws or penchant for compromise. The political point was more to highlight Clinton's deficiencies than to defend them.

The persistence of an absurdly heroic view of Bush is what makes his dullness so maddening. To be a liberal today is to feel as though you've been transported into some alternative universe in which a transparently mediocre man is revered as a moral and strategic giant. You ask yourself why Bush is considered a great, or even a likeable, man. You wonder what it is you have been missing. Being a liberal, you probably subject yourself to frequent periods of self-doubt. But then you conclude that you're actually not missing anything at all. You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.

There. That feels better.