Safe Mode: On
Political Hatred

JEFF JACOBY
A new low in Bush-hatred
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new lows to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the ``interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a ``fraud" that Bush ``cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another ( Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a ``lying bastard," a ``filth spewer," an ``evil maniac," a ``fuehrer," and a ``terrorist" guilty of ``blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What else can they say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in ``The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. ``Like Fredo," she said, ``somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: ``John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is ``Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the president. ``I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words ``Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the ``KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, ``to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to ``Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres today at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, the movie opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's codirectors, high-mindedly describes ``Death of a President" as ``a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, Bush's assassination is ``harrowing," he says, but what the film is really about is ``how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing ``Death of a President," the next Hinckley may get a more grandiose idea: Shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.


Click to view image: '249558-Bush43.jpg'

Added: Nov-13-2008 
By: menderman
In:
Iraq, Iran, News
Tags: Bush, Obama, politics, Hate, crime
Marked as: approved
Views: 7954 | Comments: 54 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 1 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • The liberal media,Hollywood,and the rest of the Democrat machine convinced people to hate bush. It was a marketing scam.And many people bought into it.People were sold a bill of goods. They were manipulated and brainwashed and never realized it.They were taught to memorize slogans without knowing why or what they meant.It was easy for uninformed hipsters and lazy thinkers to buy in to. And then they flattered themselves by thinking they were "smarter" than everyone else.

    The Democrat More..

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (4)

  • the hatred towards bush is because he is a scandal .

    The worst president in world history perhaps. He sure is up there contesting .

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (3)

  • Thanks for the post, menderman.

    People need to respect the position of the president, regardless of the individual (whether in office or not).

    Is this the start of anarchy?

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (3)

    • ^ should have said the "role" rather than "position"

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (1)

    • Respect is not given to you because you hold a certain position. You have to earn that respect.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (-2)

    • Don't have a hissy when the same theory is applied to Obama.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (4)

    • I don't give a shit if people like you have respect for him. All I care about is that he goes in there in January and does a good job.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (-1)

    • Don't hold your breath. There was great hope when Jimmy Carter took office and look where we ended up. I venture to guess there are not too many people that subscribe to LL that remember how really bad things were when Jimbo was in office. He assembled the same type of "team" when he took office. Liberal do good'er egg heads will not provide the leadership we need. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. It works fairly well in Sweeden though.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (1)

  • and all the libs will be just fine with this.....but raise hell if someone says this same stuff about obama.....anyone that said these things about obama would be called a racist....

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (2)

    • That is why I posted a 2 year old story...they have already forgotten.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (2)

    • No, all ther rules have changed now. NOW dissent is NOT the most sincere form of patriotism. NOW "speaking truth to power" is enough to have them peek through your governmental files and be slandered in every concievable way.

      NOW we're told to STFU, get in line and support the president, regardless. NOW members of the media claim their "job" is to make sure the new president is successful.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (2)

    • Correction: Anyone who will disagree with Obama's socialist policies will be a racsist.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (3)

    • No stan, the rules haven't changed.... Your American, don't STFU... you have every right to speak your mind....

      don't forget BUSH was the one firing JUDGES for political reasons... Obama anit no GOD, his WORLD POVERTY ACT is very stupid... don't know if it ever passed... but you retain your rights to free speech.... so if you got opinions, bring them on, and hopefully some facts to back them up....

      FACTS are hard to come by though, in a US MEDIA where maybe 30% is mostly spin.. More..

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (1)

    • Do you ever get ANYTHING right? Bush never fired a judge. Seriously, stop typing before you hurt yourself.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (1)

  • Just more evidence that based on the resurgance of Facism being shown by the liberals that this country is clearly on the course to a huge problem. Add the gays in Cali now using force to get their way, its becoming clear that a separation of this country is well under way.

    The way to avoid civil war is to decentralize Washington DC and give power back to the States. Then people will feel like they have more control, thus decreasing the anger towards each other.

    Simple concept really.

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (2)

  • Comment of user 'USA1' has been deleted by moderator!
  • The right have their share of haters etc and you may remember the Micheal Reagen incident earlier this year IIRC.

    BUT if the majority of the hate against bush is from Libs then Libs are hypocrites but one of the few things i will say about Bush and the Neocons is that they seem to have much thicker skin than Libs who start crying Racism or whatever.

    And who was it that was blocking anti - Obama blogs during the election campaign ?

    I dont remember Bush etc doing that unless i didnt notice.
    More..

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (2)

  • The "Bush-haters" remind me of a very specific group of people in history: the NYC race rioters. At the height of the Civil War, angry, disillusioned New Yorkers, mostly recent immigrants, mixed in with a healthy dose of Nativists, looted and burned large sections of the city. Their slogans were something to the effect of "we won't fight no war for Lincoln and his black friends who want to take our jobs." And then they lynched any black person they could find to release their More..

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (1)

  • The liberals have taken upon themselves to rewrite history to suit their leftist agenda. The Bush bashing originally derived from the bitterness of Gore losing the election to him. Look at history, the cycle of Republican/Democrat repeats itself everytime the populace is unhappy about something. Wars are generally unhappy times. Its bound to happen in a two-party system. Try as you might, you will not be able to supplant Jimmy Carter as this country's weakest and worst president and frankly, G More..

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (0)

  • I don't want Bush dead, I just want him put in prison for causing more damage to the US than Osama Bin Laden.

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (0)

  • Source: Boston Globe

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (0)

  • Bush decisions have killed about 100,000 people by now so what would be odd about him going to trial and being executed under the law ? This man has done more to destroy America than all the suicide bombers put together .

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (0)

    • Thanks for your insight Osama.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (-1)

    • Well, if you want to guage a persons value by number of deaths caused we can play that game.

      Bush (by your number, which is incorrect) 100,000 Vs Saddam 300,000 (conservative estimate) That makes bush a graet guy.

      Rachel Carson, 22,000,000 (conservative estimate)

      You see how you can play the numbers game?

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (-1)

  • I think it's safe to say, and its an understatement, that Bush made some serious missteps along the way that took an enormous toll on our country. It's also safe to say that Obama is part of the status quo. He is for propping up an ailing wasteful monetary system and he is for warfare.

    The only difference is that the tables have turned now with the criticism.

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (0)

  • FUCK HE'S NOT THE PRSIDENT ANYMORE!!!

    Posted Nov-14-2008 By 

    (0)

  • uh and what exactly are people saying about Bush that isn't true? His grampa supported Nazi's? He started an illegal war? hes an idiot? I never hear anything thats not obvious to the average person.

    Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

    (-1)

    • His Grandpa supported business's in Germany that were Socialist backers of Hitler. What illegal war are you referring too? If it's Iraq, check your facts. Bush senior with the UN started that war, and after Iraq failed to honor the ceasefire agreement, Bush jr went in with an international contingent of Allies.

      The point is, the MSM has totally spun the hell out of Bush's policies and anything it didn't agree with.

      Posted Nov-13-2008 By 

      (-1)