The Party of Disrespect (Updated)
John on January 21, 2009 at 10:37 am
The blog Doubleplusundead pulled out this snipped to Michael Moore reminding everyone of how Bush’s inauguration went in 2001:
In addition, departing Clinton staffers removed all the “W”s from government purchased keyboards as a parting shot of protest. That’s how they welcomed Bush to office.
Eight years later, they sent him on his way with booing and jeers. Protesters hurled shoes at the White House and called for Bush and Cheney to be tried as war criminals. In Dupont Circle, they inflated a fifteen foot tall effigy of Bush:
Crowds of onlookers watched, cheered and snapped photographs as random people picked up a pair of shoes or boots from a large pile of old footwear at the base of the giant W and tossed them with great force, aiming mostly for his head and Pinocchio-style nose.
Bush was booed when his face appeared on a jumbo tron near the Washington monument. Asked whether he was there to celebrate coming in of the new administration or the going out of the old, one person responded “It’s pretty much more of Bush leaving than Obama coming in…” Predictably, the NY Times published an article headlined “Few Protesters at Inauguration.” Of course, they’re only interested in protesters of Obama. Bush protesters…that’s to be expected.
In Houston, a monument of Bush’s father was vandalized. In San Francisco, street signs on Bush St. were covered over with Obama’s name. Even Obama’s own team couldn’t resist piling on via the official White House website.
I’m glad to see Republicans did not act like this yesterday. On the contrary, in addition to the “few protesters” noted by the Times, callers to the Hugh Hewitt show were offering respect for the new President yesterday evening, despite policy differences. They were thankful for a system that allows a smooth transfer of power, even when that transfer didn’t go their way. That kind of maturity seems to be in shorter supply on the left.
One thing about incivility though, the goons booing and jeering won’t reform. They’ll find some new target at which they can channel their unspent energy and anger. Obama is going to learn this the hard way, probably sooner than he imagines.
Update: For a stark contrast, here’s a report on the reaction of the outgoing party:
We jumped in a van in the morning and watched Obama’s inaugural address from the lobby at Andrews. The group of 100 or so watching, of which 100 percent were George Bush supporters, all offered their enthusiastic applause for the new commander in chief. Not to say there weren’t some critical reviews of the speech, complaints about taking unnecessary shots, and grousing about borrowed ideas, but there was an absence of malice one normally sees among the constituencies of the vanquished.
[...]
while I expected the president’s mood to be defiant, bitter, defensive, or vengeful toward his critics, he was anything but. As he toured the cabin of the airplane throughout the flight, visiting with old friends, family, and staffers, he was filled with equanimity, grace, and a generosity of spirit.
[HT: Ace for the top video, HotAir for the second one]
Category: Politics |
Then again, that election was the first in American history in which the majority of the electorate hadn’t voted for the incoming president. That Gore chose to step aside after a party-line vote in the Supreme Court was in the interests of the Republic, but for the majority of American voters who felt disenfranchised by the electoral college result, tempers still ran high.
If McCain/Palin had won a majority of the popular vote but lost the election, I’m sure folks on the right would be just fine with it. Right? Heh.
Fortunately, it wasn’t even that close, was it?
January 21, 2009 @ 11:20 amTis, to laugh.
Gore had no choice than to step aside, and then only after numerous legal shinanigans and paper chewing jawboning from his legal staff about endless hypothetical permutations of the vote in Florida; upon said vote, the people, sans USSC involvement, would have been disenfranchised due to the fact that Gore and his team wanted to hand pick those counties they felt would yield ripe results after numerous recounts. Much the same is happening in Minnisota, the People’s World Revolutionary Republic with other pre-ordained things happening due to the wishes of having hitherto unknown and unqualified ballots thrown into the mix after the last minute. Classic.
Looks like Chicago’s shakedown ethics were spreading even before Obama’s coronation.
The Washington Post and the NYT (not noted allies of Republicans of any stripe with a vested interest in Bush II) verified that not only should these fouled ballots have been counted, but that Bush won Florida if we use only the legal methods.
The fact that Palm Beach residents can’t always get the hang of paper and pencil prowess on ballots was not the Court’s concern, though it arguably could have had something to do with their mix ups.
Either the law sticks, or it should not. Gore’s take is the latter position.
As to the Electoral College, that’s the law too.
Thus it falls to the category of tough nuggets no matter who wins.
As to behaviors: One must assume that the high tea treatment given to Obama by all parties, and the Obot Media that decided that Palin’s daughter was a story worth paying to send armies of reporters to Alaska, contrasted with their relative silence on Obama’s utter lack of experience, much less skeletal issues in the past, is a trend that will continue for a while.
January 21, 2009 @ 11:44 amDavid,
So your argument is that Democrats were disenfranchised by the Constitution and the Supreme Court?
I’m sure people would have been upset if McCain had won the popular vote but lost the election. I don’t think Republicans would have threatened a riot.
January 21, 2009 @ 11:52 amRepublicans might have raised some eyebrows, and some of them might have said some dirty words. And it makes good fodder for a few days on right wing radio.
But tossing shoes and smashing things like the eco and antiglobal hooligans do when bankers come to town is not generally something that conservatives concerned with paying the bills and junior’s baseball schedule have time or inclination to do.
They’d then get on with the business of everyday life.
Things happen.
The Devil DOES have work for idle hands; hence the Marin County and San Fran warriors constant roiling and “takin’ it to the streets” appearance on every issue that makes some people grit their teeth.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but neither of those two yokels in the Bush/Gore episode had the fate of the world hinging on their shoulders anyhow, much as for Gore’s part he’d like you to think so…
No politician is Atlas.
So it’s safe for the people to shrug sometimes.
January 21, 2009 @ 12:03 pmIt merits saying that Bush and seemingly everyone associated with him has conducted themselves with good grace and dignity during this transition period. I hope that those cheering yesterday would take note of the example set by the new President in his gracious remarks about President Bush. I was embarrassed at how little reaction Obamas’s thanks to George and Laura Bush received yesterday.
I had forgotten the way Clinton & Co had chosen to hand over things at the White House. I guess that we can see who was the better man by that comparison, and am encouraged to think that Obama seems like someone who will rise above defeat when he is replaced by a Republican, as is bound to happen.
January 21, 2009 @ 12:23 pmLet us be honest, how Clinton left office was a disgrace. (theft, pardons, sabotage, etc.)
January 21, 2009 @ 1:12 pmThe children are in charge.
And, I’m not overly impressed with Obama’s thanks to the Bushes for their graciousness, right before he stuck it to President Bush, going on and on about darkness and clouds and lack of liberty, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
What a jerky thing to do.
January 21, 2009 @ 1:19 pm“Then again, that election was the first in American history in which the majority of the electorate hadn’t voted for the incoming president.”
Um, no. Clinton never got a majority. Perhaps you meant plurality.
Um, no. Though rare, it has happened that one lost the popular and won the electoral.
Either way, Republicans tend to take losing better.
January 21, 2009 @ 4:33 pm[...] Sexton compares the Bush-Obama transition to the Clinton-Bush transition. “They were thankful for a system [...]
January 21, 2009 @ 5:29 pmGreat post John, highlighting the immaturity and malice of many (but certainly not all) on the left.
David Williams is a great example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. How anyone can say “Then again, that election was the first in American history in which the majority of the electorate hadn’t voted for the incoming president.” and still think they come across as intelligent is beyond me.
I mean, gads, I am Australian, and I know there have been quite a few examples of presidents winning the electoral college, but losing the popular vote in American presidential elections.
I guess facts don’t matter to some people.
January 21, 2009 @ 6:12 pmAlan, he is a product of the government schools where diversity, political correctness, it’s all about me, and all kinds of other nonsense are taught during the few days the “students” actually attend.
Scott, I am just being sarcastic and am still confident there are good schools here in the USA.
Hmmm, it would be nice to know what they teach in Chicago.
January 21, 2009 @ 6:25 pm