Tough Guy My Ass

Atrios points out this most recent atrocity by Ed Henry of CNN in which he characterizes Bush as "tough guy from Texas."  What is there in the life of George W. Bush to suggest that he is in any way a tough guy?  Where has he ever had to prove his mettle as a man?

Because I look and all I see is a smirking, privileged, arrogant, bullying frat boy who has had everything in life handed to him.  I see nothing in his biography that suggests any demonstration of physical or moral courage in his life.  And, no, getting other people's children killed, or having them kill other other people's children doesn't really make you a tough guy by any objective measure.  I absolutely hate crap like this.  So Ed Henry, in the spirit of the season, fuck off you smarmy ass kisser.   

Comments

[El Viajero]

Where has he ever had to prove his mettle as a man?

While I agree with you, I find it curious that you are wishing for 'machisimo', something that the left has tried to erase along with all gender differences.

Would you be more happy if Bush had, indeed, been a real macho guy? Probably not.

[has_te]

Well GG is going to have you look at
this altogether manly Henry persona.
And Amanda will hi-lite his anxious masculinity.
Some reverse projection goin' on.
["If I can make Dubya into a real man,
then maybe I've got a shot too"]
Little like Jonah, mebbe.

[Nate]

I couldn't even count all the times Liberals have referred to him as a cowboy, the insult changes with the day, when they want to portray him as stubborn and strong headed they call him a cowboy, when they want to insult him as weak they question his toughness. I would love to see anyone of them stand up for 7 years of constant attack and belittlement and stick to what they believe. For a party that changes beliefs with each new set of poll numbers the attack seems ironic.

[Sir Charles]

E.V. and Nate,

Being genuinely tough has little to do with being a macho poseur or a faux cowboy. I know people on the right have a hard time with this distinction. Thus, we are treated to the absurd sight of dough boys like Rush and Newt and Jonah pretending that they are oh so manly, when the absurdity of this is more than a little apparent to anyone with eyes.

Actually if you want a good example of what I am talking about when I refer to toughness, it would be John McCain standing up against torture. I have many ideological quarrels with McCain, but I don't think one can question his toughness in this respect, either physically or morally.

Nate,

You also seem to confuse me with a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, of which I am a rather frequent critic; my own politics are pretty unchanging and not terribly chic.

[Nate]

Besides standing up to torture what would qualify one as being tough? Few of us are ever exposed to such a sitution. I would give Bush credit for being very tough in his convictions. I disagree with a number of them but still admire his resolve. In one matter that I do support, the war, he has stood tough against half of america and 2/3 of the world. Weakness in the matter has been abundently displayed by all those who voted for before voting against and other waffeling positions. I would certainally agree the media's overuse of tough, hero, and many other words is absurd but I would disagree as soon as you attached Bush over a journalist choice of words. If he was anti war with as much resolve he would be drawned in platitudes of brave, tough, etc. It's march harder to support a war full of sacrafice then object with nothing on the line.

What would be morally tougher me opposing the war becuase my brother, sister, and brother in law where stationed there and might die or supporting the war even though they might be harmed because we believe it is the right thing?

[Tyro]

Nate, I know a lot of stubborn toddlers, and I don't regard them as "tough."

Bush is petulant and engages in petty jelousies and put-downs. I can see how many juvenile right wingers mistake this for "toughness," but Ed Henry seems to be using "toughness" as a synonym of "macho" or "down to earth," which bush is not.

The question is why Bush, a notorious poseur in this regard, is given a "pass" by Ed Henry.

[Sir Charles]

Nate,

Martn Luther King was tough. Bush -- not so much.

[El Viajero]

Bush -- not so much.

So, you are lamenting that Bush was not tougher?

[Sir Charles]

If by tough, E.V., you mean more willingness to engage in the indiscriminate killing of people or to torture in our name or to desecrate the Constitution, than no.

If, however, by tough, you mean had the fortitude to withstand hysteria and stand up for the principles upon which the Country was founded - yes.

[Nate]

Same time you accuse Bush of "petty jelousies and put-downs" you follow up with; "juvenile right wingers" and "a notorious poseur in this regard"

I can't recall a single case of Bush belittling someone verus millions of put downs and actions derived of jealousies directed at him. Every mean thing Bush has ever said wouldn't equal 1 press conference of Harry Reid's. Projecting your own short commings on the president seems more believable.

What has Bush done to desecrate the Consititution? The same time you accuse Bush of supposedly doing that you have Democrats outlawing bake sales in MA. If I had to choose between the government listening in on calls placed from outside the US and charity bake sales tap away. What's more unamerican then baning apple pie. Can't help but wonder if the Ds aren't acting to protect their corporate interest???? Have you tasted the crap that grocery store bakeries try to pass off these days, they where losing business to Grandma who knows how to bake with a little TLC and went crying to their Ds for protection. And I still refuse to visit NY till I can eat all the Trans Fat I desire!

[Nate]

off subject but I would like to see Sir Charles opinion on all the earmarks in the last budget and something that was being discussed on some conswrvative blogs. Supposedly if an earmark is dropped in during committee and not part of the legislation the President can instruct the various departments and agencies to ignore them. While I would love to see the Politicans lose all their pet projects I don't see how it would actually lower the spending bills as the money was allocated. What's the progressive opinion on earmarks and if anything should be done about them?

[Sir Charles]

I hardly fancy myself the spokesperson for the progressive movement on anything, including earmarks. Personally, I am not a huge fan, although I understand the reality of politicians seeking electoral approval by bringing home the bacon.

So I guess put me down as generally opposed, but in terms of my personal hierarchy of concerns it's not really near the top of the list.

[Tyro]

I can't recall a single case of Bush belittling someone

Wow. A guy who doesn't pay attention to the news and associates stubborn foot-stamping as "toughness" is a Bush supporter. Color me shocked.

Look, Nate, I don't take your political preferences seriously because they're not grounded in reality. If you think Bush is "tough" and a "good person," then we're quite simply approaching the issue from vastly different premises.

You either admire bush's "leadership" qualities because you aren't paying attention or because you're morally warped. When pressed to defend yourself, you start whining that "everyone else is worse!" and go off on some random tangent about earmarks.

Personally, I think you're already well aware that Bush is a bad president and a bad person but can't face up to reality so you go on a mindless, off-topic rant against Sir Charles rather than grapple with reality.

[Tyro]

And, you, ElV, someday you need to learn to associate patriotism and toughness with something other than waging stupid wars. Then maybe you will become enlightened.

Your problem is that you think "ah, Bush bitched and whining and screamed and invaded a country and no matter how obvious it became that it was a bad idea, wanted to keep fighting." That's not toughness.

Angry, stupid managers aren't tough. They're abusive and sociopathic. It behooves you to learn the difference.

And buying a pig farm and doing the landscaping to make yourself look like a rancher isn't tough. Anyone who starts pointing to all of this bullshit and saying "Bush is tough" is either lying or simply very naive.

[Nate]

Tyro can you provide one single example of Bush belittleing someone? If he does it so frequant I would have expected you to link 1-2 examples not launch into another personal attack.

I apologize that I was curious what Sir Charles thought on a different subject, I won't pollute the purity of comments again.

Great argument by the way, everyone knows what you say to be true so you don't need to bother to back it up and anyone that doesn't agree with you is morally warped. Further my question to Sir Charles was hardly a rant, if it had been you would be intellectually cowering in a corner sucking your thumb scared to death of where the next fact was going to hit you upside the head. All it takes is one example to prove your point, is that to much for you to deliver?

[David Samuels]

E.V. and Nate: Go read Chris Hitchens' eulogy for Benazir Bhutto in Slate today.

The night before she was first elected leader of Pakistan, she took Hitchens on a personal tour of the slums of Karachi, with no security whatsoever.

Compare that to a man who is so afraid of having his ideas challenged that, when he speaks in public, members of the audience who wear t-shirts which voice opposing views are arrested or ejected.

Maybe we are just talking past each other here, but I have don't think of as a 'tough guy' someone who's afraid of a t-shirt.

[El Viajero]

Then maybe you will become enlightened.

I was waiting for *this*!

It is always the wacked left that uses that language. What it really means is "I don't have to use logic....I'm enlightened!"

[El Viajero]

Nate,

You are correct in that President Bush has kept himself largely above the fray in that respect...and he should. He is the President.

[Nate]

David Samuels, Bush is afraid of T Shirts the same you are of logic. It's not fear it's a desire to not be exposed to it. If your selling something, which is what all politicians are basically, would you include negative imagery? When MTV blocks logos of products in the videos they broadcast are they AFRAID of Nike and Pepsi? When explicit images are blurred or profanity beeped is it because our Journalist are AFRAID of a middle finger or four letter words? When HRC stacks her audience with friendly plants is she AFRAID of normal citizens?

Speaking of fear who is it that routinely interrupts speeches on college campuses, who throws pies? Who yells down speakers with opposing views? According to your logic Liberals are the biggest cowards in the world. They constantly stifle free speech.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8585.html

http://www.zombietime.com/darwish_berkeley/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/plecnik022205.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/123tpcgo.asp
For all the Liberal and Progressive protestations about Bush infringing civil rights take note that; “Only in American universities, some 300 of them, from 1987 to 1992, did the movement for sensitivity go so far as to enact semi-legal speech codes proscribing offensive speech.” Freedom of Speech is one of the most fundamental rights we are born with and Liberals trounce all over it. The Delaware case being an excellent recent example.

[litbrit]

Nate, you can spin it however you like, but ordinary citizens expressing their views, even in outrageous and messy, pie-smeared ways, is not the same thing as a powerful politician arresting people for t-shirts (or hell, just stuffing them and their protest placards into fenced-off pens called "free speech zones", a la 1984 doublespeak, far from the public eye and media cameras). The free speech issues are entirely different due to the ill-used, rights-quashing, and oppressive power inherent in the latter example. I'm going to quote Sir Charles here:

Fuck off, you smarmy bastard.

[El Viajero]

I'm going to quote Sir Charles here:
Fuck off, you smarmy bastard.

Nice...

[Nate]

Sir Charles at least uses it in the heat of debate, that was more like a little kid using a dirty word just for the sake of using it.

Now to refute your logic;

ordinary citizens, as you like to call them, throwing pies and other objects is assault. I would further bet you can't find one example of someone being arrested for wearing a T Shirt, unless they where disrupting a meeting and refusing to leave when asked, if you were to look at their reason for actual arrest it was not for wearing a T Shirt. Nice attempt at a dishonest argument though.

Why would Liberals be secluded to fenced sections, hum maybe because they have a reputation for rioting and causing chaos? Maybe if your political speech didn’t always include vandalizing property, assaulting people who disagree with your opinions, and breaking countless other laws you wouldn’t need locked up like little kids sent to their room.

The Free Speech issues are only different because your trying to justify your stifling of others speech. Being assaulted, yelled down, failed, or not hired for refusing to support liberal dogma is not OK, the fact that you don’t understand or believe that shows you have no respect for the constitution/bill of right nor the rights bestowed in it.