Unbelievable

Philip Terzian, an associate editor of the Providence Journal, has a column in today's paper about people who hate Bush. He proceeds to overlook very credible gripes against Bush and, instead of researching the anti-Bush claims he listed in his column, he comes to the conclusion that people hate Bush because of his voice. Yes folks, this is what passes for quality journalism in 2003:

I was visiting a historic New England city not long ago, and accompanied an acquaintance from South Carolina on a shopping expedition. A clerk in one store was brisk, in the standard local custom; but when the visitor opened her mouth and revealed her Dixie upbringing, the clerk's manner turned suddenly terse, if not downright offensive. Embarrassed as I was by this incident, it suggested one possible explanation for the irrational hostility that George W. Bush seems to inspire in his critics.

Terzian's ridiculous piece drawls on to say, "Bush inspires levels of invective and rage that equal, or exceed, the most fevered right-wing rhetoric about Bill Clinton." Wow, what country is this man living in? You would figure that a member of the mainstream media would know that some media organizations exist, and make money, simply bashing the Clintons. Bill Clinton was so hated by the right that, three years out of office, they are still talking about the man, they are constantly hounding his wife, and they have published books trying to hold Clinton directly responsible for 9/11. Newsmax.com, in a low, classless blow that was competely undeserved, wasted no time bashing Clinton after 9/11. They couldn't even wait 24 hours to blame him for the tragedy.

So what are the reasons Terzian sites for the "levels of invective" Bush faces?:

There are books and Web sites devoted to revealing the Bush family's complicity in murder and global terrorism; it is an article of faith that the president is rapidly militarizing America and/or dismantling the New Deal; Dr. Howard Dean is running for office because "what's at stake in this election is democracy itself."

If you ask me, that list is much too short. Regardless, the reasons for "invective"against Bush are quite plausible. Maybe if Terzian could to do his job as a journalist and research the claims from the anti-Bush crowd, he wouldn't come to the conclusion that Bush is hated because of his "voice".

"...Bush family's complicity in murder and global terrorism." Maybe this is because Prescott Bush sold Nazi Germany Bonds in America from 1924-42, well into World War II. As for global terrorism, the previous link discusses George H.W. Bush's dealings with drug running and terrorism in Latin American countries while he was director of the CIA, and perhaps people forget a little thing called the Iran Contra Affair that happened when he was Vice President. Let's also not forget the Bush family business dealings with the bin Laden's.

"...The president is rapidly militarizing America and/or dismantling the New Deal." Do I even need to provide links for this one? Revoking the Estate Tax along with other massive tax cuts to the rich, the PATRIOT Act, wanting to privatize Social Secuirty, underfunding social welfare programs, and a ballooning military budget. All of these things have been attempted, some done, under Bush's administration.

"Dr. Howard Dean is running for office because 'what's at stake in this election is democracy itself.'" Terzian actually replied to this point in his column, "Democrats are frustrated about Al Gore's narrow defeat in Florida, but their fury should be directed at Ralph Nader." Hmm, what else [florida] should [florida] come [florida] to [florida] mind? [Florida!] Nevermind the fact that the Democrats have blamed Nader, and they continue to blame Nader (which, in my opinion, is undeserved). Terzian appears to want to rewrite history by implying that Democrats somehow aren't mad at Nader. Terzian also needs to read a book called Jews for Buchanan, an unbiased account of what really happened in Florida and how Bush stole the election. The fact that even the mere suggestion of the truth about the election of 2000 is now akin to Bush hatred shows you just how much of a grip the right has on our media.

This, unfortunately, is the Providence Journal's idea of "journalism." It's also a good illustration of just how delusional the right is, making up silly excuses to tag the anti-Bush crowd with and actually believe it. They could just do some research and find out the facts, but I guess that's too much to ask.