A minor disagreement with John Nichols...

In an editorial in Friday's Seattle Post Intelligencer, John Nichols writes:

To be sure, there are Bush haters among their number, fierce partisans who -- in an echo of the Republicans who a decade ago went after Bill Clinton -- have adopted a "by any means necessary" approach to the goal of cutting short the Bush/Cheney tenure.

I cannot count the numbers of conversations I've had with impeachment nay-sayers that start out with something similar to:

I hate Bush too, but...

The sentiment of this "hatred" is not exclusive to the pro-impeachment crowd.  It's a legitimate response to an arrogant President and Vice President who think they can pretzel the laws to condone torture, spy on U.S. citizens, declare war on other nations who do not threaten our nation, using the DOJ to protect other nefarious activities, blah blah blah....

Hatred should not be considered extremist when it's justified.

I DO hate George Bush and Dick Cheney, but I love the Constitution with even greater enthusiasm.

•  I Deeply Despise Bush/Cheney Actions & Policies,

  and think they should be locked away for Life, but Hate?  Hate the Game - Not the Player, even when they're Despots and Dictators.

  by leonard145b on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:03:33 PM PDT

  •  When is it acceptable?

    ever?  Does hate exist?  Is it part of the human condition?  All good questions...

    by FreeFallin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:08:04 PM PDT

•  I read it different

  I don't think Nichols means hatred of these asshats is extreme.  Rather, I think, he means the "any means necessary" may be extreme.  

  by newfie53523 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:07:40 PM PDT

  •  I understand...

    Just seemed to be a polite way of calling bush-haters wingnuts...

    by FreeFallin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:09:33 PM PDT

    •  He may also have meant

      people attacking the Demo leadership for "actively blocking" impeachment.

      by PhilK on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:29:15 PM PDT

      •  I think he was pretty clear about...

        it being about bush-haters, not Dem leadership-haters.

        And I think you have to be careful what you consider an "attack" to be.  Is it actually an attack, or is it a "loud suggestion?"

        When attack becomes abuse, it's a completely different story.

        by FreeFallin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:40:51 PM PDT

•  asdf

  I think he is a petulant, arrogant, condescending and socially inept little man.  The fact that people actually like him as a person (tweety for instance) always astounds me.  

  by BDA in VA on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 03:30:49 PM PDT

•  I like Nichols

  I have heard John Nichols any number of times on KPFK, seen him in person, and read many of his articles in The Nation.  I think he began writing articles for a Madison Wisconsin newspaper at an age of about 12 or so.  He writes very quickly and very well.  I have never heard him say anything with which I strongly disagree.  I prefer Nichols to most diarists.  I too would like to see Bush impeached, tried and sentenced.   Not impeaching him may produce better results because it may force the Republicans to ask him to resign and hence it would not be thought of as a Democratic initiative, but a Republican one.  It may ruin the Republican Party to an extent that might not be possible if Bush were to be thrown out quickly, although the damage from his actions might be less if he were thrown out today.

  by realtime on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:00:41 PM PDT

  •  I like him too...

    But to group all irrational "bush-haters" in with the pro-impeachment crowd isn't fair.

    Otherwise his message is EXACTLY the same as mine.

    by FreeFallin on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:23:25 PM PDT

•  Justified according to who? You?

  Hatred should not be considered extremist when it's justified.

  by valion on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:58:43 PM PDT

  •  Let's not get into the difference

    between hatred and acts based on hatred.  

    Hate is as subjective as love.

    by FreeFallin on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

    •  Yours isn't. n/t

      by valion on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:22:40 PM PDT

      •  The simple definition...

        of hate is to have an intense emotional aversion toward something or someone...if those words make you feel more comfortable, then so be it.

        Otherwise, your attack on my diary is unproductive.

        by FreeFallin on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 08:08:48 AM PDT

        •  Not if it made you define your hatred. n/t

          by valion on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:17:12 PM PDT

          •  I'd much rather have started a conversation on...

            the division between the pro and anti-impeachment crowds.  

            My diary was to show that hate is not behind my reason to support impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales and that I took exception to John Nichols unqualified "Bush-hater" statement. (perhaps I should not have)

            I've heard "I hate Bush too, but," come from the mouths of anti-impeachment folks when trying to find common ground with me and other supporters as well.

            It's obviously not a discussion people want to have.

            Hate does not equal hate crimes, however it's been made to imply hostile and destructive actions.  All emotions can be acted on in both productive and un-productive ways.

            by FreeFallin on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:07:28 PM PDT

          •  I don't mind keeping this conversation

            alive if you will qualify your remarks with some additional text.  You have retorts without reasons, and that is NEVER productive.

            by FreeFallin on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:13:06 PM PDT