Remember back in the Bush years when the left deemed dissent to be the most glorious form of patriotism? As every conservative knew, that allegedly principled belief was contingent upon a Republican serving as president.
Once a Democrat returned to the White House, this ardent trumpeting of dissent as humanity's highest calling oddly began falling into disrepute, as to be expected whenever cults of personality take hold around leaders of dubious strength. (Audio after the jump)
Textbook example of this -- Ed Schultz on his radio show March 17 when he vilified Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for daring to suggest that Russian president Vladimir Putin has the "upper hand" in the crisis over Ukraine -- after Schultz said essentially the same thing.
Here's an audio clip of Schultz at his bellicose, incoherent worst (audio) --
The president came out this morning, now that they have taken a vote in Crimea. And I don't know if this is a hot-button issue with the American people or not. But something tells me that Putin is not going to stop with his activities in dealing with the Ukraine. And he's going to exert his power and his influence and his military movements until President Obama really does something about it.
Is it a stretch to paraphrase Schultz as saying that Putin is in a position of strength and has the upper hand? Sure sounds like what Schultz is saying. Schultz then goes on --
So the president now, and you can talk about whether he's in a strength of position or not (presumably Schultz meant "position of strength" -- again, coherence isn't the man's strong suit)
Got that? "You can talk" about this, it's OK, fair game -- unless there's an R after your name. Then if you talk about it, you're a traitor --
I'm really struggling with this guy Rogers who is a representative from Michigan who's a righty who sits on the House Intel and is out there Monday-morning quarterbacking saying that Putin is in a position of strength -- you SOB! Can I ask you a question -- whose side are you on?!
Same side as you, Ed, at least based on what you said all of 10 seconds earlier ... Something tells me that Putin is not going to stop with his activities in dealing with the Ukraine and he's going to exert his power and his influence and his military movements until President Obama really does something about it .... Gasp! You SOB! Suggesting that Putin has the advantage, at least until Obama "really" does something. (Not just "does something," mind you, but "really does something -- that'll show the Russkies!)
The idiocy kept coming --
And it just bothers me! (Then again, so many things do). And I think it bothers Americans. Why do we have to have all this partisan bickering when it comes to the potential of an international crisis? The president of the United States isn't going away anywhere, OK? (Wha ...?) So you might as well get on board as best freakin' possible to work through the situation! But to tell the American people that Putin is in a position of strength right now, I don't know what good that does!
Then stop doing it, Ed!
Don't you love it when a liberal whines about "partisan bickering" if a Democrat in the White House faces the "potential" for an international crisis? As I recall, liberals were more than willing to engage in "partisan bickering" after we were hit on 9/11 and a Republican was president. True, there was that fleeting period of national unity, lasting all of a month, ending roughly with passage of the Patriot Act and the bombs falling in Afghanistan.
"Partisan bickering" reached the point of Democrats nominating a presidential nominee in 2004 who was for the war in Iraq before he was against it (much as John Kerry did during the Vietnam War), followed by Democrats picking a presidential nominee in 2008 whose candidacy was based mainly on his opposition to the war in Iraq, a war that other Democrats running for president that year belatedly decided they opposed after initially supporting. (Anyone else see a pattern here?)
Democrat candidates for president in 2008 had no choice, though, since the most active members of their party, those who would choose the presidential nominee, had deluded themselves into believing that George W. Bush was a bigger war criminal than Saddam Hussein. And that brand of lunacy was reached only after lots and lots of "partisan bickering" at a time when liberals considered it unpatriotic if you did not engage in it. Now, as far as Ed Schultz is concerned, it's "freakin" unpatriotic if you do.