psychoanalyzing the bush haters
According to her biography at http://tammybruce.com/biography.php, Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist. A lifelong Democrat, in the 1990s she worked to help elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and aided the Clinton for President campaign. Before we knew he was a sexual compulsive and "did not have sexual relations with that woman." She is the host of the nationally syndicated (153 affiliates nationwide) radio show "Tammy Bruce Show". A FOX News contributor, Bruce calls herself a liberal and says that she twice voted for Bill Clinton for President. If you take a look at Ms. Bruce's biography, I think you will agree that she is a person who I would probably disagree with on most issues.
That's why I was so taken aback by her remarks on "The O'Reilly Factor" last night (O'Reilly is another person who I disagree with quite frequently). The topic of their discussion was liberal hatred of Pres. Bush. O'Reilly read quotes, and showed clips, of some of the most hateful comments I have ever heard expressed by by one human being towards a fellow human being. I'll outline for you what Ms. Bruce said in response.
Ms. Bruce said that, although she disagrees with Bush on many of the issues, she respects him as a man and she respects the office he holds. She doesn't hate him. At this point, she made a very insightful comment. Ms. Bruce said that all liberals who so fiercely hate Pres. Bush should ask themselves a question. Why do they so strongly hate a stranger? Interesting, yes? How can one hate a person so much when they have never met that person? Ms. Bruce went on to say that, in her opinion, this virulent hatred of a stranger can be explained by a disorder called "malignant narcissism." Her explanation was that the damage done to you during your childhood, perhaps by your father, affects the way in which you view the world now. She said that the most rabid of the Bush haters look at Bush as a father-figure, of sorts, and are projecting their unresolved issues with their own fathers on to him. This is all based in paranoia, she said. The result of all of this anger and paranoia is what Ms. Bruce called an "orgy" of personal attacks and name calling having nothing to do with logic or reason. Wow! That's pretty deep, isn't it?
O'Reilly countered that he thought all of the hatred stemed from the fact that most liberals are secularists, and that they hate Bush because he is a Christian, and because he is very open about his faith. Ms. Bruce said that was probably true, but that the problems with religion also have a childhood component with the secularists, and that it was all a part of the disorder.
It was then that O'Reilly asked Ms. Bruce to compare the attacks and criticism directed towards Pres. Clinton with what we see today with Bush. In a nutshell, Ms. Bruce stated that the hatred towards Bush is over policy differences, while the criticism of Clinton was for personal behavior. She went on to call Clinton "the sexual predator" in the White House, and then said this:
"When your behavior is personal, and that was the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, George W. Bush is being attacked and being called names and being hated for policy with which you can disagree. Bill Clinton's behavior, what he was being chastised for was personal behavior that did destroy people's lives and, in fact, almost destroyed this nation with him being distracted from the nation's business."
Ms. Bruce concluded by saying that the attacks against Bush are far worse than the attacks on Clinton ever were, and that the conservative attacks on Clinton were always based on well reasoned facts. The liberal attacks on Bush were nothing more than screaming and name calling.
This is amazing commentary from a self-described liberal. Anyone who has read any of the liberal comments posted on this blog of mine would have to agree with Ms. Bruce. There's always lots of foaming at the mouth and name calling and profanity, but not much in the way of facts/logic/reason. Her comments provided us with quite the teachable moment with regards to the thought processes of the average liberal. I enjoyed listening to her!
That's why I was so taken aback by her remarks on "The O'Reilly Factor" last night (O'Reilly is another person who I disagree with quite frequently). The topic of their discussion was liberal hatred of Pres. Bush. O'Reilly read quotes, and showed clips, of some of the most hateful comments I have ever heard expressed by by one human being towards a fellow human being. I'll outline for you what Ms. Bruce said in response.
Ms. Bruce said that, although she disagrees with Bush on many of the issues, she respects him as a man and she respects the office he holds. She doesn't hate him. At this point, she made a very insightful comment. Ms. Bruce said that all liberals who so fiercely hate Pres. Bush should ask themselves a question. Why do they so strongly hate a stranger? Interesting, yes? How can one hate a person so much when they have never met that person? Ms. Bruce went on to say that, in her opinion, this virulent hatred of a stranger can be explained by a disorder called "malignant narcissism." Her explanation was that the damage done to you during your childhood, perhaps by your father, affects the way in which you view the world now. She said that the most rabid of the Bush haters look at Bush as a father-figure, of sorts, and are projecting their unresolved issues with their own fathers on to him. This is all based in paranoia, she said. The result of all of this anger and paranoia is what Ms. Bruce called an "orgy" of personal attacks and name calling having nothing to do with logic or reason. Wow! That's pretty deep, isn't it?
O'Reilly countered that he thought all of the hatred stemed from the fact that most liberals are secularists, and that they hate Bush because he is a Christian, and because he is very open about his faith. Ms. Bruce said that was probably true, but that the problems with religion also have a childhood component with the secularists, and that it was all a part of the disorder.
It was then that O'Reilly asked Ms. Bruce to compare the attacks and criticism directed towards Pres. Clinton with what we see today with Bush. In a nutshell, Ms. Bruce stated that the hatred towards Bush is over policy differences, while the criticism of Clinton was for personal behavior. She went on to call Clinton "the sexual predator" in the White House, and then said this:
"When your behavior is personal, and that was the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, George W. Bush is being attacked and being called names and being hated for policy with which you can disagree. Bill Clinton's behavior, what he was being chastised for was personal behavior that did destroy people's lives and, in fact, almost destroyed this nation with him being distracted from the nation's business."
Ms. Bruce concluded by saying that the attacks against Bush are far worse than the attacks on Clinton ever were, and that the conservative attacks on Clinton were always based on well reasoned facts. The liberal attacks on Bush were nothing more than screaming and name calling.
This is amazing commentary from a self-described liberal. Anyone who has read any of the liberal comments posted on this blog of mine would have to agree with Ms. Bruce. There's always lots of foaming at the mouth and name calling and profanity, but not much in the way of facts/logic/reason. Her comments provided us with quite the teachable moment with regards to the thought processes of the average liberal. I enjoyed listening to her!
posted by hondo at 10:21 PM
1 Comments:
I have to share a funny story. Almost immediately after I posted "psychoanalyzing the bush haters", it drew a response from the very kind of demented liberal that Tammy Bruce was talking about. I wanted so badly to publish the comment, but it contained such profanity and such graphic sexual content, that I just couldn't accept the comment. Proof positive that Ms. Bruce is right!
Post a Comment
<< Home