June 16, 2004

BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

After I gave thumbs-up to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on "Ebert & Roeper," some conservatives demanded I come clean. "Admit it, you hate Bush!" said one e-mailer after another.

After I wrote a couple of columns about Ronald Reagan in which I failed to advocate placing Reagan's visage on Mount Rushmore, the dime or the $20 dollar bill, I heard from conservatives who maintained this was just another example of my anti-Republican bias.

After I marveled at Ann Coulter's bottomless reserve of hatred for liberals, I once again heard from outraged conservatives.

"Coulter doesn't hate liberals any more than you hate President Bush!" said one caller.

Do I hate the president? Not the kind of "Hate Lite" discussed in yesterday's column about the minor everyday inconveniences -- but a pure, evil hatred, like the loathing we harbor for the likes of Hitler and serial killers.

Answer: not even close.

Heck, there have even been times when I've admired the man, e.g., when he stood amid the rubble of Ground Zero, megaphone in hand, and rallied the firefighters, police and rescue workers.

More often, I've been angry at Bush's arrogance and incompetence, and I've despised his policies -- but I don't hate the man.

I have to admit, though, that it's hilarious to see so many conservatives displaying such sensitivity over this issue. Again and again, I hear from Republicans who are shocked, saddened and sickened by the level of vitriol against their beloved President Bush. Why, they've never seen anything like it. How can people be so irrationally emotional, so personal, so vicious in their hatred of a sitting president?

Right. Because the anti-Clinton movement never turned hateful.

How soon they forget

Talk about your institutional amnesia. It is absolutely astonishing that some of the same people who spent more than eight years beating up on Bill (and Hillary, and Chelsea, and Buddy the dog), are now so offended by attacks against their guy that sometimes land below the belt.

Folks, do you not see the hypocrisy at work here?

This makes about as much sense as a bully taking a kid's lunch money for eight years -- only to complain when the kid finally lands a counterpunch during freshman year in high school. "Ow! You're mean!"

Understand, I'm not denying the existence of more than a few liberals who truly hate President Bush. Whether it's an idiot singer saying Bush should have died instead of Reagan; photoshopped images of Bush and Cheney as Nazis; Web sites filled with personal insults; or conspiracy theorists accusing the Bush family of participating in a ludicrously diverse litany of crimes up to and including the assassination of JFK, there's some nasty, unfair, off-the-wall stuff out there. Even if you abhor everything about the Bush presidency, this is not the way for decent human beings to campaign against his re-election.

But in volume and variety of rumor-mongering, the Bush-haters aren't even in the same league with the Clinton-haters. I'd say that for every anti-Bushite who's ticked because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, there were a dozen anti-Clintonites who spent a good chunk of the 1990s screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX, IT'S ABOUT LYING UNDER OATH!"

And for every Bush-basher who whispers about the president's "unstable" behavior in the White House, there were a dozen Clinton-haters going around saying it was a "known fact" that the president was a rapist.

And a cokehead.

And a murderer.

Don't hate the prez, hate the policies

The Clinton-haters were consumed by an obsessive hatred that had them believing (and advancing) every insane rumor imaginable. If we were to believe every unfounded story swirling about, Hillary Clinton was a communist lesbian married to a drug-running serial rapist, and when Bill and Hill weren't working to bump off anyone who might expose their criminal doings, they were conspiring to destroy organized religion and/or each other.

And that's why Vince Foster was murdered. Or something.

Indeed, some of the Bush-bashing is out of hand -- but anyone who claims it's worse than the anti-Clinton garbage is either in denial or is 8 years old.

Because if you're old enough and honest enough to remember the 1990s, you have to admit the Clinton-haters far outnumbered and out-hated the Bush-haters.

To borrow an old Republican catchphrase: In your heart, you know I'm right.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep16.html

Next up the always excitable Neil Steinberg also from the Sun Times: This is part of his column today.

Americans try again to ban all-American activity

June 16, 2004

BY NEIL STEINBERG SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Opening shot

People are stupid. They'll cut off their hand to keep from trimming their nails. Exhibit A: the proposed amendment to the Constitution to "prohibit the physical desecration of the flag,'' expected to crawl from the Senate Judiciary Committee limbo where it has slumbered for a year and come up for a vote, perhaps as early as Thursday, almost certainly by next week. This is the fifth time it has come up, and here is where it usually dies a well-earned death. But this time enough Democratic senators might defect -- the bill already has 57 co-sponsors -- and it might pass, according to my pal Sen. Dick Durbin. So there is a risk the monstrosity might actually be loosed upon the land.

Why is the flag amendment bad? First, it's an obvious infringement of free speech. The issue isn't burning -- reverent VFW types will still be able to retire old flags by burning them. The issue is the contempt shown by those who burn flags in protest. Americans have a right to express contempt, at least for the moment.

Second, the law is completely unnecessary. Flag burning is not a problem. You've never seen a flag burned and probably never will. Americans respect the flag of their own free will, without being compelled by law, as it should be. Passage by the Senate will be a dark day.

Potshots

*Ironically, those who burn flags represent the spirit of America better than those who would deface the Constitution trying to stop them. At least the burners -- what few there are -- are expressing themselves. What is more American than that? Those who would put them in prison are indulging in the very un-American vice of stifling someone else's expression for no pressing reason.

*Anyone who cares about free speech should care passionately about stopping the flag amendment. Such a law would be the thin wedge of totalitarianism. It would shift burning flags from a reviled, rare practice into almost a patriotic duty. I know I would feel obligated to stand in the middle of Michigan Avenue waving a burning flag over my head, to protest the shame inflicted upon our national emblem. A lot of people would.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steinberg/cst-nws-stein16.html

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=545&e=5&u=/ap/foul_ball_boy