Thursday, November 11, 2010

Loesch's Blind Love for George Bush

Dana Loesch tweeted this the other day:

When someone on Twitter questioned that claim, she suggested that he must have been "living under a rock:"

Hilariously, Loesch made the comments a day after, in the words of John Amato "swooning" over George Bush in a post on Big Journalism. Here's what Loesch had to say:
I love how his face seemingly peeks out from the black-and-white news columns of the day to defiantly whisper: “PSSST. HEY. Still heeeeere.” His existence may have been obscured by the hubris surrounding the current administration, an increase in terrorist attacks, a movement born partly because of several Bush policies, and an election; the sudden appearance of Bush across all the networks and on the front and cover pages reminds us that even though he isn’t the sort of GOPer grassroots adore, he was infinitely better than the man currently in the White House, a man who bows to anything with a pulse.

The excerpts from his book give insight into the process leading up to the decisions what the rest of the world would see and whether you agreed with him or not (I’ve long been on record abhorring NCLB; also the prescription drug act was neither “compassionate” or “conservative,” and neither was TARP) the man would make a decision and stick with it. Mainly though, I love how fist-in-the-air defiant he is in the book.
Defiance on steroids. Balls!
Loesch was widely mocked for her gushing love-letter to Bush. John Amato:
Have you noticed all these conservatives who now say that Bush wasn't a beloved figure? Where were they when Bush was attacking countries that didn't attack us, and torturing terrorism suspects, for starters? Of course, he increased the debt as much as he could while giving all our surpluses to the richest of the rich. Now that he's back and trying to spin his way out of being the worst President in the history of America, the wingnuts are making it up as they go along.
What this illustrates is the fact that these so-called Tea Partiers are just typical bloodthirsty wingnuts. When Bush passed NCLB, there was no grassroots outcry. When he passed the prescription drug benefit, there was no grassroots outcry. TARP produced some push back, but remember that by that time Bush was a popular as e coli and it was hardly fashionable to be one of his slavering fangirls.


They do love a codpiece, don't they?

I can't prove it, but I would bet money that the very people who now decry deficits and spending and say they were horrified by Bush's domestic policies are the same 30% who stuck with him to the end. What they loved about him was his crudeness and cruelty and --- more than anything --- that he inspired such loathing from liberals. It's the in-your-face defiance that they admire, the eagerness to be politically incorrect, the exclusion from the process of those whom they see as not fully "American." It's a defining characteristic of the right. Domination, exclusion, and eliminationism are what animates their thinking, not deficits, taxes or the constitution.
In fact, Digby's last quote is provable, and absolutely correct. Despite Loesch's repeated claims over the past year that she was "incredibly critical of Bush," in fact she she spent all of 2008 defending Bush from criticism, specifically about government spending. In fact, she even defended Bush on the bank bailouts known as TARP. A reminder of a couple of her quotes:
Here's Dana Loesch defending George Bush's spending in a post titled "Bush sacrificed conservatism to keep us safe:"
The media finally won.

People believe every bad thing written and said about the man.

“Spending! We’re concerned about spending! This administration spent!”
Well yeah. Maybe because WE’RE IN A WAR.
You tend to SPEND in WARTIME.
Unless you want your ass kicked.
And in a later post:

We’re spending more because WE’RE IN A WAR. DURR. Our spending during this wartime is still LESS than that of Vietnam and WWII.
And the real kicker, where Dana Loesch, Queen of the Tea Party, defended the bank bailouts:
He apologized, even though the blame is not his if you know economics, for all of us being in this mess and how he was going to do his best to make it easier. He wasn't flashy but he was frustrated, frustrated at the mess and over how many were ignoring the very thing that caused it.
So yeah, that was Dana Loesch "being critical of Bush." And that's what she uses to claim that the Left isn't critical enough.


  1. The woman is a moron. Dana will talk from both sides of her mouth and say anything to keep her pathetic 'media star' rising.

  2. What's the problem with reviewing and quoting "Decision Points" from excerpts?

    It's a problem when entire portions of a "memoir" have been lifted from other articles and books.