Self-Proclaimed ‘Liberals’ Are Now Fawning Over George W. Bush

In conclusion, we need popular movements, we don’t need stupidity. If you don’t like Trump’s vision, you better have competing vision and be willing and able to articulate it. The status quo is dead. We are in a populist age, with tremendous opportunity to make the world a better place if we can take the moment and run with it. As it stands, the Democratic Party remains business as usual, and if it stays that way, will continue to lose election after election and become a increasingly irrelevant factor in American political life.

If you don’t want to be an irrelevant victim of history, the time is now to become involved in powerful political movements. This doesn’t include covering your ears, smashing windows and complaining about the Russians.

– From the post: You Can’t Resist Trump by Closing Your Eyes

I’m not a big fan of litmus tests, but here’s one I think is entirely appropriate. If you’re a self-proclaimed “liberal” who’s suddenly fawning over George W. Bush, you’re a fraud and should probably never speak again.

Unfortunately, this most recent demonstration of mindless, unprincipled liberal “ideology” continues to make the term completely useless, and the people who use it to describe themselves, increasingly irrelevant. When you stand for nothing, you’ll allow anything, including the whitewashing of war crimes. This is precisely the direction celebrities, fake liberals and the corporate media are taking us in, and it’s no accident.

Think about it. If the public can be convinced that George W. Bush is some sort of hero just because Trump is in office, what can’t we be convinced of? If torture and the destruction of a nation based on false information can now be overlooked, what can’t be overlooked? That’s why this intentional resurrection of George W. Bush seems like a psychological operation against the American public. It’s a way of saying, who cares about the horrific crimes committed by the American elite class over the past 20 years, we have to unite against Trump and Putin! To this I say: Never.

The people who knew Trump could win all along were precisely the people most aware of the endless series of crimes commented by the American elite class against the American public. Now, the people who committed these crimes and their corporate media mouthpieces are trying to brush it all under the rug in the name of fighting Trump. They’re starting with the legacy of George W. Bush, but it won’t stop there. The country is in the state it’s in because of the elitist class, not because of Trump or Putin. If we take our eye off the ball at this key moment, all will be lost.

To give you a sense of just how deranged this whole push is, take a look at the following excerpts from The Washington Post article,
Michelle Obama Isn’t the Only Liberal Embracing George W. Bush These Days:

Eight years ago, amid the financial collapse known as the Great Recession, America broke up with its 43rd president with such relief it might as well have dumped his clothes on the White House lawn and screamed from an open window “get out!”

In 2008, at the close of his second term, President George W. Bush’s approval ratings had plunged to 25 percent, among the lowest in presidential history next to Harry Truman and Richard Nixon. His would-be Republican successor, candidate John McCain, actively distanced himself from the Bush administration and comedians relentlessly mocked the man.

But in the first few months of 2017 and amid a book tour that landed him glowing spots on the “Ellen DeGeneres Show” and in People magazine, Bush is at least getting a little more respect from some who deeply disrespected him.

“A little respect,” that’s putting it mildly. Ellen actually said to Bush, “I love your whole family.”

Some of the rethinking of Bush stems not from anything Bush has said or done but simply from the contrast with President Trump, a comparison bolstered by his recent appearances on talk shows and in news segments.

After the “Ellen” show posted a video of the former president joking about his inner “Rembrandt” and learning to paint, viewers flooded the comments with unexpected praise.

“A few years ago I would have rolled my eyes at the [sight] of this man, but 6 weeks of Trump makes W look like a pretty decent guy,” one woman wrote. “Perspective is a funny thing.”

Added another: “I used to be a big critic of him and still don’t agree with much of what he did while in office. But, given who is now in office and how scary 45 is making the world, I’ve come to actually like this man.”

It was an idea comedian Aziz Ansari explored in January during his monologue as host of “Saturday Night Live,” the same show that spent years writing unflattering skits of President Bush and has since turned its humor to a new GOP target.

“George W Bush made a speech after 9/11, and it really helped,” Ansari said. “Things changed. … He said Islam is peace.”

Yes, wonderful words. Unfortunately, that’s all they were, as he proceeded to murder half a million Iraqis based on false information.

Joy Behar, the liberal on the daily talk show “The View,” noted after Bush’s comments that though she was “after” him for eight years, she just might purchase one of his paintings because of Trump.

“The thing about this,” she said, “is that Donald has now done something I thought he would never do. I like — I like the fact that George Bush — I like George Bush now, is what I’m trying to say. I’m having trouble saying it.”

Star Trek’s George Takei also weighed in: “You know things are bad when George W. Bush starts sounding like a member of the Resistance.”

Wrong. You know things are bad when “the resistance” is so ideologically weak and castrated it eagerly embraces George W. Bush.

At this point, I want you to watch the Ellen clip. The dancing is nauseating enough, but it’s the embrace that really sticks with you. There is a look of affection from Ellen that simply cannot be faked. It’s utterly creepy.

Moving forward, what can we do about it? I think we need to start thinking about celebrity boycotts. I’m not sure what the strategy could be though, because no one reading this actually watches The View, and the people who do are probably beyond help. So how can we strike back in a non-violent, creative way against these celebrities and their shows? I’m not sure, but if anyone has ideas, please share them in the comment section. We need to start thinking in such terms.

If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

15 thoughts on “Self-Proclaimed ‘Liberals’ Are Now Fawning Over George W. Bush”

  1. ‘how can we strike back in a non-violent, creative way against these celebrities and their shows?’

    1) write about these shows and presentators in a critical way that everyone can read, just like you did Mike (and thanks for that)
    2) but don’t stop there, but ridicule the presentators of these shows as well
    a) that is funny to read
    b) it will piss them of when they read it or hear about
    3) but don’t only ridicule, also try to find motives (or likely motives) why these presentators are so awfully willing to serve the interest of their masters (their Monthy paycheck often tells you a lot)
    3) but try to be kind to them at the end of the column, give these presentators room to change themselves for the better
    4) nevertheless don’t shy away from attacking the presentator instead of the show. The show is just a thing and is very difficult to hit, the presentator is much more vulnetsble. Awful as that sounds, it works.

    And then of course, there is always the book ‘Rules for Radicals’ by Saul Alinsky to give you lots of more tactics.

    By the way I just read that book, and am not completely familiar with Alinsky’s tactics yet, although I do know that HRC and the DNC followed these tactics quite closely.

    But the difference between a good tactic and a bad tactic (it appears to me) is the goal. If the goal is ‘good’ (like demanding more truthfullness of presentators like Ellen), than the tactic may help. If the goal is ‘bad’ (like giving even more power and money to oligarchs by pretending to help the have nots), tactics will not work.

    Just some thoughts…

    Reply
  2. Haven’t had cable in over 10 years and never watch mainstream media (except for local news), so I’m blissfully unaware, except for the little bit that spills over onto youtube.

    The post-war order is disappearing, not only in politics, but in media – technology is changing entertainment. I’d rather listen to Max Keiser than a mainstream chat show or, heaven forbid, the evening news.

    Not to worry – all these Ellens and The Views are destined for the scrap heap anyway.

    Reply
  3. ‘how can we strike back in a non-violent, creative way against these celebrities and their shows?’

    I would answer “follow the money”. Remember, it is not simply the mainstream media, it’s the mega-corporation media. It’s a highly consolidated small group of corporations, that have tons of advertising by other corporations etc etc…bureaucratic, political… it’s all of that. These celebs are given a free pass on this issue because they’re “not supposed to understand” business because they are artists and not business people. But they should understand, and cannot claim innocence about, the incentives of the corporations they work for and the inherent conflicts of interest between media and politics. So simply saying “hey comedian X, what you think about this biased article written by the same corporation that pays you every 2 weeks?”

    Reply
  4. Really incredible! That dance was nauseating. And to think Bush says we need a free press. Oh really! The entire corporate press was all for the Iraq War. So I guess it’s free for W when the press is for him. Ellen is really full of bovine excrement. The corporate press was all for Hillary and Trump has had to fight them all the way. I don’t know what you can do Michael. Just keep doing what you’re doing and exposing the fake liberals. The morons who watch Ellen and The View are probably a lost cause so we just have to promote people like you, Alex Jones, Max Keiser, etc. to as many people as possible.

    Reply
  5. I do not judge musical or dance performers, visual artists, actors, et al. by their politics. They can be great “artistes” in their own professional domain and yet be JERKS in other regards. Such folks often are poor thinkers about matters of public life, ideology, and so forth. I neither approve carte blance what they say outside their chosen field, not condemn them for such views.

    Reply
    • What you think sounds like a principled stand is actually spinelessness. These mouthy fools have a large platform, and their idiotic statements often viewed as “important” by the brainwashed, so it’s vital that these knuckleheads are mercilessly ridiculed for their vapidity, ignorance and complete lack of integrity or morals.

    • So… I’m wondering what you geniuses consider to be a worthwhile strategy to move forward. This is the first time I have looked at this site. All I can detect so far is a bubble mentality (just like the rest) where you dig your heels in to a certain ideology. All of this nonsense about fake liberals this or that really isn’t very compelling. Where do you folks reside along the political spectrum? What is your identity… your plan? You like Trump? You hate everything?

    • I find interesting, however, that most of the celebrity douchebags whose opinions I find most abhorrent–liberal AND conservative–tend to be the same ones who I can’t stand what they do anyway. Real artists aren’t frauds.

  6. Bush recently has come out in support of abortion too, backing his daughters fund raising event for abortion. So much for Bush being a conservative. Truth is, he is not a conservative or a republican, he is a democrat. Bush is a RINO. A RINO is a democrat in republican clothing.

    Reply
  7. Hi Michael,

    First, great article and thank you very much for all your writings. I do enjoy them and a few hours ago I made a donation (not under the name I use here) to LibertyBlitzkrieg.

    Second, your question was “how can we strike back in a non-violent, creative way against these celebrities and their shows?”

    I think the answer is to write really tailor-made articles for their audiences. You have of course been doing a fine job in educating the masses. However…I think that other formats can reach other people.

    I am of the opinion that no one is beyond help, not even the people who are watching “The View”. Even they are still people after all. You just haven’t gotten inside their head yet. That’s all.

    I’ve been thinking about this for quite some time, and your article here just triggered me to respond with my thoughts on this subject.

    So, how do you write an article that targets even the most ignorant people such as watchers of “The View”? I think such an article needs to have the following ingredients:

    1) Pedagocial.
    I think the article has to be constructed in a pedagogical manner. In other words: don’t assume any knowledge in your audience. There needs to be a build-up. You have to start at the beginning.

    2) Basic Topics.
    Focus on basic topics first, not contemporary topics. Your audience still has to acquire a body of knowledge you allready have but they don’t.

    4) Easy
    Keep it as simple as you can without sacrificing your core message. You’re audience is probably not interested in reading a lot on the topics that you value. So make it easy for them.

    5) One topic.
    Stay focused on one topic per article.

    6) Short.
    Don’t make the articles too long. Make it so that it maybe fits on one Letter-sized paper. Remember to “kill your darlings”. Remember that almost everything you say, you can say even shorter. This really is true.

    7) Authorative references.
    Make sure you put in references that are as authorative references as you can because people have to be able to convince themselves what you are saying is true when they follow up on the reference (just don’t put in too many references because you’re not writing a scholarly paper).

    8) Put in the work.
    Spend enough time to write these articles. I think that if done well, these articles can be pieces of art. You have to put in the work though.

    9) Inviting a friend to read: make it personal.
    If you have friends who have a political view that is utterly rubbish, then make it personal point that they HAVE TO read your articles (but only if your articles are indeed very good). You can say for example: “Let’s have dinner, I’m looking forward to it. By the way, I do want to discuss something with you. But I would like you to read something first.”

    10) Quality above quantity.
    You don’t have to write down one article a day in this manner, you can write down one article a week or even a month. Just get it right.

    I think that if one would apply this format in writing articles, almost everyone can be made to understand what needs to be understood. Almost no one is beyond redemption if you are able to explain things in the right way.

    There are plenty of basic topics that can be written down in this way that mainstream followers can and will follow. I think that if you bind enough articles about these topics together, you could make an authorative guide for the beginner. It would be something you definitely would want you son or daughter to read when they grow up.

    There are many excellent bloggers and alternative news-sites out there, such as yourself. They use all kinds of different formats. But I haven’t seen a site that follows the format that I laid out above. And I do think that this is necessary to reach and convince people who only follow the mainstream-media.

    I’ve been thinking about doing it myself, but I fear I just don’t have the time. That’s a shame though, because this could lead to some kick-ass articles as well as eventually a kick-ass book that could convert a whole lot of new people to the good cause.

    Kind regards,
    Mason

    Reply
  8. I love the idea of poking back at celebs that use their fame and pulpits to influence weak minds. Using comedy and tragedy to comfort and pull at heartstrings, emotional followers are easy pickings.
    Persistently calling them as we see them, is a good way to render them no longer relevant. It often takes years.

    Reply
  9. This shit is global.

    Once a real left, Corbyn, took over the Labour party the liberal Guardian started to fawn over the Conservative, David Cameron.

    Watch France.

    Macron is an ex-Rothschild banker, the faux-liberal of the Clinton/Obama/Blair variety.

    If he gets in, France will be in flames.

    The mainstream media are right behind him of course.

    Reply
  10. John,

    “This is the first time I have looked at this site.” That’s plain as day when you follow up with this:

    “Where do you folks reside along the political spectrum? What is your identity… your plan? You like Trump?”

    Why do you ask these questions? Can’t you decide whether an article or an opinion is right or wrong without knowing who the speaker/writer is/? Why do you let other people tell you what to think (ie, if Trump agrees, then that makes it good/bad/wrong/right)?

    No one should be “for” or “against” people, political parties, or labels (conservative, liberal, etc.). You should be for or against ***ideas***.

    Reply
  11. Haha! If the Left wants to embrace GWB, let ’em! They’re welcome to him. He’s a stateless globalist shill, who spent 8 years doing the work of the Carlyle Group, the Bilderbergers. He works for the oligarchs, not America; same as the Left.

    Reply

Leave a Reply