Sometimes you read posts in the blogosphere and you just want to vomit at the presumptive way in which they are written. For example, The Hill had a post the other day about the Limbaugh “controversy” that specifically looked at the Democratic response and how it was being viewed by liberal bloggers. It’s not The Hill’s post that I gets me shaking my head, but rather the piece at the end of their entry - which is actually about a different blog:

“It’s time to take him out,” says Jane Hamsher, guiding spirit of the popular Firedoglake blog.

What’s frustrating to Hamsher and others on the left is that congressional Democrats don’t have the same mad desire to “take him out” that she and her colleagues in the blogosphere do.

“The fact that the Democrats aren’t going after Rush hammer and tongs is largely due to their failure to see themselves as an opposition party involved in an ideological war,” Hamsher writes.

* Sigh *

Where do you even start with this one? First of all, the Democrats in Congress are doing exactly what they should be doing - they’re bringing up an issue that their base is concerned about and then going on to the next issue. The Republicans recently made a big stink about condemning the “General Betray Us” ad from MoveOn and, as The Hill aptly points out, that was much more warranted than an attempt to condemn Rush Limbaugh. You can go back and read The Hill’s post to see their take on it…my anger is directed at the liberal bloggers who think it is the job of the Democrats in Congress to get engaged in some real or imagined “ideological war.”

What the hell is wrong with these people? Look at the poor example set by the Republicans in the last 6 years as they actually listened to the neo-conservative wing of their party and went on to lose their majority in the House and Senate. Dummies. Unfortunately, I can never put the thoughts in my head on this issue into a post that is sufficient enough to encompass how I feel, but I’m trying!

I really hate that there are people who believe that because they post to a blog online or start a political action organization that they now have some authority to command their preferred politicians around. How arrogant is that? This applies to both liberal and conservative online people trying to press their concept of a job description on the two parties. It’s disgusting and the American people should reject it completely. And come on now…how credible are the things you read online? I mean I own a website design company that builds websites and puts together blogs for people! I’ve come across some pretty seedy people in this business - people who would have no problem trying to pass themselves off as some authority on an issue when they’re just some dude with a laptop. At least I know that I’m just some guy on a personal blog that has zero influence to enact policy changes!

I’m in it for the fun of it - not for the arm-flailing “Do as I demand” crap!

Ms. Hamsher is mad that - in her view - the Democrats fail to see themselves in an ideological war. Thank God there are level-headed Democrats out there that will read Ms. Hamsher’s comments and disregard them as nothing more than what they really are - one woman trying to make a small minority of the public’s idea the generally accepted idea of an entire political party.

Honestly, it’s laughable sometimes. The Democrats, by and large, are doing an adequate job in Congress. Nothing more, nothing less.

Good grief. I really abhor how denigrating politicians has become a quasi-national past time - or at least how it’s become acceptable. Remember when there was a time when you would never discuss religion or politics with friends and co-workers? I’m not saying that we need to go back to that dynamic, but I am saying that there are a lot of dramatically uninformed people out there.

Whenever I hear someone say that they think President Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever, I always wonder if they know anything about some of our previous Presidents…

Does anyone know anything about President Andrew Johnson? This is the guy who bought Alaska and then completely botched our Reconstruction efforts after the Civil War. By far one of the worst Presidents in American history! Some historians say that Johnson was responsible, in some part, for the delayed granting of civil rights to our black citizens. That may be a stretch, but the man was a forgettable failure at best.

What about President Franklin Pierce? This guy was widely credited with maintaining the status quo in relation to slavery - almost 50 years after the slave trade was Constitutionally banned! Like Johnson, Pierce’s greatest purchase was the acquisition of land (the land around Arizona and New Mexico). This guy was so bad that after his first term, the Democrats didn’t even renominate him to run! Pierce’s time in office was marked by his complete apathy towards the job and his willingness to let burgeoning interest groups dominate the political agenda.

Then we have Pierce’s successor, President James Buchanan. This President may be best remembered for publishing the first Presidential memoir after leaving office! Buchanan’s time in the Oval Office was marked by his appeasement approach towards the slave states and his inability (or ineffectiveness) in enacting policy preventing the Southern states from seriously pursuing secession. Nothing great about this President.

And, of course, you have the short Presidencies like that of President William Henry Harrison who died a month after taking office. Obviously a forgettable and useless Presidency there! President James Garfield was assassinated about six months into the job and President Zachary Taylor died a little after a year in office. Nothing going on with these Presidents - they’re all forgettable and ranked among the worst Presidents in history.

Then you have President George W. Bush. Many people hate him for his pre-emptive war strategy against Iraq and while I am 100% behind the idea that our mission is complete in Iraq and has been for 3 years, I don’t see why the notion of pre-emptive war is so divisive. Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used this strategy in Vietnam, President Truman used it by leading the United States and the United Nations into the Korean Civil War, and President Clinton used this strategy to save many lives in Kosovo (after he bombed the hell out of Iraq for a few days).

So if pre-emptive war is your reason for hating President Bush, then you’re misguided at best.

Is President Bush among the worst US Presidents ever? Obviously not. Is he among the best? I would argue for the “obviously not” ranking again. He’s a guy whose faith-based beliefs control much of his domestic policies and a guy who has had the unique annoyance of being President during a time period where the internet has made every single person in our society feel like their opinion should not be challenged. Me? I allow my opinion to be challenged (and sometimes even changed) by the information I receive from the world around me. The vast majority of internet dwellers, though, are of the belief that if they say President Bush sucks, then it must be an indisputable truth. Blech!

Over the next Century, I predict that President Bush will be remembered in the top half of American Presidents. And if any of us are around in 2107, we can see whether or not my prediction comes true!