I disagree. It wasn’t a personal dislike of the man, Bush, that was the motivating factor. It is the irresponsible policies he undertook and the consequences for our country. His actions did then affect how many felt about him, but he personally was not originally a target of acrimony. That distinction is important.

And as for “hopelessness and despair,” such a characterization suggests a misunderstand. Very conservative people (I don’t label myself or others with whom I share at least some agreement as “dissidents”) are certainly worried about the state of our country. But I think it is fair to say that at least many of us believe firmly that it is still possible to steer this nation back on solid ground if we can rally enough people to properly focus on the most important issues, the most looming threats to our republic. We are trying our best to look honestly as what is really happening and not stick our heads in the sand about what could potentially hit us. That is simply facing up to actual conditions around us and what could be coming down the pike — and it is a necessary prerequisite before anyone can decide to work to change the underlying causes.

(“It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.” — Winston Churchill)

Anyway, the process went something like this.

North commented on Matoko’s comment, then Matoko wrote back in her own inimitable style and then North pointed out that Matoko did not read his question. At that point, I made my joke that she didn’t read it (the implication being that certain key words automatically result in her belching out a response).

That’s all.

Indeed, the frog is toast.

I do. I don’t care so much about his flame wars but the upshot of all of it is that he has no influence with any significant political or demographic element. IIRC, you are the only one who’s cited him in the last couple of months or so, which should tell you something.