Is Bush Hatred a Rational Response?

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
This is the sister op/ed in the Washington Post today to the column discussed here.

Text

The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against George W. Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002. This whiplash will mean some surprising things for 2004.

It's hard to think of any other president who has gone so quickly from being so unifying to being so divisive. There was hardly a soul this side of Noam Chomsky who didn't support Bush for some time after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and didn't support the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Democrats who never conceded that Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election wanted to give Bush a chance to lead the country out of crisis.

So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy.

It could not last, because Bush didn't want to be Dwight D. Eisenhower, a nonpartisan leader who unified the country without being much help to his party. Ticket splitting began in a big way during the 1950s when millions of Democrats went for Ike but stuck with their party on the rest of the ballot. Bush wanted to realign the country and create a Republican majority for bold conservative policies at home and abroad.

[...]

Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.

No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners. Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after Sept. 11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic. So Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance.

Here's what's interesting for 2004: The conventional wisdom, fed by shrewd Republican operatives and commentators, is that Democrats, so out there in their antipathy for Bush, will push their party into an extremist wonderland and lose white men, security moms and anybody else who does not share their desire for revenge.

The opposite is true. Democrats will not have to spend inordinate amounts of time or money in this election year "uniting their base." Opposition to Bush has already done that.

In the 2000 election, Bush had an advantage over Al Gore because Republican rank-and-filers so hated Bill Clinton -- and so wanted to win -- that they gave Bush ample room to sound as moderate as John Breaux or Olympia Snowe. Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention hid the base behind the appealing face of inclusiveness and outreach. Gore, in the meantime, had to claw back the votes of liberals and lefties who had strayed to Ralph Nader.

This time the Democrats will have most of the election year to appeal to swing voters. Democrats are so hungry to beat Bush that they will let their nominee do just about anything, even be pragmatic and shrewd.

That's why 2004 will be very different from 2003. Democrats who loved Dean's attacks on Bush this year now want Dean to prove he can beat him. Dean's opponents know this, which is why their core case is that Dean can't win. And watch for the appearance of the new, pragmatic Howard Dean, the doctor with an unerring sense of his party's pulse.
He's a little off on why Al Gore lost in 2000 (horrible campaign strategy). But I obviously like his take on Dean, a man who tapped into the pulse of the Democratic base long before anyone else did, and will be in a strong position to tap into the pulse of the general electorate in the coming months.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against George W. Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002.


I think I missed the coddling and embracing chapter of the book.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
This is the sister op/ed in the Washington Post today to the column discussed here.

Text

The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against George W. Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002. This whiplash will mean some surprising things for 2004.

It's hard to think of any other president who has gone so quickly from being so unifying to being so divisive. There was hardly a soul this side of Noam Chomsky who didn't support Bush for some time after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and didn't support the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Democrats who never conceded that Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election wanted to give Bush a chance to lead the country out of crisis.

So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy.

It could not last, because Bush didn't want to be Dwight D. Eisenhower, a nonpartisan leader who unified the country without being much help to his party. Ticket splitting began in a big way during the 1950s when millions of Democrats went for Ike but stuck with their party on the rest of the ballot. Bush wanted to realign the country and create a Republican majority for bold conservative policies at home and abroad.

[...]

Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.

No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners. Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after Sept. 11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic. So Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance.

Here's what's interesting for 2004: The conventional wisdom, fed by shrewd Republican operatives and commentators, is that Democrats, so out there in their antipathy for Bush, will push their party into an extremist wonderland and lose white men, security moms and anybody else who does not share their desire for revenge.

The opposite is true. Democrats will not have to spend inordinate amounts of time or money in this election year "uniting their base." Opposition to Bush has already done that.

In the 2000 election, Bush had an advantage over Al Gore because Republican rank-and-filers so hated Bill Clinton -- and so wanted to win -- that they gave Bush ample room to sound as moderate as John Breaux or Olympia Snowe. Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention hid the base behind the appealing face of inclusiveness and outreach. Gore, in the meantime, had to claw back the votes of liberals and lefties who had strayed to Ralph Nader.

This time the Democrats will have most of the election year to appeal to swing voters. Democrats are so hungry to beat Bush that they will let their nominee do just about anything, even be pragmatic and shrewd.

That's why 2004 will be very different from 2003. Democrats who loved Dean's attacks on Bush this year now want Dean to prove he can beat him. Dean's opponents know this, which is why their core case is that Dean can't win. And watch for the appearance of the new, pragmatic Howard Dean, the doctor with an unerring sense of his party's pulse.
He's a little off on why Al Gore lost in 2000 (horrible campaign strategy). But I obviously like his take on Dean, a man who tapped into the pulse of the Democratic base long before anyone else did, and will be in a strong position to tap into the pulse of the general electorate in the coming months.
*yawn*
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Excellent article. Unlike the one posted by Athanasius this isn't some outside amateur shrink putting words into the mouths of the collective left.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Glad he put "Bush hatred" in quotes because, IMHO, it has nothing to do with hate. It's about disgust with his lying to lead us into an unjust war. It's about resentment at the damage he's done to the economy and the environment. It's about disdain for his life of privilege and fear for the future as he sells America to the highest bidder. It's about betrayal (as the column mentions) and about anger at exploiting the September 11 tragedy to further his political agenda.

It's not about hate. It's about a fundamental disagreement with Bush's policies and performance and the direction he's set for America.



Edit: typo
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
The guy on MSNBC just now suggested that it's not really 'hate' but rather 'disgust'.

Edit: Just a thought. I wonder if the same people who are claiming that Ds 'hate' Bush are the same people who claim that being against this war is anti-American. (Thinking of the other thread...and those who agree with it)
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
He's a little off on why Al Gore lost in 2000 (horrible campaign strategy). But I obviously like his take on Dean, a man who tapped into the pulse of the Democratic base long before anyone else did, and will be in a strong position to tap into the pulse of the general electorate in the coming months.
He "tapped into the pulse" of democratic base members who think their political POV would win straight up in a general election if it was simply delivered in a pure and undiluted form. The whole idea of Howard Dean is about repudiating any meaningful move to moderation in the Democratic position, not embracing it.

IMHO, more power to the Democrats if they want to try to turn this a straight referendum on whether the U.S. is at heart liberal (with Dean as their annointed champion) or conservative (with Bush as "the enemy"), then more power to them. It'll be an easy choice for most Americans to make.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,111
5,288
126
Why would anybody hate somebody who is destroying our nation. I think if you turn things around they can be clearer. Look at Bush as the Saddam of America. Now we know what we think of Saddam so it only follows, right? I mean, isn't hate OK?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,111
5,288
126
Originally posted by: glenn1
He's a little off on why Al Gore lost in 2000 (horrible campaign strategy). But I obviously like his take on Dean, a man who tapped into the pulse of the Democratic base long before anyone else did, and will be in a strong position to tap into the pulse of the general electorate in the coming months.
He "tapped into the pulse" of democratic base members who think their political POV would win straight up in a general election if it was simply delivered in a pure and undiluted form. The whole idea of Howard Dean is about repudiating any meaningful move to moderation in the Democratic position, not embracing it.

IMHO, more power to the Democrats if they want to try to turn this a straight referendum on whether the U.S. is at heart liberal (with Dean as their annointed champion) or conservative (with Bush as "the enemy"), then more power to them. It'll be an easy choice for most Americans to make.
Gore won. You've bought a lie.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: glenn1
He's a little off on why Al Gore lost in 2000 (horrible campaign strategy). But I obviously like his take on Dean, a man who tapped into the pulse of the Democratic base long before anyone else did, and will be in a strong position to tap into the pulse of the general electorate in the coming months.
He "tapped into the pulse" of democratic base members who think their political POV would win straight up in a general election if it was simply delivered in a pure and undiluted form. The whole idea of Howard Dean is about repudiating any meaningful move to moderation in the Democratic position, not embracing it.

IMHO, more power to the Democrats if they want to try to turn this a straight referendum on whether the U.S. is at heart liberal (with Dean as their annointed champion) or conservative (with Bush as "the enemy"), then more power to them. It'll be an easy choice for most Americans to make.
They don't believe that though glenn1. I posted a DLC paper on this subject and the best they could come up with is that it was written ~13 years ago. Some day they'll realize that what they hate...I mean..what they are "disgusted" about is that they didn't change with the American people and instead thought that people still actually believed in liberalism. Or it could just be that they are "disgusted" because they've lost the "power" they had for a long time. Either way - I don't see them being honest with themselves anytime soon - they need to yell, stomp, and create a scene so they "feel" better first.

IMO ofcourse;)

CkG
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Gore won. You've bought a lie.
Your continuing refrain of that almost makes me wish Democrats lose huge in '04. Almost. The only problem with that is if they did, then we'd have to put up with Republicans for another few years.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Gore won. You've bought a lie.
Last I checked Gore wasn't President. You're the one who continues to buy and subscribe to lies.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
They don't believe that though glenn1. I posted a DLC paper on this subject and the best they could come up with is that it was written ~13 years ago. Some day they'll realize that what they hate...I mean..what they are "disgusted" about is that they didn't change with the American people and instead thought that people still actually believed in liberalism. Or it could just be that they are "disgusted" because they've lost the "power" they had for a long time. Either way - I don't see them being honest with themselves anytime soon - they need to yell, stomp, and create a scene so they "feel" better first.
Who's doing that? I think you're just propping up some red-in-the-face, spittle-shooting liberal strawman that you can point at and have a good laugh over. All the while discrediting and/or writing-off any criticism or genuinely negative feelings towards the present administration as simple "hate." Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans opposed to Bush and his policies are quite calm and rational about it. :)
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: 308nato


I think I missed the coddling and embracing chapter of the book.
me too. this author may have more than one personality. all i recall following the supreme court decision was sheer, unadulterated
hatred, screams of injustice, terms like juridicial 'coup d'etat' or 'junta', and the ubiquitous 'wait til 2004' when bush's certain failure
will leave this nation begging for a democrat, any democrat. its a sad attempt to paint reason where none can exist.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
And Republicans and neo-fascists live on lies and bigotry. They lie about Clinton (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark, and all past and future non-Republicans. They hate blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and pretty much everyone except other lily-white racists.

The right-wing members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with distortions, distractions, denials, outright lies, and racist hatred.




Isn't that fun? Grow up.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
And Republicans and neo-fascists live on lies and bigotry. They lie about Clinton (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark, and all past and future non-Republicans. They hate blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and pretty much everyone except other lily-white racists.

The right-wing members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with distortions, distractions, denials, outright lies, and racist hatred.




Isn't that fun? Grow up.
I think it's fun to see how your believe your own lies. Grow up yourself.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
And Republicans and neo-fascists live on lies and bigotry. They lie about Clinton (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark, and all past and future non-Republicans. They hate blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and pretty much everyone except other lily-white racists.

The right-wing members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with distortions, distractions, denials, outright lies, and racist hatred.




Isn't that fun? Grow up.
I think it's fun to see how your believe your own lies. Grow up yourself.
The crap in my post is no more dishonest than the crap in yours. That was my point. It's easy -- and meaningless -- to parrot a bunch of partisan stereotypes.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
And Republicans and neo-fascists live on lies and bigotry. They lie about Clinton (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark, and all past and future non-Republicans. They hate blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and pretty much everyone except other lily-white racists.

The right-wing members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with distortions, distractions, denials, outright lies, and racist hatred.




Isn't that fun? Grow up.
I think it's fun to see how your believe your own lies. Grow up yourself.
The crap in my post is no more dishonest than the crap in yours. That was my point. It's easy -- and meaningless -- to parrot a bunch of partisan stereotypes.
No it isn't. You told me to "grow up," which is a hateful response. My crap is honest. Read the posts of your leader MCOWEN. Yours are not far from his, since you are good at following his lead.

The general concensus in this forum from the leftists is they hate Bush and fear the world is coming to an end.

Hmmmmm.... funny how you say I stereotype facts, isn't it?
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dems and Libs live on hate and fear. They hated Regean, Bush Sr., Bush, past non-democratic Presidents and future non-democratic Presidents.

The leftist members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with fear and hatred, which is spearheaded by their leader who is the most fearful and hateful person here: MCOWEN.
And Republicans and neo-fascists live on lies and bigotry. They lie about Clinton (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark, and all past and future non-Republicans. They hate blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and pretty much everyone except other lily-white racists.

The right-wing members of this forum are a perfect example. Post after post filled with distortions, distractions, denials, outright lies, and racist hatred.




Isn't that fun? Grow up.
last i checked it was the dems who perpetuate racism and sexism by a little something called affirimative action.

and the 'lies' about the clintons (both of them), Gore, Dean, Clark et all are mostly true, its just what you choose to believe because you are bound and blinded by hate, fear, and partisanship.

isnt that enlightening? and we all have plenty of 'growing up' to do. not just me, you, dirtboy, and CkG, but the whole world of american politics in general.
making snide little quipps on an internet forum doesnt solve anything in the real world. [no, it doesnt even help your tiny pen|s size either]
:D
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
My crap is honest. Read the posts of your leader MCOWEN.



I know there's a word for this, but I can't think of it. ;)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
last i checked it was the dems who perpetuate racism and sexism by a little something called affiriative action.
I think it's afffffffherrrrmative actttthon you drunk bastard.
making snide little quipps on an internet forum doesnt solve anything in the real world. [no, it doesnt even help your tiny pen|s size either]
:D
I suppose you've tried and tried again to get rid of that tiny penis size, haven't you? Have you tried buying a huge-ass SUV? I hear that helps. :D

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS