Posted on 12/05/2003 8:26:01 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Hating President Bush has become a national pastime. It seems almost funny, how one man can stir up the ire of so many people. There are all sorts of reasons to hate the President. When BestandWorst.com asked their readers why they hate Bush, there were all sorts of reasons, which ranged from “because he fits way too many anti-Christ proficiencies, seriously”, to. “No, the question is - who would let an ugly monkey rule a nation?” Now, these are funny – somewhat because of the ignorance (a President doesn’t rule a nation), and somewhat because of the wording (ugly monkey?).
But, seriously, Democrats – especially those who are running for President in 2004 - love this outpouring of rage, and they’re quick to do their best to channel it. There are “I hate Bush” bumper stickers, t-shirts, underwear. There are myriad websites devoted to the subject. There was even a recent Bush-hating conference held in Hollywood. The Democrats want as many people as possible to think it’s cool to hate Bush, and they’re pushing it as hard as possible.
However, is their policy of hate actually going to win them any votes in 2004? Sure, there are the die-hard, “yellow dog” Democrats, (as we call them in the South). But these guys don’t just hate Bush – they hate Republicans in general. Actually, they hate Independents and Greens and Libertarians, too – everyone but Democrats. A hate-Bush policy isn’t likely to affect them one way or another. They’re going to vote the same way they always do.
Then there is that elusive group of middle-ground voters. This is an eclectic group. Contained here are the so-called soccer moms, the white Southern guys with the Confederate flags hanging in their trucks, the college students who are trying to figure out who is who and what ideology fits them best. These are the people that are truly struggling (for the most part) to make the right decision. Most have already formed opinions about which political party they agree with, and most tend to vote one way or another on a regular basis. However, these are the people that the Democrats are struggling to plug into the electricity of their rage and ire against the President.
Democrats, however, don’t seem to understand how silly, futile and powerless this attitude makes them look. Most people do not respond well to purely reactionary policies, but that’s what the Democrats are using. There doesn’t seem to be a unified plan among them; there’s just a lot of smoke and hot air and rage and screaming. It makes one wonder if the Democrats would exist were Bush not in office. They have become the party of the anti-Bush – the party that isn’t the Republicans.
I have to admit – I’m not one of those people that want the Democrats to just vanish from sight, though I sympathize with those who do. As in economics, a little competition usually improves the quality of the end result. However, Democrats are marketing themselves so badly lately that it’s not even a competition anymore – it’s like watching a big man finally kick the crap out of the dog that’s been nipping its heels. You feel a bit sorry for the dog, but you thoroughly enjoy watching. And so it is now. Politics is about practicality. If the Democrats think that hating Bush is going to win those votes, they’re going to continue to push that policy as hard as they can, even when it means getting kicked. It didn’t work in 2000, it backfired horribly in 2002, but they simply can’t learn their lesson. Maybe they need another kick.
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached with questions or comments at CathrynCrawford@WashingtonDispatch.com.
selling nuclear technology to China for campaign contributions
hosting Russian mob figures at the WH
Lying under oath
Accepting campaign contributions at the WH
using the WH phones for fund raising
renting out the Lincoln bedroom
witness intimidation
Cattle futures
Paula, Kathleen, Monica, Jennifer, Juanita, etc, etc
and I've only just begun. bj was a genuine charlatan. There is no comparison w/ W. None.
The dems are incapable of doing this.
It's the Commies that call themselves Dems that do
Is there an issue or position that defines that distinction for you?
It is a problem the Democrats now own.
California is Bush country now!! ;-)
Seems like they are grasping at anything they can to try and defeat Bush. His latest approval rating is 61% and the left is enraged.
How many of the alaphabet networks have had anything about Bush's approval rating since it jumped to over 60%?
Zip - zero - nada.
It is a problem the Democrats now own.
Like you, I'm feeling a lot of love for our political adversaries this morning! ;-)
Good riddance to this party of socialists and commie-loving traitors. I wonder what new party will rise from the ashes?
I always thought that was one of the lamest arguments
1) store scanners were just coming out back then
2) Tell me when a President goes food shopping??
Here are two examples I was thinking of
My mother is an average dem .. I don't agree with her politics, but she isn't out to destroy our country and put it under UN control
The Party of Clinton is
I remember that! The truth is that he did know about the store scanners.
The media just used that story to make us think that, because he was the President, he didn't hang out in grocery lines like the rest of us.
The Party of Clinton is
Yes, our national sovereignty is an important issue. And it's going to be even more important in the future.
Good post!
At this point I'd like to see the Dems, if not vanish, at least diminish to a 3rd party.
Say what you want about the domestic policies of Dems like FDR and LBJ. At least, they believed in the greatness of America and defending the nation. Much of today's Democratic Party rejects this. Lieberman and maybe Gephardt are the only two of the nine Presidential candidates I think would stand up for the country.
We cannot have a major political party where 80% of its leaders are, for all intents and purposes, opposed to the safety of the nation. Indeed, we shouldn't need to be debating this.
I don't agree with the Democrats on the budget, taxes, and economy, but by all means that is what we should be debating. I agree with the Dems on some social issues -- gay marriage, for example -- and that is an issue that the nation needs to be (and is) debating.
But we should not have to debate whether America should be defended. Both major parties should, almost reflexively, turn to the defense of America. Any debate on that should be how to best go about it.
If the Dems are unwilling to defend America, they need to go away. I hope that the next 20 years or so, sees the GOP divide into two parties -- either along libertarian vs. conservative lines or sort of a moderate Democrats/Northeastern Republicans vs. Remaining GOP lines -- and the Dems fade into history.
Then we will again have two major parties that believe in America, arguing over which has the better ideas for it. As it should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.