Posted on 12/30/2003 11:45:08 AM PST by Nonstatist
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:27:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
MIDDLETOWN, R.I. -- Every action, said the political pundit Sir Isaac Newton, produces an equal and opposite reaction.
The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against President Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002. This whiplash will mean some surprising things for 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at indystar.com ...
LOL! The media will do their part, you can be sure of that.
Poor, poor E.J. Dionne. Envy and frustration have finally pushed him off the deep end.
Dean, "pragmatic and shrewd"? Sorry, don't think he has it in him. And even if he wanted to change, it's way too late. The footage of his endless string of loopy and dangerous statements is already in the can.
60%+ approval rating doesn't sound all that divisive. The divided Dems seem to be limited to the 9 RAT candidates, their sycophants and chroniclers.
It's hard to think of any other president who has gone so quickly from being so unifying to so divisive.
It's tough to find someone who can contradict himself this fast. Dionne claims that Democrats have decided to fight against President Bush after embracing him in 2002.
But notice -- it is Bush who is divisive.
You: 60%+ approval rating doesn't sound all that divisive.
Have you already forgotten that to a Democrat, anybody who doesn't agree with THEM is, in fact, "divisive," regardless of what the rest of the country thinks?
Was Bush being divisive when he was being called:
- A liar
- An idiot
- Hitler
- A miserable failure
A tough call that one......
We'll see if the doctor is a quack or not pretty soon.
He is right about that. Dean is just USING the lefties of his party to get the nomination. He is going to pull to the center very hard, but by using Clintonian verbal methods. The election will probably be alot closer than most people here think.
Bipartisan as "stealing" the Senate, which FORCED Bush to go Partisan.
That having been said, Bush is Very vulnerable, especially if he caves in on Illegal Immigration, as he seems likely to do.
With 6+ million 'unique' votes on the Michael Savage website running 19 to 1 against "Amnesty" in any of its disguises, and Savage now seeking to use that response to bring Immigration issues to the fore, Bush could lose to Dean next year.
It is Bush's race to lose, and he seems to want to risk it!
Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever.
Bush never had DemocRats! A DemocRat cannot be trusted ever, especially a liberal whose morals and ethics are by definition ad hoc and situationally.
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.
Clever, to call hate a rational response.
Critics of "Bush hatred" do not argue that opposition is a wierd psychological afflication, in and of itself. Rather, the opposition to the president in the face of tremendous support for his policies and in the general voting population is what is cited as wierd. Moreover, the strange concoction of conspiracies to explain the success of Bush policies is plainly neurotic.
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 be taken to the cleaners. [emphasis added]
Washington Democrats, having political experience, read the nation's mood and acted in accord with it (as representative government is supposed to do). How, supposedly, were they "taken to the cleaners"? GWB has proven himself an expert at issue co-opting, just as Bill Clinton was. Is this what infuriated the Angry DemocRats?
Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after 9/11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic.
The four or five of Dean loyalists that truly supported GWB after 9/11 will not make that much difference next November.
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.
This is true.
The opposite is true. Democrats will not have to spend inordinate time or money in this election year "uniting their base." Opposition to Bush has already done that.
This paragraph does not follow logically from the preceding one, so the article becomes a tad confusing. "...white men, security moms and anybody else who does not share their desire for revenge" are not part of the base support for Dean, they are persons part of the majority who support GWB, and are not united in "opposition to Bush."
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.
No one in the Republican Party sounds as liberal as John Breaux or Olympia Snow. This is a beautifully clear example of how a liberal cannot see anything liberal as being anything but mainstream, centrist, bedrock, American value, majority opinion. Bush sounded as he was, a centrist, and the conservatives of the Republican Party did give him breathing room.
I am gratified that this liberal reaffirms liberal blindness: Dean will not change his crazy tune because the libs believe it's the way the majority of Americans feel, and they've only been deceived by GWB. I am so relieved that they won't wake up to reality in time....
Gore, in the meantime, had to claw back the votes of liberals and lefties who had strayed to Ralph Nader.
God bless Nader for his attraction for ultralibs.
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 be pragmatic and shrewd.
We must be sure to assail all the lies libs will tell to make their enemy-appeasing candidate seem like a sane alternative. I am so glad Karl Rove is on this watch.
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.