Posted on 06/24/2004 8:16:18 AM PDT by presidio9
The virulence of the anti-Bush movement feeds on itself, and of course is fed by bad news. The most copious source of this is the Middle East. The mode of execution of Paul Johnson had the effect the terrorists wanted. If he had simply been shot, repercussions would have been formalistic. The announcement that he would be killed, followed quickly by the execution, followed by the posting of photos of the event, had the special effect.
It may help to recall that beheadings were conventional within living memory. They were the standard means of capital punishment in France, for instance, up until World War II. Even so, the sanguinary exercise chills the mind, and we are asked, however indirectly, to blame George Bush for it, as for practically everything else going sour in the world.
A broad search of anti-Bush Web sites suggests the scope of festering animosity toward Bush. We have, e.g., BartCop, described by a compendium of Web sites as "Dedicated to hammering Bush and right-wing hypocrisy, featuring cartoons, daily news update." The Smirking Chimp gives "news, rants, activism and other things anti-Bush," while the utilitarian Wage Slave Journal gives the George W. Bush Scorecard of Evil. BushAndCheneySuck.com is modestly "dedicated to licking Bush in 2000 and beyond."
That last brings to mind the temper of dissenters in the period of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was a take-it-to-bed relief, after the disastrous defeat of Alfred Landon in 1936, that at least the two-term convention established by George Washington would mean an end to FDR in 1940; but of course he decided to run for a third term. Then Pearl Harbor happened, and there was distraction in the critical community, which paused to fight a war. By the time 1944 came around, re-electing FDR had become something of a routine, and the world went on.
As it will in 2005, with the re-election of George W. Bush?
History tends to reassure us on this point. Elections have assimilated American dissent since 1860. The mark of democracy is submission to the majority. But this time around, if the current figures hold, the rupture will be deepened. As of yesterday, the polls were showing Kerry, 48; Bush, 44; Nader, 6. The first two of these data are not striking; a seesaw between the two principal candidates happens frequently. The Nader factor is troubling, however, because if Bush defeats Kerry by a margin less than the nick taken by Nader, the anti-Bush political community will think itself robbed yet again. It happened to us in 2000, they will be saying, when Gore had the popular vote and we lost by a judicial caprice. Now, if Nader is responsible for a fresh loss, we have to wonder about the reliability of democratic practices.
The kind of people who generate BushAndCheneySuck.com don't make up dissent at an institutional level. If Bush wins, even on account of the Nader factor, it is not likely that the United States will stampede for a Constitutional Convention jettisoning the Electoral College (news - web sites). Such an amendment couldn't get by the states that would be disfranchised on account of it.
But there is a special odium at large in the matter of George Bush. It will seek to release itself by a rabid campaign against him, a campaign which, of course, could be victorious. But there will need to be a tranquilizing factor in the campaign. If, for instance, Bush handles Kerry confidently and dispositively in the three debates, that could provide a sense of democratic vindication. If real progress in Iraq (news - web sites) under native rule pivots the scene slightly, but substantially, toward stability, Bush could legitimately profit.
In the absence of such developments, the anti-Bush diehards are headed for a disillusionment likely to affect the democratic culture. What matters, in democratic elections, is not only submission to the majority, but also civil relations.
Nobody from the world of BartCop is going to end up loving Bush himself, but everyone has to gain from a lowering of voices. This isn't going to happen until after this era's Pearl Harbor, on Nov. 2, a long four months away.
Nobody from the world of BartCop is going to end up loving Bush himself, but everyone has to gain from a lowering of voices. This isn't going to happen until after this era's Pearl Harbor, on Nov. 2, a long four months away.
I think he's wrong on this.
The country has been moving to the right for 60 years, now, and it's not going to stop just because Bush loses.
If Kerry wins, the left is going to hate him as much as they hated Johnson, in 1968.
But if Bush wins, and the GOP does as well as it possibly could, we'll still have a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. It'll be narrower, but it will still be there.
And because it will be narrower, the tactics the Dems will have to use to maintain it will be even more extreme than we've seen already.
So I don't see thing settling until 2008 - and I have real worries about whether the left will finally accept the failure of their collectivist dreams, and allow rational voices to regain control of the Democrat Party, or whether they'll choose civil war.
In 2008, Hillary will be elected, which will make me want to move to an island somewhere.
Every day the left ratchets up the hate. And every day I expect the backlash against them from the American people, but it never comes.
"But if Bush wins, and the GOP does as well as it possibly could, we'll still have a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. It'll be narrower, but it will still be there.
And because it will be narrower, the tactics the Dems will have to use to maintain it will be even more extreme than we've seen already. "
When Bush wins, that filibuster will go away. It was a RAT tactic used to sabotage Bush's presidency. A second Bush term will result in a anti-left agenda which will force the Senate and the Congress to either fall in or if they choose to filibuster, be ready to see their pork projects vetoed.
If it's moving so much to the right, then why have Republican politicians been moving left?
Not meant to be a joke - it's more apparent to the older generation how much to the left/center we've moved.
Republican voters maybe moving more to the right, however the politicians know they have that vote locked up, and so they move towards the left/middle to try to get the conservative democrats.
That won't happen. Too many people in her party don't care for her or Bill. If you ignore the lovefest the media has with them, you'll find a lot of people blaming them for the backlash that has caused many to vote for the GOP.
If we had to live with it, (unbearable as it turned out to be) the Liberals can live with the same situation.
They may not, though.
For all of his personal issues, Clinton was a man with few principles. He ran as a centrist, and from 1994-1998 he pretty much operated as a centrist.
A lot of the left's outrage at the 2000 election was that they felt they'd compromised with the Democratic Leadership Council long enough - now it was their turn.
If Kerry wins, what he's going to have to do in office is going to piss off the left nearly as much as what Bush will do in office. If he wins and then starts off like Clinton did in 1992, 2010 will be as big an electoral disaster for the Dems as 1994 was. And if he doesn't, the left is going to be just as pissed as they are now.
And if he loses, the Dems are going to be even more pissed.
In truth, there's only one thing that is going to make the left not be pissed - and that's for them to grow up, recognize the fundamental evil that is statist collectivism, and to stop being leftists.
And somehow, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
"Every day the left ratchets up the hate. And every day I expect the backlash against them from the American people, but it never comes."
That's because the American people simply don't listen to these kinds of nuts. Which is good.
Oh well...always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Poor Evita, lucky us.
Mrs. Bill Clinton will NOT serve two terms as Kerry's VP. She could conceivably be elected one time as French's Vp but will be running the next time as the incumbent P.
W has as yet shown no signs of willingness to veto anything at all.
It's not that voters are moving to the right, but that the whole discourse of political philosophy has moved to the right.
On social issues, the voters are far to the left of where they were 60 years ago.
On issues of government, there was no real right, 60 years ago. Democrats and Republicans were both controlled by liberals, and the only signficant political question was what form government control of the economy should take.
I hate myself for saying so, but part of me hopes they opt for the 'out in a blaze of glory' option.
When Bush wins, that filibuster will go away.
I don't see that.
The Dems are terrified of losing control of the judiciary.
They aren't going to suddenly sit back and let Bush appoint a handful of honest jurists to the Supreme Court, regardless of the political consequences to the Party.
Getting one's head quickly sliced off by a guillotine is quite different than getting it (relatively) slowly sawed off by a Jihadist with a knife.
Another "intellectual" conservative missing the obvious.
He blames "bad news", for anti-Bush websites.
Yet neglects to blame his co-horts in his circle, namely the NY media, and Hollywood.
Mr. Buckley, there was "bad news" under Clinton too, with one HUGE difference.
WE NEVER HEARD ABOUT IT! If it wasn't completely ignored, it was explained in their very resonable context, in historical terms, by their "experts", and using their verbs.
Ask any American on the street, and you will hear, "clinton was impeached for sex, Starr was the pervert, the US had "prosperity", vs, the "decade of greed", OBL's threats were ignored, Saddam was contained, the Islamic cults are victims of Israel and the US, homelessness was non-exsistant, guns are bad, anal sex is good, Christianity is dangerous, Bill Gates and corps are the enemy of the good, Universal Health care was a simple solution.
And dont' forget, Republicans are homophobes, bigots, racists, want to kill the elderly, starve children, Newt shut down the government......
Now how do everyday citizens get these ideas? From BartCop?
How absurd.
"I don't see that.
The Dems are terrified of losing control of the judiciary.
They aren't going to suddenly sit back and let Bush appoint a handful of honest jurists to the Supreme Court, regardless of the political consequences to the Party."
I think they are more terrified that their pork and special interest money will go away. I think many of them know what is transpiring within the party and once Bush wins they will have to make a moral decision. Take back the party from the Socialist fringe or lose the next election because that's what they will be labeled as.
I think this last cycle with the filibusters was in anticipation that the RATS would recapture the Whitehouse in 2004. Like always, they were wrong.
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.