Posted on 01/26/2007 11:21:35 AM PST by JZelle
Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it's all the Democrats have. The churls of the left don't seem to care whether their country wins the war, the important thing is to "keep hate alive." If hate worked in '06, maybe it will work again in '08, when the stakes will be considerably higher. Sometimes it's not only hate, but a bit of schadenfreude, too, taking pleasure in the woes of the enemy. "Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss," observes Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal. "The Democrats have run against something called 'Bush' for so long this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I gotta admit, if Al Gore had managed to sue his way into the White House in Florida 2000, I would have opposed him with every fiber of my being for the rest of his Presidency, perhaps beyond the point of detriment to the country.
very well stated. thanks
"but a bit of schadenfreude, too, taking pleasure in the woes of the enemy."
Schadenfreude originally meant a more complex mix of emotions than simple gloating (taking pleasure in the woes of the enemy). It meant that the gloater was also feeling a bit guilty for taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. English didn't quite have a word for that concept, and that's why we imported Schadenfreude from German. It's unfortunate that richness of the original meaning is now lost.
Emotive pap.
There's certainly plenty of hate on the other side. Lots of irrationality as well. Too much of a bad thing.
Come on. Clinton was a total embarrassment to the country but I don't think Conservatives "hated" him and even when he shot off the Monica Missiles Conservatives kept their mouths shut because he was the President of the United States.
If Gore had won I think the majority of Republicans would have just dug in and waited the 4 years to get him out.
Of course. If you lose you take your lumps and start working for the next time. That wasn't what I was saying, however.
I said "if Algore had managed to sue his way into the White House", not "if he had won". I was addressing how I would feel if I thought he stole the election through his efforts to manufacture votes and suppress the military vote. If I was convinced Algore did that, I would probably be as unhinged as the moonbats are today.
You see, they really really believe that Algore won in Florida 2000, and "Bush" managed to steal the election with the help of his buddies on the Supreme Court. This is a settled fact to them, and they do not question it.
Given that assumption, they can be forgiven their moonbattery.
Except we have to question assumptions. It is their acceptance of this lie that makes all of their other positions inevitable.
In other words Democrats believe the world should always be fair and let them win because they are they are the good guys.
I think if they had somehow managed to steal the election and Bush had bowed out with dignity, Conservatives would not have become unhinged. They would have accepted that the Democrats were just being Democrats and what else is new.
It happens to all Conservatives who deal with liberals. That is just the way life is. It is sometimes better to let them have the ball than have them destroy the stadium.
It's the old one-way ratchet.
Maybe it's the former Democrat in me, but I was really, really angry at Algore back in December, 2000. I felt like he was screwing around with the fundamentals of our Republic in a most unacceptable way. If he had managed to abuse the system to install himself in the White House, I would have never forgiven him.
Your Milage May Vary. But try to remember how pissed off you were at Algore on ... say ... December 2, 2000.
Ah but... would you have spent 6 years trying to destroy America just because you hated Al Gore? Would you have not supported him after 9-11 because he "stole the election"? Would you have become that unhinged?
Maybe it is the fact that I grew up with very Liberal parents that I realize just what liberals will do when they don't get what they want...which is always money and power and their own personal gain.
I like to think that I would have. But I dunno. I was pretty pissed off in December 2000. But at the end of the day, the country would have to come first.
Of course, after 9/11, I would have had to oppose Algore because he was a feckless weenie and wasn't willing to take the fight to the terrorists. But that's all speculation, of course.
You said it right. The country would have come first and that is the heart of the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. The realization that sometimes there something more important than our own personal desires.
"Hate" is a verb.
"Hatred" is a noun.
:-)
We bein' ghettofied.
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.