Posted on 04/19/2009 2:27:33 PM PDT by lewisglad
In the weeks leading up to the US Supreme Court decision ending the 2000 presidential election, my brother, John Zogby, polled Democrats and Republicans asking each whether they would respect the outcome of the contest and view as “legitimate” the presidency of either George W Bush or Al Gore. Two thirds of Democrats said that, despite their misgivings about the process, they would still respect the outcome and see Mr Bush as the “legitimate” president: less than a third of Republicans said that they would respect Gore as “legitimate”.
Based on this finding, John expressed concern at the time that should Mr Gore be declared the winner, Republicans would mount a rather strident opposition, doing their best to obstruct his presidency.
In any case, the Supreme Court ruled in Mr Bush’s favour and Mr Gore, ever the statesman, conceded, urging his supporters to unify the country. And so, despite hard feelings about the way the GOP had hounded Bill Clinton, almost derailing his presidency with endless investigations and an impeachment, and the ugliness and heat of the post-election drama, Democrats accepted the Bush presidency. While not supporting his entire agenda, some Democrats even gave Mr Bush the votes he needed to pass controversial legislation on taxes, education and prescription drug reform, followed by the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq.
After ten years as the dominant force in Congress, Republicans lost control of both houses in the 2006 election. And then, in 2008, their eight-year hold on the White House came to an end. Barack Obama’s victory, unlike the contests of 2000 and 2004, was neither close nor controversial. It was decisive.
Nevertheless, it appears from their behaviour that many Republicans simply refuse to accept that they have lost both the White House and Congress. Their rhetoric is harsh and unyielding. In Congress they have largely voted as a bloc against the new president’s agenda. More troubling still has been the degree to which extremist “non-elected” conservative commentators on television, radio and the internet have irresponsibly attacked President Obama, raising concerns that they may be inciting dangerous fringe elements of the far Right.
All of this was in evidence during the past week, first with the publication of the results of a Pew poll showing a deep partisan divide in support for the president. The poll found an enormous gap of 61 points between the Republican and Democratic approval ratings of President Obama’s job performance.
And then, on April 15 – the deadline for Americans to file their tax returns – there was a day of national anti-tax demonstrations. While these anti-tax rallies were not as massive as their organisers had hoped, the vitriol of the demonstrators made clear that this was far more than a tax protest. Many of the signs and slogans used by the demonstrators personally targeted the president. Some depicted Mr Obama as a Marxist, a Nazi, a Muslim or a “foreigner”. Others were just simply racist.
Also last week, a Department of Homeland Security report called Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fuelling Resurgence in Radicalisation and Recruitment came to light. One disturbing finding of the DHS assessment was that “right-wing extremists have capitalised on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilise existing supporters and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning”.
The claim by conservatives that they are innocent of incitement does not hold up. Listening to the near-hysterical attacks on Mr Obama and the US government in general, launched by the likes of Rush Limbaugh on radio or Glenn Beck on Fox TV, can be frightening.
And the argument that this polarisation is the president’s fault, since it is he who is dividing the electorate, also has no foundation in fact. He is the president. He won the election and is pursuing his agenda. This is what some conservatives can’t accept. And so, loosely translated, when they say Obama is a polarising figure, what they appear to mean is “we are angry that he won, and even angrier that he’s acting like the president”.
This is the treatment that Al Gore would have received had he been declared the winner in 2001. It is poisoning the well of American politics, and as the DHS report warns, it may pose dangers in the future.
He won...America lost...
does anyone remember if the left was silent after they lost?
Zogy....HELLO...there are going to MORE ELECTIONS...get it?
Uh.....yeah....sure.
John is being divisive...he needs to stop writing...sit down...and shut up. Right?
geez, and nothing like this has happened before. there was no book written to murder bush, no movie about his death, no plays excoriating him...no, only the republicans can poison the well. why we trust the zogbys for anything, i do not know.
Gore was clearly the loser. Why should the Republicans have accepted him as legitimate. Obama’s credentials are questionable. He may not be eligible and refuses to prove he is. Sorry Jimmy boy, we aren’t going to bow to your spiritual brother just because the majority of Americans voting elected him. We still have a constitution which hopefully you learned about at some point in your life.
Maybe if we thought for a second that he won in any sort of fair and honest way....no, everything he stands for is dishonest as are the people who make excuses for him...it is our duty to not get over a dishonest election. No, we will not get over it.
“Zogy....HELLO...there are going to MORE ELECTIONS...get it?”
Uhhhhhh.......we hope....
Has anyone figured out why the Democrats beat the Republicans in the last two elections?
You would think with its history, the phrase poisoning the well would be considered non-PC.
Illegal Acorn voter registration and voters like Meghan McCain?
no... I remember they didn’t shut for 8 years though...
“The claim by conservatives that they are innocent of incitement does not hold up. Listening to the near-hysterical attacks on Mr Obama and the US government in general, launched by the likes of Rush Limbaugh on radio or Glenn Beck on Fox TV, can be frightening.”
Hey! JZ! I hope they make you pee your pants!
James J. Zogby (born 1945) is an American academic, political consultant and founder and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Arab American Institute.
Spoken like a true partisan hack that he is, Zogby makes no attempt to determine if Obama’s behavior since becoming President has driven the Republicans and most everyone else into a hardend opposition. No, all the blame goes to Republicans for not giving Obama leeway to desroy the nation without any opposition.
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.