Posted on 03/14/2002 8:45:53 AM PST by Apolitical
Is it something in the water that Democrats drink? Or the fact that Dubyah's approval ratings may have slipped one or two points in some opinion polls (from a whopping 79 or 80% to a "miniscule" 77 or 78%)? Or is it all just a diversion to deflect attention away from the latest reports of Clinton perfidy in office as more details of the pardons scandal emerge? Whatever it is, the loony liberal left has been out in force lately, making the screwiest pronouncements -- all of which seem to be based on the assumption that the American people are sitting on the edge of their seats hungering for an alternative to the Bush administration.
On the irrelevant annoyances front, there are all those kooky public pronouncements by the talent-challenged actress/feminist, and the eastern media establishment's favorite domestic political pundit, Sandra Bernhard. The extremely unlikeable Ms. Bernhard recently told Lloyd Grove of the Post that since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, the job which President George W. Bush has been doing is "pretty dismal and pretty scary." And she then went on to say that "Bush is amateurish and self-serving, and frankly it's disgusting."
Gosh, Sandra. Don't hold back or anything. Not that we were really itching to hear your opinions anyway.
But then again, it appears that vacuous show-biz has-beens such as Sandra, the Alec and Cher have become the ultimate public barometers of how good a job the President of the United States is doing in his effort to deal with the likes of al-Quaeda, Saddam Hussein and all the other terrorist and nuclear-weapon 'wannabes' of the tin-pot zealot set. Or so the New York Times and Washington Post appear to think, the way they splash these deep thinkers' pronouncements across their hallowed pages.
All of which leads to an even more irritating report on the front page of the March 14th New York Observer by Josh Benson. Evidently, the biggest has-been of all, Al 'I Won't Go AWay' Gore gave a campaign-mode fund-raising speech to a small gathering of New York City's most corrupt politicos. And according to the breathless Observer report, the GoreBore "tore into the Bush administration's handling of the economy, the environment and the violence in the Middle East." And "in contrast with the former Vice President's public statements since Sept. 11, Mr. Gore raised strong questions about the direction of Mr. Bush's war on terrorism and said that the President seemed to have adopted a philosophy speak loudly and carry a small stick."
Okay, let's all first pop a Xanax or break out some Pepto Bismal to calm ourselves and soothe our queasy stomachs after reading these outrageous words. And then let's try and logically analyze this latest outburst by the GoreBore.
We all know that Al Gore is an unprincipled opportunist who would shift his opinions on a dime for political advantage. So it's not surprising that he would once again raise the usual Democratic shibboleths about Mr. Bush being soft on environmental issues and soft on [Israeli] violence in the Middle East. These are areas in which Democrats are still hoping that Dubyah is vulnerable among the electorate, especially among independents who might otherwise be drawn to the President.
But what is it that's motivating all the Democratic know-nothings lately to question the President's conduct of the war on terror? After all, all their dire warnings about the Afghanistan "quagmire", and George Bush's unwinnable war against the Taliban, have come to nothing (and embarrassedly so). And the U.S. and allied Afghan forces are just coming off another victory against the last remains of the much-vaunted al-Qaeda fighting machine. And surely these unrepentant dreamers don't really believe that the solution to the continuing terrorist threat to American cities (and civilians) lies in a Clinton-style peace treaty (reams of verbiage but nothing of substance), or a conciliatory peace mission to the enemy by Jesse Jackson?
No, in the opinion of this jaded observer, what this whole phenomenon really reflects is just plain, old-fashioned bitterness on the part of these narcissistic know-it-alls -- bitterness that George Bush and his advisors turned out to be so right, and bitterness that all these dithering naysayers turned out to be so wrong.
And particular bitterness that the American people seem to know who got it right and who got it wrong (just check the latest opinion polls).
As a result, now all these desperate anti-Bushies seem to be hoping that if they can raise enough diversionary criticisms of the President, as often as possible, American voters will slowly forget their beloved Dubyah's many accomplishments and begin to question his conduct of the war and of other public policy. And then, they appear to hope, the Democratic Party might still have a chance to realize its magnificent dream of majority control of the House and the Senate in November -- and after that, perhaps march onto the tastiest victory of all in 2004, defeat of Bush The Dumber.
Of course, in their minds, it doesn't really matter how damaging this fifth-column naysaying might be to the nation's survival. For them, it doesn't seem to matter if, with their unceasing carping and criticism, they actually become the equivalent of a political iceberg that brings down the mighty American ship of state.
None of that matters, it appears, just so long as they're in charge of the sinking ship (casualties be damned).
Yes, courageous patriots that they are, these anti-Bush zealots are willing to go down with the ship. Even scarier, they're willing to do everything they can to sink it, just so long as George Bush and the Republican Party aren't at the helm anymore.
Scottie, more power so we can blow him into the next solar system..................forever!
He forgot to add esthetically-challenged. That woman is quite a bow-wow.
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.