Survey: Anger Toward Bush Intensifying

2/23/04 | By NANCY BENAC

[Starve The Beast]

The Left hated Richard Nixon so passionately that libs I know now, far too young to even remember him, loath him. During the Reagen years (when I was in college), the Left hated the gipper so much that they were nearly inarticulate with rage. Now, when the Libs talk about W., they act like a bunch of people with rabies.

This is just something the Loony Left seems to do. It doesn't really have anything to do with W.

[pawdoggie]

Having watched "GOP pollster" Luntz at work on the variations of NBC over the last five years, I would say he deserted to the enemy a long time ago.

[DarthVader]

No the anger the left has in times of national crisis always seems to blow up in their faces. Consider the 2002 elections. This strategy failed then and it will fail now.

[You Dirty Rats]

The Left is angry at Dubya because he won in 2000 and he kicked their asses again in the 2002 midterms. They hate being out of power.

They will be even angrier after the election!

[novacation]

If Bush closed the border and started deporting illegals he'd win in a landslide. Fat chance

[Bikers4Bush]

I never said that it was liberals who changed.

[Starve The Beast]

Um...there is no possible way the left's feeling can be more intense against Bush than ours were against The Perjury Pres.

Not only isn't that true, but the anger we felt for Clinton was for things he actually did, not just because he was on the opposite side of the isle.

[writer33]

The anger is real and it shows. It shows who these people really are and the media laps it up as if they were lapping up a bowl of milk.

All this coverage of homosexual marriages, Dean screams, etc... You get the point. It only enhances President Bush's calm resume. In short, it's hurting them far more than helping their cause. The good thing is that the media, most of them, don't see it.

[Bikers4Bush]

Like I said, you don't have to believe it but it's accurate.

[MissAmericanPie]

If Gore had won in 2000, you would not hear a peep out of the media over Republican fury to oust Gore in the coming election. It's too bad that Bush has squandered his reputataion with a critical percentage of conservatives in his attempt to pander to everyone but them. It's puts the outcome of the coming election in some doubt, even though I suspect he will give the demonrats a sound drubbing if fraud is limited at the ballot box.

On the other hand there may be a lesson taught on the bad idea of attempting to be all things to all people to no ones satisfaction. Nader running is a real good deal if the election is as close as the one in 2000.

[Bikers4Bush]

Since I'm a conservative that's either a poorly phrased question or just plain stupid.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Conservatives haven't changed either. You are angry because conservatives don't see things as extreme as you do. But that still does not make your position any more sanctimonious than the majority, it only makes you self righteous.

[steve50]

I never said that it was liberals who changed.

There's a faction that refuses to see longtime republican voters getting fed up with Bush. It's easier to scream Moby than to face reality for them.

[Kerberos]

"Since I'm a conservative that's either a poorly phrased question or just plain stupid."

How so?

[Right_in_Virginia]

``I've never seen a Democratic Party more unified and more focused

Yeah..that explains the four plus Nader candidates tripping over each other.

[Bikers4Bush]

Where did I ever say I was angry psycho? The only folks sanctimonious are those who refuse to acknowledge that others may have a legitimate beef.

As for self-righteous, have a look in the mirror.

[DarthVader]

I was in MD last night and talked to some and the libs are seething but some of their anger is not as blind as you may think. I made some very good arguements concerning the issues and several of them conceded to me. Some were saying to me privately after our debate they thought Kerry was a buffoon and didn't think he has much of a chance of winning. They also said that as they were learning more about Kerry that they were having concerns about his character and weak stances on national defense and you may laugh but got some of them to concede that W is doing a good job with the war on terrorism.

[McGavin999]

The dems and the media (same thing) are doing whatever they can to stir this up. They might be a little sorry if something happens. Terrorists look for weakness and if we get hit again, the first place I'm going to turn is toward the media.

[PeteFromMontana]

``Anger is not necessarily a productive emotion when it comes to politics,'' Luntz said. ``The anger against Bill Clinton was so fierce and over the top that it helped him in 1996 and then again during the impeachment in 1998. People got more angry at those yelling at the president than at the president himself. You could easily see the same thing happening here.''

____________________________

I remember when Clinton won re-election I was just flabbergasted that anyone would vote for that guy. I believe the liberals will see the same thing happen to them in 2004. The American people have invested a lot of trust in Dubya and in the end they will choose him over any pessimistic loser the Dem's care to put up as their candidate.

[Bikers4Bush]

How so? Do you not know how conservatives and liberals differ or are you just being difficult?