Run That By Me Again
E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote what could have been an interesting — if blatantly partisan — explaination of why some Democrats hate President Bush so much. After all, if I want to know why some Republicans hated President Clinton, I’d ask one of those rabid rightie sorts who think Clinton was importing cocaine into Arkansas. And if I want to know why Democrats hate Bush, who better to ask than Dionne?
Well, I’d have been better off asking someone who can at least keep his silliness somewhat sensible. Read:
. . .just before the elections, Bush went after Democrats for their stand on the homeland security bill, turning the very ground on which bipartisanship had been built into an electoral battlefield.
Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of “Bush hatred” like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.
No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean’s candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners
Let me get this straight. Democrats hate Bush because they’re mad at Democrats who supported him?
I need a drink.
And if Dionne is somehow correct, make it a double.
I can sum it up much faster. Dems hate Bush because he “stole” an election that Gore should have won in his sleep. Come on, a 2 term sitting VP behind a popular president in (what we thought was) a good economy and peacetime?? Are you kidding?
Then some dim-bulb hick governor from Texas comes along and upsets the apple cart. It’s not about partisan sniping about homeland security, it’s about the Dems scraping their gaping jaws off the floor after bumbling a gift-wrapped presidency.
Sloooowly the Dems are getting to the heart of the issue…that their message is out of date and out of step with mainstream America, and the compliant media can’t cover their tracks anymore. The test comes when they decide to start listening to voters again, or simply act as the polar opposite to Republicans and wonder why they’re being voted into oblivion.
EJ is right on one point…that the wacko left is already united against Bush. The problem with his argument is that the support of the wacko left isn’t going to elect anybody to anything. Thanks for playing Doctor Dean…
A few more thoughts:
The Democratic Party has generally been in decline for more than a generation. It has been 40 years since a Democratic presidential candidate has received more than 50 percent of the total vote. On two ocassions during this period (1972, 1984), the Democratic candidate lost 49 out of 50 states. There were twelve consecutive years (1980-1992) in which a Republican was President.
In the 1990′s, however, Democrats felt pretty good, at least in some respects. Sure, they were horrified by the losses of their House and Senate majorities, but, hey, they had Bill Clinton. Plus, the country was drunk on stocks, the economy was roaring ahead (or so it seemed), and, certainly, there was no chance they could lose the 2000 election. Yes, they still were ceding political ground throughout the South, the Republicans were gaining traction at the local levels across the nation, but, by God, they would hold the highest office in the land.
Then, Gore was defeated. In the most excruciating fashion. At that point, Democrats were like the perennial loser who had gone on a wild hot streak in the casino, only to crap out at the very moment the gorgeous blond saunters over. They were more resentfull than they had been previously.
Remember, this is a political party with no core values. And they are divided on every major issue. Their only “value” is winning elections and being in power. After 2000, they were out of power. At every level! 2002 put them further into the hole. 2003 poured salt into the wound.
So, they’re lashing out. Like a spoiled child who gets grounded. And, the more they lash out, the more they go out on limbs. Then, they more they lose. It’s become a vicious cycle for them.
A sight to behold, in my view. And to cherish.
JTJ.
I think Dionne is writing about a particular piece of the Democratic party—its ground troops and foot soldiers.
The people who volunteer to man phone banks, stuff envelopes, ring doorbells, these are NOT moderates. (This is true, btw, for both parties.) These are true believers, people who will volunteer precious weekends and evenings in pursuit of what they believe is right.
And these people want their red meat. They want their elected officials (i.e., the ones from their party) to be MORE partisan, MORE ideological. They want them to stand for what they (the volunteers) stand for.
So, yes, it’s entirely plausible that these people are ticked off at even the likes of Teddy Kennedy (who went along w/ the “No Child Left Behind” school bill, after all). Especailly given what Mike M and JTJ said above, these are people who believe, in their heart of hearts, that there should’ve been NO cooperation w/ Dubya on ANYTHING after January 20, 2001. Not on judicial appointments, not on passing legislation, perhaps not even on 9-11-related issues.
And since the Dems in office (politicians, not ideologues, for the most part) didn’t live up (down) to this level, they’re going for the man who’s “mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it anymore”—Howard Dean.
Let me get this straight, Democrats didn’t hate Bush until the 2002 fall electoral season? Riiiiiiiiggggt.
Speaking of the Homeland Security Bill and the spirit of bipartisanship, didn’t the Democrats hold that bill up strictly to protect a unionized constituency? But only Bush was playing Partisan games?
And, other than this one, have you seen ANY angry anti-Bush diatribe that mentions the Bush 2002 electoral strategy with regard to homeland security?
Dionne is spinning bigtime in attempt to rationalize what is clearly an irrational hatred of Bush that is not founded anywhere near reality.
Couldn’t agree with or add anything to the comments above, except that I believe the media are complicit in the Democrat election strategy and they’re all just awaking to the power of the blogosphere.
Since it is most unlikely that Dean will be allowed to be the Democrat nominee, his fanatic supporters will most likely walk into the sunset with him and forget about voting.
We, on the other hand, will vote.
…walk into the sunset with him and forget about voting.
Yeah right. Like all those Repubs who said “it’s McCain or no one”. Sorry, erpie. Remember how much you hated Clinton? Bush hate is much, much deeper and far more rational. It’ll be tight no matter who. Its still a 50/50 country. Plus, there will be a lot of nonvoters coming out of hibernation to vote against the Great Divider.
O’Mc,
See my above post. Elections aren’t won on sour grapes. Dems lost a gimme election in 2000, and were skewered in the first post 9/11 election. Their message is out of date and out of step with America.
Bush won in 2000 with a positive, confident, consistent message. All the Dems have to offer is hatred, division, revenge, and opposition (as your post illustrates so well). That bird just don’t fly in a national election.
O’Mc:
The 2000 election showed that, w/ the end of the Cold War, and w/ the nation at peace, ideological differences between the two parties were minimal. The 2000 election, not surprisingly, showed a 50-50 country.
And it WAS a 50/50 country. If there’d been no 9-11, then the ’02 election might well have been much closer, or even tending (as historical trends would’ve indicated) against the party in the WH.
But 9-11 seriously changed the views of many a voter. If you wanna think that most soccer moms are still voting based on education, that nat’l security is not an issue, that capturing Saddam makes no difference in public perception, that much of the public thinks “Bush lied!” and want him out, that the average American thinks this was simply about oil, well, rotsa ruck.
Mike –I saw your post. i was addressing the silly point that erp made about Dean supporters staying home on election day if he doesn’t get the nomination. Dems and lots of others have many, many more reasons to dislike (better?) Bush other than the fact that the election was decided on shaky grounds. (Pleeeze don’t start, i’m not biting.) I have an incredible list of brand new reasons to dislike Mr. Bush that I hadn’t even dreamed of back in 2000. Can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who are actively getting involved in this election, even though they have never been active politically before. Dubya is a divider, not a uniter.
Oh Dean–Didn’t see ya. Where’s erpie?
Dean (Howard, not you!) collected about 1.5M in small donations in the past couple days. Rotsa Ruck.
Hippo Noodle Ear, All Vodkadoodles! See ya in da noodle ear!
From Lucianne.com quote from Dr. Dean.
“If I don’t win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they’re going to go? I don’t know where they’re going to go. They’re certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.”
Why can’t the left discuss issues instead of childish name calling? This string is discussing the various Democrat candidates and their chances of winning the nomination. Dean raised 1.5 million and I didn’t. That’s your best shot?
In my opinion Dean will not be allowed to be the Democrat nominee for the reasons already stated above, so how much he raises is immaterial.
As far as hating Clinton. No way. I thought he was a disaster as a president and as a human being and we’re paying the price for his reign of terror now. Thank God for Bush who is everything that Clinton isn’t and I think we’ll prevail and rid the world of Islamic terrorists who were encouraged by Clinton’s appeasement policies.
Bush hatred is irrational. The far left cannot deal with the fact that they are no longer in power and will probably never be in power again. It has unhinged their minds.
Happy New Year to all.