I disagree. Nixon gave people on both sides of the aisle plenty of concrete reasons to build up an unprecedented level of disgust towards him over time. Bush is simply hated because he exists, and only by the RATS. He beat the Dems' attempt to steal the 2000 election, and for that Crime Against The Democratic Party, he must be crushed. It is not anything like the anger towards Nixon. It is also not "near pathological." It IS pathological.
Let's just hope the drunk took a cab instead of committing another DUI offense.
Almost like the pathological hatred many conservatives had for Bill Clinton ...
he is a CHRISTIAN, one who actually believes what his faith tells him, and this is the absolute worst thing in the world to a liberal. If you saw that HBO movie "DC-9/11," that really captured it. A committed Christian knows there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted.
And one more thing: the very existence of committed Christians in the presence of others is unnerving to no-believers because it exposes their sinful lifestyle and makes them uncomfortable in their sin.
And the Christian doesn't have to say anything or even really DO anything, but his or her existence threatens libs.
To those who hate America and wish to destroy America, only people who can be manipulated, like Willie, are acceptable. Those who draw a line in the sand and will not be moved, are the enemy.
And, President Bush makes a good focus for their frustrations All America haters refuse to address issues logically and factually. Their tactic is to focus of the person who personifies the opposition and demonize him. This is hard to do with Bush because he is what he is.
The frustration also comes from their near victory. Willie was a true America hater, turned and trained by the commies; the ultimate mole. Willie's support was pretty much destroyed by the Gipper and he lost his motivation and opted for booze, broads, power games, and drugs.
Examples can be found almost every week on Leno and Letterman. The jokes where Bush is the target deal with his pronunciation or flight suit; the jokes about Willie (yes, still!) are barbed and deal with his dishonesty, infidelity, or Monica.
All that the neocommunists have is to hate and demonize Bush.
Frustration, of course, also comes from the fact that it certainly looks like Bush will continue to win and the America haters will continue to Frenchify.
They are clearly and viciously waging as much a war as they can today through the media and the subversion of the courts -- Civil War II isn't out of realm within the next 20-25 years IMO.
I'm not a member of the so-called "ruling corporate class" and I wholeheartedly support President Bush. I have lots of relatives, none of which are corporate bigwigs or wealthy, who support Dubya. And what does Bill Moyers seem to be? He's not exactly a member of the hardworking middle "class" (Can you tell I dislike using that term?) and you can go on down the list of those Dim candidates and pretty much say the same about them. The "richest" member of my immediate family is the one who hates President Bush with a passion. Is the world upsidedown or what?
Anyone have the same reaction I did to these sentences? What did Krauthammer fall asleep during his essay? He didn't call Bush the "so-called pretender" and as such Krauthammer seems to be pandering to his Time Magazine audience, even as he deconstructs Dem reasoning, if any. If Bush's opponent, Al Whatshisname, was blindsided by the existence of the Electoral College, he wasn't smart enough to be president. Moreover, how many kings or emperors does Krauthammer know that have gone before the UN Security Council and gotten a 15-0 vote to take serious enforcement measures against Iraq if Saddam doesn't comply with 17 resolutions or go into exile?
Dems hate Bush because his successes frustrate them, the war on terror gives Republicans a long-term advantage, the stock market/economy/jobs are coming back strongly in time for 2004, Bush has taken (or has the potential to take)nearly every other issue away from Democrats with the help of two houses of Congress, the Dem instinct is to ridicule intelligence/demonize individuals/mischaracterize issues and it's not working this time, their circus of dwarf candidate hopefuls is weak/extreme -- foreboding another McGovern-like loss, and they have no one to blame but themselves and their anti-Bush/anti-America policies. Like it's hard to admit you're wrong, that everything you believe in is meaningless or self-destructive, and that Dems will have to live with that situation for many years. (Whew, glad I got that off my chest.)
When Moyers says that Bush is attempting "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," he offers no examples. Republicans could actually number the ways in which Clinton was underming the constitution- not with hysterics about the "paytriot act" and the ways it could be used wrongly- but with real examples of criminality and utter disreagrd for the law.
And when it comes to the war in Iraq (which I oppossed and continue to do) Democrats and liberal blow hards like Al Franken and Moyers were utterly silent during Clintons almost unbelievable abuse of the use of military power based on total lies in Serbia and his two wag the bombings in Sudan and Iraq (he bombed Iraq the night before the impaeachment vote!)
Liberals have zero credibility when it comes to critcizing a basically decent man like Bush while they defended the totally obvious criminility of the sociopath Clinton for 8 loooong years.
Such short memories. Democrat's hate this President no more than they hated any other prior sitting Republican President. Their strategy to bring him down will be pretty much the same as with prior Republicans. Paint him as far right, and mentally not up to snuff. Then attempt to win the swing voters against him, without turning off the hard core Democrat.
Their problem, is finding a candidate that will win the hard core, while also reassuring the swing voter that they are not to far out. For Democrats, this as alway creates a real world dilemma.
C'mon, Charles. You know this line is bogus. Between 58% and 70% supported the war in Iraq.