NYT MONDAY: BUSH HATE

DrudgeReport.com ^ | 8-3-03

[Republic]

They also hate President Bush because he is something they can never be....honorable. A man who's word is good and therefore means something. They hate him because he, just by being the statesman he is, EXPOSES them for the vacuous, arrogant, stupid, vile snakes they really are. It is as simple as good vs evil, and they all KNOW where they come down on this war.

[Southack]

"I think they are on their way to another Mondale/Dukakis level of loss in 2004. I also think the Clintons and many big Dem financial backers believe that too, and that is why they all seem to want nothing to do with any of these Dem candidates."

Everything is working against the Democrats. Consider that they tapped their major Party donors **hard** in 2000, then went back to them with hat in hand in 2002 (including getting a Florida teachers' union to mortgage it's own paid-off headquarters building for $1.8 million over 30 years to buy 30 seconds worth of pro-Democratic Party ad time).

The Democrats were outspent in 2000 and 2002 in everything but one category: the Senate. In 2002 Republicans had more vulnerable Senate seats up for the taking. But even after being outspent on the Senate, and even with more open seats to defend that year, Republicans still **gained** Senate seats in 2002.

And now we are looking at 2004, with more Democratic Party Seante seats being vulnerable, and Democratic Party donations are **way**, way down. Not only are all of the big Party donors tapped out (and the past recession didn't help their state of mind), but the big guys don't like to back losers. Call politics what you will, but a lot of businessmen make **pragmatic** contributions, and not many people really think that Bush is going to be defeated, and NO ONE thinks that the Repubs are going to lose control of the Senate in 2004 with so many Democratic Senate seats up for grabs.

But wait, there's more! The Democrats are being hammered in their home state of California by Gray Davis' low poll numbers. Their biggest donor state is upset at Democrats right now because they are mad at their local figurehead, Gray Davis. Moreover, they are being asked to PAY to keep him in office in an unexpected recall election this year.

And on top of all of that, the traditional Democratic Party mouthpieces like the Boston Globe and NY Times have been hammered in a series of ethics scandals.

The Democrats don't know what to do. They've based everything on personal politics, only to find Davis dragging them down in California, their lead mouthpieces dragging them down in New York and nationwide, their overall campaign donations down, an extra election that they have to pony up money for in 2003, and more Senate seats that they have to defend in 2004.

And against all of this, they have to compete with a popular wartime President who has given two raises to our military, at least two major tax cuts to the citizenry at large, and who has united this country in a level of patriotism not seen since 1945. Good grief, look at how individual U.S. citizens are treating the French!

Democrats were predicting that they'd beat Jeb Bush in Florida in 2002. They got trounced, and I mean TROUNCED, instead.

But that loss will look **close** compared to what they are going to suffer in 2004 if Bush captures Osama, Saddam, or finds so much as a single kilo of anthrax in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Clinton has already warned the Democratic Party not to take Bush on over the WMD's. Zell Miller gave them that same warning. So too did former NYC mayor Ed Koch, as did Leftie Tony Blair. Still they persist.

Only Gore has been silent on that issue (so look for him to be pushed into the race at the latest possible moment), and Gore can't raise the funds to beat Bush in 2004, even if Hillary does agree to be Gore's VP candidate. At best they will be able to stave off a complete rout at the hands of the Republicans, and even that is only true if absolutely NO GOOD NEWS AT ALL appears in the war on terror between now and the November 2004 elections.

[Paul Atreides]

I taped Ellen RATner's predictions to Brenda Buttner as she filled in on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Here is my transcript of her comments:

BB: You basically saying that he's going to be reelected, I mean essentially unless the economy tanks...

ER: That is unless he messes up the war....my hope.

BB: Your hope?!

ER: Well, I don't want him to be reelected.

BB: Right, but I mean, 'mess up the war,' what do you mean by that?

ER: Do something that will make Americans say 'Maybe we shouldn't have done this.' You know, that kind of thing.

[CyberAnt]

"disdain"

Is that anything like the stuff which was all over the blue dress ...?? ... Just checking ..??

[I still care]

The left does not like Lieberman. They call him, in a disparaging way, "Holy Joe".

On the list of leftist priorities, destroying true religion is #1. It outranks the environment, the children and gun control.

The main, unspoken reason the left hates W is because he is a true Christian. They won't admit it, many not even to themselves, but if you look up whomever they single out for special venom, it will be whoever is more religious. It is very, very obvious to anyone who is not deluding themselves.

[CyberAnt]

I'll drink to that!!!!

[CyberAnt]

If you read "Treason" you find out why they hate him so much. So many years ago, and they're still full of hate! No wonder they all look so ugly - hate will distort your face!

[CyberAnt]

Yes, you're right! IT'S PERSONAL!!

[CyberAnt]

Don't worry - it won't do anything to keep him safe.

Better to be in Faith - believe God's word and His promise to protect Him.

[CyberAnt]

"exactly the same emotion"

NO IT IS NOT!! They hate for no reason - meaning they hate because they didn't get their way.

We hate because of their abuse of power and their lust for power at America's expense.

There is no way that is the same emotion - no way!!

[KC_Conspirator]

They are so obsessed with "overthrowing" Bush that they couldn't care less about anything the actual voters are concerned with, like POLICY, and instead will simply coalesce around whoever they think can beat Bush, regardless of what that candidate stands for.

I would say that because of their illogical hatred for Bush (and all thats good in America, for that matter) they will support the candidate who attacks Bush the most. This will usually be a guy who is weak on terrorism, likes gay marraige, and blames America for all the worlds ills. Only after many years of severe drubbings will they pose as moderates again.

[Mo1]

Yep, that's it

I knew that was what they thought, I just never realized that a lib would actually admit to it on the air

They make me sick

[Swiss]

I was cleaning out the attic today and found this 1970 Life Magazine talking about Reagan's victory in California

I didn't read the article but it was talking about how Reagan's enemies helped him win the election. I have a feeling that Bush's enemies is going to win him reelection.

There was a great picture with the article of Bob Hope, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Dean Martin, and Frank Sinatra standing together in black tuxs at a Reagan $160 a plate fundraising dinner in the magazine (I think it was Oct 30 issue).

[Paul Atreides]

The RATner was on a Bush-bashing high and let her mouth speak before her brain had time to catch up.

[CyberAnt]

"hate expressed by the Left is no different"

Sorry, but I just could not disagree more.

[Mo1]

I didn't read the article but it was talking about how Reagan's enemies helped him win the election. I have a feeling that Bush's enemies is going to win him reelection.

I can't help notice many articles today are trying to compare Bush to Nixon

Truth is IMO .. Bush is more like Reagan and the Libs fear that the truth about them will be exposed even more

[CyberAnt]

Interesting perspective!

[CyberAnt]

Well .. Rush used to say the dems were funnier when they were out of power .. looks like the dems continue to prove him right.

[John Lenin]

We cannot underestimate the hate coming from the way the GOP trashed their hero Clinton.

[summer]

Re your post #162 -- Democrats were predicting that they'd beat Jeb Bush in Florida in 2002. They got trounced, and I mean TROUNCED, instead

I think your entire analysis is right on target, Southack. I especially agree with you on the above -- and, here's my own 2 cents to add: Even though Dems got trounced here in FL in 2002, it seems to me they didn't learn a THING from it.

I say this because they actually thought the way to beat Gov Bush was to try and convince every FL voter the entire state has collapsed -- and, it's all Jeb's fault. Well, in fact, as voters here knew: (a) the state was doing pretty well, and (b) just because Terry McAuliffe wants votyers to think and act a certain way doesn't mean they will. And, so far, it sounds like Dems will use the same tactics this time around, for 2004.

Also, I am being very honest when I say I know both swing and Dem FL voters who will agree the economy may not be great; however, they are not now willing to pin the blame right on GW. They think he's got more than enough to contend with in terms of international matters.

Consequently, as much as the Dems want to "blame" GW for everything, I'm not convinced that plus Dem anger is enough to get their candidate elected -- it didn't work in FL in 2002, either. Didn't they notice?