NYT MONDAY: BUSH HATE

DrudgeReport.com ^ | 8-3-03

[Old Sarge]

I use a mix of the following:

William the Impeached;

The Bent One; or

The XXX-President.

Now, for the OTHER one:

She Who Must Not Be Named;or

PIAPS (Pig In A Pants Suit);

[ought-six]

"Yeah, they hate him worse than they hated Bush I and Reagan, but it still doesn't compare to how much they hated Nixon."

I'm not so sure about that. I see many similarities. However, one glaring difference between G.W. and Nixon is that G.W. is a likeable fellow, and Nixon -- even on his best day -- was just not a likeable person, so it was easy for many to dislike him. But it never rose to the level of hatred that we see today for G.W. The Dems' hatred of G.W. is quite visceral, and is alarming.

[ought-six]

"They hate Bush more than they love America.
That is why they seem to always be looking for negative news on the war, the economy, etc. They want America to fail, so they can blame it on Bush."

That's very true. And it is treasonous. Ann Coulter has these folks pegged perfectly.

[ought-six]

When it comes right down to it, hard-core Dims ARE children: They throw tanrtums, take no responsibility, live in a fantasy world, and want everyone else to take care of them.

[ought-six]

I don't think thre was such out-and-out hatred of Clinton as there was just utter contempt for him. I know I had nothing but contempt for the man, but I didn't hate him (although I hated some of the things he did to my country).

[ought-six]

"I often wonder if there were a run off in 92 between Bush and Clinton without that Perot if Bush would have won. What do you all think?"

Bush, but not by much.

[hobbes1]

They need to be reminded, perhaps on an hourly basis about the results of their hate campaign.

Why?.....I prefer them to kepep losing.

[shhrubbery!]

This reminds me of the Dems' visceral hatred of Richard Nixon, because Nixon showed Alger Hiss for what he really was -- a traitor.

However, GWB is no Nixon. Try as they might, the Dims will not succeed in creating a 'Watergate' scenario whereby they might bring his downfall.

[Semper Paratus]

The democrats hate effective conservative Presidents of which Bush I was not either.

[Charlie OK]

By in large, though, most Boomers my age (graduated from high school 1965; from college 1970) are really just a bunch of old farts now. They're comfortable in their SUV's. They hold watered down opinions ("My politics is ask my wife"), sort-of middle of the road. They care much more about the sale at Pier One imports, seeing the Grandkids next month, or buying that lake property in Minnesota. They're about as exciting as unbuttered toast, and their politics are about as informed as can be expected from a bunch of old farts.

In other words, people my age. I'm 55.

LOL! are you my dad? you just described him pretty well, except we both are very conservative and he has all the makings of a Freeper in him, just doesnt care to be on the computer that much. He'd rather take my daughter fishing.

[Charlie OK]

Now, you just described me. I was born in '77 and was raised on Nickelodien. I occasionally visit classmates.com to check up on the guys and girls I graduated with. One of the questions is "How would you consider yourself politically?". The majority were either "it depends on the issue" or "Conservative". There was 1 or two out of a few hundred who put "Liberal". And I went to a Publik Skewl. Pretty unscientific, but I wouldnt call that beyond redemption.

[Sabertooth]

I think the Democrats hate President Bush because he is the current incarnation of the "anti-Dem," in their religion. The activist Left, which controls the Democrat Party, is by and large full of unmoored souls who seek deeper meaning in their lives through politics. They see "Democrat" and "Republican" as synonymous with good" and "evil," and respond accordingly. Their Clintonian personality cult and their anti-Bush death cult are sides of a coin.

It's important for Republicans not to peer too deeply in that same looking glass, lest they foment personality cults of their own. I'm not always encouraged.

[Choose Ye This Day]

I prefer to refer to 42 with one, simple, all-descriptive term:


"Spot."

[Southack]

Oh, I agree that there is much truth in what you say about the extreme Left and their view of Bush as the "anti-Dem", but what I was referring to was the fact that they have no other alternative except to hate Bush.

If the Dems had new ideas of their own, they would at least have the option of promoting their own ideas rather than reflexively hating Bush at every turn, but they have no new ideas.

So they have no other option except to hate Bush. He has to be their "anti-Dem" in your words.

They've got nothing else to run on.

[CyberAnt]

Ooooh! I love the last one!! LOL!

[Eva]

Uh, oh, I am seeing a pattern of word usage in different articles from across the country that shouts Democrat talking points. Every paper is talking about how much the Democrats hate George Bush.

We need to take advantage of this expression of hate to redefine the Democrats as Leftist Socialist/fascists who want to enslave America through group think and dependence on the Nanny state.

[Sabertooth]

If the Dems had new ideas of their own, they would at least have the option of promoting their own ideas rather than reflexively hating Bush at every turn, but they have no new ideas.

They have no new ideas because no one may add one jot or tittle to their 60s collectivist bible. It is their foundational myth, and every movement has one.

I remember when the Soviets had four Communist General Secretaries in the span of 1982 to 1985, Gorbachev being the last. The first three, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, were the last revoutionaires standing from Bolshevik mythology of 1917. All of that deadwood needed to be cleared before the new blood could come in.

Epochal events generate their own mythologies, and tend to leave more leaders in their wakes than is warranted, yet they all want their day. We saw this recently in the US when the WWII-era "greatest generation" wheezed to the end of their dominance of American politics with the Bob Dole candidacy in 1996. The same mentality infects what used to pass as the civil rights movement, in the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, and Bond. That's why they incessantly recapitulate the freedom marches, rather than coming up with new strategies. Never question the foundational myths.

We see this now in the Democrat Party, and their foundational myth is the 60s. There won't likely be any new ideas from them until the 60s generation relinquishes power from their dead, clutching fingers.

[freedom1st]

The real up-chuck sickness comes the day after elections in Nov '04 when they find out that not only did they lose the WH, AGAIN; but they hold so few seats in the Senate or House that their criticisms are little more than the impolite release of bodily gas pressure in public.

I pray everyday that this scenio occurs in the '04 elections. With a filibuster proof Senate, President Bush will be able to get his conservative policies and judical appointments installed.

[Southack]

217 gets my vote for post of the week.

[COBOL2Java]

I would think there would be an opening for Hillary sometime after 12:00 pm EST January 20, 2007, because if Hillary were Vice-President she could be in office as President up to ten years if something happened to the President.

Not only that, but also remember the speculation here on FreeRepublic a few years ago about how x42 could use a national disaster to declare the Constitution null and void? He could then announce that there was no need for an election. He never did, probably because he was more interested in chasing skirts than wielding power. While his other half probably has the same interest in skirts (shudder), I am certain she would have no compunction in following this strategery...