A Great Article that ALL of us should take to heart

[MarkDel]

Big loss for the Bush haters

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  November 4, 2004

HATRED LOST.

For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For four years they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the 43d Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a swastika instead of an `s,' the depictions of the president as a drooling moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote and handed the haters a crushing repudiation.
ADVERTISEMENT
   

Bush was reelected with the highest vote total in American history. He is the first president since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his 2000 tally by 8 million votes and saw his party not only keep its majorities in the House and Senate but enlarge them. And he did it all in the face of an orgy of hatred.

The smears and rancor were bottomless and venomous. Michael Moore accused Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that if Bush was reelected, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken out and shot. Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which Bush was called a "thug" and a "killer." Howard Dean speculated publicly about the "interesting theory" that Bush knew what was going to happen on Sept. 11 but kept silent.

The novelist Nicholson Baker went so far as to publish a novel that revolves around Bush's possible assassination.

John Kerry never sank to that level of slime, but he never repudiated it, either. Instead of condemning the foul things said about Bush at that New York fund-raiser, for example, Kerry told the audience that "every performer tonight . . . conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

If Kerry had urged his supporters to speak about Bush with the same courtesy they would want Bush's supporters to speak about him, voters would have been impressed. If he had made it clear that he is disgusted when Bush is compared to Hitler or Mussolini and ashamed that such comparisons could be made by people backing him, he would have won the public's admiration. If he had insisted that Michael Moore leave the Democratic convention instead of being given a place of honor next to Jimmy Carter, he would have been rewarded with a surge in the polls. Instead he said nothing -- and the voters noticed.

Bush-bashers reveled in their animosity -- many openly and proudly embraced the word "hatred" -- but I wondered all along whether they weren't driving away far more voters than they were attracting. "Their unabashed loathing may energize and excite them, but they are doing their candidate and their country no favors," I wrote in this space in July. "For most Americans, hatred is a political turn-off." Now that the object of their malevolence has won more votes than any previous president, will they consider giving up the politics of hatred in favor of something healthier and more constructive?

And now that the electorate has once again chosen to keep control of the White House and both houses of Congress in Republican hands, will the Democratic Party take a long hard look in the mirror and try to understand why it has fallen into disfavor?

I told several colleagues on Tuesday that I knew what I was going to write if Kerry won the election. I would have said that the refusal of so many liberals and Democrats to accept Bush as a legitimate president had badly infected American politics since 2000, and that it would be disastrous if conservatives and Republicans allowed themselves to become equally envenomed. I planned to write that while I'd had many tough things to say about Kerry over the course of this campaign -- and while I wasn't backing away from any of them -- the voters had now spoken and their judgment had to be respected. When he took the oath of office, Kerry would become my president, too.

Well, Kerry didn't win, so this is a different column. But 55 million people voted for him, and that is no small thing. However much I may disagree with the choice they made, I don't regard those voters as fools or knaves or idiots. I regard them as fellow Americans. That is how we should all regard each other when an election season comes to a close. In his concession speech yesterday, Kerry said that when he telephoned Bush to congratulate him, they spoke of "the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."

It was a furious contest for power, but the election is over, and the fury should end. We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced by the haters.

[MarkDel]

We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced...

Opebo would not agree. BTW, not all of us are Democrats or Republicans.

New Federalist,

I was gone for a few months, so you have to explain this to me. What in the WORLD happened to Opebo while I was gone??? It's like he's not the same person...

[John Dibble]

We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced...

Opebo would not agree. BTW, not all of us are Democrats or Republicans.

New Federalist,

I was gone for a few months, so you have to explain this to me. What in the WORLD happened to Opebo while I was gone??? It's like he's not the same person...

Simply put, he got angry at something(Christians, particularly those that try to legislate morality), let his anger get in the way of his better judgement, and now this is what we have.

Wizard's Third Rule - Passion rules reason.

[M]

We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced...

Opebo would not agree. BTW, not all of us are Democrats or Republicans.

New Federalist,

I was gone for a few months, so you have to explain this to me. What in the WORLD happened to Opebo while I was gone??? It's like he's not the same person...

Simply put, he got angry at something(Christians, particularly those that try to legislate morality), let his anger get in the way of his better judgement, and now this is what we have.

Wizard's Third Rule - Passion rules reason.

Terry Goodkind is strongly for the war on terror. Some people are not, because of Wizard's First Rule.

[MarkDel]

M,

It's great to see you...how is the first year of college going?

[John Dibble]

We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced...

Opebo would not agree. BTW, not all of us are Democrats or Republicans.

New Federalist,

I was gone for a few months, so you have to explain this to me. What in the WORLD happened to Opebo while I was gone??? It's like he's not the same person...

Simply put, he got angry at something(Christians, particularly those that try to legislate morality), let his anger get in the way of his better judgement, and now this is what we have.

Wizard's Third Rule - Passion rules reason.

Terry Goodkind is strongly for the war on terror. Some people are not, because of Wizard's First Rule.

Goodkind knows he's susceptible to his own rules.

I'm for the 'war on terror' though I would fight it differently. I'd probably stress more on the covert-ops side of things. Definitely hunt down Osama and Al Queda.

I don't think there are many who are really against the war on terror. Though I think those who believe Iraq was about oil and only oil are applicable to the rule.

[Nym90]

We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us should be seduced...

Opebo would not agree. BTW, not all of us are Democrats or Republicans.

New Federalist,

I was gone for a few months, so you have to explain this to me. What in the WORLD happened to Opebo while I was gone??? It's like he's not the same person...

Simply put, he got angry at something(Christians, particularly those that try to legislate morality), let his anger get in the way of his better judgement, and now this is what we have.

Wizard's Third Rule - Passion rules reason.

Terry Goodkind is strongly for the war on terror. Some people are not, because of Wizard's First Rule.

Goodkind knows he's susceptible to his own rules.

I'm for the 'war on terror' though I would fight it differently. I'd probably stress more on the covert-ops side of things. Definitely hunt down Osama and Al Queda.

I don't think there are many who are really against the war on terror. Though I think those who believe Iraq was about oil and only oil are applicable to the rule.

I agree with your approach for the most part, John. Everyone wants to win the war on terror, we just disagree on how to do it. There is also a big disagreement on what Bush's motives are. A lot of people (such as myself) are distrustful of his motivations, even though we don't necessarily disagree on the concepts.

There is also the question of whether the costs are worth the benefits, and while much of this is subjective, I still fail to see how it's justified. I'm sure many Libertarians agree on this point as well. When considering whether spending $200 billion is justified, one has to consider all of the other ways in which it could have been spent, including not only social programs such as health care or social security, but also whether it should have been applied to deficit reduction. It is the proponents of government spending who have the burden of proof to show that the investment is worth the expenditure, not the opponents who must prove that it isn't worthwhile. Although I do in many cases feel that such spending is justified, I fail to see how it is here; I am a big proponent of government accountability as well as a believer in the efficiency and effectiveness of government (I realize that seems like kind of a paradox to some...).