Politics of hate won't beat Bush

MtnBiker

Senior Member
Sep 28, 2003
4,327
238
48
Rocky Mountains
Susan Estrich
Politics of hate won't beat Bush


December 4, 2003


Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.

link

This is what I was questioning with the "Hate Bush" meeting, or whatever they called it. It will do little to advance a democrat canidate and this author of the article was Dukakis's campaign manager in 1988. a link to her bio
 
The politics of hate will certainly not beat the shrub. But I think his own actions will precipitate his demise. He lied about being a "compassionate conservative". I don't even think he's a conservative at all. He lied about his "no child left behind" program. He doesn't even begin to address the real problems of adolescent education. He lied about WMD and sent our dear soldiers into his personal war. I haven't seen the WMD's and I certainly don't see any evidence of "imminent threat" that was so much talked about months ago.

Please don't confuse my statement about the WMD thing. I fully supported and continue to support the "war on terror". I don't think the Iraqi people fall into that category. A few political nuts maybe, but not the general populace of Iraq. But that's history. We've done what we've done and we are still doing it. Again, history will tell us, I hope. If American media has it's way, we'll never know.
 
Originally posted by Psychoblues
The politics of hate will certainly not beat the shrub.

Any particular reason why you continually change the presidents name in order to ridicule? Shall the rest of us reply to your posts in kind?

You claim differently, but your agenda is as clear as water.
 
Don't start talking about lying presidents!! Was it not noclit who emphatically stated "I did NOT have sex with that woman"???
 
I always joke about the names of the prez. I called Jimmy Carter "Big Tooth" Ronald Reagan "The Actor", GB1 "The Tax-Cutter" and Bill Clinton "Big Dog".

I have no specific agenda, jimnyc, but I stated my political persuation when I came here. I'll state it again. I am a Liberal. To go a little further, I am a Democrat, a moderate/centrist Democrat. I make no apologies for that and I seek no sympathies. I voted for both Ronald Reagan and GB1. I guess you could say that I lost my presense of mind.

I hope that doesn't muddy up the water in any way. I really do prefer that my objectives and agenda remain crystal clear.
 
I hate to keep hitting the same note, but it seems to be a popular one with the right. Anybody who thinks the Dems have gone above and beyond in the "Hate the Prez" department need to try to remember the last president, and what the republican led congress tried to do to him. For the first republican who hops up with "he had it coming" I think you need to remember, you failed to remove him from office, after 7 years of investigation and an impeachment proceding, he served until his last day. If you don't consider that "Hate" politics, I'd like to hear your definition. Buck up little troopers, if it seems the Dems are being petty and venal in their critisicm of Bush, they learned it from Newt and the republicans.
 
Yes, clinton lied under oath.

Before that event, though, Gingrich led an all out assault on the clintons with whitewater and travelgate. I don't remember anything more right off but it seemed to me that the republicans were digging just as hard as the democrats are now.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Yes, clinton lied under oath.

Before that event, though, Gingrich led an all out assault on the clintons with whitewater and travelgate. I don't remember anything more right off but it seemed to me that the republicans were digging just as hard as the democrats are now.

Except the republicans had legal standing about a president that was residing in office. Offer anything you like from 30 years ago, but there's nothing like breaking the law while holding the highest position in the nation.
 
During Clintons tenure in office the republicans digging consisted of scrapping the surface compared to what is now going on, mining is the term that comes to mind. there also seems to be alot of mis-information out there, so much so that the dems cant even keepit all straight.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
what legal standing? anything BEFORE clinton lied about lewinsky.

Did he or did he not lose his law license in Arkansas based on legal standing?

I don't think American citizens will take lying under oath lightly.
 
Did he or did he not lose his law license in Arkansas based on legal standing?

yes he did, but that legal standing was based on his testimony in the lewinsky issue. My question was about anything BEFORE the lewinsky issue.

Was there any reason OTHER than the sheer hatred that gingrich had for the clintons for the assault with political weapons?

I don't think American citizens will take lying under oath lightly.

I certainly didn't. He lost all my support the minute that it was shown to be a lie. Unfortunately there are some that think its perfectly ok to do so.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
yes he did, but that legal standing was based on his testimony in the lewinsky issue. My question was about anything BEFORE the lewinsky issue.

Was there any reason OTHER than the sheer hatred that gingrich had for the clintons for the assault with political weapons?

The difference is that they didn't label it "Hate Clinton".

And before he lied under oath, how about getting a BJ in the oval office on MY time?

And do you really think the Clinton's were not involved in shady activity with Whitewater? Do you think it should have been ignored?
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
The difference is that they didn't label it "Hate Clinton".

And before he lied under oath, how about getting a BJ in the oval office on MY time?

And do you really think the Clinton's were not involved in shady activity with Whitewater? Do you think it should have been ignored?

so a 'label' makes a difference?

are the two not tied together?

and do you really think that the Bush/Cheney connection are not involved in shady activity also?

sort of sets a double standard.

Before any information came to light about anything the clintons were involved with it took major digging by the republicans. The only reason it was able to do so was the republicans had a majority in the house. NOW, the republicans are using that majority to protect Bush and his administration from the same investigations and 'mining'. One could ask, what are they trying to hide?
 
so a 'label' makes a difference?

From a prospective voters eye, yes it will.

and do you really think that the Bush/Cheney connection are not involved in shady activity also?

I think all politicians are somehow involved in shady activities. It leaves shady and becomes criminal when charges are brought forth. What have Bush/Cheney been charged with?

Someone is always going to accuse the residing administration of wrongdoing. Whether or not anything can be proven is what matters to me.

The point of this whole thread was the "Hate Bush event". I hope for the Democratic field that they have more riding into election year than trying to play on hatred for Bush - that won't even come close to unseating him.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
From a prospective voters eye, yes it will.



I think all politicians are somehow involved in shady activities. It leaves shady and becomes criminal when charges are brought forth. What have Bush/Cheney been charged with?

Someone is always going to accuse the residing administration of wrongdoing. Whether or not anything can be proven is what matters to me.

If thats the case, then why impede an investigation in congress? why won't the republican majority NOW do what they felt necessary then?
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
If thats the case, then why impede an investigation in congress? why won't the republican majority NOW do what they felt necessary then?

Is anything illegal being done?

Whether I have anything to hide or not, I still wouldn't allow the police to enter my house without a warrant. Nor do I think anyone in Congress should fully submit to unfounded accusations. And don't say that they aren't unfounded, because otherwise the legal system would allow them access to whatever they want.
 
Is anything illegal being done?

who can tell except those that are doing them? Its hard to determine any illegalities if the powers that be refuse an investigation.

Whether I have anything to hide or not, I still wouldn't allow the police to enter my house without a warrant.

Haven't you stated in other posts that you fully support the 'sneak and peek' warrants for both terrorism and domestic crimes?

Nor do I think anyone in Congress should fully submit to unfounded accusations. And don't say that they aren't unfounded, because otherwise the legal system would allow them access to whatever they want.

Some are certainly unfounded, while it seems that a few might actually be. the result is the same it seems. Only blockades, stonewalling, and counter accusations of politics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top