Politics of hate won't beat Bush

[jimnyc]

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

Then I guess that means that they are unfounded until charges have been leveled, no?

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

Sure did! And that's why I said "they would need a warrant". In both cases a warrant would be necessary to enter. I did say I wouldn't let them in WITHOUT a warrant, didn't I?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Then I guess that means that they are unfounded until charges have been leveled, no?

semantics and you know it, jim. there can be no charges until an investigation. If an investigation is blocked then the system is broken or corrupted.

 

[nbdysfu]

Are there not investigations going on? If the investigation requires access to information which they have no right to barring a warrant, and they can't get one through judicial courts, what gives?

 

[Campbell]

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

One thing I'll never understand. After George W. Bush and his daddy, why would any sane person ever vote for another one of them. Hell....Barbara Bush herself said, "We've Had Enough Bushes"

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

One thing I'll never understand. After George W. Bush and his daddy, why would any sane person ever vote for another one of them. Hell....Barbara Bush herself said, "We've Had Enough Bushes"

Wow! Someone really went digging for this old thread. How about this: No more Bush, no more Clinton. Sound good?

 

[Campbell]

One thing I'll never understand. After George W. Bush and his daddy, why would any sane person ever vote for another one of them. Hell....Barbara Bush herself said, "We've Had Enough Bushes"

Wow! Someone really went digging for this old thread. How about this: No more Bush, no more Clinton. Sound good?

Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%. That after the Republicans and Kenneth Starr had been all over every move he made for eight solid years. I might mention that all their bullshit cost the American taxpayers over 100 million dollars.