Why do Dems hate bush so much?

[manu1959]

i was looking at some video the other day from 2000......bush had barley been elected and people hated him? why? i will tell you....they are sore losers

the other interesting thing is the dems claim they; are smarter, better educated, have a better way and a better message....they have been saying it for six years now nothing but insults towards those they attempt to sawy to their party......i have yet to hear one idea other than W is an idiot.....and an evil genius......

man are these folks going to be pissed in 08

 

[Gunny]

i was looking at some video the other day from 2000......bush had barley been elected and people hated him? why? i will tell you....they are sore losers

the other interesting thing is the dems claim they; are smarter, better educated, have a better way and a better message....they have been saying it for six years now nothing but insults towards those they attempt to sawy to their party......i have yet to hear one idea other than W is an idiot.....and an evil genius......

man are these folks going to be pissed in 08

The Dems hate anyone and everyone that get between them and control. Look at what Dem's call red-stater's -- uneducated rednecks.

If we'd just vote them all into office and let them decide what is best for us, I'm sure they'd like us again (in a condescending manner, of course!).

 

[manu1959]

The Dems hate anyone and everyone that get between them and control. Look at what Dem's call red-stater's -- uneducated rednecks.

If we'd just vote them all into office and let them decide what is best for us, I'm sure they'd like us again (in a condescending manner, of course!).

i was told just the other day that if i would just consider both sides i would see how wrong my beliefs are......their arrogance is boundless

 

[Gunny]

i was told just the other day that if i would just consider both sides i would see how wrong my beliefs are......their arrogance is boundless

:rotflmao:

Sounds about right .... "we know what's best for you, don't worry" aka "bend over ... this won't hurt a bit."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

i was looking at some video the other day from 2000......bush had barley been elected and people hated him? why? i will tell you....they are sore losers

the other interesting thing is the dems claim they; are smarter, better educated, have a better way and a better message....they have been saying it for six years now nothing but insults towards those they attempt to sawy to their party......i have yet to hear one idea other than W is an idiot.....and an evil genius......

man are these folks going to be pissed in 08

The current hatred has been vastly increased by the fact that most ardent liberals THINK the election was stolen. No matter how much evidence, or proof that it was a legally won election, they wont buy it.

LIberals are really fucked up. Thats why Im not one anymore

 

[insein]

Revenge. The have had a bad taste in their mouth since Clinton was impeached. From there, the 2000 elections just added fuel to their fire. 2004 just sent them over the edge. They are so far gone that they actively promote anti-americanism as their party stance just to court the base of their party.

Truthfully, the impeachment of Clinton was one of the worst political moves the Republicans could have made. Think about it. We had control of the Congress. Clinton then had a scandal. They had him by the balls. He needs good publicity to save his legacy. He would have had to work with the Reps exclusively to save it. The Reps could have pushed through SS reform, education reform, tort reform, REAL welfare reform. You name a fiscally responible policy and the Reps could have gotten it done because they had Clinton over a barrel. Instead they went to impeachment and riled up a bunch of lefty wackos to spend money in an area where they had little interest.

It all stems back to that. The dems are still killing themselves. They are just taking the country with them.

 

[Annie]

Revenge. The have had a bad taste in their mouth since Clinton was impeached. From there, the 2000 elections just added fuel to their fire. 2004 just sent them over the edge. They are so far gone that they actively promote anti-americanism as their party stance just to court the base of their party.

Truthfully, the impeachment of Clinton was one of the worst political moves the Republicans could have made. Think about it. We had control of the Congress. Clinton then had a scandal. They had him by the balls. He needs good publicity to save his legacy. He would have had to work with the Reps exclusively to save it. The Reps could have pushed through SS reform, education reform, tort reform, REAL welfare reform. You name a fiscally responible policy and the Reps could have gotten it done because they had Clinton over a barrel. Instead they went to impeachment and riled up a bunch of lefty wackos to spend money in an area where they had little interest.

It all stems back to that. The dems are still killing themselves. They are just taking the country with them.

I don't think your 'reading' is correct, but even if I did, water under the bridge now...

 

[manu1959]

I don't think your 'reading' is correct, but even if I did, water under the bridge now...

what is your take?

 

[Gunny]

Revenge. The have had a bad taste in their mouth since Clinton was impeached. From there, the 2000 elections just added fuel to their fire. 2004 just sent them over the edge. They are so far gone that they actively promote anti-americanism as their party stance just to court the base of their party.

Truthfully, the impeachment of Clinton was one of the worst political moves the Republicans could have made. Think about it. We had control of the Congress. Clinton then had a scandal. They had him by the balls. He needs good publicity to save his legacy. He would have had to work with the Reps exclusively to save it. The Reps could have pushed through SS reform, education reform, tort reform, REAL welfare reform. You name a fiscally responible policy and the Reps could have gotten it done because they had Clinton over a barrel. Instead they went to impeachment and riled up a bunch of lefty wackos to spend money in an area where they had little interest.

It all stems back to that. The dems are still killing themselves. They are just taking the country with them.

The impeachment was a diversion. Starr was putting too much heat on Hilalry over Whitewater, and he must've gotten too close to the truth. Suddenly Janet Reno authorizes him to refocus the investigation to Clinton and Lewisnsky.

A big waste of money. Hillary got the heat lifted. Clinton admitted to his impropriety and the Dems just shrugged. Lewinsky made the talk show circuit. Linda Tripp got a cushier gov't job.

And the Republicans were the heels in the media. What more could a left wingnut want?

 

[Avatar4321]

i was looking at some video the other day from 2000......bush had barley been elected and people hated him? why? i will tell you....they are sore losers

the other interesting thing is the dems claim they; are smarter, better educated, have a better way and a better message....they have been saying it for six years now nothing but insults towards those they attempt to sawy to their party......i have yet to hear one idea other than W is an idiot.....and an evil genius......

man are these folks going to be pissed in 08

Pride.

They think that Bush is an idiot. That their ideas are superior. They are the smart people and everyone else is that stupid and they are just frustrated that most Americans see them as a bunch of morons. So they take it out on the President.

Alot of it is because they are sore losers. Alot of it is because in t heir hearts they know us Republicans can articulate our agenda better and they think it has to be some kind of trick because that is what they have been using to stay in power for years.

Fact is their weaknesses have made them blind to all things that are good and decent. all that is driving many of them is their lust for power.

 

[Mr.Conley]

And why do the Republicans hate Clinton so much?

Why can't the Dems stand Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior?

Why don't the Republican's support Jimmy Carter?

Why couldn't the Dems stand Nixon?

Why did the Republicans think FDR was a communist?

What was the dems problem with Hebert Hoover?

Why don't the Republicans formally apolgize for Warren G. Harding?
(Seriously on this one)

The list goes on.

I think it kind of speaks for itself though.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And why do the Republicans hate Clinton so much?

Why can't the Dems stand Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior?

Why don't the Republican's support Jimmy Carter?

Why couldn't the Dems stand Nixon?

Why did the Republicans think FDR was a communist?

What was the dems problem with Hebert Hoover?

Why don't the Republicans formally apolgize for Warren G. Harding?
(Seriously on this one)

The list goes on.

I think it kind of speaks for itself though.

Not really. The palpable hatred the dems feel for Bush is unprecedented in history.

 

[ThomasPaine]

And why do the Republicans hate Clinton so much?

Why can't the Dems stand Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior?

Why don't the Republican's support Jimmy Carter?

Why couldn't the Dems stand Nixon?

Why did the Republicans think FDR was a communist?

What was the dems problem with Hebert Hoover?

Why don't the Republicans formally apolgize for Warren G. Harding?
(Seriously on this one)

The list goes on.

I think it kind of speaks for itself though.

sense whatsoever. I know of not one single Republican I have read of or spoken to that thought FDR was a communist. A socialist maybe. And who is Hebert Hoover? Herbert's consonantly challenged brother? Apologize for Harding? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt? Teapot Dome?

The only people that support Ole Jimmy "Grits" Carter are idiot lefties.

 

[Annie]

Harding was a lousy president, but not as bad a Jimmy Carter, at least Harding had the good grace to die.

 

[BATMAN]

I think a lot of it is because Bush has always said what needs to be said - not what wants to be heard.

 

[Mr.Conley]

sense whatsoever. I know of not one single Republican I have read of or spoken to that thought FDR was a communist. A socialist maybe. And who is Hebert Hoover? Herbert's consonantly challenged brother? Apologize for Harding? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt? Teapot Dome?

SPELLING!!!! Is that it!?!?! Is that all you can think of???? And this is from the person whose own user name is grammatically incorrect! Go read some Old(e) English and come talk to me about spelling then, after your headache cools down that is. But really why should you because obviously you can't think of anything else to say to support your position.

The only people that support Ole Jimmy "Grits" Carter are idiot lefties.

See everyone just hate the other side. If you were a Republican, you'd be saying the exact same thing, only about Reagan.

I think a lot of it is because Bush has always said what needs to be said - not what wants to be heard.

I think you're right, plus people got really pissed over the whole going to war in Iraq.

 

[Mariner]

about other Democrats, but here are a few things that particularly bother me about Bush:

1. He hit new lows in dirty campaigning when he went after John McCain by spreading rumors that he was unstable due to his POW experience, and by leaving flyers under black voters' cars after church that implied McCain had fathered a black child. (In fact, McCain had adopted a Bangladeshi child.) Similarly, his campaigns against the Ann Richards (push polls implying she was a lesbian) and against Max Cleland (a man who lost 3 limbs in war) were way below the belt. And it was all done so smoothly that no blame could be pinned. Bush would be saying nice things about his opponent and calling for a clean campaign while Rove was doing the opposite.

2. Though I agree that in legal terms, the election went to Bush in 2000, there's a lingering bad feeling. So many things had to go wrong in Florida for Gore to lose. If Palm Beach had used a normal ballot, 3000 Gore votes wouldn't have been thrown out. Etc., etc. It also had a bad feeling that Bush, a supposed champion of states' rights, immediately turned to the Supreme Court for help when the Florida Supreme Court didn't rule his way. This seemed awfully hypocritical after a campaign in which he repeatedly criticised Democrates for building federal power at the expense of state power. It looked like naked ambition, rather than principled behavior.

3. Bush has an open disregard for government. It seems strange for the CEO of the U.S. gov't to seem to hate it. Nevertheless, he has not followed through on his campaign promises to rein it in. I don't think I'm the only fiscally conservative Democrat who is upset that gov't spending (according to the conservative Cato institute) has now grown 43% under Bush.

4. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. This does make people on the more diverse coasts of the country uncomfortable. It's not elitism or Christian-bashing. It's just that if you live in NY or Boston, your next door neighbors are likely to be Jewish, Puerto Rican, Vietnamese, gay, whatever. When someone starts talking as if there's only one religion in this country, and one set of acceptable values, saying he's guided by God, and calling our invasion of Iraq a "crusade," it worries some non-Christians--and some Christians. His push for faith-based initiatives hasn't helped either. Fortunately, he's been politically astute enough to take very few concrete steps in a fundamentalist direction. He talks the talk on school prayer etc. but avoids walking the walk.

5. Unless you're an ardent Bush-lover, you have to admit that his ignoring the memo saying bin Laden intended to strike the U.S. and his deer-in-the-headlights look when told of the attack did not look like world class leadership. His subsequent forceful efforts to link the Al Qaeda attack with Iraq turned off many more people who weren't into nation-building democracy-establishment neoCon exercises. His "you're with us or against us" approach to foreign diplomacy and to domestic disagreement turned people off further, as it seemed to completely contradict his promise to be "a uniter not a divider." Indeed, the polarization of the electorate has seldom been so extreme, as is all too evident here on USMB.

6. Bush's desire for an imperial presidency (influenced by Berkeley prof Andrew Yoo, who was mentor to several of Bush and Cheney's top aides) seems to upset the balance of powers. Even Yoo, when pressed, admits that he's stretching the constitution. When pressed by Congress recently for evidence that all of this abridgement of human rights under Bush have actually resulted in arrests of active terrorists, Alberto Gonzalez hemmed and hawed. He didn't say "Yes it has." So the answer is, No it has not.

7. As an oil man, Bush had (and still has) the ideal opportunity to take real action on oil. I'm pleased that he recently admitted we're addicted, though he quickly backpedalled on specific actions. Because he is a Republican and an oil man, he would be the one person who could push through what the large majority of economists, both conservative and liberal, believe would be the single best way to end our oil addiction: a gasoline tax that keeps the price high enough to make alternative fuel research viable and shifts people to energy-efficient cars. Instead, Bush censored the science, as he has censored science in many areas. I'm happy that a group of top Republican businesspeople convinced him to call for increased attention to science in his SOTU address, but I wish he showed some more respect for it himself.

8. I'm extremely unhappy with the Bush approach to taxes. Yes, revenues rose when the economy grew, but this particular bit of economic growth has some strange qualities to it--profits going to executives and shareholders, but not to employees. And much or all of the "boom" might in fact be a mini-bubble based on home equity loans against inflated house prices, financed by China. I do not feel comfortable that we have to borrow $3 billion a day to finance our lifestyles, or that the federal deficit is about to hit a record. If Bush wanted to cut revenues, he needed to simultaneously cut spending.

I'm not totally turned off by Bush. I think John Roberts was an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, for example. I think he is handling Iran well. I think he led us well from his bullhorm moment through Afghanistan. I also have promised here that if Bush succeeds in his risky experiment in Iraq--ending terrorism there and establishing a democracy that serves as our ally and helps spread democracy in the middle east, I will be the first to say, Bravo, and to give the man credit for extraordinary foresight and guts.

Mariner.

 

[Bonnie]

Revenge. The have had a bad taste in their mouth since Clinton was impeached. From there, the 2000 elections just added fuel to their fire. 2004 just sent them over the edge. They are so far gone that they actively promote anti-americanism as their party stance just to court the base of their party.

Truthfully, the impeachment of Clinton was one of the worst political moves the Republicans could have made. Think about it. We had control of the Congress. Clinton then had a scandal. They had him by the balls. He needs good publicity to save his legacy. He would have had to work with the Reps exclusively to save it. The Reps could have pushed through SS reform, education reform, tort reform, REAL welfare reform. You name a fiscally responible policy and the Reps could have gotten it done because they had Clinton over a barrel. Instead they went to impeachment and riled up a bunch of lefty wackos to spend money in an area where they had little interest.

It all stems back to that. The dems are still killing themselves. They are just taking the country with them.

You make a lot of good points especially about revenge. Look at all the talk of impeachment of Bush whenever the guy sneezes the wrong way. When the Democrats lost the last two elections they have been chomping at the bit for any little excuse to impeach Bush, and it's all about regaining the White House.... heaven forbid!!

 

[manu1959]

about other Democrats, but here are a few things that particularly bother me about Bush:

1. He hit new lows in dirty campaigning when he went after John McCain by spreading rumors that he was unstable due to his POW experience, and by leaving flyers under black voters' cars after church that implied McCain had fathered a black child. (In fact, McCain had adopted a Bangladeshi child.) Similarly, his campaigns against the Ann Richards (push polls implying she was a lesbian) and against Max Cleland (a man who lost 3 limbs in war) were way below the belt. And it was all done so smoothly that no blame could be pinned. Bush would be saying nice things about his opponent and calling for a clean campaign while Rove was doing the opposite.

2. Though I agree that in legal terms, the election went to Bush in 2000, there's a lingering bad feeling. So many things had to go wrong in Florida for Gore to lose. If Palm Beach had used a normal ballot, 3000 Gore votes wouldn't have been thrown out. Etc., etc. It also had a bad feeling that Bush, a supposed champion of states' rights, immediately turned to the Supreme Court for help when the Florida Supreme Court didn't rule his way. This seemed awfully hypocritical after a campaign in which he repeatedly criticised Democrates for building federal power at the expense of state power. It looked like naked ambition, rather than principled behavior.

3. Bush has an open disregard for government. It seems strange for the CEO of the U.S. gov't to seem to hate it. Nevertheless, he has not followed through on his campaign promises to rein it in. I don't think I'm the only fiscally conservative Democrat who is upset that gov't spending (according to the conservative Cato institute) has now grown 43% under Bush.

4. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. This does make people on the more diverse coasts of the country uncomfortable. It's not elitism or Christian-bashing. It's just that if you live in NY or Boston, your next door neighbors are likely to be Jewish, Puerto Rican, Vietnamese, gay, whatever. When someone starts talking as if there's only one religion in this country, and one set of acceptable values, saying he's guided by God, and calling our invasion of Iraq a "crusade," it worries some non-Christians--and some Christians. His push for faith-based initiatives hasn't helped either. Fortunately, he's been politically astute enough to take very few concrete steps in a fundamentalist direction. He talks the talk on school prayer etc. but avoids walking the walk.

5. Unless you're an ardent Bush-lover, you have to admit that his ignoring the memo saying bin Laden intended to strike the U.S. and his deer-in-the-headlights look when told of the attack did not look like world class leadership. His subsequent forceful efforts to link the Al Qaeda attack with Iraq turned off many more people who weren't into nation-building democracy-establishment neoCon exercises. His "you're with us or against us" approach to foreign diplomacy and to domestic disagreement turned people off further, as it seemed to completely contradict his promise to be "a uniter not a divider." Indeed, the polarization of the electorate has seldom been so extreme, as is all too evident here on USMB.

6. Bush's desire for an imperial presidency (influenced by Berkeley prof Andrew Yoo, who was mentor to several of Bush and Cheney's top aides) seems to upset the balance of powers. Even Yoo, when pressed, admits that he's stretching the constitution. When pressed by Congress recently for evidence that all of this abridgement of human rights under Bush have actually resulted in arrests of active terrorists, Alberto Gonzalez hemmed and hawed. He didn't say "Yes it has." So the answer is, No it has not.

7. As an oil man, Bush had (and still has) the ideal opportunity to take real action on oil. I'm pleased that he recently admitted we're addicted, though he quickly backpedalled on specific actions. Because he is a Republican and an oil man, he would be the one person who could push through what the large majority of economists, both conservative and liberal, believe would be the single best way to end our oil addiction: a gasoline tax that keeps the price high enough to make alternative fuel research viable and shifts people to energy-efficient cars. Instead, Bush censored the science, as he has censored science in many areas. I'm happy that a group of top Republican businesspeople convinced him to call for increased attention to science in his SOTU address, but I wish he showed some more respect for it himself.

8. I'm extremely unhappy with the Bush approach to taxes. Yes, revenues rose when the economy grew, but this particular bit of economic growth has some strange qualities to it--profits going to executives and shareholders, but not to employees. And much or all of the "boom" might in fact be a mini-bubble based on home equity loans against inflated house prices, financed by China. I do not feel comfortable that we have to borrow $3 billion a day to finance our lifestyles, or that the federal deficit is about to hit a record. If Bush wanted to cut revenues, he needed to simultaneously cut spending.

I'm not totally turned off by Bush. I think John Roberts was an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, for example. I think he is handling Iran well. I think he led us well from his bullhorm moment through Afghanistan. I also have promised here that if Bush succeeds in his risky experiment in Iraq--ending terrorism there and establishing a democracy that serves as our ally and helps spread democracy in the middle east, I will be the first to say, Bravo, and to give the man credit for extraordinary foresight and guts.

Mariner.

good points...food for thought

1. his tactics were no worse than any other campaign ever....politics is politics....bet ya a c note if the gore / kerry attack adds had worked you wouldn't be complaining
2. the dems filed lawsuits....bush worked the system and beat them
3. give ya this but hard to reign in a company that is at war
4. kennedy wore his religion on his seleve he was revered for it as was kerry
5. clinton passed on bin laden twice why does he get a pass and bush doesn't
6. imperial presidency...like the kennedy's tried and failed at whydo they get a pass?
7. name a pres. that has done anything about the oil crisis why did clinton get a pass for 8 years on this? and now bush is the cause of all the worlds woes on oil?
8. as a dem....it is no surpise that 'reganomics does not appeal to you......if your boss is doing well is he more or less likely to take risk exapnd the business pass out raises and bonuses....as a boss of a 30 mill company i can tell you what i have done

as for your editorial comment hey you are entitled to your opinion......

 

[Mr.Conley]

1. his tactics were no worse than any other campaign ever....politics is politics....bet ya a c note if the gore / kerry attack adds had worked you wouldn't be complaining
2. the dems filed lawsuits....bush worked the system and beat them
3. give ya this but hard to reign in a company that is at war
4. kennedy wore his religion on his seleve he was revered for it as was kerry
5. clinton passed on bin laden twice why does he get a pass and bush doesn't
6. imperial presidency...like the kennedy's tried and failed at whydo they get a pass?
7. name a pres. that has done anything about the oil crisis why did clinton get a pass for 8 years on this? and now bush is the cause of all the worlds woes on oil?
8. as a dem....it is no surpise that 'reganomics does not appeal to you......if your boss is doing well is he more or less likely to take risk exapnd the business pass out raises and bonuses....as a boss of a 30 mill company i can tell you what i have done

One thing I notice throughout your post is that you frequently reference past presidents similar inaction to defend Bush's. While it is true that no president has done anything to wean us off oil, does that really justify Bush doing the same? We have identified an obviously bad policy but does saying a previous president followed the same bad policy really justify the current one continuing the course. One of the main reasons democracy is sucessful is because it allows for new leaders and new policy makers who aren't attached to a (large) legacy of policies they have to defend on their "honor" to come in and improve the system. If every president was beholden to the positions and policies of previous administrations then we may as well become a dictatorship. This is something I notice both sides regularly do and just wanted to point out.