What disturbs me about the "Bush-hating" talk of late...

[Brotherjohn]

... is that it tends to equate "Bush-hating" with "Clinton-hating". I think that is the main goal of conservatives who have pushed the whole "hatred of Bush" idea. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Sure, there have been a few books published against Bush, and the news is starting to portray him in a (slightly) not-so-positive light, after years of licking his boots. But by and large, nearly every anti-Bush book, or anti-Bush pundit, criticizes Bush based on his POLICIES. You don't see them out there saying he's a spoiled, alcoholic brat who never worked a day in his life (sure, you hear it here, but not in the mainstream). But much more, and worse, was said about Clinton. We could start with rapist and murderer.

Clinton was constantly attacked at every level of his being (from the political to the deeply personal... and usually the deeply personal). Clinton was attacked non-stop, at every level of our society... from talk radio (all day long every day), to cable news, to numerous organizations devoted exclusively to digging up dirt on him, to religious denominations and programming constantly tearing him down in sermons and self-produced videos. Clinton was attacked in the form of investigations too numerous to count, always pushed by the right and seldom yeilding any results. The ferocity was such that when the attorney general would not investigate every potential scandal conservatives promoted, they began to call for investigations of her (despite the fact that she had initiated more investigations against a sitting president than ever before). Then there was the impeachment... over testimony of a consensual private affair given in a civil case which had been dismissed (and was initiated by one of above said dirt-digging organizations, the "Arkansas Project").

If the attacks on Clinton had been primarily policy-based and about 1% the intensity that they were, then there might be some comparison with today's criticism of Bush.

Apparently, just because the polls start to reflect a little disenchantment with Bush, conservatives have to go blame it on "Bush-hating". But look at those polls... by and large, they show that the same people who are losing faith in his domestic and foreign policy initiatives across the board still find him a likable guy. This only proves that it's the policy, not the man, that people "hate".

We should avoid biting on the "Bush-hatred" bait, as this only enables Bush's defenders. What is really relevant is our disagreement with his policies (call it "hate" if you will). THAT is what has the left and much of the middle so inflamed. Whether or not we hate the man is irrelevant (and that, truly, is not what has the right so worried). Many in the nation may have hated Clinton as a man. What he did to his wife and family was reprehensible, and I personally would urge my daughter to steer clear of him at all costs. But because people generally liked his policies, we supported him. We liked the way he was doing his JOB (that IS what we elected him for).

What Bush is increasingly the recipient of these days is not actually "hate", but "opposition". Republicans haven't seen it in so long, I don't blame them for being confused.

[PurityOfEssence]

1. They'd best be careful with bringing it up

because it takes the political contest to the sphere of a personality referendum on Junior himself. That's one they will lose, and since all of their hopes are pinned on him as an honorable man who's a great leader, they're vulnerable as hell.

Once they bring it up, instead of denying the blind hatred, a deft deflection along the lines of "well, he HAS hurt the poor while constantly helping the wealthy, he does disregard law when it pertains to the rich, he is inciting fear to push through an unrelated selfish agendum and all that..." can be devastating. To say "well, regardless of what his true character is, you've got to admit that..." and then enumerate his duplicity with the forces of privilege is brutal.

Besides, calling it "Bush hating" sounds like WHINING, doesn't it? That's something that needs to be turned around on the forces of aristocracy.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Well Said, To Both Of You

I agree it's a political liability for them to use this tack. However, at this point, i think it's all they've got.
The Professor

[Cocoa]

3. Kerry handled it very well on Meet the Press

Russert read him a quote from a magazine where Kerry said some personal things about Bush, like that he's the same asshole he was in college, didn't use the word asshole but it's what he meant.

Russert then looked at Kerry with the now-familiar incomprehending look, like he's totally puzzled why the dems "hate him so much." Asked Kerry, do you really feel this way about Bush?

Kerry did just what you suggested, he outlined how bad Bush's policies have been, didn't take the bait, although I have no doubt Kerry does dislike Bush as much as the magazine interview suggested.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Right... I don't say we should deny. Just avoid the "Bush-hater" label.

As you say, deflect by saying "well, he has done this and this and this..." But as I said, that is all actually policy-based. His policies are what stinks so much.

I'm not saying we should say "regardless of what his true character is". We shouldn't let him off that easy. But we should limit the discussion to "hatred" (if you will) of his policies and their results. Each person can decide whether they hate the man himself based on those policies. In truth, they speak volumes about the man, and people will understand that when the time comes to vote.

But I think it is a mistake to directly attack him personally. That WILL be seen as whining, and it will be hypocritical of those who defended Clinton based on his policies, while ignoring his pecadilloes. In addition, recent polls (inexplicably) show that people still generally like him as a man.

Again, it's not so much hatred we're seeing as genuine opposition.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Hey, I'll take the label

and we'd be well-advised to use proxies as effectively as the Republicans do. Trot out the eminences grises like Norman Mailer and shred the guy as an effete hereditary nobody with a sadistic streak as wide as his yellow stripe and let the fur fly. Once a couple of prominent greybeards really make some ugly broadsides, candidates will be asked about the comments; they can gently distance themselves from the level of discourse, but comment on the issues that brought otherwise civilized people to such a boil.

From a purely dispassionate stance as a lover of discourse, the modern ultra-fast mass media has pared away all the flourishes and nuance of political fencing; I'd like to see them come back. The administration is in serious trouble, and to sustain that point, think of this: Junior will be getting nobody flocking to him who doesn't already like him. His only hope is to destroy opponents, because, like most critics, he's unable to create anything of his own, so he needs to content himself with destroying the works of others.

I truly feel, and have posted about it for quite some time, that a necessary component of any campaign against him is to impugn him on a personal and character basis. If not, then errors can be fobbed off on others or dismissed as policy mistakes; the core of his being needs to be exposed for its brutish, primitive, monarchical tyranny.

One of the best ways to turn it around is to feign an innocent misunderstanding. When asked: "What do you think about all this Bush hating...", say: "You know, it mystifies me too. Why does he hate so much? He's been given everything all his life, and all he can do is hate this group or hate that group; he's always saying that he's running out of patience and not going to put up with things. This Bush hating is a dangerous thing; why DOES he hate so much?"

Tee hee hee.

Bush hates. It's as simple as that.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Bravo!!

Your entire post should go into the DU greatest hits, but I especially loved this description of Bush*:

"an effete hereditary nobody with a sadistic streak as wide as his yellow stripe" :thumbsup:

[Ed Drone]

5. My momma used to say ...

"Handsome is as handsome does." Seems to me that that's a good way to deflect the "Bush hater" label.

Saying, "I don't know about his character" gives him a free pass on the character issue, when what we really want to say, and say loudly and over and over, is, "Actions define 'character.' What he does shows what he is!"


Ed

[Brotherjohn]

11. Right... actions define character. And with Bush, it's his actions...

... in the policy arena. His actions on the job... NOT in the bedroom. THAT is what will make this register more than anything ever did against Clinton.

People understood that "Clinton-hating" was about things insubstantial. Whether we use the word "hate" or not, as long as we keep this tied to things substantial, it will register with voters.

I guess I'm a bit worried about us openly saying we "hate" the man, because I don't want it to appear, as EssenceOfPurity points out above, as whining. But then I also think we need to adopt a bit from the Repub playbook (as well as that of Carville, 1992) and get a bit vicious. As you all point out above, doing it with deflection of the "hate" thing to the core reasons for that hate(policy) is the way to go.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. Welcome to DU, Ed!

:hi:

[newyawker99]

17. Hi Ed Drone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Terwilliger]

7. Absolutely correct

Ted Rall is right in his protestations of WHY we hate Bush. But, you're right, it's not hatred as much as it's opposition.

That said, I wish the fucker would be hung, because he's a murdering monster...but I don't hate him :D

[pansypoo53219]

8. OK

i DESPISE Bush, I scorn Him and his party.
now i suppose Bush would think i am EVIL.

[HFishbine]

9. It's an Ultimate Dead End

You can't talk someone into hating. Hate is a reaction to perception. If one tries to stir hate in another by saying, "here's why I hate Bush" it won't work. An opposite track is needed.

The dems have one HUGE advantage that they should, and probably will ultimately focus on. That is optimism. There is no way that Bush can put forth a credible case for optimism. Such rhetoric would fail in the face of his record.

Dems on the other hand are talking a lot about things that all have a commone undercurrent -- hope for an improved country and a better world: OPTIMISM. Dems should be riding this tide. It's rightfully theirs and it's off-limits to Bush.

[Catherine Vincent]

12. I agree with you 100%!

Republicans wrote the book on hatred. With all their years of hating Clinton, suddenly the heat is too hot for their handling.

I hear C-Span republic callers complaining about the hatred toward Bush*. I just laugh at them. Where in the hell have they been?

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND, YOU FVCKING IDIOTS!

[Brotherjohn]

13. Right. What goes around comes around. And while it worries me a bit...

... that opposition to bush will be equated with "Clinton-hating", I think the vast majority of us are smarter than that. The 60-70% who still approved of Clinton despite all the attacks... they saw that for what it was then, and they'll see this as a very different kind of "hatred" (i.e. legitimate opposition).

Funny how at the height of the Clinton-hating years, Repubs and the press would often justify it saying things like "Historically, this isn't that bad. Politics have always been rancorous. Why, in 1842, a fight broke out in Congress... " blah blah blah.

But now that a smidgen of real opposition to Bush surfaces, they're all wondering "My GOD! Where does the depth of this hatred come from!? We've never SEEN anything like this before!!"

[bitchkitty]

15. Fuck bush - I do hate him.

And screw the media as well. You can't bend to their will by getting caught up in their spin or trying to mold your message to suit them. Better to stay on course and keep pointing out the reasons why you hate him - his history of failure, deceit, theft and his complete and utter disdain for the citizens of this country.

[janekat]

16. What's sad is that most Amercians ONLY care about sex scandals....

It's been said several times: "Most people aren't capable of understanding a financial scandal or another scandal that is too complicated. They also think that such scandals are boring and they don't pay attnetion to them. SEX they're capable of understanding."

When I try to explain to people the Cheney-Halliburton scandal - their eyes glaze over and they get "bored."

Not to sound like an eleitist snob but I've come to the conclusion that most of us here have MUCH higher IQ's than those on the "freeper" board AND in the general population. What's the average IQ... 100? That's NOT very high. It really got driven home to me when people voted for a moron like Bush in "droves."

When I said to people "Isn't that Bush a moron?" A lot of people looked at me like I was an "alien."

Maybe if we start publicizing the "Conspiracy of Silence" video. I intend to post it on several message boards.