Don't hold back, Dave, what do you really think?

David Neiwert (Orcinus) has a masterpiece of controlled fury up today, on the difference between "Clinton haters" and "Bush haters". It's quite long, starts out at "calmly angry" and ends up at "as angry as one can get and still be completely clear and convincing". The thing I admire is how long he holds this latter note, without ever become -- as they say -- shrill. His conclusion:

Contrast this, then, with the accusations inveighed by Clinton-haters -- all of which were utterly without foundation and predicated on vicious smears and wild accusations, and all of which were about the Clintons' personal characters, not about their policies or their abilities at conducting it.

Like the Clinton-haters, "Bush haters" think his presidency is illegitimate. The difference, however, is that the "Bush haters" have rational grounds for claiming that. Clinton-haters argued that Clinton was "illegitimate" because he only won a plurality of the popular vote; however, after 2000, they stopped arguing that point. Funny, that.

What may surprise these conservatives -- as well as the DLC types like Al From who preach a nice, spineless brand of Democratic activism -- is that "Bush haters" don't really hate Bush. Oh, some do. But most are simply very angry at the fact that he holds the office, and are determined to see him removed.

They don't necessarily think Bush is despicable. They believe he is incompetent

They don't think Bush is a Nazi or a 'New World Order' conspirator. But they do believe he is manifestly unfit for office.

In 2004, guys like Rich Lowry will learn the meaning of that difference -- and why it matters to millions of middle-of-the-road, perfectly centrist "Bush haters."

Because reality has a nasty habit of biting back at the people who think they can control it.

From his lips to God's ear.
- posted by Don Porges @ 8/24/2003 12:20:00 AM |