Good News / Bad News

The bad news: via Taranto we see that a self-described Democrat has written an opinion piece about Bush hatred, and how it won't win an election. As opinion pieces go, it's fairly good, especially as it does recognize the fact (often obscured by our own passions and hobbies) that most of the population does not have our strong opinions about President George W Bush.:

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.

The good news: it was written by Susan Estrich, well known Arnold Schwarzenegger defender*, so it's exceedingly probable that the people for whom the above article is most intended are also going to be the people most likely to immediately discount it.

The really bad news: the good news is only good news for the Republican Party, and even then on the most pragmatic of levels. I certainly don't consider the attitudes discussed in Estrich's article to be healthy for the country, even if they are promising the GOP win by at least thirty EV in the general election**...

Moe

*Some would say 'apologist'. Including me, actually; while I may not consider her a diabolist or anything, I wouldn't have voted for Arnold in that election, and I found her explanations unsatisfying.

**Number is officially a WAG. I can't stop you if you want to consider the whole thing as coming from the same place either, of course.

Comments

[harley]

Ahh, geeze, when will the Bush Hatred meme die a noble and necessary death? (If only to stop me from repeating myself. Well, it probably wouldn't. But still.) First, you're right about Estrich. (May she share a small lifeboat with Zell Miller sometime soon, preferably in choppy seas.) Second, one needn't go back to Clinton for the countering example. How about Gore? (Tho' the hatred was usually leavened with contempt, a particularly piquant brew.) Thirdly -- thirdly? -- stroll on over to the Village Voice site for an interesting article re heartland/red state voters. It's more even-handed than you'd expect. And some of the folks there, the 'jobless' in the jobless recovery, are not so much hateful as angry. But both drive people to the polls, like it or not. (As the Bush team figured out while rolling McCain in the SC primary.) Angry voters aren't the problem. Angry candidates (are you listening, Howard?) sometimes are.

[Katherine]

I'll repeat what I said in my first post: I don't hate Bush, I just hate the way he's acting.

Actually, I just don't get the guy. As usual Kevin Drum explains it better than me in his latest post.

[Stirling Newberry]

Bush hatred may or may not win the election - but anger seems to be the only emotion that gets certain publications to rebalance their coverage - for years the reactionary outrage was used to push coverage into a perverse and skewed state which Krugman calls the "some Democrats say the world is round" zone.

Those who are corrosively opposed to the executive are a key part of winning the election - if they are used properly as shock troops, to jolt Americans out of the complacent attitude that "every one likes Bush".