I've written before that liberals need anger management therapy, but their antipathy for President Bush has grown to the point that even the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz is writing about it.
Kurtz describes how Bush-hatred has been brought out of the closet by Jonathan Chait, a young editorial writer for the New Republic. Chait's hatred is caused by "Bush's radical policies … his unfair tax cuts … his cowboy phoniness … his favors for corporate cronies … his heist in Florida, and his dishonesty about his silver-spoon upbringing, and, oh yes, the way he walks and talks."
Kurtz says Chait's self-described antipathy toward Bush is so intense that "just seeing his face or hearing his voice causes a physical reaction. … My sister-in-law," says Chait, "describes Bush's existence as an oppressive force, a constant weight on her shoulder, just knowing that George Bush is president."
Sure, there were plenty of Clinton detractors, but the mainstream press was constantly railing against conservative "Clinton-haters" and their obsession. Until Chait, and now Kurtz, there's been little mention in the media about the pervasive Bush hatred.
Some on the left may deny the hatred, but how else do you explain the phenomenon of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's formidable popularity among the party rank and file? It's not what he stands for; it's whom he rails against. At this point, he's riding to his party's nomination on the coattails of abject hatred toward the commander in chief.
Even USA Today and Gannett News Service reporters and editors noticed Dean's bitterness, asking him at a luncheon whether he is too angry to be president. Dean responded, "What we're really about is not anger, it's hope." But in the next breath he conceded, "Sure. There's a lot of anger at President Bush. The way President Bush has harmed us the most is … the loss of our sense of community … He's a very divisive president."
Hmmm. Divisive, as in reaching out to his opponents like Ted Kennedy only to be rebuffed, betrayed and castigated in return? These aren't my opinions alone. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on Kennedy's "anger." Despite Bush's cordiality toward Kennedy, the Massachusetts senator gives him back nothing but epithets, calling him a liar who has told "lie after lie after lie" about Iraq and charging Bush with consistently breaking his promises on education.
Can you believe this Kennedy guy? President Bush has thrown more federal money at education than any conservative can tolerate. There's just no working with these liberal senators. The new tone is a one-way proposition to which congressional Democrats are willingly tone deaf.