Liberals say their hatred for Bush is mainly directed at his Iraq policy and his tax cuts, but their rage against him greatly preceded his implementation of those policies.
Indeed, it's the other way around. They distrust him on Iraq because they can't stand him. And their fervent hatred of Bush has also blinded them to the nature of his tax cuts.
They say Bush has misrepresented the cuts as benefiting the middle class. But it is undeniable the lower and middle income groups received a greater percentage cut than the wealthy. Why can't liberals be honest about that? And speaking about misrepresentations over middle-class tax cuts, why didn't they slam Clinton over his insincere and failed promise to implement a middle class tax cut?
Their angst really stems from one simple fact: Bush took back the executive branch from them, which they view as an entitlement, even to the point of their irrational rantings about him being an unelected president -- not just because of Florida, but because he didn't win the popular vote. They have no respect for the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.
And they have the temerity to say that Bush shouldn't try to implement his agenda because he didn't receive a mandate, apparently wholly oblivious to the fact the Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote either.
And speaking of temerity, the haters' criticism seems to center on Bush's supposed lies. What's this newfound judgmentalism about lying? Nothing represents a greater turnaround in a party's attitude toward a certain behavior in modern history.
So far, this hatred is fueling the passion of Democratic voters, but when the general election rolls around liberals better have some substantive policies to distinguish themselves from the president, other than just opposing him for the sake of venting their ill will toward him. And they want to lecture us about partisanship?