Maybe if Karl Rove didn’t declare all liberals to be traitors, for example, we wouldn’t have as much of this “permanent campaign” and polarization?

And ironically, it seems that Karl Rove might himself be guilty of treason:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek

I think George H.W. Bush said it best:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

Thank Clinton/Carville for inventing the never ending campaign.

Democrats are lower in appeal than the President—guess hate doesn’t sell.

Polls are nothing more than extensions of the leftist-MSM editorial boards, best just ignored.

BTW: Zogby said Kerry wins

I'm a Republican. I find the Democratic message somewhat invigorating at present. Democrats are lower in appeal? According to whom? Clinton? Carville? Living in the past much? It was YOUR boy who dropped the Ball on 9/11. Let's not forget the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S."

I agree that polls aren't worth the paper or ones and zeroes that they're printed on, but come on... I see that you still believe in the myth of the "liberal media". Tell me, good sir, if the mainstream media is so "liberal", then why is it that they give Bushco. a pass on, oh, I don't know... EVERYTHING?

Wake up and smell the java my friend. You wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history, now would you? On second thought, as long as your ideology isn't compromised, I'd guess that you would. Just being a good German after all... I wonder what YOUR answer to the impending "Muslim Question" will be. You sir, are no more than a fucking fascist, and the sad part is, you don't even know it!

Mojo

In sum, cut the crybaby conservative act and think seriously with others about how to get us out of/through this mess.

Maybe if Karl Rove didn't declare all liberals to be traitors, for example, we wouldn't have as much of this "permanent campaign" and polarization?

Polarizing the country was Rove's express campaign strategy in 2004, and it continues to be White House policy. So I continue to disagree on cause & effect here.

Anyway, Happy Nonpolarized 4th of July to all, wingnuts & moonbats alike!

It's not special pleading. Zogby himself says as much later in the article.

I'd point out, too, that Bush just won re-election in November. Any president in this climate--it existed during the 2000 election, too, so it wasn't a Bush creation--is going to have 45% of the country against him. The rally that came after 9/11/01 was unsustainable.

Who polarized 'em? Who took a national consensus from 9/12/2001 and acted in complete contempt thereof?

The only reason Bush's numbers are as *high* as they are is the "rally 'round the flag" reflex from our Iraq misadventure. And that boost is gradually tapering off as it becomes clearer & clearer that Bush cannot or will not level with the American people on the subject.

Y'all can hate Dems all you want, but the longer you deny what a dog you have in office right now, the worse it's going to be for you in 2008.

Not yet. At least we haven't had members of Congress escaping to Mexico to get out of a vote, and having Federal Marshals trying to drag them back.

Thank Clinton/Carville for inventing the never ending campaign.

Democrats are lower in appeal than the President -- guess hate doesn't sell.

Polls are nothing more than extensions of the leftist-MSM editorial boards, best just ignored.

BTW: Zogby said Kerry wins.

Two points:

1) DC ain't Texas in terms of partisan politcs (although in the years since Bush was governor of Texas, partisanship has become more pronounced in Texas--not because of anything linked to Bush, but because of a natural evolution of the parties). Bush was wrong in 2000 that he could take his experience in Texas and translate it into DC. There is not real incentive for the opposition party in Congress to get along with the President in the way that Bob Bullock got along with Bush in Texas.

Indeed, while it made for good rhetoric, and Bush likely believed it, I knew at the time that it wasn't going to work. To his credit, he did try--he reached across the aisle for No Child Left Behind and was very visible in trying to court Ted Kennedy.

2) The "with us or against us" was aimed at countries that harbored terrorist. It was never used as a domestic politics credo.

This is the guy who said he was going to be a uniter when he was first elected.

Posted by: DC Loser at July 1, 2005 07:47 Permalink

Yeah! President Bush should just call Reid, Kennedy and Pelosi and hand over policy to them.