So the right likes Bush so much because the left hates him so much.

Now there's a cogent argument for backing a president.

Dear Mother of God.....

No, it's seeing that the left is the alternative and knowing that no matter what Bush does that we may not like, it's better than what might be. I have a part II coming up to this post aimed at conservatives.

Karol,

You're exactly right. I don't like Bush, but when I look at the alternative, it's not even close! Four more years! Four more years!

WC

Maybe this works for you. I'll never defend Bush again unless he withdraws Miers and, basically, apologizes. The war, yes. Bush, no.

Defend away.. in the end you look just as dirty and corrupt.

it's seeing that the left is the alternative and knowing that no matter what Bush does that we may not like, it's better than what might be.

What might be?

How much worse could it get?

All under Bush's watch btw.

Conservatives want it both ways: They want no blame for what they have wrought ("It's Clinton's fault!") and they support those failed policies no matter the consequences.

This is the exact problem with both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

I don't like Bush, but when I look at the alternative, it's not even close!

Whose fault is that? Ours.

You are essentially admitting Bush is a failure at nearly every policy, yet... he's better than the alternative?

How do you know?

If the US was truly run like a business, the Bush Admin would have been thrown out on it's rear end years ago.

That's the truth.

"Defend away.. in the end you look just as dirty and corrupt."

Right on time to prove the point.

Someone, so do you suddenly disagree with Bush on all the things you agreed with him on before? Because the Meirs nomination doesn't suddenly make me against the Iraq war, or the tax cuts and it doesn't now make me think he's an evilidiotchimp. I'm not Andrew Sullivan who decided the war in Iraq was a mistake right around the time of the FMA.

David, ok, here it is again: I am mad at Bush because he's not conservative enough. Does the Democrat, any Democrat really, stand a chance of improving that for me?

Well, there =used= to be (more) conservative Democrats, people who I would consider voting for. When I lived in North Carolina (not so long ago), there were plenty of acceptable Dems to vote for. For all I know, there still are such people.

But on the national stage? Ha. The closest thing to an acceptable Dem last year was Joe Lieberman, and he had a snowball's chance in hell getting through the primaries. Kerry was the actual candidate. Howard Dean is now the head of the DNC. Being ticked at Bush's (and Congress's) spending spree is supposed to make me look kindly upon Dean & Kerry? Pardon?

"He is as qualified as any president we’ve had"

No, he's not. I don't think you need to have a great resume to be a great president (and frankly some of the best resumes we have ever had-Quincy Adams, Buchanan, Taft, Hoover, Bush the elder-did not make great presidents). Some of the worst resumes we ever had made fine presidents (Lincoln is the obvious choice, Truman to a lesser extent). But to call Bush as qualified as any of our presidents-sorry ain't buying. His governorship does not compare to TR's, Wilson's or FDR's. His personal story of family connections and cruising off his daddy's name in Texas and in baseball stands in stark contrast to the personal stories of a number of our presidents whose characters were so well established they did not need to take a walk with Billy Graham when they were 40. While I can appreciate where Karol is coming from (but frankly do not see a Republican landslide based on candidate recruitment alone), calling Bush "as qualified as any president" is a bit too much.

I find it very amusing that the Democrats are now for controlling spending when in the first three years of the Bush Administration, they said we were not spending enough.

It is also amusing that the Democrats have proposed programs in Congress this year that would have added $300 million to the spending they all voted for.

Great post, Karol!

Leftist talking points are like gasoline for my hemi!

It may not be true, but it certainly looks like Kos Krew Klones are running the DNC. (Who knows to what extent Dean is really in charge, and how much he's simply a fund-raising gimmick.) And as long as that ideology looks like it holds sway among the Democrats, I will remain a hold-my-nose-and-vote-Republican voter.

I'm not Andrew Sullivan who decided the war in Iraq was a mistake right around the time of the FMA.

Sullivan has never written, at any point, that the Iraq war was a mistake. He's remained supportive of it throughout, while being critical of its conduct (yes, that is a cogent position, that I happen to share).

And something like 50 million people voted for Kerry- are those people all "crazy"? And no, Michael Moore would never have been invited to a Kerry White House. James Dobson, on the other hand, is invited to Bush's White House all the time.

Steve, I took great pains, I think, to say that it's a certain segment of the left that's out of their minds. If you don't find yourself muttering Halliburton as a response in an argument, it probably doesn't apply to you.

And, you've got to be kidding about Moore. He sat with Jimmy Carter at the Dem convention. That's status.

Karol:

You post so much about this that you seem fixated on the liberal and leftist crazies. You go around digging in the sewers of the web to find whatever nuttiness is on the crazy left wing blogs and then link to it sometimes. What's the point? What does this have to do with mainstream Democrats, who are all saying that we need to stay in Iraq etc.? You may have a negative opinion of the left because you willfully expose yourself to so much of the craziness. Do you ever read the liberal columnists of the Washington Post or the New York Times (aside from Krugman and Dowd who go off the rail sometimes)? I generally disagree with them, but they make decent, cogent arguments and aren't crazy. Why not expose yourself to some better stuff as opposed to the crazies?

Yup - Sullivan is completely pro-war. He's just not pro-torture. In other words - he doesn't believe the government is above the law. I guess that makes you a leftist nowadays. How sad.

Of course the Democrats will never convince people like you, Karol---people who are on record favoring the state's control of a woman's body, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, blatant corruption in gov't speading, and worse.

What you fail to realize is that people like you are a shrinking minority.

The Democrats won't convince people like me who are in favor of keeping abortion legal, cutting taxes for everyone, and bringing fiscal discipline to a Congress that spends like they aren't accountable to anyone (on both sides of the aisle), either.

If you think the only problem the Democrats have is with some strawman far-rightists that are out to get you, it's going to be a long, long, long time before you see the Democratic party recovering from defeat.

J:

Reagan and Bush 1 saddled us with a crushing deficit to pay for massive giveaways to Paris Hilton and her ilk. It took a Democratic administration to balance the budget and pay off the deficit---and Bush 2 managed to screw it up again.

If you were REALLY in favor of fiscal discipline, you'd be calling for impeachment.

That's a little like calling for the coach's head after the hockey team loses one game.

You say that based upon irrational reactions from your opponents, you have been lead to disregard evidence that should be taken into account in forming an opinion. Admittedly your opponents are being irrational with some of their ranting, but are you not also being less than rational? Are you proud of this failing on your part or admitting it somewhat ruefully?