September 07, 2005
Since the end of 2001, Bush has remained steady and consistent in both his policies and his outlook. If anything he's one of the most predictable Presidents in U.S. history. A huge majority of Americans (91% at one point) approved of him then. But many over the last four years have decended into bitter partisan attacks on the President - attacks fueled by the increasingly angry Left.
Patrick Ruffini hits the fallacy of Balz's assumptions right on the head:
Balz doesn't examine the profound change in the Democratic Party that comes closest to explaining the sharply disparate reactions to the two disasters. Four years ago, Daily Kos was barely a glimmer in our eye, Joe Lieberman was a frontrunner for the 2004 nomination, Howard Dean was still considered a "moderate", the DLC was still ascendant, the words "liberal" and "lefty" were almost never spoken in polite conversation, The New Republic represented the mainsteam of Democratic thinking inside the Beltway and you wouldn't think twice about calling David Corn and The Nation "far-left." As I've documented, the party's vitriolic reaction to Katrina was shaped on the blogs. Had those blogs been around on 9/11, we would have seen the same response, with immediate cries of "Bush knew."Just look up at that quote in the Ex-Donkey banner. Those words have never been more true than they are today. Which is why Democrats keep losing elections. And based on the growing strength of that party's apoplectic Left-wing grassroots - it's only going to get worse for them.
112 queries taking 0.0768 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.