Dionne

E.J. Dionne tries to justify the hateful campaign of the democrats by pointing out that many moderate republicans—who remain nameless apparently—are worried about the prospect of a bush second term.

“But it's worth considering why so many moderates in particular are alarmed at the prospect of a second Bush term.
They are, of course, affected by many specific issues. There is the fiscal mess created by Bush's oversized tax cuts and the president's insistence that we push on with the same approach. There is the prospect of a Supreme Court dominated not even by moderate conservatives but by a judicial approach rooted in right-leaning judicial activism. Add in Bush's permissive approach to environmental regulation, his anti-union approach to labor regulation, his dismissal of even the mildest civil libertarian criticisms of the Patriot Act. Most important, there is the question of the administration's incompetence in Iraq. Even among the war's supporters, many now doubt the president's capacity to deliver a successful outcome.
For those who favor moderation in governing, two questions predominate. The first is the president's conscious choice to divide a country that had been so united after the attacks of Sept. 11. He signaled the course for the rest of his term when, in a September 2002 speech aimed at electing Republicans to Congress, he said that the U.S. Senate -- meaning its then-Democratic majority -- was "not interested in the security of the American people." If you say your opponents don't care about the nation's security, aren't you accusing them of being traitors?”

Well well. So it is all issues driving this inordinate hatred of Bush. Issues, like tax cuts. Well, tax cuts drive personal hatred? If it weren’t for those deficits we would be civil? And the then the truly gratin sentence: the insistence that we push on with the same approach? From the party that still believe socialism will work if we just try it on a broad enough scale?
I think they do feel this hatred and they are trying justify it to themselves.
Supreme court. Yes, you can see why liberals would be quite angry about that. An ‘activist conservative court’ means that voters will actually have a say on things that used to be settled by the intelligentsia. Things like gay marriage will no longer be shoved down the throat of the country because the arguments against it are not heard at the right dinner parties. That ‘all important image’, i.e., what the kind of people that attend dinner parties with Sandra Day O’Connor and go to the right graduate schools will no longer be able to over rule the people in whose name their beneficences rewrite our constitution. Having to make your case in front of real live voters would indeed be a daunting prospect for the social engineers who hitherto have found it sufficient to gain the approval of the smart dinner party set. Still, can the prospect of democracy be that terrifying to liberals. After-all, on some battles like gay marriage they appear to be winning. The actual policy consequences of having voter input into abortion policy are likely to be rather modest. What is really galling is the questioning of their legitimacy. The idea that their place in society and their learning does not entitle them to a disproportionate share of power in social policy. That is the key thing to remember when anyone complains about conservative judicial activism—the most it can do is put things in the hands of democratic institutions. (that was not true in the early 20th century when conservatives used the constitution to create new laws the same way liberals have done since the 1950s).
The other policy disagreements that drive otherwise peaceable and loving democrats to such levels of hatred—excuse me—intensity—are rather pedestrian. Bush's permissive approach to environmental regulation—some regulations that bureaucrats wanted will not go in as fast as they had hoped; his anti-union approach to labor regulation—I’m sorry, did I miss something? There were goons breaking up strikes somewhere? Has Bush done something that ever so slightly increases the death-tailspin of the American labor movement? Isn’t that a bit 1930ish?; his dismissal of even the mildest civil libertarian criticisms of the Patriot Act—what ‘mild’ criticism has there been of the patriot act? Can a liberal put together two sentences on the subject before lapsing into concentration camp blather? The main provisions simply give those fighting terrorism the same powers those fighting the mob have had for decades apparently without bringing about a police state. The act does give to the US government the right to pretty much decide to keep people out of this country at will, something which offends the sensibility of people who are one-world governmenters at heart. Their idea is that every person in the world has an equal right to come here and it is up to the government to prove that they are a danger, preferably by having a tape-recorded meeting of a plan to blow up the Washington monument which the terrorists have foolishly talked about in one of those rooms that we kindly informed them that we have bugged (no sneak and peak now—not cricket).
But where ever you stand on these things it has to be admitted that these are no more than the standard disagreements that have separated the parties since these issues were issues. Bush’s positions are as close or closer to the center on any of these issues than any republican president would be. And yet he is come in for a level of criticism that we never saw with them. What is the explanation?
I have done enough on Iraq lately.

The last paragraph gets to the real issue. That Bush has accused the democrats of being traitors. He has never done any such thing. But I will.

Dionne’s argument is that Bush has said that the democrats have put their political interests above the security of the country. That, argues Dionne, is tantamount to calling them traitors. The democrats were kind enough to go along with Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 and then he turns on them, impugns their patriotism (in code of course, only democrats actually use the word unpatriotic, since they only do it answer the coded attacks of the right) and actually has the gall to add republican seats during an off year election.

The causus belli in this is the senate seat of Max Cleland. He went along with his fellow democrats in trying to hold up the homeland security bill in order to get more union protections in. The problem was that the typical American didn’t see having to huddle with a union shop steward every time you had to ask the people charged with fighting a war to work overtime was a good idea. As the American people saw it, that was putting the interests of unions above the interests of security. Thus, when President Bush said that their position on the issue amounted to not being interested in the security of the American people, the American people agreed. The Democrats had a real point of course. Maybe Union protections would have made the homeland security department more efficient in the long run. I doubt it, but who knows. The point is they lost the argument and instead of changing their deeply unpopular position they tried to tough it out by plying the McCarthism card, saying you can’t criticize us on this or you are challenging our patriotism. They pushed an unpopular position and paid for it at the polls. Grow up.

Now of course left out of this is the Democratic attacks on the president early on when they opposed the government take over of the TSA. The Republicans thought that private businesses with the freedom to hire and fire would do a better job at managing people in what was essentially a boring task. But the democrats accused them of caring more about their fat-cat security company running friends than they did about the security of the American people. Did the Republicans whine about how their patriotism was being challenged? No, they just changed their position. The Democrats always complain that Bush gets credit for backing things he originally opposed—TSA, homeland security department, going to the UN for backing, creation of the 9/11 commission—all the while they complain about him never changing his mind, never admitting he is wrong. You can’t have it both ways. In reality it is just the opposite. He changes his mind all the time, whenever he realizes his position is a loser. The Democrats haven’t and that is whey they are angry. What they are doing when complaining about Bush is projecting their anger at their own lack of acumen on to Bush. In reality it is they who have been unwilling to change.