Posted 11:09 PM by steve

The Democrats don't really hate Bush, they really don't hate Bush...

Ace, who's apparently one of John Hawkins' favorite right-of-center bloggers (I can't be, since, as you can see here, I am a Moderate), opines that Bush, when in trouble, "will do what he always does when he feels political heat. Spend, baby. Spend like the wind".

...which got me thinking. What if the Democrats aren't attacking Bush because they dislike him, or because they're really opposed to regime change in Iraq, or because they equate him with Hitler, or because they really oppose the FBI looking into library records, or because they are really dissatisfied with the federal response to Katrina, but because they know that his Pavlovian, knee-jerk response to criticism is to throw money at anything and everything around him?

Apparently, the Democrats realized that if they criticize him on education, he will respond by throwing more money into the pot than any previous administration ever dared request. They know if they criticize him on Iraq (even though the Democrats secretly approve of what Bush is doing there), Bush will respond by funding every single funding demand the Democrats can come up with. If they criticize his tax cuts, he will answer by expanding domestic spending. If they criticize him for not being responsive enough in New Orleans, he will go and propose that the federal government take on more of the financial responsibility for rebuilding a disaster zone than has ever been done in the past.

Think about it for a second. Bush, a REPUBLICAN, has presided over one of the largest, if not the largest, expansions in federal spending of any President in recent memory. Federal expenditures are far higher than the Democrats ever could have dreamed of with Gore or Kerry in the White House. There's so much money flowing out of Washington that the Democrats would have to be crazy to want anyone else in the White House. Were there a Democrat President, then the GOP majority in Congress would be up to its usual obstructionist self, and there would be a whole lot less money getting spent. But with Bush in the White House, the last thing the GOP will do is try to stand in the way of a damaged President trying to redeem himself.

This could also explain why so many of the Democratic complaints about Bush make no sense. Both sides know that he is no Hitler. Both sides know that he doesn't hate blacks. Both sides know that getting rid of Hussein was a good idea. But, in order to keep this scheme going, the Democrats have to complain anyway. So they invent reasons to hate Bush, to keep the pressure on. They don't believe their own rhetoric, but it's the best they could come up with. This would also explain why the Democrats nominated Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, two candidates that were probably the weakest of anyone they could nominate. It's because the Democrats really didn't want to win. They are getting all of what they want (with the exception of a few thousand patronage jobs for their followers) with none of the responsibility. Why would they nominate someone who was good enough to win?

I actually feel better realizing this. I, like so many other conservatives, had actually believed the liberals hated Bush and I was confused how anyone could, for example, have actually wanted to leave Hussein in power, or how anyone could really object to terrorists being held in Guantanamo. The answer is that they don't.... they're just pretending to be. They're acting.... with a payday in the billions.

I'll never again think the Democrats are stupid...


Thanks to Kevin for letting me link...

|