Majority of Democrats want Bush to fail

Posted by: ST on September 24, 2006 at 6:36 pm

Craig Charney, former pollster for Bill Clinton, writes in today’s NYPost (emphasis added):

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It’s also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans’ mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.

Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent – where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one. [See page 4 of this document for the poll in question.--ST]

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people – suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies – detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents – hardly right-wing zealots – hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that “strong disapproval” of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn’t during a war, either.)

Betsy Newmark nails it:

Remember, for better or for worse, George W. Bush will be our president for more than two years. Hoping that he’ll fail is really hoping that America will fail. These people detest Bush so much that they don’t mind America getting a setback across the globe if it will weaken Bush.

Yep, that’s a point I made in this post and this one as well. I wrote in the latter post:

All of this [deliberate distortion of the facts] is done in an effort by the Nutrootians to put pressure on Congress to get Bush to pull out of Iraq, because in their minds a defeat for Bush in Iraq is a defeat for – well, Bush. While that would be true, what they ignore is that a defeat for Bush in Iraq would not only be a defeat for him, but a defeat for America in the war on terrorism as well – but the ends justifies the means to the far left, so distorting (lying, really) the facts is not a big deal to them, even if it comes at the price of the United States losing face in Iraq. Priority one is getting Bush to admit to “failure” in Iraq and following that a shameful pullout of our forces there. That would be a feather in the caps of the hate-Bush cultists in the Democratic party who see nothing wrong sacrificing our national security at the altar of partisan politics, even as the enemy still fights for the control and submission of the west (more on that here).

Think about that for a minute. Losing in Iraq would = failure for President Bush – and for America. But as the poll Charney referenced indicates, that dosen’t matter to those who hate Bush right now apparently more than they love their country. It’s a very disturbing throught.

What’s happening is that you’ve got the same people who have, for the last five years, accused Republicans of ‘putting party over country’ because conservatives have steadfastly supported the President’s efforts on the war on terror, in essence being the pot calling the kettle black. They have, quite simply, put their party ahead of their country, and they’ve been doing it ever since the President “stole” the 2000 elections. They’ve never, ever gotten over that. That’s why you saw so many prominent Democrats echo the theme that Lieberman was “subverting the Democratic process” by running as an Independent: those Democrats wanted to stir up old fears of ‘another stolen election!!!!’ It’s why you see some Democrats engaging in sleazy campaign tactics in an effort to try and win over voters.

If you’re a Republican, next time you come across a Democrat who accuses you of putting party before country, please make use of this poll. 51% of Democrats want the President to fail. 9% “don’t know”, which is almost as bad as saying “yes, I do want him to fail.” Who would even consider such a thing? The left, that’s who – and not just the far left, anymore.

Flashback/Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Here is a shocker: Dems want Bush to fail
  • 66 Responses to “Majority of Democrats want Bush to fail”

    Comments

    1. Can it, tommy. YOU YOURSELF have admitted to smoking weed. Don’t presume to know the personal activities of others who post here.

      You never did answer my question: does your belief that Iraq is a ‘failure’ please you, tommy, because it might help Dems win elections this fall?

    2. Severian says:

      :-@:-@:-@

      Didn’t you learn anything from the example set by John Kerry tommy? Military service, by itself, no matter how honorable, can not compensate for a complete lack of character, intelligence, and judgement. I have my Honorable Discharge in the drawer, you don’t hear me using it as a prop to support idiotic positions or to attempt to shield me from criticism.

      Grow up man.

    3. Kevin says:

      What’s so sad about this is that Democrats wanting Bush to fail means that they want additional Americans to die, just to get back in power. I just can’t wrap my head around that.

      I was never a fan of Clinton, but it’s also true that I never hoped for a big death toll in Somalia or Serbia to get what I wanted – A Republican President. Wishing death for political gain is most certainly only a left wing thing.

    4. tommy in nyc says:

      ST I did answer your question yesterday. I am not happy one freaking bit that Iraq has the problems that it currently has. If because of the mishandling of the conflict results in polical gain of the Dem party while unhappy because of how they were able to achieve that goal most rational people I know will say well if the people in charge screwed up maybe they should be replaced. It’s almost like your favorite football team going 2-14 for the year and the coach gets fired would you be sorry if you were the guy who got his job? That’s how I feel honestly about the 43 Admin.

    5. So you think the cut and run Dems will be able to ‘clean up the mess’ tommy?

    6. tommy in nyc says:

      ST really is a typical Rovian republican. Except of course her propoganda ain’t going to cut with me today. Not today because unlike rich people I gotta work for a living. First thing she uses are buzz words like”cut and run” who started this current war?

    7. Is that your way of trying to avoid answering, tommy? :-w

    8. tommy in nyc says:

      Bush 43 or Saddam? Here is a hint it wasn’t the butcher of Baghdad. Second off just like youse on the right loot the treausary handing out no-bid contracts to your buddies and gives tax breaks to billionaires when it’s time to actually get the budget on budget youse turn around and call us on the left tax and spend liberals. The sad thing is folks buy into slick PR BS. Personally I can get along with almost anybody but it really,really ticks me off that instead of solutions folks on the right resort to name-calling,dirty slanderous lies and just an arrogence sometimes that is just condencending.

    9. tommy, don’t act like some moral authority when it comes to mudslinging. You’ve done a fair share of your own mudslinging, so you can jump off your soapbox now and perhaps answer my question.

    10. “Personally I can get along with almost anybody but it really,really ticks me off that instead of solutions folks on the right resort to name-calling,dirty slanderous lies and just an arrogence sometimes that is just condencending.”

      - I know what you mean tommy. It’s really tough putting up with all that. But you’ll just have to get used too it if you’re going to be a Democrat. The soft Marxist party of intolerance, race/class warfare, have raised nastiness, and lying, and personal attacks to an new art form.

      - Bang **==

    11. Severian says:

      Ah, found out to be devoid of thought and any rational response, tommy does what every good liberal does and falls back and drops the class envy/warfar and Rovian conspiracy cards. Way to go tommy, you never fail to disappoint.

      Hey tommy, what about all the no-bid contracts Clinton gave Halliburton?

      What was that about solutions tommy? When even slightly pressed, you pull a Clintonesque meltdown and start throwing around the usual liberal BS, contracts, class warfare, evil rich people yada yada yada. If you get anywhere near a point wake us up and let us know will you?

      :-@l-)

    12. tommy in nyc says:

      :((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((:(( Man I got work to do so I’m going to split. Severian I already answered ST’S question and I have made very many valid pointd IMHO. The most important one being 43 started this freaking war in Iraq without a clue how to end it. And you know when the Dems win in November I’m going to get higher then the international space station:d

    13. Severian says:

      When the Dems lose in November, are you going to be on suicide watch tommy?

      Your idea of a valid point leaves much to be desired, but keep on being a legend in your own mind. I’m sure your delusions of adequacy help keep you from ending it all but they don’t really impress anyone else.

    14. NC Cop says:

      Tommy you truly are pathetic. You never answer anyone’s questions and then as soon as you are backed in a corner, you change the subject.

      You never answered MY question which was “When are you going to Iraq?” You know absolutely nothing about what is going on over there, just what you are force fed from the NY Times and CNN. Your ramblings about the economy and tax breaks are laughable. Those tax breaks are what helped spur the economy which is why our economy is so strong right now. From what I can tell, nobody on this site is a millionare basking in their riches, they work for a living too.

      Keep braggin about getting high. You are further cementing your reputation as an immature, uninformed, left wing hack, who could care less about anybody else’s opinion except their own.

      Have a great day at Burger King.

    15. Lorica says:

      Technically, the Iraq War is a resumption of hostilities due to Sadamn breaking the surrender agreement that he signed. Soooo technically Sadamn started this war, and he gave us a miserable time for the 12 years between battles in the hopes that the rest of his Islamic brothers would come to his aid, and Islam would be able to destroy the US Military on the sands of Iraq. Well Thankfully President George Walker Bush was in charge and not Al Gore, and we were able to take Sadamn out of power in a very short period of time. Now we are dealing with a completely different battle of foreign fighters, that yes we were unprepared for, but our men and women, are dealing with, despite the aid and comfort some on the left in this country continue to give to our enemies. Deluded?? Yes!!! Stupid?? Most definately!! A strategy to win in November?? Not on your life!!! There are plenty of our boys coming home who are telling their neighbors about the good things that are going on over there. After all who you going to believe, your neighbor, or some guy who is only trying to sell a newspaper. – Lorica