. . . Or a Rational Response? (EJ Dionne, Jr.)

[dajabr]

Every action, said the political pundit Sir Isaac Newton, produces an equal and opposite reaction.

The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against George W. Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002. This whiplash will mean some surprising things for 2004.

It's hard to think of any other president who has gone so quickly from being so unifying to being so divisive. There was hardly a soul this side of Noam Chomsky who didn't support Bush for some time after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and didn't support the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Democrats who never conceded that Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election wanted to give Bush a chance to lead the country out of crisis.

So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy.

--snip--

No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners. Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after Sept. 11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic. So Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40029-2003Dec29.html

[Melinda]

1. "...Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance"

Senator Byrd does too, and Paul Wellstone did. Others seemingly begrudgingly began... and Dennis Kucinich always has.

[dreissig]

2. I'll Pay Any Price

I'll pay any price within reason not to have George Bush be re-elected. "Within reason" means I won't vote for a war-mongering Democrat like Kerry or Gephardt, politicians who let us down just when we most needed them to show strength. Of course I'll never vote for Hillary either.

[aquart]

5. So you'll let the rest of us pay the price.

Thanks for nothing.

I'm going to wipe my shoe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Now I like Dean, but that said

if DK manages to actually make some noise, and get out there in the
polls he can also do the same

That said, ABB for me, after the primaries

[aquart]

4. George W. Bush was NEVER "unifying."

After 9/11 the NATION united. George had nothing to do with it. We would have united behind a hamster if that was what was in the WH.

He took our unity and abused it, abused us, abused our constitution.

The world had united with us in the aftermath and George destroyed that unity, and every wonderful opportunity that came with it, too.

To call George "unifying" is to miss the point utterly.

[dajabr]

7. "He took our unity and abused it, abused us, abused our constitution."

I believe that is exactly what the author of the piece is saying as well - no?

[eileen from OH]

6. this is absolutely dead on

in regards to when and why everything "turned". I remember being so angry at the Dems who voted for the Iraq resolution and the tax cuts. And then seeing how during 2002 elections the Republicans viciously went after those very same Dems. Fat lot of good it did them. I felt the Dems had been suckered and sandbagged and had sold out for what? To get bitch slapped around.

Why Dean and not one of the other brave Dems who DID stand up to him? I dunno. Maybe he articulated it better, maybe it was his timing? I just remember hearing his "What I want to know" speech and it really struck a chord louder and more clearly than anyone else's had.

eileen from OH