Lowest Common Denominator

Haters Unite in Attempt to Bring Down George W. Bush

By Marilyn M. Brannan, Associate Editor

Unravelling The New World Order

December 1, 2003

What do billionaire George Soros,  Arab leaders in the Middle East, Hillary Clinton and her followers, Rock ‘n Rollers, contenders for the Democrat party’s presidential nomination, and the leftists in Hollywood have in common?  Answer: Their hatred for George W. Bush.

I remember the characterization that the Democrats tried to attach to Republicans back in the 90’s while Bill Clinton was in office:  “mean-spirited,” “hateful,” and (most egregious) “Clinton-haters.”  Back then, the Democrats seemed to understand (as is true) that most Americans are not drawn to causes that employ hatred to rally their numbers.  As a result, the daily talking points emanating from the DNC was a highly-focused propaganda blitz to convince Americans that Republicans were a mean-spirited, despicable, hate-filled bunch.  Harboring hatred in those days (especially hatred of the Clintons) was the ultimate form of political incorrectness. So intense was the Democrat Party’s ostensible concern with obliterating hatred that they mounted a near-fanatical campaign that resulted in the enactment of clearly unconstitutional hate-crime and hate-speech laws.  The “war on hatred” served the Democrats’ purposes well in those days. 

But how things change!  The party of love and compassion has done a “one-eighty,” having come to the enlightened conclusion, apparently, that hatred is a good thing as long as it is directed toward George W. Bush.

On December 2, Hollywood activists and so-called intellectuals gathered at the Beverly Hills Hilton for an event billed as “Hate Bush.”  The event got its name from actress and avid environmentalist Laurie David, who e-mailed invitations to the event with the bold heading, “Hate Bush 12/2 Event.”

Ms. David later attempted to distance herself from the electronic invite bearing the “Hate Bush” heading, claiming the subject line of her email had been altered.  “The piece that ran on the Drudge Report was completely inaccurate in the characterization of this meeting and was a total misrepresentation of what we are doing here . . . tonight’s meeting is a private gathering for friends and colleagues to learn more about what they can do to elect a Democratic president and Democrats across the country.”

On the day following the “hate event,” others among the Democrat leadership were emphatically denying that the event had anything to do with hatred.  But the “Hate Bush” characterization of the event seemed to generate a lot of interest among the lefties, judging from Ms. David’s reference to the “enormous response  we got from this community once word got out of this meeting.”

Although neither of the Clintons made an appearance at the  “hate Bush” orgy, it appeared to have the Clintons’ fingerprints all over it.  It was co-chaired by Harold Ickes—close confidante of the Clintons, former (Clinton) White House deputy chief-of-staff, and Clinton/Gore campaign manager—and by Ellen Malcom, founder of Emily’s List, a group close to Hillary’s heart, dedicated to electing pro-choice, Democratic women.

Putting It in Print

Reading just the titles of the current left-wing offerings in the print market demonstrates the amount of left-wing hatred being directed at conservatives, and especially at our nation’s Commander in Chief.  A few examples:

• “Big Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth” by Joe Conason

• David Corn’s “The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception”
• Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”
• “Thieves in High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country—and It’s Time to Take It Back” by Jim Hightower
• “The Bush Hater’s Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years” by Jack Huberman
• Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose’s “Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America”

Then, there are the intellectual giants among rock and rollers who have decided, after decades of political indifference, to get involved in the political scene once again by jumping en masse  into the “hate Bush” movement.  RollingStone.com featured a story on December 1 that urges rockers to get involved and use their clout with fans to “oust Bush.”  In October, Bruce Springsteen urged a crowd of New Yorkers to “shout a little louder if you want the president impeached”; and John Mellencamp declared on his website, “We have been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take action.”

The Dixie Chicks, Willie Nelson, Fat Mike, Morello, Merle Haggard, Russell Simmons, and a long list of other left-leaning luminaries among musicians have decided it is now “in style” to be at the anti-Bush rallies where they can express their selective outrage over the perceived failures of George W. Bush.  One can not help but observe that these folks never got hot about Bill Clinton’s lies to the American people, the moral laxness that characterized his personal conduct, his colossal foreign policy failures, or even his illegal activities pertaining to fund raising and issues of national security.

Arabs Want a Democrat—any Democrat—in The White House

Not only do we have our own Hollywood lefties and “artistic” crowd organizing to bash George W. Bush—foreign media organizations (reflecting the political perspectives of their respective governments) are  attempting to meddle in our politics.  The Arab News, for one, urged Hillary on November 29 to run in 2004—as Wesley’s Clark’s VP.  Their reasoning is that Mrs. Clinton would be taking little political risk if Clark were defeated (as they apparently believe is likely); however, if Clark were to win, Clinton could transform the vice presidential role into “a much more high-profile and active arm of the executive [branch].”  That would provide her with a platform to launch her own run at the White House in 2008 if Clark were to stand down—or in 2012, when Clark would have to leave office.

Arab News notes that “there may be many in the Middle East who would have great hopes” if a Democrat were to defeat Bush in 2004.  Unmentioned in the article was the fact (reported by Robert Novak last year) that the Saudi royal family has pledged to give Bill Clinton between $1 million and $20 million for his presidential library.

And speaking of money—George Soros has said he will commit $15 million of his own billions to defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently demonstrated its gratitude to George W. Bush for characterizing Islam as a “peaceful” religion by announcing their preference for the 2004 election winner:  “anyone but Bush.”

Then, there’s Hillary Clinton, who did her part by going to Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretext of a fact-finding mission for the Armed Forces committee.  She used the occasion to undermine morale by telling the troops that there is a lot of division back home over President Bush’s policies in Iraq—and more outrageously—that the outcome in Iraq is uncertain.

It hardly needs to be mentioned here that most of the Democrat presidential contenders—the  “Noxious Nine”—have hammered away month after month with their unhelpful, but pointedly nasty, criticisms of Bush in every area of endeavor, from foreign policy and management of the war in Iraq to tax cuts and the economy.

Howard Dean, for whom rage seems to be the default mode of operation, blasted away at Bush on November 30, accusing the President of having “no understanding of defense” and of conducting diplomacy by “petulance.”  And on it goes.

All the while, President Bush’s popularity with the American people continues to grow.

The Great Fault Line

Still, there is a deep political divide among the American people.  How have we come to this deep and rancorous division?

Poll results from a study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center For The People & The Press this fall may shed some light.

Americans’ political views and behavior, according to the Pew survey, are rooted in their religious behavior.  A major fault line, dividing voting Americans along lines of religious identity, is a major reason that the country is politically polarized to such a degree.  The director of the survey commented, “We now have the widest gap we have ever had between Republicans and Democrats.”

Results of the study (published by Knight Ridder, Nov. 30) show that Americans who attend religious services regularly vote Republican by a 2-1 margin.  If they never go, they vote Democratic by a 2-1 margin.  In terms of percentages, voters who frequently attend religious services tilt 63-37% in favor of Bush and those who never attend lean 62-38% toward Democrats.  

President Bush, on one hand, is a churchgoing Christian who has not been shy about  expressing his dependence on Almighty God.  By contrast, most of the leading candidates for the Democrat party’s presidential nomination (with the exception of Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut) seldom mention God or religion and seldom attend church—except for  the occasional visit to an African-American church when they are appealing for support.

Feeding on Human Failure

It is a great irony and an awesome truth that, in a society that guarantees freedom of speech, even the angriest, most rancorous among us will continue to express themselves as long as there are true patriots willing to die to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of the message.

However, the hatred being expressed so vociferously against our President is symptomatic of a severe dysfunction that has far greater implications than the normal political wrangling of an election cycle.  It goes to the very heart of hard-core, godless secularism that has taken control of the liberal movement in American politics. 

The Bush bashers are expressing a sense of powerlessness and rage that grow out of the failure of belief systems and ideologies upon which they have depended for a sense of power and purpose.  Collectivist political movements of any kind must always rely on human failure—moral, political, economic—of a magnitude that drives people in sufficient numbers to commit their loyalties to people like Hillary Clinton or Jesse Jackson.  These people have no positive message to share.  They have no real answers.  They feed instead on the human failures that grow—predictably, and in rich supply—out of the character flaws of rebellious human souls.  The hatred that is thus engendered is the lowest common denominator of unredeemed humanity. Sadly, that is the basis on which a once-great political party has staked its hope for the future.