Wednesday, March 02, 2005

What Bugs Me About Democrats

Okay, so I'll do another one on Republicans soon. Forgive the delay and don't jump on me for lack of balance...

The problem I have is really more of a feeling than a specific issue. The feeling is that Democrats are very partisan. They have a strong us/them sense. This may only be the leadership or public figures or whatever. But this feeling is strong and reinforced over and over.

For example, I think a lot of Democrats hope Bush is wrong and are rooting against him. I even see some people upset about the yellow-ribbon support the troops effort. Why? Why would you root against someone? Even if you disagreed, wouldn't you still want the best for the country? So imagine we are on a baseball team. The Republican has the best batting average. The Democrat used to, but doesn't any more. You are on the same team, you still want to win. I can imagine the Democrat saying I want to be even better and even though he is batting better than I am, I want to be better. However, I find it very hard to understand why the Democrat would be happy with his/her performance and root for the Republican to do worse. After all, we are on the SAME TEAM.

I sometimes read Best of the Web. This is from the Wall Street Journal, very Republican but not overly partisan. Anyway, check it out if you get a minute.

I was reading the post from March 2 and saw an interview on Jon Stewart. The following is analysis of the interview and really sums up why I am bugged by Democrats.

Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation."

In economics 101, we call this "sunk cost." Sending the troops to Iraq is a done deal, nothing you can do about it. You MUST view the situation as a here-we-are-today, what do we do next. That is the ONLY POSSIBLE logical response.

Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype.

Parting shot - Would we all root for each other if Bush simply said, "We did what we thought was right. Our intellengence was bad, but it was the best we had. We are terribly sorry." Do we all just need an apology and then a hug? Puhleeeessse.


Post a Comment

<< Home