51% Of Democrats Want America To Fail

Robb said:

"Well, they don't so much want America to fail as they want Bush to fail, but it's pretty much the same thing."

Sorry, Robb, it is NOT the same thing. It may have been true when Louis XIV said "L'etat, c'est moi," but it has NEVER been true in America.

To clarify:

1. I never, ever want America to fail;
2. I only want George W. Bush to fail on issues on which we are in disagreement; and
3. George W. Bush and I are in disagreement on almost every issue.

That does not make me unpatriotic or unAmerican.

In fact, my opposition to George W. Bush is based on the fact that he, IMHO, is hurting America.

It does seem that many people want to call you names and label you if you support ANY issue the President is trying to do. I notice comments that regardless what Bush does, it's a negative. I think it is blind party loyalty and apparent hate of Bush over the interests of the country at times. I've had problems with every past President, some more than others, but also know they did (or tried) some good things too.
Some times I just think it is all payback for the flack Clinton took when he was in office. The growth of the Internet, and all media sources really, has made this easier to do.

Polls are often tailored to reflect a predetermined outcome by the questions and way they are worded, and/or the group of people polled.

Then there are those that 'spin' the poll information as FOX often does.

There are many people that practise 'partisan' politics, the bulk of them by far are the conservatives.

Your 'poll' result (meaning) is mis-stated, people do not want our country to fail in anything other than the failure of distorted concepts and actions that turn out to hurt the country. To blame such on any one person is only an act of convenience, as there are many others that are always involved, in this case Neo-Cons in general. It is sad that so many of them (the followers) seem to not care how America is thought of around the world, seems most of them prefer isolationism (if only they could get rid of the liberals before the fences are all built).

Please reflect on the possibility that those that own the FOX network are maybe doing some 'spinning' to get their people to repeat certain untruths for their own nefarious reasons. This is obvious when one steps back some and looks at the broader picture.

Rob, my last comment was near 0300, I now have had some sleep, and I want to add a PS;

I can sense your frustration with some of the people in this country. But I want to remind all that are so frustrated to not fall into the trap of divisive polarization that is now picking up steam, especially in our nation.

There are in fact certain people that promote such. Their philosophic concepts evolve around what is called Authoritarianism. Their primary method is to Divide and Conquer. The division is into two groups, those that they can convince to follow them and support them in their process. That amounts to those being the ones that can be convinced that they need a leader that they can trust to take care of their interests (the followers interests) with the idea that those interests are shared and are the correct ones for the good of each participant as well as the nation as a whole. But the 'whole' means either conversion or the 'forcing' of the opposing group into a position of no power to interfere...domination of the political system, especially the Supreme Court bench will most effectively assure that. Such is done with the support of their followers.

I did not follow politics enough then to realize, but I hear there was a time in the not so distant past, when the Democrats had such power and royally abused it, causing a massive change in thought that led to the Conservative movement. An honorable and needed change I am sure.

But now we have the Neo-Con adaptation to that which has also gotten out of hand in the opposite direction. I will not go into the details here because this comment is not meant to inflame more divisiveness, but to present some thought options towards some reconciliation for the greater good of the nation as a whole which would translate to the same for all citizens.

The more polarized we get, the more conflict there will be, and the harder it will become to ever restore a sense of balance and peace. (these same principles apply to our world situations that are now becoming conflagrations)...there must begin to happen some meeting of minds...there can be no effective 'destruction' of those one disagrees with...it is not in the universal order overall.

Throughout history it has been the Authoritarians that have been the domineering, naturally that falls to the Hawks and Lions lording it over the Doves and Sheep in the end...with approval at the first of those they convince to support them as also being the "stronger' that needs to 'act' because the 'weak' have no such effective 'abilities' nor considerations. Hitler was very good at that, as well as Stalin, Pol Pot and many others throughout history. Divide and Conquer is the name of the 'game', and is happening as we speak...I suggest that we not let it get too far out of hand, it may well be already too late. The end result will not be a pretty one for anybody, even those now convinced that it is the right path to go down.

Please consider this folks...our discussions are one thing, but arguments with extreme vindictiveness is another.

Peace if possible, War only as last resort !

Bush doesn't represent America.

The question itself was absolutely vague and stupid:

"Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?"

What does this question *mean* anyway?

Do I want Bush to succeed...in what? Golf? Looking good at any age? Chewing with his mouth closed at diplomatic dinners?

And no, I don't want Bush to succeed in his efforts to drill Alaskan wilderness refuges, block stem cell research, and pursue his continued failed military policy in the Middle East. I don't want him to succeed in creating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Does that mean I'm anti-America? C'mon. Get a brain cell.

Rob, your articles are consistently lacking in logic.

It's a moot question.

Bush has already failed miserably.

Crazy, I think what you are ignoring is the fact that in order for this country to succeed, every idea Bush has MUST fail. So, to want HIM to fail is to want the country to succeed. I believe those who want him to succeed with his atrocious agenda are truly the ones who hate this country, because he does not represent anything this country is supposed to be.

"Talk about Nazism and fascism!!"

CC...generally I think you are a good guy who has bad politics. But listen to yourself here. This overblown rhetoric is way over the top, first off, and second, just plain WRONG.

Someone who doesn't want Bush to succeed in his CRAPPY POLICIES is not a Nazi.

Both Nazi philosophy and fascism, by the way, are on the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, not the left.

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."

(See Wikipedia.)

So if you are going to insult liberals, at least get your terms straight.

"This makes sense logically. Sadly, though, that is not what the survey question asked. It said: "REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTED, do you want to see Bush fail?""

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE POLL SAID.

So go get your facts straight before ranting on here about this.

But Cory, your IFs are just too totally bizarre to consider. Nice try, though.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get-go; I knew it was a bad idea, and that the U.S. would gain too little for too high a cost. I did know that toppling the regime in Iraq would be easy, but I knew that it would only divide us from our allies, distract us from dealing with the 9/11 terrorists, and stick us with an occupation. What I didn't know was how totally deluded and naive the Bush administration was, and how pervasive incompetence would spin things beyond any worst-case scenario I could imagine.

I am not at all happy about it.

I didn't know that U.S. troops would still be there three years later, and that the situation in Iraq would be even more chaotic than it was in the summer of 2003. I didn't know that the U.S. would be so hobbled by Iraq diplomatically and militarily that Iran and North Korea could so brazenly defy international pressure in regards to the development of nuclear weapons. I didn't our national debt would soar while half of our federal spending would go to Defense, and a good chunk of that would be spent playing cops and robbers with a hodgepodge of insurgents, gangsters and foregn terrorists in the streets of Badhdad.

I do think I know what's next. After November, the U.S. will start to leave Iraq. The Bush administration will declare that the weak Iraqi government is ready to go it alone, and U.S. troops will herd themselves into giant megabases while a bad situation gets worse. This will be the situation that the next president will be faced with when he comes into office. That president will have to pull the plug on the whole thing.

Bush hasn't succeeded in the world, and he won't. He can't. It has nothing to do with what anyone wants.

Well, I tried a 'middle road' approach...I can see that it does not seem to work with Fanatics, and that is what I will call those that negate the common sense truth of the bulk of the comments made here...even though, as usual, there is 'one side' that will claim that I am talking about the other side here...anybody with slightest piece of a brain left will surely know exactly what I am saying here.

"They put their hatred of the President and partisan politics in front of the best interests of this country."


Unfortunately, the truth is just the reverse: all too often, it is Republicans who put their hatred of America and love for Bush before the best interests of the USA.

For someone to equate America exclusively with Bush and say that one's failure is a reflection of the other is precisely what Germany did when its delusional Nazis equated the land with Hitler. The psycho idea of deifying a mortal man and resting an entire nation's fate with him failed in Germany, fascist Italy, communist Russia, and elsewhere. Such a crazed notion is totally inconsistent with democracy, the ideal of limited government, and our way of life.

No surprise here, Rob... the amount of comments says more than the post did.

Now, I'going to read them.

Steph, you are such a troublemaker! You know exactly what Rob meant. Do you support Bush on his helpful anti-terror policies?

If you don't, why?

Do you support Bush on his helpful anti-terror policies?


Which policies would those be? Did I miss something?