Why?

I find myself wondering why CBS and the DNC picked the issue of George Bush's National Guard service on which to make some sort of last stand. I would think a great many Americans couldn't care less what George Bush did 30 years ago. Whether they support him or not, they care about what he did the last 4 years and what he might do the next 4 years. There's no real story here. Jed Babbin in National Review and Byron York in The Hill describe Bush's service. He fulfilled his service and earned an honorable discharge. There's no story here.

Is this the Bush Derangement Syndrome that Charles Krauthammer predicted:

the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and I wasn't happy with the outcome of the election, but I didn't lose my mind. Of course, I was never an actual Democrat. I can see where a true believer would be more upset, but a lot of these people have clearly lost their grip on reality. They talk of a stolen election even though the liberal media counted the ballots in Florida and declared Bush the winner. They feel they've been cheated and it's ok to cheat to get back what's rightfully theirs. It's a sense of entitlement mixed with a need for revenge.

Another idea to consider is the Left's mistrust of the military. Clearly, the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party is not in ascendancy, if it even still exists (I don't think Joe Lieberman, Ed Koch, and Zell Miller can make a wing all by themselves). The new Deaniacs are the old McGovernites and they have this strong pacifist trait. I don't think they understand most Americans' respect and love of the military as the preservers of our great freedom in a world that still has too little of it. They think it's about a love of guns and bombs and uniforms, they think of it as militarism bordering on fascism. That's why they're so tone-deaf. They see it as a pose and since Kerry can imitate this pose, they feel they've settled doubts about their attitude towards the military. "You want a hero, we've got a hero, medals and everything." Then they belittle Bush's Guard service, ignoring that there are Guardsmen in places like Iraq and that the Reserves are an integral part of our defense strategy. And they don't think anyone will notice the blatant hypocrisy of disparaging Guard service when they ran an actual draft-dodger in Clinton. They exalt Kerry and the vets who support him but dismiss as liars and hacks the Swift vets. People draw the conclusion that the Democrats' sudden love affair with military service is a passing fancy.

By their thinking, Kerry should have been a lock. Everyone's talking about war. We need a war hero. Kerry's a war hero. But people didn't embrace Kerry as the Democrats thought they would. So they keep drawing the distinction over and over again, hoping people will get it. "See, Kerry = military hero, Bush not. I don't understand. Why doesn't the public fall in line?"

Comments

[Fresh Air]

Laura--

This is really well done. Succinct and crisp. One of the best, shortest explanations of how we got where we are I have read in a long time.

Of course, one of the best definitions of insanity is when a person keeps doing the same thing over and over but expects a different result. Thank God for Terry McCauliffe and Bob Shrum--the two best Democrat leaders the Republicans ever had!