As asked last Thursday by Jon Stewart on the JS Show, why the hell are the Republicans so damn angry?
Since January 2001, the Republican Party has controlled the White House, the House, the Supreme Court, and with the exception of 16 unproductive Democratic months between June '01 and November '02, the Senate.
What's more, they've had pure whip-kissing, Democratic support on nearly everything since September 11th.
So why, at their convention last week, and why in general, are the Republicans so god-damned pissed-off at everything all the tyme? Why?
It's called "working the crowd", much like their constant griping about the non-existent opposition "liberal media" works "the refs.
The Republicans figure the more they bitch about non-existent unfair treatment by the "liberal media", the more the media will come to believe they actually are biased in favour of liberal causes, and the more they will censor themselves against keeping conservatives accountable, for fear they suffer another paper-tiger Republican tongue-lashing, and/or lose access to Repub moneymakers.
"Paper tiger" because said Republican outrage never amounts to anything more than seeing how much they can get away with. There's never any substance to Republican claims of a leftwing bias in the media; but, they know the national media is weak and restricted by its sponsors from actually doing its job, so Repubs take advantage of this carte-blanche by nudging the boundaries a little further right at every opportunity.
They take the same approach with the public. They act SO dissatisfied all the time that their "perfectly reasonable" agenda continues to be thwarted by the "liberal" opposition, that they begin to elicit sympathy from moderates with brain damage who cannot believe anyone, especially liberals, would deny the party of September 11th heroics what they needed to secure the nation and return it to its pre-9/11 glory.
Power, they just want power, and somehow the Democrats have remained too subordinated by this strategy that not one has ever stood up and denounced the Repukes for such tactics, going back to the beginning of the Lewinsky thing in the latter-90s.
Look at John Kerry: He's facing a bunch of yellow-bellied, lily-livered chickenhawks who have no problem sending the world to war but who had no intention of serving themselves when they had the chance. Yet, the whole Democratic party just sits there and watches Kerry credibility plummet in the heartland.
Haven't they learned that all you gotta do to shatter a bigmouth chickenhawk is to stand up to him and call him on his bullshit?
"They berate me for having served only four and a half months combat duty in Vietnam," Kerry should say. "Well, that's four and a half months longer than President George W. Bush or Veep Dick Cheney ever spent in a combat zone 'protecting America' during the Vietnam war..."
(Kerry spent well over one year total in Vietnam...)
"George Bush and Dick Cheney say I'd be 'soft on terror'? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did nothing on terrorism during the first 8 months of their presidency, and have squandered a golden opportunity since to eradicate al Qaeda from the planet by wasting two years, billions of dollars, and 1000 soldiers' lives in Iraq chasing after weapons that don't exist to remove a dictator that was about as powerful as a tuna fish.
George W. Bush has built his entire presidency upon the charred remains of the 2,800 dead Americans he failed to protect on September 11th, 2001."
That's what the aristocratic bastard should say if he wants to win in November. But then, maybe he doesn't...
(Under Clinton, terrorism was given the third highest priority on the national agenda; under Bush, it was dropped to 12th most important facing the nation.)