Brain Fertilizer

Blindspots.

That's the simplest and most fair way I can put it.

I have several Democrat/liberal friends, and I'm sure that they will each think this is about them*, and they will all be partially correct.

Rather than 'blindspots', I could also call it childish petulance, because sometimes that's the way it comes across. But all of them are charming, witty, intelligent, thoughtful, caring people in everything besides politics, so I have to assume something else is at work, and 'blindspots' is the only way I can explain it.

When I'm driving, the thing I hate most is someone sitting in my blindspot. I will always adjust my speed to spend as little time in someone's blindspot as I can. Because when you glance to your left, you see your immediate left, and you also see mostly behind you through your sideview mirror...but there is a 'blindspot' big enough to hide a complete vehicle. If one is there, you can't see it, and so it is as if it doesn't exist at all for you. You can't make decisions based on a vehicle that doesn't exist in your experience...and that's how some horribly tragic accidents develop.

Here are two significant blindspots left unchecked by Democrats I often encounter:

They are upset at how Bush is handling the economy. Most of the time, they cite the economic statistics for their own state lagging behind the national recovery. What they ignore is that the states below the average (including Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon) are among the more liberal of states, with larger-than-average entitlements and tax rates. The states hurt least by the economic downturn and who recovered the most quickly are the conservative, low-tax, low-entitlement states whose state government used the same principles as President Bush. So blaming President Bush for your own liberal state's bad economy is like blaming the aspirin for the hangover. Refusing to vote for Bush because you live in a liberal state with a sagging economy is like trying to stay permanently drunk to avoid said hangover.

The unemployment rate is 5.5%. Experts say this level is pretty much full employment. Bickering about the specific number of jobs lost "during the administration" is silly, since it is based on a number that even the office that produces it says is underestimating the number of people working. Factor in the gainfully employed people not covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Payroll Survey, and we are already seeing a net gain in jobs. And, in fact, by most major indicators, the economy is doing quite well.

Most experts also say the recent recession was much more shallow than expected, and recovery was quicker than expected. We had the best economic growth in 20 years in 2003! Manufacturing growth is at a 30 year high! The only possible way to criticize President Bush for his handling of the economy is to say that he is merely benefiting from natural economic cycles...but then you can't blame him for an economic downturn that began before he even took office, can you?

But the news media still reports the economic situation as bad, and my Democrat/Liberal friends are negative and critical along with it. Without a single fact to support that view, I might add, except that they are convinced things would be even better with Kerry as President. To which, I repeat: without a single fact to support that view. None of these people are dumb or essentially dishonest, so the only way I can explain it is they simply do not see the situation because their ideological views block out good economic news resulting from President Bush's actions as if they don't exist...

Another "blindspot" is concerning their anger that President Bush did not fulfill his promise to "Be a uniter, not a divider." They ignore that President Bush reached out to Democrat leaders from the very beginning, that he met with one of his most vocal critics in Ted Kennedy and worked civilly with him to produce the Education Bill of their dreams.
Things did get worse after that, yes. As President Bush said himself, "The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington."

But Democrats have used his expressed wish to be a uniter against him, demanding that he bow to their every wish or else be labeled "a divider". The Democrats were dividers in how they criticized every step President Bush took in the wake of 9/11. They demanded he come before Congress to get permission to invade Iraq, so he did. They demanded he go to the UN, so he did. They criticized him for appearing to delay until after the 2002 election for political reasons, and then criticized him even more sharply when he accomodated their wishes and made Iraq an issue earlier, in time for it to be an issue for the election. They used a loophole in the Senate to filibuster the majority of his nominees from a minority status, in flagrant disregard for the lesser obstructions of the Republican party under Clinton.
In every single case, President Bush has extended the hand of cooperation, and the Democrats have not only bitten it, they've blamed him for not preventing the biting.

It is extremely biased, negative, and dishonest to blame President Bush for current atmosphere when Democrats have pioneered harsh, partisan tactics at every stage. Unless it is just a blindspot for their own party's activities. I prefer to think of it so.

*clouds in your coffee, anyone?