What changed me? Getting myself informed and paying real attention to what was going on around me did so. The basis for the transformation was already in place with a few long-held conservative ideas: opposition to affirmative action, support for lower government spending, possession of Christian ideological views, support for a strong military and decisive military action.

President Clintonís inaction in the face of repeated terrorism was what turned the tide for me, however, not the Lewinsky scandal. The USS Cole attack was the last straw.

Did I see CDS among President Clintonís detractors? Sure. But when he took what seemed then to be decisive military action in the Balkans and in Iraq (Operation Desert Fox), most Republicans of any note applauded him. When he signed the Welfare Reform and Defense of Marriage Acts, most conservatives of any note expressed their approval.

I donít see comparable reaction among liberal/leftist Democrats when President Bush does something they might approve of. What I do see is the word ìpanderingî being thrown about. That is most definitely a symptom of a more virulent and debilitating strain of Derangement Syndrome; also more lethal in that we know now that far more is a stake in relation to whom the majority of voters chose to be the POTUS this year.

A bit late to this, but, perhaps better than never.

Reading through these many comments I am amazed at how psychologically-minded this group is.

Roger touched on it below, but it is untreated narcissism that is, and drives, post post-modern life.

Mr. Junod is to be congratulated not so much for “getting it’ with regard to the war against radical Islam, but for “growing up”.

The cultural of narcissism is everywhere. One of the most repellent (and recent) examples is the anti-war’s campaign of “Not in Our Name”. As if the prosection of the war to topple Saddam Hussein, well-known for decades as a fascist murderer and thief, was being done exclusively on their behalf and required their say-so!

Take also, (OT, here) the Amy Richards story. Whether or not life begins at conception is debatable, but not so Ms. Richard’s total fixation on her fantasy of herself. For it seemed that to view herself in the unseemly guise of one of those women who buys giant jars of mayonaise, was anathema, and this loss of projected-self, not the welfare of her children, is what drove her to decide in favor of abortion/infanticide (take your pick).

Of course, the most obvious example of this is the so-called “Special Interest Group”, which is a euphemism for Me.

At first I thought to congratulate Mr. Junod on his return to sensibility, but after additional consideration, I think otherwise.

The piece was ultimately about him. It began about him and ended with him. It sounded like the synthesis of his last few weeks on the couch.

When Mr. Junod starts sending letters to troops in Iraq, or sending them mouthwash, CD’s, magazines, frequent flyer miles, etc., or raising money for disabled troops who are fighting to protect him from another jihadist 9-11, then I will congratulate him for being a responsible and empathetic adult.

Regardless of who he votes for come November.

Why have we arrived at this situation? Nixon was reviled. I was too young to give a rat’s patoot about politics, but looking back I can understand to some degree. Ford was, if not hated, at least openly ridiculed. Carter, as far as I recall, wasn’t reviled but there was no way the nation was re-electing anyone that ineffective and feckless and, well, he didn’t seem to like us very much. Reagans was reviled, Bush 41 somewhat reviled, Clinton was reviled, Bush 43 is reviled.

Have we really reached the point where no president can serve without being hated by a substantial portion of the population? We need to do some growing up and do it quickly.

The Democrats’ machiavellian “win at any cost” attitude is even more understandable from the activist government lens if you consider the following stakes:

control of all 3 houses

judicial nominations possibly Supreme Court Justices

Most Repugs would settle for good ole gridlock–which more or less sums up the Clinton years. Oh yeah I forgot about Americorps sorry.

As an employee for a Major Global Corporation I had many coworkers, some of whom were friends and some of whom moved about to work internationally.

One of those was a woman who is a very open lesbian. One could not know this woman for more than a day or two without being informed, by her, that she was a lesbian. She held well-paid positions, was well respected, recieved promotions and, through demonstrated talent and skill recieved a job with the company in Switzerland. Since I do not know what it is to be a lesbian, open or otherwise, I cannot say what difficulties this woman experienced in her daily life. I can say that it caused her no detectable difficulty in her working life, at least with this particular company. She seemed to live very freely and easily as far as I could tell with no apparent need to feel she needed to disguise her sexuality.

OK, stage set, I’ll proceed. The woman returned from Switzerland for business or a visit, don’t recall. She dropped by to chat and I asked a few questioned about her new job and environment and then pretty much sat back and listened. What I got from her was a tale of how much she loved her job and living in Switzerland and working frequently for extended periods of time in Italy and South Africa. Clearly she was happy with all this. During the course of her explanation, however, she described how the Swiss had very few women in positions of authority and how she was frequently assumed to be a mere secretary and often somewhat dismissed by the male power structure. Her description of working in Italy was similar. Hmmm….

Then she moved on to discussing South Africa and how they were recovering from apartheid and things were difficult but improving and how bigotry was present but being dealt with and how women were making slow but sure gains and so on.

By happenstance this chat took place shortly after the whole election 2000 debacle that left us with George Bush as president. She finally arrived at commenting upon this horrible development and commented that she had been sitting in a hotel restaurant in South Africa when she learned the final outcome (Bush elected) and that she had burst into such wracking sobs of despair for the future of her country that people actually approached her offering assistance.

This woman lived a free and open and prosperous life in the US. She went to Sophisticated Euroland where she learned that her life could not be nearly as free and open as it had been. During this new life she traveled to a place where they were still deep into the nasty difficulties of recovering from aparthied and that still exhibited open bigotries on clear display. And yet, somehow, the election of George Bush left her with wracking sobs of despair for the future of the US.

WTF? What am I missing?

I agree that the dynamic in the Clinton years was much as you desribe it, with many people being turned off by what was seen as excessive hostility to BC.

However, one major difference between then and now is that the Clinton detractors were widely depicted as being cranks and zealots, whereas the the likes of Moore are either given non-judgemental treatment in the press, or actually praised and given awards.

I suspect that difference is leading to the BDS ideas being seen as “respectable”. If so, there is less of a downside to promoting them. To a disinterested and unknowing observer, the BDS ideas may not seem crazy and extreme; after all, the media and “intellectual class” have embraced them.

Since we are creating new psycholigal disorders to the cannon of the medical profession we must not forget RDC.This is a subject that I can speak about because I was one of the original test cases. Hi, everyone, My name is Kevin, I am a RDCaholic. Let me share my story.

John,there was CDC and there is BDC.That fact that some of the fears of Clinton were not paranoid but true does not eliminate the syndrome and the hate that happened to some of the people who had the classic reactions to the Man from Hope. My reaction to the election of Ronald Reagan was to wear a black armband for a week and to spend 2 days with my Democratic buddies and bottles of Dewers as we predicted the coming nuclear war and the new Reagan reich that we new was coming. From that point on every time I saw Ronnie on the screen The foam would start to come out of my mouth and the words idiot,actor, fascist,warmonger, and things that i can’t legally post on this site would begin vomiting from my mouth. And as the 8 years rolled on it only got worse.Every anti Reagan editorial or book became my New Testament. I could cite passages from the Tower commision report quicker then Billy Graham could quote from Romans.

During the Clinton years I dried out and ignored politcs for a while. But I did pay enough attention to recognize that the reaction to Clinton was similar to my own ravings about Reagan. I am not saying that Clinton ranks anywhere on the pantheon of great presidents. I am just saying that I recognized the pavlovian response to the slickster that I had towards President Reagan. The face goes red, the words pour out, the comparisons to Satan, Hitler, Stalin or any other demon comes rolling out of the mouth like lava out of a volcano. You are correct about what Clinton was and did, but I am describing the emotional and irrational ability to believe any story that pointed to the evil of the president . Murderer, Drug runner,etc,ect.

I am worried about this election and the only thing that gives me hope is the fact that the BDC factor in the Democratic party is so fierce that it will drive the middle of the road non-political voter into the arms of Bush.I think that one of the reasons Reagan and Clinton served 2 terms is because the rabid among us painted such a over the top image of our tormentor that the more apolitical voter said, Well, I am not that fond of the President but if these maniacs are supporting his opponnent I don’t want to be in their group.

Blogaddict stole much of what I was going to say about CDS, but let me add that the 24/7 media fills all that airtime via overexposure of Hollywood celebrities. There are a lot more Susan Sarandons in Hollywood than Grover Norquists. Such celebrities are overwhelmingly left-wing, fully convinced of their grandeur, and shockingly naÔve about the outside world ñ however, they have a much bigger megaphone to broadcast their ramblings, so we hear a lot more left-wing craziness in the popular media than right-wing craziness.

I do want to address your question:

îBush has done none of those things, and yet the left hates him. HATES him. I have yet to hear any explanation, other than some pull out the ëstole the election in Floridaí canard.î

I think the bulk of it is that Dubyaís mere existence hits many of the Leftís buttons.

- Heís a white child of wealth, who gotten far by working his familyís connections. So, that ticks off the ìwhite privilegeî diversity promoters and the feminists.

- Heís an open believer in a mainline Christian church (he never left the Methodists, did he?), which scares the blazes out of the secularists who think Pat Robertson is a bigger threat to their lifestyles than bin Laden.

ñ Heís a Southerner, and even worse, a Texan. The urban elites think that such areas are like Bangladesh, but without the eco-tourist appeal.

- Finally, heís a Republican, which for many people is a synonym for ìracistî or ìwhite-breadî.

These are all classes that the Left feels are backwards and intellectually inferior, and that the Left finds socially acceptable to mock openly – you certainly canít make jokes about Mexicans or African-Americans anymore, so they had to find someone to feel superior towards.

Dubya hits each and every one of these buttons. Hell, it would be amazing if they didnít hate him.

Just one more comment. There was CDS. I’ve given my reasons for it and why I believe BDS is more virulent illness.

John mentioned the American Spectator above. The American Spectator was the first overtly political periodical I was ever aware of and over time I became a fan and a subscriber. I specifically canceled my AS subscription, didn’t even wait to fail to renew, over their rabid CDS. They became all-CDS all the time and that was of no use to me or, IMO, them.

CDS was there but I believe the “right” fought it off and refused to succumb to it and kept passing the work around to the like-minded to behave like adults and rise above emotionalism. That behavior seems indicative of a political party on the “rise”. The Dem embrace of BDS is symptomatic of a party in serious decline.