If the Democrats didn't label people "Clinton-haters" and "Hillary-haters" as often as the Republicans now label people "Bush-haters", that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of hatred being flung around by the Republicans. It merely means that the Democrats aren't as good at labelling their opposition. This is, unfortunately, something the Democrats have learned how to do from getting smacked around during a decade of name-calling on talk radio. They have gotten, um, "better" at it.

The original name-callers can well deride their opponents for the use of hate-filled hyperbole. It's not a proper way to act, and the Democrats and their supporters need to cut it out. Yet the Republicans consistently forget that they continue to dish, and indeed blazed the trail.

"They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
Hosea 8:7

"With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matthew 7:2-3

For a party that seeks to drape itself in the cloak of Christian morality, the Republicans are very obtuse on the Golden Rule angle. If their understanding of that were more acute, they could help to square up the arena of public debate, so that the issues could be discussed without passing judgment on persons.

Is it only the Old Testament smiting parts that inspire them?

The Republican party and their mouthpieces are responsible for starting this particular round of name-calling, during the last Democratic administration, when there was a pretty even balance of Republican and Democratic power brokers. It was their lever. They even used it against their own, if the member were not adhering to the party line. If they wish to continue to behave this way, I wish them luck -- all bad.

The Democrats and their mouthpieces have adopted the tone. Shame on them. They didn't start this round, but it would be to their credit if they could resist the temptation to imitate, and to their great credit if they would finish it.

Regarding hate:
I have long had a measure of whether or not I hate a person. In an imaginary situation, I come across a person who has suffered a grave injury or a sudden severe illness. Do I aid or seek help for the person?

The answer must always be "yes", because the individual is a human being, after all, and no matter how I feel personally, I have an example to set for my children. The difference is, do I run, shouting, or do I walk, whistling?

In the case of George W. Bush, I would run, though perhaps not shouting. But I would take a minute to throw his wallet as far away as I could, so it would be more difficult for someone to call his office. (Yes: ha ha, as if.) I wish him a long and happy life... in retirement. I don't hate the fellow, but I seriously don't like a lot of what he does at work.

Regards--
Mary Anne