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.

No argument there. A lot of conservatives went off the deep end, and would go on for hours about drugs in Arkansas, mysterious theories about Vincent Foster, and on and on. Such people were labeled "Clinton-haters," and in my opinion, the label was accurate.

There are now leftists and liberals who go on and on about how Bush is trying to take over the Constitution, how it was "all about oil," spend time finding parallels with Hitler, and will oppose Bush no matter what he does. These people are, in fact, "Bush-haters."

Where the problem is, is when someone who opposed either Clinton or Bush for what would normally be seen as reasonable causes (Clinton lied under oath. Bush inflated the intelligence on Iraq. Clinton raised taxes. Bush spends too much), suddenly they are "haters," and are immediately dismissed.

The line is not always easy to see, and although I can't think of an example off-hand, Lord knows I have probably crossed it more than once.

This is why, in the original post, I was trying to separate in the statistics those Democrats who opposed the space proposal simply because they thought it was a bad idea, from those who opposed it for the single reason that it came from Bush. There isn't enough data to analyze the motives of the first group, but since only one variable was changed, the motives of the second group are obvious.

More on this here.