Where's the rage?

For the second time, Kristoff writes a column in the NY Times bemoaning vitriol. For what it's worth, I more than agree with the notion that hate-rhetoric gets us nowhere. But Kristoff seems intent to assume that Bush-hatred has reached the same levels as did Clinton-hatred.
Again, Kristoff cites the New Republic piece defending 'Bush-hatred.' And again, it seems Kristoff has not read the article. In it, John Chait confesses a personal distaste for Bush. It is that, I suspect, that Kristoff (and I) regard with suspicion. However, the thrust of Chait's article is to say 'while I might not personally like Bush, the reasons not to like his policies are what's important...' The article then goes into a very thoughtful and detailed criticism of Bush-politic.

Yet, for all its pervasiveness, Bush hatred is described almost exclusively as a sort of incomprehensible mental affliction. James Traub, writing last June in The New York Times Magazine, dismissed the "hysteria" of Bush haters. Conservatives have taken a special interest in the subject. "Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush--a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological--unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around," writes Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine. "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from." Even writers like David Brooks and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard--the sorts of conservatives who have plenty of liberal friends--seem to regard it from the standpoint of total incomprehension. "Democrats have been driven into a frenzy of illogic by their dislike of George W. Bush," explains Caldwell. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks, noting that Democrats have grown "so caught up in their own victimization that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering."

Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.

It is also noteworthy that the issue of the New Republic has two cover stories- one is Chiat's, the other by Ramesh Ponnuru, with this intro: "Liberals loathe Bush because he supposedly promised moderation and delivered right-wing extremism. They're wrong on both counts." It is a critique of Bush-hatred.

So...where is the thoughtless rage that Kristoff speaks of? The only example he cites is from an email...indeed, an email talking about Coulter. I'm not convinced the D.C. pundits and politicoes are suffering the same deranged 'hatred' for Bush as was the case with his predecesor.