I could see a president from your party doing exactly the same thing, without any complaints from you, which is another indication that David Brooks is right in his analysis, which is that it is the obsession with the person on your part, rather than ideology.
Sorry but that's bull........Bush is disliked because he's not very bright, and his presentation is rough and usually duplicitous and his implementation poor. During the campaign, he presented himself as a compassionate conservative, uninterested in nation building and states' rights. His administration has proven to be just the opposite.
He gives the impression of being religiously devout but I was watching when he and Cheney cursed on tv because they thought the mikes were off.......religious people usually don't curse esp. in public.
In many ways, his administration has become one that is radically conservative, starting wars because he wants to and blowing off allies because they don't share our point of view and he is unwilling to compromise.
I don't think Bush is an ideologue but he represents a group of ideologues. Therefore, he comes off as one since he is the one who presents their views and ideas. For me, ideologues are the most offensive people on the planet; to whit, Osama bin Laden.
Conservatives don't notice these nuances....and they ignore the flaws and the foibles. They are willing to excuse behavior that shouldn't be excused because essentially, Bush represents their point of view and they're sick of 8 years of Clintonism.
However, the rest of us can't ignore the nuances because 1. they appear much bigger to us, and 2. they are taking us further down a road we didn't want to go down in the first place. Plus, we are appalled by the foibles, the flaws and the radicalism.
The whole experience of Bush makes clear that the system has to become more open so that we get a better caliber people to the top. The Bushes, the Arnolds and the Grahams don't have the qualities to be president or governor. Just because a guy is rich and likeable does not make him a good candidate.
We need more Clintons, Deans and McClintocks rising to the surface who are not rich but capable and bright. The presidency should not cost $150 million. It should cost no more than 1/15 of that amount and no party should be able to spend more than a set figure. Better prequalifications wouldn't hurt either.
ted |
