I'd assume that it's intended as one. There are true believers in the sense that I described on the left and the right, of course. Plenty of people won't admit that Clinton was a trashy president and a rapist. Well, to be fair, many don't know the details of the Juanita Broaderick case.
I liked Clinton a lot. When I saw what he was, I stopped, and called him what I thought he was.
I'm surprised that more people on SI haven't done that where Bush is concerned. Bush's failures have been vastly worse for the United States of America than Clinton's, imo. He has been a disaster for our country even if he hasn't lied about a bj.
I get the feeling that there's nothing Bush could do, or fail to do, or do incompetently, that would cause some people on SI to stop believing in him. Nothing. Is that wrong? Because my guess is that this feeling of mine is shared by others, and that might produce a phrase like "true believers." Is that what's going on?
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all the Bush fans are pleased with his performance, & Rumsfeld et al's, and the way things are going in general. If they are genuinely pleased at the state of the nation and at the results of our foreign policy and the way the war, and democracy in Iraq, are going, it's not being an uncritical believer, it's just approving of his policies and his appointees and his competence to perform as well in the future as he has so far.
I'm trying to be fair, here. I know my dislike of the Bush administration must be showing through, but i'm trying. |
