Zakaria: Responsible for What, Exactly?
Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria has a great piece on Rumsfeld, Bush, and the taking of responsibility: The price of arrogance.
Those of you who persist in what Janeane Garofalo describes as the “character flaw” of supporting Bush really have a lot to answer for, and Zakaria’s opinion piece summarizes an important part of it. What are you people thinking? You do recognize that things are thoroughly fucked up, right? And that your guy’s awful decision-making is at the heart of much of the upfuckery? At what point are you willing to recognize that your ideological predisposition is driving you to support someone who really doesn’t deserve that support?
May 9th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
It seems that too many people are treating politics as if it were football. There is nothing wrong with supporting your favorite football team even when they have a losing season.
Politics should be different. When your party is compouding mistakes and lies with more mistakes and lies, it’s time to withdraw support.
May 9th, 2004 at 10:11 pm
Very eloquently written. No Bush-bashing, just unabashed reason. Things are definitely not going well under Bush, and it might be more important than most people realize to limit the number of his terms to one.
He’s a straight shooter, no doubt, but his forthrightness is far surpassed by his naivete and narrow thinking.
By now, it should be painfully obvious to everyone that there will be serious long-term consequences (deficit, terrorism, market stability) if the current U.S. leadership is permitted to run the show for even one additional year.
May 10th, 2004 at 2:31 am
Because I placethe Iraq war, campaign finance and the problem of the military-industrial complex as my top issues, my problem is that much as in 1968 there are no real (electable) alternatives. Kerry’s mideast policies are depressingly similar, and he comes across as a tool of various lobbies. Yes, he is “better than Bush”, but that is not enough. I will vote with my conscience, out of protest, and probably go Nader, knowing full well the implications. I hope he gets at least 10% of the vote and scares the bejesus out of the Dems. Maybe then in 2008 the Democrats will select a real alternative and not just a teflonish “war hero” (Man, what is wrong with us Americans? Why always the emphasis on the war resume’ ?)
May 10th, 2004 at 5:16 pm
Steffen:
Unfortunately, I’m convinced that a Bush election this year will only push the Dems to the right, not to the left. Why didn’t Gore’s humiliation against an unqualified, dim empty suit cause the Dems to come up with a “real alternative”? Because all they want to do is win, and they think the way to do it is to out-conservative the conservatives. This is madness, clearly, but I don’t see them moving away from it.
May 13th, 2004 at 7:04 am
I consider myself very liberal, but even I wasn’t stupid enough to support everything that Clinton did. He made a lot of mistakes, and I was willing to criticize him for them… but his beneficial accomplishments far outweighed those problems.
Bush’s people don’t have that kind of humility. To the Administration & it’s supporters, admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness.