teisipäev, juuni 01, 2004

Uniting and Dividing

E.J Dionne vs. David Winston.

Many interesting arguments put forth by both. Winston is right that things will get better for Bush before the election and Kerry may not be making a strong enough impression on voters to survive that. Good point. Somewhat obvious, but good. His claims about Republicans offering attractive domestic policies seem a bit optimistic and detatched from reality, though.

The underlying point of much of Dionne's piece is that Bush is personally responsible for the extreme partisanship in Washington. I agree with this. I've always argued against the idea that Al Gore would have been as divisive as Bush. And if a Gore presidency was, it would have been because of the Republicans constantly trying to get him impeached for something, not because of his governing style. Bush, on the other hand, says things like "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."; "If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.'"(see Milbank on straw men below); and "the Senate" -- meaning the bare Democratic majority that existed at the time -- was "not interested in the security of the American people."

Yeah, that's how you unite a country. Acuse half of it of not wanting to protect it. Bush is just a truly obnoxious, arrogant dick. That's all there is to it. He's a jerk. I have never understood why some people in this country like him and his personality. He's just so combative and, frankly, mean.

I mention this because Winston kind of goes off the deep end late in his piece when he offers this:

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to offer voters little more than tirades and tantrums. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the president of the United States "incompetent." Al Gore unleashed some of the campaign's most vicious invective when he said last week that the Bush administration has subjected the nation to "disgrace" and "dishonor." Sen. Edward Kennedy, reacting to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, has equated the U.S. military with Saddam Hussein. And Kerry sniped, "Did the training wheels fall off?" after the president was recently bruised in a bicycle accident. Harsh personal and partisan attacks are not the solutions to problems that voters want to hear, especially in a time of war.

Yes, those Democrats are so negative. Not Bush, though. He never makes baseless, offensive charges against Democrats. Well, except for all those times that he has, as noted by Dionne above. Note how Winston grossly distorts Kennedy's comments and chooses to repeat an unconfirmed off-the-record comment Kerry allegedly made. After four years of Bush pitching the crap he has at Democrats, can you honestly tell me you're surprised that they're daring to use mean words like "incompetent", "disgrace", and "dishonor".

Yeah, because no Republican has ever accused a Democratic president of disgracing or dishonoring the nation.

I'm starting to think right wing pundits just live in an alternate universe where the 1990s just never happened.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?