I thought I would finally make a quick comment on Bush's recent drop in polls.
First of all, I'm afraid I don't think much of these polls because I don't think much of the sense of the American people. I'm sure I'm one of them, but the American people seem so fickle and generally manipulable. My opinion of Bush has remained the same for ages, as you may know. I think he's been in over his head forever, misguided, not too bright, and himself manipulable by those around him (hmmm, Cheney, for example). I have not yet conceded that he's dirty or a liar. I tend to think of him more as a well intentioned incompetent.
So these polls may swing back to overwhelming popularity tomorrow, for all we know. My fleeting satisfaction is that for some mysterious reason unbeknowst to me, the masses have suddenly stopped responding to the monotonous "We're in a war against terrorism" line that Bush has used as an umbrella to connect unconnected things and to justify unrelated actions.
So Bush now has a strange befuddled look on his face. "What's wrong?" he keeps asking Laura at night. "Every other time something bad happened and I said something about us being in a war against terrorism, I went back up in the polls, even if it had nothing to do with terrorism."
Oh by the way, I never did post when Bush tried this with Katrina--it was absolutely amazing. Bush said something like, "Katrina did a lot of damage here. We Americans look at this damage and think, what a horrible thing. The terrorists would look at this damage and wish they had caused it. We are in a war against terror." Absolutely unbelievable!!!!
I actually felt a little sorry for Bush after Katrina because he couldn't blame it on terrorism--the above was his best shot to link the two. I thought to myself, "I bet the reason he didn't know what to do about Katrina was that he couldn't figure out who he should bomb in retailiation!" He's not any good at construction, only at attacking and making laws to outlaw what he thinks is wrong.
So now Bush says to Laura, "I'm saying the magic words Karl taught me, but they aren't working any more."
"Don't worry honey, go to sleep. It's too late now. The history's already been written and the Democrats will take over both houses next November and this one in three years with a vengeance. Thanks to you, in three years liberals will have as much power to do what they want as we conservatives had two years ago."
I say that as a matter of prophecy, not as a matter of wish. I'd be delighted for anyone who's both well intentioned and intelligent to be elected, Republican or Democrat. But for some reason, it seems you have to be extreme on either end of the scale to get anywhere with these parties these days. I wish I could start my own. Schenck for president (I do currently have a beard).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
And a fine beard it is sir. I'd vote for you.
this is all sad but true. too bad bush has forgotten about social security...
You always told me in class, "Feel free to disagree." Well, I still do. While I do think you would make a good president and it is true that Bush totes that line a little much.
As far as Katrina goes: I noticed that a number of other states (outside of LS-specifically New Orleans) got hit and they did not suffer as much damage. Hmmmm... maybe because their governors and city leaders were competent and knew what to do. Maybe they took federal advice prior to the hurricane hitting. Maybe their citizens didn't stick around waiting for their welfare unemployment checks. Or it just could be as absurd as Bush and God hate black people- give me a break.
You can say what you want about Bush but it is not his fault that Katrina nailed New Orleans so hard. It is their own fault.
Of special note: Democrats have controlled that entire city and state for fifty plus years and they have incredibly high unemployment. Wow, how well their system works.
Bush does have his flaws but he also puts good (highly intelligent people around him). We really are in a war on terror and while that line does not always pass mustard it is true. The fact is, in a war situation I want someone who won't hesistat to pull the trigger not some liberal who is attempting to understand the social issues that would drive an individual to such desperate methods as terrorism. Si vis pacem para bellum. Period.
Hey Devin--I want you to know I did skim through your piece on Katrina. Although I feel too uninformed to point fingers too much about Katrina, I am willing to believe that the city and state had social practices and or policies whose weaknesses were seriously reflected in the aftermath. I don't really blame Bush too much for the situation except perhaps (and I really mean I don't know) who he had appointed over FEMA. In general, I don't think he did anything bad in the situation itself--I just don't think he had any sense of what to do good where others probably would have. I don't feel like he has much of a constructive sense about him.
I really feel torn pretty much right in the middle on matters of economy and long term benefit versus social responsibility and short term need. I believe a healthy society tries to minimize the discontent and disempowerment of the weak and the poor (otherwise they revolt and set fire to cars). Yet if budgets aren't balanced and competition isn't encouraged, the energy and thriving of the society is sucked out of it as well.
But can a person who has a good balance of both perspectives get elected?
Post a Comment