Monday, July 16, 2007
GWB
A writer I quite admire, John Baker, has a blog I love to visit, almost daily. The two of his novels I've read are engaging and absorbing, and his blog observations often let me see something in an interesting way. Recently, however, he wrote a post, "Can the President Pardon Himself?", whose title caught my attention and got my goat since Bush didn't in fact pardon Libby but commuted the sentence - an important distinction which someone as detailed and erudite as Baker should have worked with. Furthermore, I would not allow myself to publicly critique U.K. leaders as personally as he critiques Bush now and then, since I'm not British and therefore inevitably unaware of U.K. governmental minutiae no matter how much I have studied and read about it, but each to his own, right? In this case, the post was basically inoffensive, though mildly annoying, as he quoted something from Yahoo about the Libby commutation. What stuck in my throat, however, were the comments and his replies. At which point I had to say something so I wrote my own (possibly over-long) comment, which I reprint here. Perhaps any CRRs* can tell me if they think I went overboard and/or what they might have said instead, or in addition.
I hope I don’t lose whatever good grace I may have had so far with you but I have to say that the idea of broad-brushing over 63 million Americans as “insane” and rabidly Christian is itself insane (heh) and also quite offensive. Isn’t it the essence of Democracy that sometimes choices are made that are unpopular to lots and lots of people?? Many non-religious and apparently sane people voted for (and still support) Bush because he is consistent and determined, has strong convictions, does not change his plans every time a “man in the street” speaks up, uses the strength of his position to carry out his convictions, and is a focused and centered person whose self-respect doesn’t depend on opinion polls. No one expects to agree with one’s elected officials all the time but some people prefer officials to act more like leaders than celebrities. Kennedy and Clinton were cool and hip but many people felt they were dangerous for the U.S. in various ways, and many disliked them both; yet no one flung character aspersions at those who supported them. On the other hand, it has become a popular blood sport to attack Bush, his ideas, and his supporters. Which is ridiculous and pointless, and demeans those who participate. Wouldn’t it be more helpful and useful to stir up rational debate so as to work on convincing bunches of the 63 million to change their minds?P.S. It seems I'm not the only one out here willing to voice approbation for Bush. Read William Kristol's "Why Bush Will Be A Winner" from yesterday's Washington Post. (Thanks to ligneus for mentioning it.)
Labels: blogs (mine), blogs (others'), gwb, reflections
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 12:03 PM
— at 8:56 AM, July 18, 2007:
jau — at 9:28 AM, July 18, 2007:
Tat — at 12:50 PM, July 19, 2007:
jau — at 3:07 PM, July 19, 2007:
Tat — at 5:24 PM, July 19, 2007:
jau — at 6:35 PM, July 19, 2007:
| posted by jau at 12:03 PM
9 more:
— at 8:56 AM, July 18, 2007:
If you believe the MSM we seem to be a dwindling band, the GWB supporters, but who believes the MSM any more.
OK, I'll show my obtuseness, but Barb, though a representanative Republic, is it not also a Democracy? Unless by that you mean the Pres elected by popular vote.
OK, I'll show my obtuseness, but Barb, though a representanative Republic, is it not also a Democracy? Unless by that you mean the Pres elected by popular vote.
< home >
jau — at 9:28 AM, July 18, 2007:
Actually, the U.S. is a democracy in many ways. The official term is "representative democracy" in the references I checked although I think "representative republic" is more accuracte since we don't vote directly on laws but, rather, elect local government directly (one vote per voter) and entrust to them the power of running things. And, of course, we famously vote for the president indirectly. The representatives we elect have the responsibility to act in what they see as our best interests though they are not official proxies. On the other hand, while they don't HAVE to act as proxies they usually lose pretty quickly if they don't!
Barb, I have to ask why you hope never to live in a full-fledged democracy?
Barb, I have to ask why you hope never to live in a full-fledged democracy?
< home >
Tat — at 12:50 PM, July 19, 2007:
I won't speak for Barb, but here's an interesting post on the topic and opinion that she might have shared (if I understood her correctly).
OT: A, are you still interested in visiting FIT?
OT: A, are you still interested in visiting FIT?
< home >
jau — at 3:07 PM, July 19, 2007:
Tatyana - Thanks for the link to neo-neocon. Terrific blog! and terrific article.
Yes, I do want to see FIT, preferably on a day when the street doesn't blow up in front of us. What's our time frame?
Yes, I do want to see FIT, preferably on a day when the street doesn't blow up in front of us. What's our time frame?
< home >
Tat — at 5:24 PM, July 19, 2007:
"Tues - Fri Noon - 8pm , Saturday 10am - 5pm. Closed Sundays, Mondays, and legal holidays. " (Link
Can't guarantee anything in Con-Edison-monopolized Manhattan, Anne, however the FIT is still standing - I had seen it today at lunch! better hurry...
Can you delete comments? Then I will post my cell phone number and you could delete it after copying it.
Can't guarantee anything in Con-Edison-monopolized Manhattan, Anne, however the FIT is still standing - I had seen it today at lunch! better hurry...
Can you delete comments? Then I will post my cell phone number and you could delete it after copying it.
< home >
jau — at 6:35 PM, July 19, 2007:
Tatyana - yes, I can delete comments. Post your # at midnight tonight or at 9:30 tomorrow morning (as close as possible) and I'll check both times, and delete right away.
< home >
< home >