Thursday, September 08, 2005

I get it -- You hate President Bush

Though I'd like to return to our line of posts down the road, I wanted to make a note of something I read in the Washington Post this morning, and get your take on it: (the article can be found at "Work on Rights Might Illuminate Roberts's Views" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702394.html)

In particular, I was drawn to this paragraph:

Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation, which opposes Roberts's nomination, said the FCC documents "underscore the need for the Bush administration to stop stonewalling and turn over the solicitor general's memos."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what this paragraph seems to say is, "We're already opposed to the nomination no matter what's in the documents, but we want to see them anyway." Why? So they can be even more opposed? I know the rational response is so they could show them to others to try and convince them that Roberts is a bad choice, but is there anyone still on the fence? And do you think for even a second that if the memos portrayed Roberts as a crusader for civil rights they would change their mind about him? No, of course not. Because this is no longer about Roberts -- it probably never was.
I think many on the left, both Democrats and otherwise, have fallen victim to the same problem that plagued many conservatives in the late 1990's. Back then, their hate of President Clinton blinded them to everything else. Everything he did was wrong, or immoral, or corrupt -- no matter the event, Republicans found a way to use it in their criticism of Pres. Clinton. He could have been revealed as the Second Coming, and Republicans probably would have professed to have been closet Jews the whole time.
Sound familiar? It should. While reading the Post over the past couple of weeks, I have come to realize that I'm starting to skip Opinions entirely, and even some of the articles. Why? Because I get it -- you hate Pres. Bush, everything he does, and everything he stands for. But instead of remaining even-keeled about it, agreeing with him where you do, and opposing him where you don't, the Democratic machine has gone into opposition overdrive.
There was even an article today about how Katrina has fueled the anti-war movement. And yes, I understand the resources argument. But the more likely truth is that a group who opposed Bush for one reason is using this as a pretext to further their original goal. I dare you to find an article that mentions how slow the state response to Katrina was. Or even one that mentions that the Governor controls the National Guard -- so any delay in their response rests firmly on her shoulders.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home