When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Saturday, October 29, 2005
A Washington Post analysis of the Libby indictment cited a statement by David C. King of Harvard that the president ought to make a public admission of mistakes on his watch.
A New Moment of Truth For a White House in Crisis:
A question of whether there is willingness to hear dissent?
Excuse me, did anyone, since this president was innaugurated in 2001, see anything like willingness hearing dissent? There's no question in my mind!
Dissent was noticied and punished, true, starting notably with the public face slap of Vermont then-Republican Senator James Jeffords, who failed to toe the Administration line. Jeffords, not surprisingly, took umbrage -- and revenge -- by changing his party affiliation and for a while at least, depriving the GOP of its Senate majority.
But this president and his shotgun, Karl Rove, seem to have a more punitive attitude than any president in recent memory. And less --far less -- willingness to listen to other viewpoints.
Some Republifans may say Democrats like Bill Clinton were unwilling to hear the needs of the right. Yet the fact that they also accused him of 'stealing' their platform makes that seem improbable.
And Bush has had no mandate- his elections were exceptionally close and gained by chicanery, as far as I can tell.
And that may account for it. Chicanery wins, that's their experience and their standard. Win at all costs, opponents be damned.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
A New Moment of Truth For a White House in Crisis
A Washington Post analysis of the Libby indictment cited a statement by David C. King of Harvard that the president ought to make a public admission of mistakes on his watch.
A New Moment of Truth For a White House in Crisis:
'He can at least give the appearance of being open to criticism and being willing to change,' especially in light of the fact that
'there is a larger question in this administration of whether there is willingness to hear dissent,' said King, associate director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University.
A question of whether there is willingness to hear dissent?
Excuse me, did anyone, since this president was innaugurated in 2001, see anything like willingness hearing dissent? There's no question in my mind!
Dissent was noticied and punished, true, starting notably with the public face slap of Vermont then-Republican Senator James Jeffords, who failed to toe the Administration line. Jeffords, not surprisingly, took umbrage -- and revenge -- by changing his party affiliation and for a while at least, depriving the GOP of its Senate majority.
But this president and his shotgun, Karl Rove, seem to have a more punitive attitude than any president in recent memory. And less --far less -- willingness to listen to other viewpoints.
Some Republifans may say Democrats like Bill Clinton were unwilling to hear the needs of the right. Yet the fact that they also accused him of 'stealing' their platform makes that seem improbable.
And Bush has had no mandate- his elections were exceptionally close and gained by chicanery, as far as I can tell.
And that may account for it. Chicanery wins, that's their experience and their standard. Win at all costs, opponents be damned.
Palema
12:04 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|