President Bush said that the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
George "What, me responsible?" Bush has passed the buck once again. Not only does he declare himself and his staff immune from accountability for any actions prior to November 3, 2004, but he pins the blame for any and all of his past actions on the American people. He and his party have always blamed others for their own failures, but they usually finger the kinds of people that Republican voters don't like -- liberals, Democrats, terrorists, poor people, etc. This time, in an odd reversal, he's not blaming the traditional enemies but is instead trying to shift the burden for mistakes in Iraq to everyone who voted for him.
Does that alarm anyone? What about you, "moral values" voters -- did you realize that your vote granted this administration absolution for any and all prior errors?
It's not exactly what Bush ran on. His platform seemed to mostly be something along the lines of, "My opponent eats aborted fetuses for breakfast, wipes his mouth with the American flag, and tears pages from the Bible to use as toilet paper. Vote for me, because I'm the other guy." With a combination of hate, fear, lies, divisive issues, and character assassination -- helped along by systematic voter suppression by election officials who also just happened to work for the Bush campaign -- he managed to squeak by with one of the slimmest margins of victory in history.
Of course some Bush voters do approve of everything he has done and everything he will do -- the stupider and more violent, the better. But most Bush voters had at least some reservations about giving this administration a second term. They voted to support the troops, or to stem the tide of gay marriage, or for any number of issues, but for any issue where the President was strong in each demographic, he was weak on others. True to form, Bush cannot cope with a complex situation and attempts instead to cast the election into black and white terms. America is for me, he says, so I have nothing to apologize for.
His tainted photo-finish is not the blanket of immunity Bush wants, but it's up to the media, the opposition party, and to the people themselves to remind him of that. It remains to be seen if his supporters will put up with being used and abused as much as his opponents have in the past.
- jack*
The article behind the "stupider and more violent" link worries me. It's not the kind of thing that I believe to be productive; one of the fundamental strengths of liberalism is a strong claim to empathy for the poor, and the people villianized in that piece ARE the poor.
Posted by: Alan Richardson | January 18, 2005 at 06:37 PM
http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2005/01/55-percent-against.html
Posted by: The Liberal Avenger | January 19, 2005 at 10:02 AM
Yes, I was ambivalent about that link also, Alan. There is a wiff of elitism and even racism in that piece that made me very uncomfortable, however it appeared to also capture something real about America. Whether this author has done justice to the topic or not, he is articulating something in the culture that needs to be understood.
The poor are voting against their own interests. Why? I'll entertain any theory.
Posted by: jack* | January 19, 2005 at 04:24 PM