February 19, 2007
Not just getting our guy in
"Where [Bill] Clinton seemed a man of enormous political competence and no principle, Bush has been a man of principle and very little political competence."
-Joseph Bottum, editor of First Things.
(Via Ragged Thots.)
For all of George W. Bush's faults, I would still prefer the principled man who doesn't understand political maneuvering and public relations to the man who has his eyes on the polls and no ideals at all. I don't mean this as a Democrat v. Republican comparison, though the one made with Clinton and W is justified, there are principle-free men on both sides of the aisle and I hope we choose not to elect them.
Posted by Karol at February 19, 2007 05:26 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Bill+Clinton George+W+Bush Election+2008
"I would still prefer the principled man who doesn't understand political maneuvering and public relations to the man who has his eyes on the polls and no ideals at all."
Yeah but some of our most principled presidents were some of our worse (I'm thinking Quincy Adams, Tyler, Wilson, Hoover and Carter).
Posted by: Von Bek at February 20, 2007 09:56 AMDo you really assert that GW obeys his own personal principles?
Posted by: David at February 20, 2007 11:04 AMAnd is it really so wrong for a political actor to do what the majority of the people in the country want?
Posted by: Alceste at February 20, 2007 11:44 AMDid the majority of the people in the country want the president to get blown by an intern?
Posted by: Michelle at February 20, 2007 12:51 PMDid the majority of the people in the country want the president to lie about evidence to justify a wa... wait.. did you say a blow job... BY GOD!
Posted by: Joe at February 20, 2007 02:47 PMAlceste, I think it is wrong. The majority of the people wanted the war in Iraq, now they don't. Or, maybe they don't, how accurate are polls anyway? We elect people to be decisive leaders. That's why the flip-flopping accusation hurt Kerry so much.
Posted by: Karol at February 20, 2007 04:07 PMMichelle:
The Bush administration has kept US citizens under arrest for years at a time, without charge, without trial and without representation ... and you're still hung up on who sucked Clinton's dick?
Holy shit!
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at February 20, 2007 05:50 PM"We elect people to be decisive leaders."
Don't we also elect them to be effective?
What good are the right decisions if they're implemented incompetently?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at February 20, 2007 05:55 PMWe elect people to be decisive leaders.
We elect Presidents to make good decisions. When Presidents make terrible decisions and aren't smart enough to fix them for fear of looking indecisive, they deserve to be rebuked. Failing to do that is like paying a CEO exorbitant sums of money to run companies into the ground. Neither of these systems is very good.
Posted by: David at February 20, 2007 09:27 PMDavid:
Continuing with your CEO analogy, whom do you think shareholders would prefer: an incompetent and honorable boss, or an effective and unprincipled one?
I'm not saying that I want an evil CEO nor CiC, but I'm much more interested in a guy what can get shit done than a dude who won't compromise.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at February 20, 2007 10:48 PMJoe Grossberg,
US citizens??? Name one.
