Skip to main content

View Diary: The failure of N.O. is not Bush's failure (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, not really caring what he eventually (none)
    but it's really about can't let others forget.  I truly care not a whit what he thinks.

    "For the Mardi Gras
    Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

    by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:44:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  there is more than one way to do things (none)
      your way- you get to have your instant gratification of saying bush was wrong. But, it's more critical to emphasize that Bush is emblematic of a greater problem. I don't really see your argument to be honest because in order to say that his idealogy is wrong requires that we talk about him, but it becomes a question of HOW we talk about him. Is it just to be about Bush (a cult of personality response) or  are you trying to have  a discussion about the direction of the country and Bush that will go beyond Bush? If you are interested in both talking about Bush and the direction of the coutnry, then the fact that Bush represents a morally bankrupt idealogy should be on top of your list of discussion points. I am not sure how to make this any more clear than I am making it. Think about it and respond if you understand that by definition making this about Bush's bankrupt idealogy means Bush is put down, but that we also get to put down his corrupt idealogy?
      •  No, it's not about "Bush is evil".... (none)
        not that kind of personality assessment.  That's a waste of time.  It's more about "is this what you think you deserve in a president?" And Bush just happens to be the president.

        We've lost many an election because the Republican candidate related better than our wonky, obviously smaarter, more experienced candidate.  Maybe it won't be a minus anymore, maybe Americans will get serious and see the dangers of electing someone just because they don't make you feel intellectually inadequate or better than them.  We want a president that is better, above average.

        This is my whole argument about making sure no one ever forgets that in his capacity as president, this was one horrific betrayal of his duty to Americans.

        Certainly the philosophical argument about what conservatism run amok will bring is ripe for changing America too and we need to use that to change things, make things better, but we also need to make Americans understand how serious picking a president should be.

        "For the Mardi Gras
        Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

        by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:53:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Cathy, (none)
          Look it's not going to be either or- it's both and also. Rather than arguing with me about that- realize that I am not disagreeing with your point that we have to run on personality as much as idealogy. If you look back at my prior posts you will see I've been arguing that positionfor ever- I say that the problem with HRC for example is that she is about as interesting as watching paint dry on walls. The same for Gore. The same for Kerry. You will notice that I argue that our side constantly fails to create a public persona that works into the American mythos. However, where you probably go wrong is that you don't see the mechanics. Part of it is learning how to take any given incident and turning it into a greater story about what "reality" is. We are in a war of perceptions. Part of what you consider "evil" about Bush is really is idealogy. Also, telling people "don't you hate bush because he's evil" is not as fruitful as saying "bush follows a bankrupt idealogy, and his is corrupt." Notice, I don't leave out putting him down, but i do it in a way that levels by critique of his idealogy as well- the point is- link them. they aren't separate. i dont know how many times i need to repeat this- this is about linking them together. it's about saying the idealogy is related to the person and vice versa. it's how we will win. when i have a problem with the cult of personality- is where you become so obsessed with bush, you are so focused on bush's personality, that you don't realize someone is not disagreeing with you. they are telling you to go after what you want toward a greater goal.
          •  I actually thought we were having a (none)
            pleasant discussion.

            Sorry you thought it was an argument.  I think I made some salient points here.

            "For the Mardi Gras
            Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

            by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:05:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, but your points are assumed as (none)
              a part of the larger argument. as i said below, the diarist's argument assumes your argument, but yours does not assume his argument. This is where I think you keep getting stuck. You think he's saying your argument isn't true (perhaps because of the title?), but in fact I think he or she is saying that by arguing against Republican idealogy, Bush as a member of the subset is a part of the discussion. As a practical matter- he's Pres of the US and Republican- how could he not be a part of this larger discussion of Republican idealogy?
              •  I actually don't feel the least bit stuck n/t (none)

                "For the Mardi Gras
                Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

                by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:17:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  sorry, to answer your question... (none)
                do I think these issues of what is personal about Bush is idealogical in nature?  Sure, some of it.  But, I don't think that's as easily understood by the public as is choices between two poltical arguments.  I don't think they know that they have to care and be furious that they've been let down, not just by policy, but by the laziness, the privilege of the easy character they were charmed by.

                Anyway, I hope that answers it.  It's all so clear to me...heh

                "For the Mardi Gras
                Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

                by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:23:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  With a broad brush (none)
            It's about expanding the very visible failure of this president outward, including all of those who agree with his policies in the failure.  It's about saying, boy, that Bush is awful, he just clings to the same failed policies as ____... fill in the blanks.  It's about 55 dems in the Senate AND one in the White House.  
            Take Bush's failure of leadership, which is easy to see, and tie it to the failed ideology, which isn't always so clear.

            [the POTUS is]"again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined obj. & no exit strategy. " -Rick Santorum, 1999

            by Austin in PA on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 06:46:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  ps (none)
          the going after what you want toward the greater goal is the point here- i want to emphasize that to you. saying i hate bush - well that's nice. or that bush is evil- again nice. but there must be more that you are really saying when you say taht- and it's not on the policy wonk level. it's guilt by association. again i've been saying this for days now: " The Republicans are corrupt and follow a bankrupt idealogy that will destroy the American people." You can even change it so that the associative powers work again, "Bush is corrupt, and follows a bankrupt idealogy that will destroy the AMerican people." The point here is to start to link all of these things- Katrina, Iraq, SS, etc as one larger truth about Bush and the REpubblican party in general so that we can not only stop Bush now, but stop any future Bushs
          •  I'm not even sure you're reading me.... (none)
            at this point.  I'm making the exact opposite argument about not making this an "I hate Bush" argument just for the sake of saying hate hate HATE him....

            And the reason I object to "one" approach advocated in the diary, which is to emphasis the failure of conservatism is because I think the personality issues that they have been drawn too like a magnet, these silly superficial issues have hurt them and made them blind to policies that matter, made them think politics doesn't matter at all has indeed hurt them.

            I'm all for the two approaches, but the diary said drop the other approach about making it about Bush, it's about Bush in that he's the president, and he's the personality they've been duped by, and he's the personality that let them down.

            "For the Mardi Gras
            Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

            by Cathy on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 10:15:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that was the title of the diary (none)
              but both the actual text of the diary and other stuff i've read along the thread made it clear it wasn't an either or approach. that's why i asked are you responding to just the title because from my sense of it- they aren't arguing what you are arguing against.
            •  also i guess the point is about prioritization (none)
              of how you achieve a goal. you think personalizing it to just bush will work, and i think bush will increasely will become irrelvant and the democrats will once again be left fighting (as the national leadership is doing) old battles when the republicans in the form of newt ginrich are already gearing up for new battle grounds.
        •  re: "wonky, obviously smaarter [sic] " (none)
          Well, if we're going to portray ourselves as the "smarter" party (which we have every right to--I think a President must have well above average intelligence) we need to avoid pitfalls that keep us from losing even that front.

          Look at how the sclm was all over Gore's one bad year at Harvard and his not finishing law or divinity school, and Kerry didn't even release his records because he was afraid of falling into the same trap.  People said he "had something to hide" and got exactly what they expected when he did release them--and he wasn't winning the "more intelligent candidate" polls by much, if any, beforehand.

          "But the people of America have spoken, and they're saying they want four more years of Douchebag!!" -Family Guy Movie

          by BlueEngineerInOhio on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 10:28:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site