Battering political opponents is par for the course. Highlighting differences and disparaging one's opponents is standard practice in American politics. It began once George Washington decided to step down as the country's first president. As is frequently pointed out, the acrimonious tone of today's campaigns pales in comparison to some of the scurrilous personal attacks of the past.
That said, I find it absolutely objectionable to have the president of the United States seemingly delight in the playing in the pig sty. Politics aside, the president is the most prominent leader in the world. His public statements are front page news across the world. How is it then that it is acceptable for him to say as he did on Tuesday, that "a victory by the democrats is a victory for the terrorists". That is impolitic and beyond the pale. Moreover, it is entirely inappropriate for the president to personally make these statements. While on one hand he repeatedly states that he isn't questioning the patriotism of his opponents, his words belie a different truth.
In the past such hyperbole would have been properly left to key lieutenants of the president, especially the vice president. Unfortunately, the VP is so marginalized, his approval ratings so anemic, that he can only be sent to deep red territory not true battleground areas. What does Bush say if the democrats win the house (and possibly the senate)? Can he reasonably expect to be able to effectively govern with those he has so savagely disparaged? Has he ensured gridlock, in effect encouraged payback through endless congressional inquiries?
Ugh, this sucks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment