I never thought I'd feel this way, but I simply cannot conjure up any interest in writing anything political these days. It all just seems to be a retread of stuff I've written or linked to before. Bush-as-Megalomaniacal-Emperor, Fox News spitting on journalistic practices, Senator Making Stupid Remarks, and always No End in Sight to the War in Iraq.
I think that perhaps I'm just burned out on the topic, perhaps I'm feeling too hopeless that any of it will get resolved. It takes a very special president to cause this level of political disillusionment. Even at the height of the Clinton stuff, where I was disappointed in him for allowing a personal weakness to create political weakness, I never felt like the whole country was on the wrong course like I do now. I'm sure that most conservatives didn't even feel that way, being that Clinton was being appropriately (in their eyes) pilloried for his sins. Where is Bush's come-to-Jesus experience for his sins? Where are all the Republicans and their concern for "honor in the nation's highest office" now?
And where are our Democratic leaders for a new generation? They're the inmates running the asylum. And why are we still allowing the "eminence grises" to dominate the headlines? Old schoolers like Biden, Kerry and Dodd should follow the example of Ted Kennedy (yeah. I said it. Ted Kennedy). Think of him what you will, but Ted Kennedy shows up, does his job, comments on issues relating to his job, and then shuts his mouth. It's taken him a while to get there, but he's learned that he is most effective when he is seen to be handling the business of the people of Massachusetts and of those impacted by his committee memberships. The man does not congratulate Barack Obama on being "clean" and he does not make ill-timed "jokes" about the military. Nor does he run for president--again--because he's got some new exciting perspectives since he last ran in the 80's. He does not dominate headlines when the party needs our agenda to dominate the headlines. Gentlemen, go ye and do likewise. Be the Ted your party needs you to be. But in any case, just Stop Talking.
As you can tell, I'm so disillusioned that I can't even put together one original thought about the state of our nation. Except to say that I feel kind of like we are coming apart at the seams, like we are entering a millennial version of 1968 where it just all feels wrong in our hearts, our heads and our guts.
I just keep hoping I'm wrong.
6 comments:
Please explain the "Bush as emporer" thing. He's horrible and a mess, no arguement, but what is he trying to bring in under his "empire"? Thanks for the clarification.
Dear anonymous,
Read back through E's previous posts. She's done a pretty good job of linking articles and releases that outline what exactly makes up Bush's "imperialist" agenda.
The one about the funding for "faith-based" charities still bugs me. Why cut funding for promising research (like stem cells) and then turn around and give it to Christian groups who (some of which) spend more time lobbying and preaching than they do helping the community and raising the standard of living for those less fortunate?
Why invade a country under false pretenses? Why make a national claim that the moon belongs to the United States?
I guess I am confused about what an emporer is. I thought it was a leader who goes around taking over other countries to make them part of his "empire". Am I incorrect? (I am a regular reader of the Haggis) Thanks again.
Anonymous: unless you're just artlessly trying to be sarcastic, you should try to get out more often. You really should.
E.: What did I tell you about Kerry, Biden and Dodd? (And not really so long ago?)
Go ahead and throw your panties at Obama. It's not premature.
I was using the Emperor label in more of the "divine right" way, rather than specifically referring to having many satellite states under his orbit. I chose the word to convey a sense of personal grandiosity on the part of Bush. There are presidents, prime ministers, kings, princes. But Emperor has the connotation of a person who believes himself to be a leader by birthright, unquestioned and accountable to no one but himself. Kind of like how Napoleon named himself emperor, how Hirohito was an emperor, how..erm...Ming the Merciless was...
Thanks, E, for clearing that up for me. Makes sense to me now!
Vigilante - no sarcasm intended at all, just ignorance and an attempt to understand the terms being used (is that so wrong?).
Post a Comment