We knew Bush was a jerk, now we know the writer is the same. I guess speaking truth to power descends to the level of the power.
takes one to know one.....
whats that supposed to mean?
Not sure I understand either. If "we know Bush is a jerk" - as you say - doesn't that put you in danger of descending to the same level you say the writer has descended to? Or is it something else about the writer (other than him telling bush that he was doing a bad job) that you didn't like? Maybe knowing it is O.K., but saying it isn't? Or is it the saying of it right to his face that is wrong?
I have to agree with Bush that nobody does care what this person thinks. That's just a fact that all of us non-famous and non-rich people live with. It's true: nobody cares. But since Bush volunteered to be considered for a job where he should (at least theoretically) care what the people he is representing think - that's his job afterall - isn't this sort of an inappropriate comment? Yes, nobody cares; but a "representative of the people" should at least pretend to care a little about what the people he is representing think. If not, who is he representing? (Yes, I know the an$wer.)
Of course, this could easily be a B.S. story, so who knows... And in any case, I'm not surprised. It won't make any difference in the big picture (or even in the little picture.) Still I think it's a good story. And I'm not immediately convinced the writer is a jerk.
Bill Clinton would have said "I'm sorry you're disappointed, what can we do?" It wouldn't necessarily be sincere, just a smarter way to deflect the question politically. You could always say Bush was "having a bad day," but his kneejerk response to the question seems very much in character. Whatever the writer's motivations, if his essay convinces anyone to doubt the Smirker-in-Chief (who didn't already), it's a worthwhile exercise. This is war, after all.
|
- alex 7-19-2001 5:09 pm
takes one to know one.....
- bill 7-19-2001 8:39 pm [add a comment]
whats that supposed to mean?
- dave 7-19-2001 8:42 pm [add a comment]
it can be read two ways, neither of which apply
- bill 7-19-2001 9:01 pm [add a comment]
i understood it to mean an inappropriate remark deserves an inappropriate reply.
- dave 7-19-2001 9:17 pm [add a comment]
Not sure I understand either. If "we know Bush is a jerk" - as you say - doesn't that put you in danger of descending to the same level you say the writer has descended to? Or is it something else about the writer (other than him telling bush that he was doing a bad job) that you didn't like? Maybe knowing it is O.K., but saying it isn't? Or is it the saying of it right to his face that is wrong?
I have to agree with Bush that nobody does care what this person thinks. That's just a fact that all of us non-famous and non-rich people live with. It's true: nobody cares. But since Bush volunteered to be considered for a job where he should (at least theoretically) care what the people he is representing think - that's his job afterall - isn't this sort of an inappropriate comment? Yes, nobody cares; but a "representative of the people" should at least pretend to care a little about what the people he is representing think. If not, who is he representing? (Yes, I know the an$wer.)
Of course, this could easily be a B.S. story, so who knows... And in any case, I'm not surprised. It won't make any difference in the big picture (or even in the little picture.) Still I think it's a good story. And I'm not immediately convinced the writer is a jerk.
- jim 7-19-2001 9:58 pm [add a comment]
Bill Clinton would have said "I'm sorry you're disappointed, what can we do?" It wouldn't necessarily be sincere, just a smarter way to deflect the question politically. You could always say Bush was "having a bad day," but his kneejerk response to the question seems very much in character. Whatever the writer's motivations, if his essay convinces anyone to doubt the Smirker-in-Chief (who didn't already), it's a worthwhile exercise. This is war, after all.
- tom moody 7-19-2001 10:17 pm [add a comment]
but what about a coarsening of the culture? i have to ask myself WWKGD? (what would katherine graham do?) and yes, clinton would finesse (and make you feel oily) while the shrub engages with slash and burn (as much oil as possible). maybe this has something to do with it.
- dave 7-19-2001 10:27 pm [add a comment]
In AW's inditement of "jerks" he implicates himself if you extend the "takes one" axiom. Since I don't agree with his critique, he's automaticly off the hook and there remains but one original "jerk" to the story. It's fuzzy logic, but it's my logic.
I think Bush contridicted himself, proving he *did care* by doubling back and repeatedly asking "who are you with ?".
- bill 7-19-2001 11:07 pm [add a comment]
fuzzy logic, fuzzier spelling.
- dave 7-19-2001 11:14 pm [add a comment]
same old dave
- bill 7-19-2001 11:20 pm [add a comment]
i resent your incendiary indictment of my supposed character. by automatically linking my present pronouncement to your perceptions of my passed behavior, you have done us both a disservice. therefore, it is fortunate (for you and i both) that i reject your initial line of reasoning nullifying the egregiousness of your insurmountable logic and drawing attention away from your questionable consideration regarding orthographic concerns.
- dave 7-19-2001 11:53 pm [add a comment]
Reminds me of one of those great all purpose explanations, so useful in politics, such as "mistakes were made" (never mind who by). Anyway, a friend of mine once explained: "how can I be held responsible for something I did in the past?".
Oh yeah, another good one is "you may be right, but that doesn't make it true", also known as "that may be true, but it doesn't mean you're right".
- alex 7-20-2001 12:01 am [add a comment]
ummm, of course, i meant passe....i mean....i.i.i was just testing you, yeah thats it. whew... thats not why im sweating. just mind your own damnable business.
- dave 7-20-2001 12:08 am [add a comment]
your drifting again - can't stay on toipic ?
- bill 7-20-2001 12:14 am [add a comment]