The Big W
For the past couple of years I’ve tried really hard to give George W. Bush a fair shake, but he keeps saying things that make my brain hurt. At this point it’s very hard to feel guilty about criticizing him; I think I can see his basic methodology, and I find it to be completely wrongheaded. He appears to pick out a position based on whatever he feels like, and then ignores any evidence to the contrary. He also seems to select people for important government positions based on their loyalty to him and agreement with his ideas rather than their actual competence and how well they’ll serve the country. The business with allegedly firing competent attorneys on the basis of failing to serve a Republican agenda is just the latest example to come out in the media. There was also the whole Katrina/FEMA thing, John Bolton, and entirely too much stuff about Iraq and 9/11.
Not everyone who works for him is incompetent, of course, but I think it’s safe to say that everyone who works for him agrees with his ideas, or else they wouldn’t be working for him for very long. When John Bolton was on the Daily Show he said that the President should serve the people who voted for him, and bring his own views to the fore. Does that mean he doesn’t need to serve me or the majority (about 70%) of Californians? I want a President who serves America, not just the bits of it that agree with him. Respecting and considering other people’s opinions is an important part of, you know, being a functional adult.
It won’t be too much longer before the presidential election season starts up again, this time without Bush campaigning. I know Cheney isn’t running — apparently he’s too mean and scary or something — so I’m hoping the GOP puts forth a candidate I’ll at least feel is worth giving some consideration to. (And while I suspect a lot of Hillary Clinton’s negative press was manufactured by her conservative opponents, I’d still rather see someone less divisive on the Democratic side). In 2000 and 2004, I wanted a president who:
- Was smart. Bush’s GPA was supposedly 2.0, and that was with intensive tutoring. Granted he went to Harvard and Yale, but you’d think we could find someone better to be the leader of a world superpower.
- Wasn’t a total ass. When I watched the debate between Bush and Gore, I hated both of them. When I hear about what Bush was like in college, it seems like we have a frat boy in the White House, and I don’t really like frat boys.
- Was a good speaker. Gore and Kerry were just boring, and when criticized Bush gets this whiny, flailing demeanor going that I can’t stand. If Colbert’s Better Know A District is any indication politicians who are good speakers are surprisingly rare, but again, leader of the free world and all that. We should demand the best.
- Likes to read. A president has a lot of stuff to keep up with.
Admittedly, I’m just going with my impressions from the news, and not doing a whole lot of research, but plenty of people who are smarter than me have already said their piece on the subject. What I’m really hoping is that for 2008 both parties can put forward better candidates than they have been, people who are intelligent and non-divisive. Granted, politics seems to push candidates towards being negative towards each other, even if it is all in veiled political-style speech. Still, although I tend to hold liberal views I don’t think Republicans are evil or anything, and I really think they can come up with someone better than George W. Bush if they try. With McCain and Giuliani among the front-runners, and guys like Ron Paul (who I might be willing to vote for, though he probably has no chance) also in the running, I’m a lot more confident of that than I have been in a long time.
