Moronic Press Conference = Moronic Man?

Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, analyzes Bush's most recent press conference, and finds it moronic. On an email discussion list I'm a member of, there was a discussion on the use of language like moronic to describe President Bush. The discussion started because someone objected to using name calling when describing Bush. But what if the adjectives were used to describe Bush's policies? Is saying his policy in Iraq is incompetent the same as saying he is incompetent? In saying the decisions he made about how to respond to Israel's retaliation to Hezbollah were stupid the same as saying he is stupid? In coming to the conclusion that his approach in the Middle East is morally bankrupt and cynical the same as saying he is morally bankrupt and cynical?

Kaplan, it seems to me, makes a distinction. The piece is titled "What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference!" with the subtitle, "It's clear Bush doesn't understand Iraq, or Lebanon, or Gaza, or …". Bush isn't being called moronic in this title, but the press conference and his answers to questions are being called moronic.

Bush and his team have always taken criticism of their positions as treasonous. Sure, Bush might say, as he did in this press conference, that "I would never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live." But that doesn't stop his Vice President from saying Ned Lamont's primary victory, which comes from democracy in action, would enourage "al qaida types."

To associate Lamont's victory with giving comfort to Al Qaida is the same thing as calling anyone who voted for Lamont unpatriotic. Not explicitly, but certainly implicitly. So Bush's statement that he doesn't question the patriotism of those who disagree is hogwash. His administration and his surrogates certainly do.

So is Bush lying when he says such things, or simply moronic that he can't see that what he says is false?

So God Bless the Bloggers

Where Chait (see post below) got it wrong, this piece, written by Mark Spencer for The Hartford Courant, gets it right. The difference? Spencer reported --he asked, found out, and told what he learned.

Jon Chait gets it wrong

Writing in the LA Times about liberal bloggers supporting Lamont over Lieberman, Jon Chait says about their anger that Lieberman will run as an independent if loses the primary and risk splitting the democratic/liberal vote thus allowing a republican to win the seat:

Well, OK, some anger is appropriate here. But doesn't this suggest that
the whole Lamont crusade has sort of backfired? Although I'm no Karl
Rove, it seems to me that turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a
potential Republican pickup represents something less than a political
masterstroke.

But it's not liberal bloggers who support Lamont who are turning the seat into a potential Republican pick up; it's Joe Lieberman who is doing that by vowing to run as independent.

Liberman and his fellow conservative democrats as well as many traditional print pundits are aghast that liberal bloggers are calling for his ouster and are demanding that democrats become the loyal opposition instead of the loyal lapdog. Primaries are for the express purpose of putting forth candidates that the party members who vote in that primary believe will be the best candidate to carry their views and values to Washington.

Bloggers living in California (Kos, for example) and elsewhere can organize opinion and help drive donations to the candidates in states they like, but what's wrong with that? What will drive a Lamont win isn't the din of bloggers, but the grassroots feet on the ground in Connecticut getting Lamont's supporters identified and then to the poles on August 8.

Bloggers create arguments and rhetorical momentum, but that alone won't translate into a victory.

Still, the fear this network of people who agree and are finding ways to take action strikes into print pundocrats who used to rule opinion and into politicians like Lieberman who believe they are entitled to their seats without challenge from members of their own party is heartening to behold. Ideas matter, arguments matter, and anger needs to be channeled and turned into action.

Traditionalists like Lieberman and Chait would like action confined to rubberstamping their views and their aspirations, voting for Joe because there is no other choice.

Those days --thank, goodness-- are fading and the days of the citizen activist are emerging.

9/11 Begets 1984

So much for court orders, due process, privacy, innocent until presumed guilty, habeas corpus.

Wonder how long before Republicans started abusing the authority and began tracking their political and personal enemies? I assume it's happened. I have no proof. But since the White House impugns anyone who disagrees with it on the war as traitors and cowards and sympathizers, it'd only be a logical extension in their warped view to also bug those traitors to make sure they aren't terrorists to boot.