NY Times: Presidential Character

[gristy]

My father alerted me to this NY Times editorial in today's paper, with the following comment:

"Wow! Editorial from this mornings NYTimes. The emperor has no clothes."

Go dad!

George Bush's long-term plans for 2003 probably did not call for his August vacation to be followed by a national television address trying to justify a floundering policy in Iraq. Just about nothing, in fact, looks like what he must have hoped for in the run-up to an election. To many Americans, the economic recovery is anything but - 2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost in the last three years. The number of people living below the poverty line is rising, the trade imbalance has reached unnerving proportions, and the federal budget deficits have grown so huge that even the International Monetary Fund has begun expressing concern. Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated version of its earlier incarnation.

MORE

[diplomats]

1. This is a great editorial

I love this paragraph. I've been saying this for months:

"Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices."

[pansypoo53219]

2. incapable of taking that path???

That path isn't even on the chimps bloody map.

[DrBB]

3. YOW! How did I miss this?

I guess I don't always read the editorials, as opposed to the op-eds, but geez, this was scathing. A real body-blow, I think--it's not just about one issue but a damning evaluation of his whole presidency so far. If I was Rove, I wouldn't be taking this lightly--these guys may trend left, but they have been cutting shrump way more slack than they ever did Clinton. Bad bad news, methinks.

Somehow I missed it though! Was reading today's letters and they were responding to it--sheesh. Hey, this one's a slavering right wing treat--d'ya suppose they wanted people to know what kinds of morans support the guy?

This president has the moral courage to do what is necessary to rid the world of terrorists and evil dictators that previous presidents did not. To criticize him in this regard is un-American!

If he did not fight terrorism, you would have criticized him as well, so he cannot win in your eyes!

"Unamerican," exclamation points--it's got everything.

On t'other hand, the first letter is superb, IMO:

To the Editor:

Re "Presidential Character" (editorial, Sept. 9):

Although I, too, question President Bush's leadership ability, and most of his decisions and actions, we place far too much blame on him for our current troubles. Despite his appalling leadership, if you believe the polls, a majority of Americans still supports him.

Therefore, I think that much of the blame for our woes — in Iraq, on the world stage, on the economic homefront — lies squarely at the feet of an unthinking, blindly following, politically lazy American public.

We get what we deserve. We've got George W. Bush as our "leader." That's not his fault.