From an editorial in today’s edition (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/opinion/31wed1.html):
:rolleyes:
If it’s the wrong moment to mention it, then why did you?
The hypocrisy is what bothers me, not the jab at Bush itself.
They said it only seems like the wrong moment, not that it isn’t the wrong moment. There’s never a wrong moment to find facts and therefore find fault, or to point out flaws in the leadership performance of persons elected to be leaders.
I’m with you on the hypocrisy, but I have to wonder - what other events did the author feel Bush should have returned from his vacation for? Or is he just mad that Bush was on vacation in principle?
Honestly, I’m no W fan; but I just don’t get this “Bush was on vacation when the hurricane hit!” thing.
It’s not hypocrisy.
It’s paralipsis.
Big difference.
I thought it was a Bush apologist’s pre-emptive strike against George’s critics, myself.
Anything. Everything. Nothing.
It is roughly similar to post-9/11. No matter what Bush did, someone was going to fault him for it. If he jumps up and runs from the class room, he is panicking. If he stays for seven minutes after hearing the news, he froze.
It might be interesting to hear what the NY Times editorial writer believes Bush could have done to prevent the disaster by not going on vacation. It’s the Farenheit 9/11 school of criticism - “the President should have done something” where “something” is left undefined. Then, no matter what he does, it was wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Leaders are supposed to provide leadership. To most of us, that’s obvious. To a reflexive apologist, obviously not :wally:
How dare the New York Times insinuate Bush isn’t providing top notch leadership.
It would be equally interesting to hear what Bush could do in Washington that he couldn’t (according to the administration’s previous claims) have done equally well in Crawford. From Salon:
Reminds me of those people who start sentences with “I don’t want to complain, but…” and then they proceed to complain.
That aside, I’m personally miffed that Shrub seems to have had another “My Pet Goat” moment when he should have been getting his butt back to Washington to show some leadership and help deal with this crisis. I’m not up in arms, but I think it’s monumentally stupid to pick up a guitar when something this devastating happens.
As for what you can do from DC that he couldn’t do from Crawford, the answer as I see it is: Keep up appearances. He can’t actually perform any additional tasks in Washington, aside from maybe sitting down with FEMA officials as opposed to having a conference call with them, but it is, I think, important for him to be SEEN doing something.
Even if he was coordinating the Red Cross personally from his ranch, the hue and cry you would hear rising would go something like: “Bush is on vacation while New Orleans floods! On VACATION! Why doesn’t he get to work while all these people are suffering?!”
I think most people in the country aren’t used to the idea of telecommuting, let alone the idea of a president doing it.
Not hypocrisy, just a cheap political shot clothed in false “we’re above that sort of thing” language.
Obviously, Bush should have rushed to the spot before the storm hit to hold back the wind and waves by sheer force of personality.
This is good too:“People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government.”
Guess the local and state leaders didn’t do more to ensure the city’s ability to handle a category 4 hurricane (or have any interest in providing relief efforts) because they’re elitist and racist. And if the Administration doesn’t come through with the aid the Times feels is warranted, they’re set up for similar charges.
I think it’s more than just keeping up appearances. It’s just inappropriate to goof off when a major disaster like this hits.
Hypocrisy?
I think you misspelled “rhetoric”.
Well, that was my point. He wasn’t goofing off in Crawford, he was coordinating the administration response from there. It’s just the people would perhaps perceive that, because he was in Crawford, he was goofing off.
That’s why he went to Washington. He may be sitting in the Oval Office playing XBox, but because he’s in Washington, people think he’s Doing Something. even if what he’s doing is nothing different than what he did in Crawford.
We’re talking about two different things. When I said “goofing off” I was referring to him playing guitar with a country music artist in San Diego, not vacationing in Crawford.
Ahh, my bad. :smack:
I think the point they’re trying to make is not “wow, the president was vacationing when a natural disaster happened to happen. How foolish of him.” It was “ahh, so THAT’s what it takes to make him stop vacationing… you might THINK that an ongoing war in Iraq, plus all the other crises going on right now, would keep him from vacationing. But they didn’t. But New Orleans destroyed? THAT does it. Good to know that SOMETHING will.”
Which is, while not necessarily a Provably Correct viewpoint, a lot less silly than “how DARE he be on vacation when a natural disaster occurs”.
No prob.
BTW, my office mates think I’m crazy because I’m giggling over here envisioning Dubya playing XBox.
I think hypocrisy is the perfect word for it. From the OED: “hypocrisy: The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.”
They pretend that they are above pointing fingers and taking cheap political shots in a crisis like this, and then include a cheap political shot in the very same sentence.