Thursday, September 01, 2005
Trouble for Bush
More on the theme of this post; it seems that Jon Stewart and James Lileks are starting to agree about President Bush's rhetoric. Here's Stewart:
Why I ridiculed the president was he refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults, and falls back upon platitudes, and phrases, and talking points that does a disservice to the goals that he himself shares with the very people he needs to convince.And here's Lileks.
...sites that obsessed over the President’s remarks today. I heard them. I was very underwhelmed. I suppose a bitten lip or a moist eye would have helped to part the waters of Canal St. like the Red Sea, but I don’t expect moving rhetoric from him anymore. I think the White House has a tin ear these days – I heard another speech the other day about how They Hate Our Freedoms, and true though it may be it’s as fresh as a Pink Floyd tune on a classic FM station. I know; impressions are everything, appearances count. But as I get older I care less about the political value of a particular address and more about what actually happens, and I would prefer the 1950s sci-fi movie Authority Figure as the societal default, i.e., someone who bluntly states the facts and says “that’s all, boys” before leaving through a pebbled-glass door to do something, leaving the reporters shouting questions. Sometimes you just tire of spin, the endless carping, the incessant pissy miserabilism, to quote the Pet Shop Boys.Of course, Stewart and co. have been (gleefully) pointing out the President's tin ear since he was a governor. But when people on both sides of the aisle tire of being treated like children, there's a chance for real change. Not necessarily real "Democrat-in-office" change. I'd just like the next President, regardless of political orientation, to be someone who won't spend eight years throwing the same talking points at the wall, no matter what the situation.