Bush DID nail Kerry that time.........but !
Last night's debate evoked immense opportunities for commentary. And it was the decisive President behind the podium- he lambasted Kerry over and over saying he was 'wrong' or 'eggs-aj-er-ating'. The biggest and most derisive moment came when Kerry said that Bush had never even met with the Black Congressonal Caucus. And the President said Kerry was just dead wrong-he'd met with the Black Congressional Caucus at the White House at such and such time. What was shocking was that Kerry would make an assertion like that if it were wrong! So easy to get nailed! Well, it turns out there's more to the story.....
In fact, the President DID meet with the Black Congressonal Caucus, but not until they had gotten into a bus and driven to the White House uninvited, insisting that they had to see the President to express their concerns about Haiti. Colin Powell apparently met them and told them the President wasn't even there. They however refused to leave without seeing the President. And, eventually, the President did indeed come out and meet with them. So apparently Kerry was indeed wrong.
I've gotta say, though, that this seems to me to be a real stretch. It accomodates the 'letter of the truth' but certainly doesn't encompass the 'spirit of the truth'.
And that very much seems to me to epitomize the kind of moralist that Bush is. The intent of Kerry's comment was that Bush hasn't reached out to a pluralistic American public- and Kerry was apprently exactly on target. The technicality that Bush had indeed met with the Caucus- even though under duress- can allow Bush to feel morally superior without addressing any of the substance of the comment.
In a contrary example, Bush made a rebuttal statement that "by far the vast majority of his tax cuts went to people in the lower half of income levels." This is a an assertion which factual review shows to be false. The government itself said that the top 20% of income earners received 69% of the tax cut. For a man who's so pointedly stood on a platform of morality- that comes across as nothing better than a lie. Certainly he can't claim ignorance of the facts. My father used to warn us about the 'big lie', the theory of repeating something audaciously false over and over until people have heard it so often they believe it. This President seems to me to operate under that theory.
What I can't understand is why average citizens of good moral character themselves don't find this a problem. I just don't get it.
In fact, the President DID meet with the Black Congressonal Caucus, but not until they had gotten into a bus and driven to the White House uninvited, insisting that they had to see the President to express their concerns about Haiti. Colin Powell apparently met them and told them the President wasn't even there. They however refused to leave without seeing the President. And, eventually, the President did indeed come out and meet with them. So apparently Kerry was indeed wrong.
I've gotta say, though, that this seems to me to be a real stretch. It accomodates the 'letter of the truth' but certainly doesn't encompass the 'spirit of the truth'.
And that very much seems to me to epitomize the kind of moralist that Bush is. The intent of Kerry's comment was that Bush hasn't reached out to a pluralistic American public- and Kerry was apprently exactly on target. The technicality that Bush had indeed met with the Caucus- even though under duress- can allow Bush to feel morally superior without addressing any of the substance of the comment.
In a contrary example, Bush made a rebuttal statement that "by far the vast majority of his tax cuts went to people in the lower half of income levels." This is a an assertion which factual review shows to be false. The government itself said that the top 20% of income earners received 69% of the tax cut. For a man who's so pointedly stood on a platform of morality- that comes across as nothing better than a lie. Certainly he can't claim ignorance of the facts. My father used to warn us about the 'big lie', the theory of repeating something audaciously false over and over until people have heard it so often they believe it. This President seems to me to operate under that theory.
What I can't understand is why average citizens of good moral character themselves don't find this a problem. I just don't get it.
Comments