The New Accountability in Washington

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by kwagner99

Here it is, in a nutshell:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031400519.html

Well, it looks like the right guy resigned. If it is the intent of "oversight" to run people out of office on matters of semantics, then he should go. I still think it is inherently political whatever the reason they were let go. What is the difference between "they were let go because they did not perform their jobs as we (politicians) asked" or "political reasons"?

Kind of pales in comparison to, say, walking out of the National Archives with a pile of classified documents stuffed down your pants and, subsequently, shredding them.

[MWC]

The tenor of some of the press coming out of Washington has taken an interesting bent, IMHO. It's along the lines of "W didn't get it right the first time, has made adjustments and has a much more functional & competent administration now, but he has no allies left to support his initiatives" ... First David Brooks in the NY Times, now a columnist in this week's Time.

If this is an accurate portrayal, I think it's an interesting demonstration of the potential limits of forgiveness. And certainly the importance of personality in choosing a leader. By his own admission, W was an over-drinking under-achiever for the bulk of his younger years, yet one cannot doubt the love and support he received certainly from his dad; I sense less so from his mom. Laura, too, obviously forgave a lot of misbehavior -- and just because it didn't include violation of fidelity vows, don't think it wasn't hurtful.

I guess my question is: when we forgive someone and forgive that someone again and again, are we truly doing that someone a service? One could make a convincing argument that the pattern W grew up with -- screw up, disappoint, be forgiven, learn, move on -- is still being played out today, except on the most high-stakes level possible. He has run roughshod over the opposition for so long, is it really any surprise that the opposition takes advantage of the first opportunity to cut him off at the knees?

Is the opposition, the rest of the world wise to steer clear of W, or merely cutting off its nose to spite its face?

[kwagner99]

Originally Posted by MWC

The tenor of some of the press coming out of Washington has taken an interesting bent, IMHO. It's along the lines of "W didn't get it right the first time, has made adjustments and has a much more functional & competent administration now, but he has no allies left to support his initiatives" ... First David Brooks in the NY Times, now a columnist in this week's Time.

If this is an accurate portrayal, I think it's an interesting demonstration of the potential limits of forgiveness. And certainly the importance of personality in choosing a leader. By his own admission, W was an over-drinking under-achiever for the bulk of his younger years, yet one cannot doubt the love and support he received certainly from his dad; I sense less so from his mom. Laura, too, obviously forgave a lot of misbehavior -- and just because it didn't include violation of fidelity vows, don't think it wasn't hurtful.

I guess my question is: when we forgive someone and forgive that someone again and again, are we truly doing that someone a service? One could make a convincing argument that the pattern W grew up with -- screw up, disappoint, be forgiven, learn, move on -- is still being played out today, except on the most high-stakes level possible. He has run roughshod over the opposition for so long, is it really any surprise that the opposition takes advantage of the first opportunity to cut him off at the knees?

Is the opposition, the rest of the world wise to steer clear of W, or merely cutting off its nose to spite its face?

It is called "co-dependancy". It is continuing to enable bad behavior, which is detrimental to the person you are enabling, but ultimately to the enabler.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by MWC

The tenor of some of the press coming out of Washington has taken an interesting bent, IMHO. It's along the lines of "W didn't get it right the first time, has made adjustments and has a much more functional & competent administration now, but he has no allies left to support his initiatives" ... First David Brooks in the NY Times, now a columnist in this week's Time.

If this is an accurate portrayal, I think it's an interesting demonstration of the potential limits of forgiveness. And certainly the importance of personality in choosing a leader. By his own admission, W was an over-drinking under-achiever for the bulk of his younger years, yet one cannot doubt the love and support he received certainly from his dad; I sense less so from his mom. Laura, too, obviously forgave a lot of misbehavior -- and just because it didn't include violation of fidelity vows, don't think it wasn't hurtful.

I guess my question is: when we forgive someone and forgive that someone again and again, are we truly doing that someone a service? One could make a convincing argument that the pattern W grew up with -- screw up, disappoint, be forgiven, learn, move on -- is still being played out today, except on the most high-stakes level possible. He has run roughshod over the opposition for so long, is it really any surprise that the opposition takes advantage of the first opportunity to cut him off at the knees?

Is the opposition, the rest of the world wise to steer clear of W, or merely cutting off its nose to spite its face?

Wow, that is some deep stuff.

As one who took advantage of some, has received forgiveness and has forgiven himself, not repeating the same actions again is a major part of my current being. I believe it to be the same for Bush.

Unlike past Presidents, there was a certain segment of society that was determined not to give this President a chance, due to the 2000 election. They thought it a fraud and there was nothing that was going to change their opinion. So, instead of a relatively clean slate that is given to duly elected Presidents, this one started in the hole. Even after a pretty impressive performance in the aftermath of 9/11, they were not going to give the man credit for squat.

As with a lot of things in the US, the more you say something, the more people tend to believe it. So, when you tell them that Iraq was all about WMDs and there were none, and repeat the mantra like the instructions on a shampoo bottle, it starts to stick. When you tell them that the war has gone all wrong, and don't show them the things that have gone right, then they believe that. Hell, they now believe that man causes hurricanes.

This President has made his share of mistakes. So have all of the others. Even the great ones. I mean Kennedy is considered one of the great ones and he almost got the country nuked, in his short term. So, time will tell about Bush. Most people have their opinions about him, but there are few who will praise his accomplishments, of which there are many. Iraq will determine his short term legacy. The war on terror and how we maintain our democratic principles in the face of it, will determine the long term.

I don't think Bush's history with alcohol abuse is what he is about today. Most people I know in recovery are better people because of what they went through, not despite it.

[roni]

And it unravels further - Rove may have been the initiator of the talk re: firing US attorneys, not Miers as the White House initially said.

It is always the cover-up that causes the most problems, it seems, and it almost always unravels.

story here.

[roni]

David Gergen, advisor to multiple Presidents, is amazed at the incompetence of the White House in dealing with the US Attorney story.

Gonzales is as good as gone. So far no evidence Rove has done anything wrong, but the story keeps growing by leaps and bounds daily.

Gergen is a Republican who worked for Reagan, Bush the Dad and Clinton.

[MWC]

As PDS and others in the press are pointing out, a lot of this is much ado about things that have gone on before, in other administrations ...

What's different now is karma, I suppose you could call it. The Bush administration bullied so many entities, and didn't work hard to develop deep or broad allegiances ... one knew it was only a matter of time before people turned on his administration the second blood in the water could be detected.

I'm not entirely happy about this, and I voted a straight D line in this past election. If the Dems use the carte blanche goodwill generated by the midterm elections to do nothing but condemn the administration's previous actions ... that is too backward thinking, and does not move the country forward. I wish a happier medium could be struck.

Still, I do understand the need for comeuppance. But it would be tragic for the country if what I perceive to be W's lifetime MO -- see my post above -- slams our country into a brickwall because of partisan impasse.

If the opposition finds it impossible to find a way to work productively with the president, and vice versa, the opposition should have the courage to initiate censure or impeachment proceedings.

We wind up with a stalemate in DC either way.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

David Gergen, advisor to multiple Presidents, is amazed at the incompetence of the White House in dealing with the US Attorney story.

Gonzales is as good as gone. So far no evidence Rove has done anything wrong, but the story keeps growing by leaps and bounds daily.

Gergen is a Republican who worked for Reagan, Bush the Dad and Clinton.

And, Like David Brooks, was an outstanding commentator on behalf of the "reasonable right" on the acclaimed PBS show the (MacNeil) Lehrer NewHour. Mark Shields represents the "left" in their very interesting commentary.