[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.