An Apology

Ah…I see what you did there.

Don’t worry, I’m with ya. ;^)

I agree that standards should be adhered to but the description of Bush is clearly a valid one. Sadly, the same description can be used to describe most American presidents over the past 80 years, including the present occupant of the Oval Office.

Chipotle,
Thanks.
Robert S. Porter,
I didn’t apologize for criticizing Bush and you can expect to see much more criticism by me of Bush, Obama, and many other past presidents. Here’s my point: my late friend, Roy Childs, virtually never used the “f” word, the “s**t” word or pretty much any other swear word. At his memorial service, someone, I’ve forgotten whom, said that he didn’t do so because he found that such words substituted for thought and that if all you had was the “f” word, you didn’t have much. I’ve not done a perfect job of modeling that but, since hearing that eulogy, I’ve done a lot better and I’m trying to improve my average. Of course, I didn’t use any swear words, but I think the same point applies to my calling him a “joke.”
Best,
David

Would that Bush were to do likewise.

“When we encourage people to moderate their feelings for the sake of decorum, then we lose important truths. The actions of Former President Bush deserve more scrutiny and more heartfelt criticism, not less.”

Robert,

I’m sure most people here would agree with your second sentence. The problem is that calling Bush, or anyone else for that matter, a “joke” is meaningful neither as scrutiny nor criticism. David’s comment was indeed inappropriate, though less as a matter of decorum and more as a matter of lacking substance. Presidents, almost by definition, are too important to ever be jokes. They can, however, say things that are unintentionally funny, as Bush often does. 😉

perhaps he was just joking with us?

that would make him a joker.

there. reconciled.

Thank you. If this blog was to become a place where personal attacks overshadow the discussion of ideas I would have to find another source of enlightenment. I personally rank George W. Bush as somewhere near average as a president but wonder if university campuses have lost touch with reality when I see what economists are saying these days and hear personal attacks like this from you.

I am more than happy to accept David’s gracious apology. It takes a big person to apologize.

I understand that it is very easy for all of us to speak in haste but repent at leisure.

But ad hominem comments do not earn respect, in my opinion, and contribute heat, rather than light, in a debate on substance.

@ Robert S. Porter –

“You’re an idiot.”
“Your position is stupid, because you are.”

How do comments like these advance anyone’s understanding of the underlying issue? Most readers, trying to understand the issues and positions, could care less about how the proponent of a proposition “personally feels” about their opponent. You want to base your political and economic opinions on whether or not you find the person impressive or not, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and all would love to have you. Nancy Grace jurisprudence and Rush Limbaugh politics are so good for society.

Decorum isn’t abstaining from critiquing the merits or highlighting the demerits of a position or beleif. Decorum is merely restricting you comments to valid, supportable criticisms presented in a manner that allows for discussion and debate. Usurping the President’s State of the Nation to interject the oh so inappropriate “Liar!” lacked decorum, and added nothing to the address or the response. You want to call the President a liar, do it on your time, your dime, and with actual support.

So you and I could continue trading inciteful bon mots like those above, and do nothing but infuriate each other and amuse the on-lookers. Or we could discuss the matters as David would like to do, and hopefully one or more of us might learn something or actually change our opinion for a valid reason.

David, thanks for the apology. Look forward to reading your comments in the future, even when I disagree with them.

Zdeno wrote:

For all his faults, GWB did less damage to the US than Obama most likely will, and yet… Can you picture yourself taking the same disrespectful tone when criticizing him?

No, I can’t imagine David using the same tone, but that’s because Obama would never pose as the representative of free market capitalism. So maybe leftist bloggers will call Obama a joke after he leaves office and then lectures the next president about not letting corporate interests hijack his (or her–could be Clinton or Palin) reforms.

BTW great joke!

I’d argue that Obama campaigned pretty hard to say it was ridiculous to call him a socialist. So he certainly did offer himself as, in essence, a free-market capitalist.

At least as much as, say, Bush did by offering himself as a “compassionate conservative”.

My impression is that’s pretty much what Obama campaigned as too. A guy who would potentially offer more government support but wouldn’t go around radically changing the basic market underpinnings.

I think, in practice, Bush was pretty true to his word. Various government interventions on a basic free market foundation. Moderate, agreeable negotiations where congress gets what it wants. Obama is several steps beyond that, and into socialist territory in my opinion, so I think he pulled the wool over the eyes of people who largely wanted to be fooled.

As far as Bush opening up a free market think tank, I think he’s got less to atone for than Obama will, both in terms of economic damage and diverging from promises. Still, it’s sort of like a man who made his fortune in the arms industry setting up an endowment to give awards for promoting world peace. Hmm… I wonder if anyone would ever be so stupid as to do that.

“Oh no I di-int.”

Yes, Zdeno, recycling already overused catch phrases from the pop media is just hilarious!