New Orleans and Barely Disguised Glee

One of POD's favorite correspondents has a number of well meaning, but frankly rather misguided, friends. And they send the POD's FC (FC) lots of strange e-mail. Many of these call for the Boycott of the Washington Post because it has refused to turn its self into the liberal version of Fox News, insisting on maintaining a proper degree of objectivity and tempering its very harsh negative comments of the administration with a degree of fairness. As I have noted before, this is why the Post is one of the most important and influential papers in the World. And, as the liberal agenda is the correct one and is supported by the facts, ultimately a fair and objective paper like the Post is going to help the liberal cause. Normally the best solution is to ignore these people, but this time he has far overstepped the line, and the POD wants him to know that he did. (Not that he reads, or is even aware of the POD, but if he is, I am more than happy to publish more of his comments...)

The FC's friend (with friends like these, your cause really doesn't need an enemy), recently blow up again at the post. This time at the editorial linked below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701943.html

He said:
Here again the Post fails to hold Bush for his most egregious failures - i.e., his lies. Also, note the throwaway criticism of "Bush's [unidentified] political opponents." Who the hell is acting with "barely disguised glee?"If the Post were not biased, if it were truly "fair and balanced," it would have demanded Bush's impeachment long ago. For those not convinced, I offer this question. Has the Post been as critical of Bush for his deadly cravenness, incompetence, and cupidity as it was of Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliances?

My comments:
The Post editorial is quite damming in its negative comments of Bush. Certainly it does not blame him (directly) for the Hurricane, but it calls him out on the carpet for real and substantial problems, while not specifically attacking him for rhetorical errors. And ultimately the rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. And while it may reflect the callous and unfeeling attitudes of the President, it is not conduct.

The editorial does, as it should, acknowledge that the blame should not only fall on Bush's doorstep. While certainly not acting as badly as the "fair and balanced" Fox News timeline of the disaster would suggest, it is clear that they local authorities are not blameless in this disaster.

But this is not the "real" problem with the FC's F's comments. The FC's F goes on to say "Who the hell is acting with 'barely disguised glee?" and suggests that this is a throwaway criticism of the Presidents opponents. Perhaps it is. But it is certainly fair. If the FC's F were to stand in front of the mirror, he would quickly see one of these very opponents of the President experiencing "barely disguised glee". He is enjoying the fact that the country has suffered another major disaster that has been aggravated by the conduct of the President.

And then we get to the heart of the problem. The equation of the President's conduct with impeachable conduct. Is Bush evil? Yes. Is Bush incompetent? Yes. Has he lied to the American People? Yes. Has he committed a high crime or misdemeanors even under the overbroad test used against Clinton? No. The tool of impeachment is very powerful and should never be used except under extraordinary circumstances. It is not a vote of "no confidence" of the type in parliamentary systems and should not be used as a "do over" when one party controls the legislature and the other the executive. The impeachment of Clinton was a very foolish action. It greatly expanded the standard for impeachable acts to include conduct which had nothing to do with being President. It has permanently damaged the Presidency by allowing almost any criminal act form the basis for impeachment. But my misguided liberal friends, now want to further expand the standard to include incompetence and making wrong decisions. And by doing so, no President would ever be safe from impeachment, and we would further descend into the anarchy and confusion of the parliamentary system with its votes of no confidence.

What we liberals should be doing is continuing to condemn the President for his conduct, work to help make the refugees feel accepted where they go (although, as noted the other day on wait wait don't tell me on NPR, you really can't call them refugees because they haven't had a place of refuge), and work toward changing the make up of the Next Congress. If we pull together, we can get control back of the House and Senate and the White House. And then we can have our internal fights over which personification of Bart Simpson is correct.
"