Along those lines, this is from an AP article today, "McCain Condemns Ad Criticizing Kerry's Military Service":
- "The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.
It's a good article to read. It shows the fine line McCain has to walk between having integrity and working to re-elect Bush.
Sorry for the bitterness, but sometimes the Bush administration's chutzpah angers me. I know politicians spin issues, dodge hard questions, and try to present the best possible light on things, but can you think of any adminstration, Democrat or Republician, that does the exact opposite of what it says anywhere near the level of this one? Their modus operandi is to construct their own reality solely through rhetoric and repeat the rhetoric until their reality becomes the dominant one (i.e. unchallenged by most of the media and accepted by 50.1% of the public). Facts are inconveniences that can be overcome by convincing people to believe the opposite.
If someone at your workplace fought vigorously against an idea you suggested--protesting it at meetings, working behind the scenes to destroy it--and then, when circumstances forces the company to adopt your idea, says "I supported it all along," what would you think of that person? And why do many people refuse to see President Bush in the same way?
No comments:
Post a Comment