NYTimes editorial "Presidential Character"--did you SEE this???

[DrBB]

I somehow didn't see it when reading the NYT editorials yesterday, and a search revealed it only seems to have been posted here in Editorials, where it had a measley 2 responses. But this thing is a body slam! Look, these guys are often accused of being lefties so the right will probably dismiss this. But in fact they've cut the Shrimp far more slack than they did Clinton, and they rarely say anything negative without a lot of qualifications or leaving open a big door for the Chump to walk out through. But this one looks at his entire presidency and finds it to be a failure of largely his own making. Wingers may laugh this off, but I'm not quite so sure Rove will be able to. The teflon is off the old Bush frying pan and the eggs are starting to stick and get real messy.

Concluding graf here, but read the whole thing if--like me--you missed it yesterday:

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09TUE1.html?8bl

Today's response letters aren't half bad, either, including one that I'm pretty sure was written by the venerable Boudelang himself. First one's a killer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/opinion/L10BUSH.html

[vi5]

1. Just got done reading those letters...

The one praising Bush is out and out hysterical. You're not telling me the Times didn't place that one in there for a laugh.

[Brucey]

2. It's not only sad that Stump continues in office,

but a disaster for many people. It's too bad we can't get him out of there right now before he does more damage.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. kick

,

[tweekinnow]

4. DrBB

Thank You for pointing this editorial out.It looks like the worm is turning just like it did with the Nixon admin..From now til election Bush is going to get a real good beating in the press. He can go raise 200 mil. for ad's but he can't fight every newspaper in America and the Democratic party too.He will tank over this war and it's costs.

[grytpype]

5. It would have been nice to hear this from the NYT in 2000...

... before it was too goddamned late.

[Palacsinta]

6. A bad guess?????

Re:Iraq & WMD <But over all, it was a bad guess that was shared by intelligence experts from the Clinton administration and many allies.>

Yeah.....a bad guess that just happened to fit in with a pre-9-11 agenda!

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

8. Which Allies?

Spain and Australia? We know the Blair government was lying the whole time, and the Bush Administration knew it -- and possibly assisted in spreading the lies.

It was an otherwise good editorial, but what a crock of sh*t on that particularly subject!

[TacticalPeek]

7. Shrub's gonna need every cent of that quarter bill,

just to avoid a shutout.

[glarius]

9. The gist of the editorial is that Bush will lie and say anything that he

feels will get him his own way. He will publicly promise everything he thinks the people want to hear and never follows through on the promises he makes....His handlers and the media keep repeating the mantra that he is "straight-talking and honest and eveyone trusts him", which has brainwashed the public into believing it....What a mess!!!

[DrBB]

10. I don't mean they got it all perfect--that's not the point

I agree that they still cut him more slack on Iraq than he deserves, and yeah, it's awfully belated. But I consider the context--I don't expect the Times to do a DU on him. As a sign of how things are going for President Frat-Chimp this is not something I'd want us to have missed--that's my point.

This is a very bad omen for Mr Rove--they aren't just attacking a couple of policies, they are going after his Character--the issue he has allways had going for him (among the easily deluded). They are saying he is a spoiled rich kid who can't really lead--I'd far rather have them get that right and be wrong about the details on Iraq than the other way around.

It's the thing the first letter picks up on (presumably why they selected it):

Although I, too, question President Bush's leadership ability, and most of his decisions and actions, we place far too much blame on him for our current troubles. Despite his appalling leadership, if you believe the polls, a majority of Americans still supports him.

Therefore, I think that much of the blame for our woes — in Iraq, on the world stage, on the economic homefront — lies squarely at the feet of an unthinking, blindly following, politically lazy American public.

We get what we deserve. We've got George W. Bush as our "leader." That's not his fault.

If they are really setting out to attack that lazily-arrived-at perception, which the Times itself played no small role in helping Rove create... Well, I only wish the Editorial staff had anything to do with the news reporting staff. But it's still very good news.

edit: clarity

[dusty64]

11. chimp has FAILED at

everything he has ever done, now the Country is finding out.

[Mr. Jinx]

12. Glad to see the Times is FINALLY catching up

They still have a long way to go, but it's a start.

[Brian Sweat]

13. Should read:

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who failed in both business and politics despite his family connections.

[librechik]

15. Exactly Right--

the editorial is still too politically correct, and it lies as a result.

They're only halfway there if the NYT is trying to switch horses in midstream.

[supernova]

14. Good editorial

Thanks for finding it. I even missed it in my daily newspaper rounds yesterday.

My take is that the NYT are really seeing, for the first time, that he's all surface with no policy underpinings whatsoever. The * White House is governing by press release and photo op.

This sentence is particularly telling:

Mr. Bush has been content to take the credit for proposing, without paying the political dues necessary to get things done.

The writer goes on to list faith-based initiatives, and the No Child Left Behind program as examples of things that get mentioned but not backup with funding for implementation. And this misadministration's foreign policy gets raked over as well:

Even the administration's foreign policy reflects its tendency to go for quick gratification without much thought of the gritty long haul. The invasion of Iraq appears to have been planned by people who assumed that after a swift military assault, Saddam Hussein would be gone and Iraq would quickly snap into a prosperous, semidemocratic state that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.

Well, it's something I suppose. And it's never too late to become aware. Welcome aboard New York Times.