May 21, 2007

Your President Is a Person, Too

Oh, for crying out loud. This is why I have nothing to do with politics.

Important Announcement: Your President Is An Asshole


Obviously Melissa McEwan dislikes Georgie. Gee, ya think? To which my response is: So what? What does that have to do with anything?

I've seen this too many times to count. Liberals/lefties (and some Repubs/conservatives, but mostly liberals) frothing at the mouth over something that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I mean, what difference does it make if Bush picked up someone in his pickup? (If that's even his pickup, and not something loaned for the photo-op.) After all, he's at his ranch, not the White House (and I don't think his outfit looks that bad).

So she hates George Bush. That's so obvious it's boring. You know it, we know it, there's still not quite two years to go, get over it. You have your Democratic Congress, and will have a Democratic President, and still won't be able to get a frakking thing done, because that's just the nature of the beast.

What is more unsettling is the contempt she seems to have for people who really do work on a ranch, really do wear jeans, and really eat barbeque and Buster Bars. Whether you call them rednecks, or drugstore cowboys, or even real cowboys...maybe I'm reading her wrong, but she seems to be slamming those people, and I for one don't appreciate it.

Or maybe she's just slamming Georgie for being a "poseur". To which I still say: So what? Let him go on his merry way. In two years he'll be gone, and y'all can do whatever the hell you want.

4 comments:

Talia said...

Just a quick observation, on my way out of the door....(Talia speaking)

It's a pity you won't have anything to do with politics: it sucks all the good thinking out of the public sphere, and then we are left with a, um, grab-bag of uncertain distinction. (Of course I can say this whilst happily not wanting to be political myself.) I often wonder, though, reading the article that led to your post, and various other "pundits" where all the sensible people are, and why they let the not-so-sensible run unchecked through the woods, barefoot, with megaphones and big sticks...It's like letting children run about with scissors!
Thanks again.

Rootietoot said...

I've frequently wondered why it was acceptable for someone to badmouth GW Bush's clothes, or choice of dog, or some other trivial thing, but not acceptable to badmouth Clinton for sexual indiscretions IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
'splain that to me, please.

PJ said...

'Cause blowjobs aren't as bad as American imperialism...(snicker)

Obviously you don't lean left. I don't either, but I've always felt bad is bad (to paraphrase Huey Lewis).

belledame222 said...

I think it was fine to badmouth him for sexual indiscretions. Impeachment, not so much. Last I checked, no one's impeaching Dubya, much less over his choice of outfit.

That said, I get that the regionalism and rural-bashing and suchlike rankles. It's not necessary.

I do think he's a poseur, but that's the least of my complaints about him, at least as regards his personal aesthetics. And no, I don't love the D's right now either, but he's going to have left one hell of a legacy; it's not nearly as simple as "do whatever you want" with an intractable war and a ginormous deficit, not to mention the damage he's done to the public trust, international relations, balance of power...