How Not To Respond To Bush Critics

Molly Ivins is out promoting her new book and commented about George Bush's time as the governor of Texas. She put forth various basic facts in a recent interview: the state legislature rarely meets, it is a weak governor state in which the position is about fifth on the pecking order, the lieutenant governor (who Bush held as a sort of mentor) was more powerful than the governor in many respects, and overall the place is pretty darn conservative and just a tad bit crooked. Hmm ... sound familiar?

A healthy balance between liberty and order in troubled times is hard to determine, especially with justified distrust of those in power. A sadly too typical response to such debates is found in a local editorial by a moderate columnist that generally is appreciated by this writer. I responded thusly:

Richard Schwartz's 7/15/04 editorial, "Patriot Act Could Be Just The Beginning," answers alleged hyperbole with hyperbole. His citation of the use of library records in the Unabomber case is a case in point: clearly there is a way to use such records without the reduction of judicial safeguards a bipartisan group in Congress is concerned about. An apologia by the Ashcroft Justice Department does not prove that the rushed to law Patriot Act will be "done in" by a some tweaking. This is NOT the way toward determining a reasonable balance of liberty and order.

---

Richard Cohen is uncomfortable with Ron Reagan's comments about his father's beliefs, especially in regards to stem cell research. Cohen puts forth some justified concerns, such as assuming too much about the dead, but the column is just too harsh.

Why yes, only family members and friends generally speak at (or go to) funerals. And, they are the ones we often look toward to understand the dead, especially family members. Their opinions might very well be wrong. Still, how can Cohen determine that Ron Reagan "expropriated his father's fame and stature for his own purposes?" Why not include Nancy Reagan, whose opinions on stem cell research would also not generally be listened to aside from who she is? Perhaps, just perhaps, both of them are doing it in part to honor his memory. To do what they feel is necessary to help others who are or will suffer the same ailment?

This aspect of the column basically pissed me off -- almost as much as his snide comments about the French's opposition to a war he now feels was based on fraudulent grounds (impeachment worthy? I wonder here). I am somewhat less annoyed at the uneasiness about Ron Reagan speaking to the Democratic Convention. This does have a sort of political "stick it to" them nature to it, though "grave robbery" is a tad harsh. Again, trying to help those who share the ills of those who died is not exactly that.