yee haw. I woke up to that news yesterday when the radio/alarm turned on.
I don't know/understand how that happened, especially knowing which way Time swings, but O Hapy Day!
Is it wrong to be giggly about liberals having nervous breakdowns?
As I'm sure you're also aware (just for footnoting purposes), TIME has also chosen Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin (twice) as Person of the Year. So, it does not mean TIME admires the person...only that the person has had a significant impact...for good or for ill...and I really think we have yet to see what sort of judgment can be made about that.
I see you're repeating the mantra from DemocraticUnderground. Talking points do travel fast, don't they?
But I understand, because it must sting that despite your excusing the honor bestowed upon Bush (for the second time), Time has indicated it was "For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year"
Ah, but Jason, you are leaving out the other reasons it was given to Bush...
For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year.
None of those things sound very positive to me...
Of course Left wing media can't bestow an honor unto a Republican without tossing in the negative references to positive attributes. (ie. Focused and principled = "stubborn")
I don't expect you folks to accept the validity of his honor....heck you guys still dispute the past 2 elections as if questions remain other than in Jesse Jackson's warped, racist, adultering head. You'll never accept positive things about Republicans and I accept that.
Wow, for all your disdain of your alleged "left-wing" media, you take great pleasure in gloating in the honors it bestows upon your chosen one. 
Could you explain to me what the positive meaning of "reframing reality" is? The only way I can interpret that is that Bush's campaign was good at spinning "reality"...
After all, his own aide did admonish people who are "reality-based", in addition to stating that the United States is now an empire...
I don't take pride in Time's decision because it is a left-wing rag.... but I take great joy in seeing the reaction from the Left.
And as for your link to Ron Suskind's article in the NY Times... First, Bartlett was never an aide to George W. Bush. Second, I addressed this article the day it came out and it's fitting you'd cite an article that equates the President of the U.S. with al-Qaida to make your point.
And now you've even helped me make my point as well. Thank you.
Wow -- this is really sad reading these comments from Mr. Smith. This is the sort of narrow-minded partisanship that is dangerous to the the future stability of our democratic-republic. Here's your quote, and my reply follows:
"I don't expect you folks to accept the validity of his honor....heck you guys still dispute the past 2 elections as if questions remain other than in Jesse Jackson's warped, racist, adultering head. You'll never accept positive things about Republicans and I accept that."
First, I don't have to "accept the validity of his honor." I am of the belief that discussion and debate rather than submission to the notion of "might makes right" is at the core of American political strength--although, I fear, we are losing that today. In democratic space, there is room for disagreement. The moment that pure conformism occurs is the moment that we welcome tyranny and oppression.
Also, you categorize us as the collective other ("you guys"). Such statements fail to recognize that there is no monolithic other in the Democratic Party (the same can be said for the Republicans as well). There are differences of opinion and belief among all people, and your blanket accusation fails to recognize such nuances that exist in reality.
The truth is that I do not dispute the last two elections. Certainly the 2000 election was marred by problems that call for improvements in the voting process to ensure that every vote is treated with equal importance and is counted and that no citizen is hindered in their ability to do their democratic duty. As far as 2004 goes, I have never expressed statements that suggest the election is anything but valid. In fact, I've written a column praising the Bush-Cheney campaign and suggesting that the undisputed victory was a good thing for the country, insofar as that it would likely allow for more substantive political discourse to take place without the cloud of doubt that hovered after 2000.
Finally, it is far from true that I would never say anything nice about Republicans or accept anything positive about them. I am not of the sort that exists on both the left AND the right that demonizes the other side simply as an end in itself. Spirited, logical, and rational opposition is warranted whenever cases arise that make it necessary to defend one's values. However, I believe that the best work can be done when Democrats and Republicans
(cont'd) actually make the effort to work together to reach a compromise position that allows both sides to walk away somewhat satisfied. This is because I don't believe that any party or any person is the sole possessor to the keys to truth. Such a belief would be rather arrogant and would fail to recognize the fallibility of human nature. I'm not of the Rousseauian radical sort that believes human beings are capable of being perfected. Furthermore, I think that that the Michael Moores and others of the left are just as dangerous as the Jerry Falwells, Ann Coulters, and others of the right. Both extremes represent the danger of demagoguery, acting on the passions of the people rather than their reason, that James Madison feared as a threat to substantive political debate and discussion.
I do admire Republicans and Democrats alike who refuse to entrench themselves within a mindset of unwavering partisan warfare. And I despise those who do the opposite. It appears to me that you (based on your comments here and elsewhere on your blog), Mr. Smith, are of the latter sort.
"In democratic space, there is room for disagreement. The moment that pure conformism occurs is the moment that we welcome tyranny and oppression."
Yes, but you folks seem to forget there is also room for AGREEMENT at times. Just because you can prove you disagree with Republicans on every single notion doesn't make you "more democratic".
"Also, you categorize us as the collective other ("you guys"). Such statements fail to recognize that there is no monolithic other in the Democratic Party (the same can be said for the Republicans as well). There are differences of opinion and belief among all people, and your blanket accusation fails to recognize such nuances that exist in reality."
"You guys" refers to those who debate and disagree with me. This is not a newspaper printing third party accounts and responsible for identifying each and every viewpoint. This is an opinion blog and those who disagree with me are referred to as "you guys" when I'm discussing the same general topics with you all as a collective group of respondents. This is a conservative site and you all disagree with me on just about everything...therefore an inference can be made "you guys" are not conservative...hence my classification in responding.
"I do admire Republicans and Democrats alike who refuse to entrench themselves within a mindset of unwavering partisan warfare. And I despise those who do the opposite. It appears to me that you (based on your comments here and elsewhere on your blog), Mr. Smith, are of the latter sort."
First, I'm not a politican and owe no duty to be "bipartisan".
Second, if you watch the Democrat leaders in their dealings with President Bush, you'll see that their definition of "bipartisan" means "accept everything we agree with and dump your own ideas, lest you be just another stubborn fascist eroding all our rights and killing our children for oil".
Go back and study Texas politics in the 1990s and you'll see what bipartisanship is. Democrats at the time didn't force Gov. Bush to give in to their every issue...they recognized he'd been elected by the majority and as such, his policies carried a bit more weight in the public debate. They compromised more into his policies than they demanded him to compromise into theirs. Washington seems to be completely opposite and that's why it's such a broken mess.
Jason, you didn't even read the article if you think Suskind was quoting Bartlett on that "reality-based" statement. I know you addressed it earlier, but you appear to have forgotten something. Here's the direct quote from the article.In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.''
He's not referring to Bartlett; he never even names this adviser/aide. So, it still seems that it was indeed a statement directly from a Bush aide. I could have found another article covering this quote, but this is the first one I dug up rather quickly.
Also, you still haven't answered my question as to what the positive meaning of "reframing reality" is.
That's not a "negative reference to a positive attirbute"...that's simply a negative reference from the article's author. A subtle attempt at painting Bush as "out of touch" necessitating a "translation of reality" rather than an acceptance that what Bush speaks of IS reality and the author is, instead, the one who is out of touch with reality.
Alright, I can see that...
I disagree with you on Bush being in touch with reality... this is the man who, during the campaign, told us that the Iraqi National Guard would be able to take over some of the duties our troops are responsible for... he's since seen the light and finally came to grips with "reality" a couple days ago when he admitted they are not ready at all yet...
Did you go back and re-read that article? So you'd know that the statement was not attributed to Bartlett and likely came straight from the mouth of a senior Bush aide?
That's the problem with journalists and their annonymous sources...we have no idea if Suskind "Jason Blaired" it...
I'm not saying that he did...it's just that it is hard to know for sure who this person is if the person isn't named.
And after the multitude of fabrications undertaken by the so-called mainstream media (I prefer Dinosaur Media, myself), I'm not one to be inclined to believing everything I read from them...
Your mileage may vary...
Forrest,
Our reality is being constantly remade as time passes... True leadership is measured by influence, and great leaders have the greatest influence in reframing reality. That's how they bring to pass all great things that previously did not exist. The signers of the Declaration of Independance, who were radical right-wing treasonists to the "reality-based" British government of the day, they reframed reality. Abraham Lincoln, whose actions were highly controversial and and unpopular with the Democrats of the day, reframed reality.
Of course, Adolf Hitler also had great influence and attempted to reframe reality... fortunately, he failed. The caveat to this is that there's a difference between political reality as it is presently defined, and that which is true and right. There are definitely absolutes of truth and right, and there are certainly times when we should stand up and reaffirm what the present and future reality should be.
This year, 60 million people reaffirmed the Bush version of reality, and did so after a hightened season of debate & controversy, and in spite of significant, well-organized, well-funded (and at times, Rather fraudulant) opposition.
For an idiot chimp-shrub, that's pretty remarkable leadership. Hence the acknowledgment.
Of course, for every reality redefined, there's the alternate reality which lost out, and those wishing to cling to that reality are understandably disappointed.
Maybe it's the optimist in me, but I believe that there is an underlying power to be had for siding with truth and right and that over time, those political realities which correspond most to that which is enduringly true and right are the realities which will prevail in the times where it matters most.
I believe that we are in one of those times.
Kevin, the only people I've heard of that speak of these different realities you refer to you are Hitler and Napoleon. You're in good company among imperialists there.
Calling these different attitudes "reality" is extremely dangerous, especially to those who claim to be basing their views on "common sense" and "truth".
I honestly can't believe you support such a statement from the Bush aide.
Calling the current "power" reality (in any form) is very postmodern, and ultimately will erode any notion of truth.
I would expect most intelligent conservatives to write off the statement as something absurd, and claim it is nothing Bush would ever consider, and then move on. I'd accept that.
But I won't accept reality to be redefined by a leader of any party. The danger in that is far too potent...
Forrest,
I think you're reading too many inflamatory implications into the statement. Most motivational or leadership speakers, from Steven Covey to John Maxwell, discuss the concept of reforming or recreating reality.
The efforts that you take to change the circumstances within your sphere of influence are an act of reframing reality.
When you started your higher education at Whitworth college, assuming you complete your studies, you will be reframing your reality as having a computer science degree. Of course, there is a process, often difficult and frustrating, which must be undertaken to get there.
When you emerge with your degree, reality has changed. You are no longer the fast-food wage-fetching high school graduate that you were before you entered.
Similarly, within the sphere of influence of the Administration, their goals, what they intend to accomplish by the time they have served their terms, will reframe reality. The process to do so will obviously not be without setbacks or frustrations at times. But the American people, by re-electing Bush, have placed their trust in his judgement to do so.
It never struck me as some kind of admission of a sinister agenda.
Kevin, you still fail to understand what the White House aide said.
Here's the quote, in context, from the article.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
Now, while I can accept what you are saying, and even agree with it to a degree, what the aide was saying is bullshit.
He told the reporter basically that empiricism has absolutely no place in the world, and thats outrageous, and has VERY difficult implications.
Ha, just a random little tidbit I'd like to throw in here... I was just watching Washington Week on PBS, and they had a lady from TIME that was in on the choosing of this award...
Your man beat out some tough competition from the likes of Al-Zarqawi!
and John Kerry....
Which further proves my ongoing point that good always prevails over evil.
(Sorry for the delayed response, as I've been overseas for the past couple of weeks)
Forrest,
Thanks for providing the full quote in context, which I did not previously have. I made my comments based on the understanding of the smaller portion of the quote which you previously provided.
I'd be curious to know how "senior" this unnamed "senior advisor" is, which is context in and of itself that we don't get; or whether there was any other context surrounding this little anecdote which is not told.
Taken just by itself, the remainder of the quote does seem inflamatory.. irresponsibly expressed, at best.
If he was completely serious, then yes, his opinion is arrogant and disturbing. However, without knowing how 'senior' this aide is, and without corroborating this line of thought with other aides and finding it a commonly expressed theme in the administration, the implications are that one Bush aide has some arrogant and disturbing opinions.
However, if the aide was being purposely inflamatory for effect, after having identified the writer as one of the "reality based community" then he could have been just egging him on for the effect. Which, if that is the case, I find rather funny.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
