from a timely washington post hagiography of former georgia senator max cleland:
"Now wait a minute," he says. "Let me run this back: We have a war. A bunch of Americans die. After the war, we try to figure out why we were there. There's a commitment of 240,000 ground troops with no exit strategy. You know what that's called? Vietnam! Hey, I've been there, done that, got a few holes in my T-shirt."
while i'm not ready to equate cleland's combat injuries with legislative justice (i have never understood the cult-of-personality view people take on when they call politicians they could not possibly know "trustworthy" or "likeable" -- doesn't anyone understand that congresspeople smile when they talk for a reason?), the saxby chambliss ad campaign against cleland buys him some heartfelt sympathy from this quarter.
i've already said enough about gulfwarII, and my inconsistent political stripes are out there for target practice. but this piece on cleland caught my eye. it is life-writing, after all.
in the interest of full disclosure, i'll mention that natalie has sat down to a nice georgia meal with the good senator. so my in-laws' admiration of cleland troubles me not a bit. it's the eyes-glassed-over assurances that "you can just tell, george bush just shoots straight... i just trust him" that f-r-e-a-k me out. ditto clintonphiles. we may know worlds about our "leaders'" actions, but discerning their intent is not a product of reading facial expression and soaking up folksy wisdom. bring 'em on, indeed.
happy fourth of july weekend.
Posted by dave at July 3, 2003 4:02 PM | TrackBackNot sure "trust" is the right word when thinking about politcians, but as someone who has voted for Cleland in a couple of elections, I'd say that my interpretation of the world coincides more closely with his than Chambliss's. The Vietnam ads were embarassing, in my opinion, but they certainly worked (not sure what that says about my fellow Georgians).
As far as "trust," I find that terminology incredibly problematic. I overheard one excahnge in a coffeehouse in 2000 during the election where a father was telling his daughter of Bush, "I just trust him more." There was an implied "Gore seems smarter, but..." Very frustrating.
Posted by: chuck at July 3, 2003 6:20 PM | Permalink to Commentcould. not. agree. more. i suppose that if contemporary american politics is really just product delivery, then handlers have done a good job making their candidates good commodities (like the way, as a kid, for no good reason, i swore allegiance to coca-cola... that's "my" brand). when i hear this "i trust bush" business, my skin crawls, not because i don't like bush (well, there is that...) but because trust has to be based on more than a fantasy constructed on a grin and a scripted press conference. voters don't actually know candidates, right? i'm with you; find the one who's sense of what should or should not be done lines up with your own view of things. i say, knock off this "i reckon senator X and i would have a good time on a fishing trip" fantasy. even if we can make reliable predictions about what a politician would do in a given condition, that's not exactly "trust."
i'd love to have some coffee with dean. that doesn't mean i trust him.
Posted by: dave at July 3, 2003 8:50 PM | Permalink to Comment