At my weblog, Random Fate, I have a post that was written in the context of a USA Today article on the reaction of FEMA to the conditions at the New Orleans Superdome in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The post is titled “Absolution is not granted through the errors of others” because it is intended to convey a message to those using the revelations of exactly how overwrought the reporting issued at the time of the disaster was as a stick to beat critics of the response made by those appointed by the administration.
The message: the errors of the reporters on the scene witnessing things that most of us never are forced to see do not absolve the incompetence that is apparently not a disqualification for placement at high levels in the administration of President George W. Bush.
I allowed the end of the post to get significantly broader than the initial intention, which likely weakened my argument. Specifically, I linked accountability for the reaction of politically appointed officials who were obviously too incompetent to hold their positions to the present state of affairs for the administration:
Unfortunately, there are many who are already doing exactly that in oblivion of the irony that the right-wing side of the political spectrum has been the one that demands “accountability.” Apparently, for those who are not blind but will not see, that accountability applies to everyone except their fellow travelers.
President George W. Bush was wrong when he said the Presidential election in 2004 was his “accountability moment.”
That accountability moment is now, when there is a convergence of events, each arising from the results of his decisions, and when many of those formerly unquestioningly supporting the President have decided the accounts do not balance.
The President may well be left only with the ones who fit a quote from the last “war President” who also busted the budget, Lyndon B. Johnson, who said, “If two men agree completely, you can be sure only one of them is doing the thinking.”
The divisions being exposed on the right-wing by the nomination of Harriet Miers as Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court shows that the interests nominally represented by the Republican Party are just as diverse and (occasionally) divisive as those nominally represented by the Democratic Party. It appears that the main difference between the two parties is message discipline on the part of the Republican Party supporters, a regimen that now seems to have broken down when the prime goals of a particular group are not fulfilled at a moment that seems extremely fortuitous to that group.
“Blogworld” is not necessarily a good indication of nor a large influencer upon the real world of the vast majority of citizens, but it does reflect the thoughts of the most vocal and technologically savvy part of the population. It remains to be seen what exactly the influence of this group is through their weblogs.
However, using the attitudes displayed as a rough barometer of the group weblogs do represent, the future prospects for the administration of President George W. Bush do not appear to be rosy.