The nexus is growing.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “During the era of Clinton-centrism, I often heard acquaintances express their political leanings by saying they were “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal”. (In other words, “I’m a caring and tolerant person – fun, even! – but you can still trust me with your money.”) I liked to deadpan that I was actually the opposite: fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. (“I’m a heartless, intolerant stick-in-the-mud, and, what’s more, I’d spend your money with reckless abandon.”) No one took me seriously (then again, this was in California and New York, where people still think I’m kidding when I tell them I’m a Republican and that I plan on voting for Bush).
I would not have imagined it possible, but this Administration has made policy out of my joke.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.
MY FEELING ENTIRELY: I spent a few seconds trying to figure out what exactly Paul O’Neill meant by saying that president Bush is like a blind man in a room of deaf people and then gave up. I mean, life is short, and all that. Leave it to Mike Kinsley to tease it out:
I’m sorry, but how is being uninterested in policy like being a blind man in a roomful of deaf people? Are blind people uninterested in policy? Or, more accurately, do blind people become less interested in policy when they find themselves in a room with deaf people? Does a blind man surrounded by deaf people talking policy issues think: “Oh, hell. These folks are going to go on and on and on about the problems of deaf people. Who needs that? I’ve got problems of my own.” Is that O’Neill’s point? And even if there is something about a room full of deaf people that makes a blind man disengage from policy issues, what does this have to do with President Bush and his Cabinet?
LOL.
The Dish 