E came home today asking about a website argument which compared Bush and Hitler on 27 points. I asked him what they were and he didn’t remember. We looked it up when we got home. This site is definitely propagandistic. But a thinking person is going to see through at least 20 of these easily. One or two might be arguable.
So what is the problem? Why don’t people see through this? If it is so obvious to me, why isn’t it to the people who agree and read it? I guess they just hate Bush too much. Or, perhaps, they actually fundamentally disagree with Bush and see no other reasons than the ones in the list for Bush to have made some of the decisions he made.
I think it is absurd to say that Bush seized power without a popular electorate. Yes, he lost the popular vote. But he won the electoral college vote. And that’s how every president ever elected has won. By the electoral college. And it was a democratic-dominated Supreme Court who said, “Quit counting. Bush won.” The RNC didn’t bomb Florida or even threaten them with guns pointed carefully towards the floor.
But I can see where a definite disagreement, a fundamental paradigm shift, would allow one to say that Bush is like Hitler because he didn’t commute every single death row inmate’s execution sentence. I personally think that the death penalty is a good thing. I would hate to be on a jury responsible for recommending it, but I would definitely vote for it if the situation warranted it. But, regardless, it is a governor’s job to uphold the law. They’re flaming Bush for upholding the law. I guess they wanted him to be a SF mayor and hold illegal weddings, despite the law. If you are a government official, it is part of your job to uphold the law. If you aren’t doing that, you should be forced to resign. You can argue against the law and try to get the law changed, but while it exists, you should follow it.
Update: Bush is worse than Hitler? Damian answers.