Well well. The power of the blogosphere. One day after the Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn compared in his online Notebook weblog grieving-mother Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war protest outside George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, to the actions of a child having a tantrum — and declaring that the President had no duty to meet with those who disagreed with him — smackdown. I and many others responded to his ill-chosen comments in a torrent of postings to his blog that left our moral rudder with egg on his face.
So he apologized for, ahem, having written the column. Interesting. Isn’t that like when Spureme Court-nominee Roberts says that he can’t remember ever being a John Birch Society member but doesn’t actually come out and deny it? A neat trick. No, Eric, address the issue of your comments.
I’m encouraged to see that Zorn finally recognizes the right of Ms. Sheehan to her protest. However, he still doesn’t get it. Eric, our governmental representatives are supposed to be responsive and, yes, representative, of all. It is not their job to exclude the opinions and desires of half of their constituency.
Moreover, it is ludicrous to say that once a President makes a decsion, that’s it. It’s set in stone. A done deal. Not open for debate. What makes you, let alone a President — or anyone — think that the decision they have made is the absolute best, highest, most just? I thought the only being who could have that much surety in their actions was God? Where do you and the rest of the conservative media get off ascribing that kind of moral authority to Mr. Bush? Is this the extent to which the Far Christian Right has positioned the President and framed debate in this country?
What a shill. Onward.