I’d like to say that I object to our pundits’ masturbatory musings because of the negative effects these musings have on innocent human beings (and they certainly do have negative effects), but the truth is, I mostly object to the stupidity and predictability of it all.
Today, Ron Fournier trots out the billionth iteration of “George W. Bush is a good man”. What’s the proof? That Bush hung out with Fournier and Fournier’s autistic son once:
Presidents Bush and Clinton agreed last year to meet privately with my autistic son for a project on the presidency. But that is the point: Neither man had anything to gain by agreeing to meet Tyler. They’re not running for office. I don’t cover them anymore.
If Bush and Clinton were meeting privately with autistic children born to plebes, that would be one thing, but they’re not: Fournier is part of their club, a well-known establishment journalist, and probably a wealthy man. It’s quite natural — and indicative of nothing — that Bush and Clinton would want to give Fournier some kind of a handjob. That’s what establishment old boys enjoy doing with each other.
But that’s not the point. The point is that anyone is a “good man” if you look at him the right way. It’s a meaningless phrase that has nothing to do with how he or she performs as a political leader.
Worse than that, it’s a completely played-out cliche. Can’t they move on to something new at least?