George W. Bush the right-wings centerfold swooped out of the sky co-piloting a navy jet onto an aircraft carrier, an exellent example of flamboyance and an excellent example of showmanship. I would be difficult to top the show he put on, but I suppose he could try this.
The Dems have made much of the incident, painting it as shamless political grandstanding, but as Republicans rightly point out political grandstanding is nothing new. A navy jet with the president on board does raise the bar a bit, but such political shenanigans have a long if not proud history. Senator Byrd and Paul Krugman have been a couple of the most outspoken critics of the event claiming it was the first of its kind. Other than the use of the navy jet it was nothing new. Because of their statements, Byrd and Krugman have recently been the butt of many warblogger jokes. They have been featured in countless posts, but like the Dems the Republicans don't seem to know when to stop. The latest salvo in this war of words is a result of this letter to the Washington Post in response to an earlier story. The author of the letter lists a number of buildings with Robert Byrd's name on them and then says, "sort of reminds you of all the statues, pictures and images of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, doesn't it?" Well I'm sorry but actually it doesn't. When I think of the Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center I don't see images of Saddam statues or pictures. Perhaps Craig suffers from an overactive imagination, but if he does then so too do many Republicans who are claiming he has it right. Pejman Yousefzadeh's comment on the story was "Mr. Bozman certainly knows how to get to the heart of the matter, doesn't he?" Sorry but having one's name on a building isn't equivalent to a navy jet with the President of the United States landing on an aircraft carrier. Ask any ten-year old which he'd prefer to see. The president's performance was flamboyant and showy. Byrd's name on a building is boring and typical.