I Want to Believe

[bcholmes]

So, yesterday, I didn't like the news. I actually like Chrétien, and I dislike Martin, and I want to believe that the Gomery report is fixed.

But here's the thing: is this how Bush supporters get through life? They like the guy, so any new information that strongly suggests that he's not ethical is therefore flawed?

Comments

[erik]

With a healthy dose of knowing they backed the wrong guy but being so ashamed that they feel they now must keep backing him even as it becomes more clear that they made a mistake. No one likes to have it out that they made a mistake.
This is also, I think, why Bush's "Stay The Course" rhetoric works so well. They backed him and thus this course, so now they feel they have to keep backing him and this course or look like a failure themselves.

[cigfrain.livejournal.com]

polyfrog is right, and i would bolster the observation with the analogy to scientology. the reason people are *so* incredibly defensive about it, is that after they've invested so much of themselves only to find out that its core is utter and ridiculous horseshit, the only way to save face is to balls it out.

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much, afaict.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

They like the guy, so any new information that strongly suggests that he's not ethical is therefore flawed?

Goodness, no. They are encouraged to not look at the information at all, and rather focus on the flaws of the person *delivering* the information. Dan Rather is a mouthpiece, Cindy Sheehan is anti-American, Ronnie Earle is a witchhunter, yadda yadda yadda. From a conservative pundit's viewpoint, analyzing the justness of the information itself is ceding ground to the liberals. They might well be taking their lead from Screwtape: "Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to *teach*!"

Sorry that the report didn't go your way.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Although didn't the report stop short of saying Chretien actually knew what was going on?

Re: I Want to Believe

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i think by this time bush supporters can't possibly be looking at any evidence at all. or they're supporting him solely because they think he's better than anything the democrats can muster at this time, which is vaguely understandable (vaguely; i disagree with their assessment of the democrat offerings).

i also think one can continue to like chrétien even after the gomery report. i do think gomery doesn't like him, and that this affects the language he uses somewhat (though i doubt the report is fixed, and chrétien's protestations strike me as ludicrous). i think it is possible that chrétien didn't know the nasty details of the underhanded deals. gomery doesn't have any proof otherwise, he just considers him responsible because the whole thing happened out of his office. i am not entirely sure i agree, but there is something to it.

i see no reason to change your opinion of martin at all -- so he wasn't involved in this, ok. that doesn't change who he is; after all your reasons for disliking him predate the sponsorship scandal.