At least 70% of the time, the folks at Kos are too extreme for me — and I'm too moderate for them, based on the poor response I've gotten to posts I've occasionally put there — but I ran across a well written front-page article today that makes a point I've often stressed in my own writing: Those who inherently dislike something aren't likely to do it very well.

Applying this to current events, there are two ways to look at the struggling Bush administration: (1) It's implementing good policy, but failing to do so effectively; or (2) the policies themselves are flawed. I tend to vote for the latter — that is to say the problems Bush & Co. are experiencing are directly related to the policies themselves, and their underlying belief system.

SusanG asks some insightful questions in her post:

Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished? Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?

Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?...Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and...

Wikipedia features a page listing 90 individual "controversies" surrounding the Bush administration that are elaborated upon in that online encyclopedia. This number itself is arbitrary and meaningless; however it's no difficult task to rattle off four or five major issues for which the supposed "liberal media" has gone after the President without even lifting a finger. These guys have been under attack from day one, starting with the secretive Cheney energy task force — and I've argued that if it weren't for the excessive secrecy, there wouldn't be such attention paid to many of its actions.

Given that scrutiny began from day one — no doubt partially in reaction to the personal slandering the previous President was subjected to during his administration — it's rather amusing to hear people argue Bush's opponents are attacking the "War on Terror" for political advantage, or as Sean Hannity might say, to "undermine" the President. In fact, I argue that the characterization of attacks on the President as "undermining" is a conspiracy theory itself of sorts — it is a convenient way to avoid discussing the issues in a substantial way, allowing one to simply argue that the President's opponents are arguing merely for the sake of argument. People like Hannity seem to forget that to characterize EVERY opponent as trying to "undermine" is like crying wolf — it takes the force from the term when it's applied to the few who truly deserve it.