In the first case, the award was warranted and appropriate. The Lott incident reminded me of a conversation with a fellow student in grad school. He aptly described a professor as “having constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.”
Any rational individual, whether Democrat or Republican, has to agree that Lott’s statements were a classic example of one failing to put his brain in gear before he opened his mouth. Some of his statements indeed were the epitome of stupid tripe.
In the second case we come to a parting of the ways. There is no question that Erskine Bowles would make a good nominee for many positions in government. However, may I remind you that a political appointee serves at the pleasure of the president and not the opposition party. As such he should not only be a capable individual but he must be attuned to and supportive of presidential policies. If he is at cross purposes with those policies, he will not survive very long in the political arena.
As I recall, Bowles was highly critical of many of President Bush’s policies. Thus I find it incredible that you could seriously believe the president should give any consideration to a senatorial candidate who vilified so many of his policies during the recent campaign.
In conclusion, let us call it a draw. In the first case we both agree. In the second case let us put a spin on it by agreeing that you were deep in humorous fantasy and failed to put your brain in gear before taking pen in hand. In any event, it might be appropriate to award a bogey for that bogey.
George Maughan
Whispering Pines
