More on dialogue

Kbonline had some great points about the problems with dialogue between the left and right.

Thinking about that again, I was reading (and participating) in an exchange over at Anglican's blog. And I mean this in the most respectful way, but the exchange highlighted some of our problems. Here is a short version:

Anglican: I like Ray Nagin--he is willing to stand up to Bush.

Anonymous: No, he is the problem. A true leader doesn't point fingers--he takes responsibility.

Anglican (and me): True, and probably right with Nagin, but also Bush, right?

Anonymous: No need to point fingers. Why talk about blame?

It almost seems that many Bush supporters are almost incapable of admitting that Bush completely failed on this. Are they taking their cues from the man himself--who seems genetically incapable of admitting an error about his policy. Or anything. I have never seen so many people who act themselves with integrity and honor, excuse this man over and over again. What is it?

Why can't they acknowledge that he royally screwed up and handled the tragedy of this hurricane with the sensitivity of a French aristocrat? Is it because they fear if they do, they are admitting that God screwed up by putting this man in office?

For what it is worth, I have always resented your blaming God for this man. You elected him, not God. This isn't God's fault. I am clear on that.

Maybe you would be better off if you admitted that too. Maybe then you could look at Bush as a flawed human being who has real issues with his own arrogance and lack of humility, you would be better off.

That is part of this problem with dialogue. When talking about Bush, we seem to be arguing with God. But we aren't really. Don't blame this on God.