I’ve been having flashbacks all week.

They go back to 2000, when I would often engage in political debates with a conservative co-worker.  I remember one conversation went something like this:

ME:  "But you have to admit that Bush isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer."

HER:  "Yeah, but that alone is not an important qualification to be President.  You have to surround yourself with good people, and appoint them to important positions."

Five years later, we see that Bush has even failed in that regard.  Look at this post at Washington Monthly.  It shows the qualifications of the last four FEMA directors.  Three were appointed under Republican administrations (two under Bush 43, one under Bush 41), and one under Clinton.

Tell me which one is a "good person" for the job of FEMA director, and which three aren’t.

The huge difference between conservatives and progressives is not just their respective stands on certain issues; it is also about their leadership styles, and views about the role of government.  Progressives think government should be smart, and come together for the collective good of the people.  Conservatives simply want a smaller inffectual out-of-the-way government. 

Which begs the question: why would anyone vote for a President who thinks his job is to minimalize his job?  It’s like going to a doctor who doesn’t believe in medicine.  But apparently, many people think and vote that way.  With Katrina, we see those consequences.