Given the president’s poor public standing, it stands to reason that people would be pretty used to public criticism of Bush. It’s about as common as breathing, and it’s the natural consequence of a president with Nixon-like approval ratings.
And yet, for some reason, this story about a hand-written sign at the World Bridge Championships seems to be fairly big deal. I’m just not sure why.
In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
The players have been stunned by the reaction to what they saw as a spontaneous gesture, “a moment of levity,” said Gail Greenberg, the team’s nonplaying captain and winner of 11 world championships.
And what a reaction it’s been. The winning team is facing a possible ban. There’s talk that the United States Bridge Federation might lose its corporate sponsors. Foreign bridge teams are weighing in. At the Fall North American Bridge Championships, a hearing will determine whether holding a lighthearted sign, poking fun at the president, constitutes conduct unbecoming a federation member. A variety of conservative bloggers are outraged.
Who knew there was so much interest in the political opinions of competitive bridge players?
Apparently, the hand-drawn sign was a response to questions from international players, who looked askance at the American team.
Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.
“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.”
Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.
“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.”
I haven’t been overseas during Bush’s presidency, but I suspect this is fairly common. Our president is an embarrassment, and his actions reflect poorly on all of us. It stands to reason that Americans are going to want to distance themselves from Bush’s failures, and this small sign seems like an innocuous gesture.
Keep in mind, the possible ban would deny the winning team their principle source of revenue — these women are professional bridge players. In other words, these women will be denied their livelihoods as a result of criticizing the president at a bridge game.
To borrow a line from Jon Stewart, “Whaaaa?”