I'm a great believer in the proposition that every citizen, even the most partisan, should greet a new President with an open mind and give him or her a fair chance to be a great President. But that principle doesn't apply in the same way to a second termer, and it doesn't apply at all to a second-termer who has refused to acknowledge that he made a single mistake during his term, who has never fired an underling, and whose primary campaign theme was Stay The Course.
If George W. Bush actually does dramatically change his stripes in a second term, I am prepared to notice that and adjust my stance accordingly. Until that point, my attitude toward the new President is combative. I want to use all fair political means to neuter his Presidency.
But I am not optimistic enough to think I will fully succeed. I expect our tax system to be rendered more economically unjust, and I don't expect to see it recover during my lifetime; I expect our nation's standing in the world to fall further, and for the world's citizens to more and more blame our arrogance on America and not just on Bush; I expect our courts to be packed with quiet, angry men in dark suits with slicked-back hair who will legislative into the law protections for power and moneyed interests that won't disappear in my lifetime; and I expect one more huge blunder that no one could possibly predict at this time, like Iraq in the first term.
There's only one good thing: I expect the next four years to be years of reaping the whirlwind for the wind Bush has sewn in the last four years, and there won't be any doubt about whose fault it is. That may make this outcome, in the long run, a good thing. That's just hard to see right now.
|
|||||
|
Recent Comments
Re: Poor Washington Post
brianna
Re: Re: btw
jack9985
Re: Neuroeconomics -- The next new big thing
neuroeconomics
Re: Do You Like Energy?
A. Ramon
Re: Democratic Realism is a Joke
GoRocks
Recent Articles
Great minds and all thatnadezhda (0)   Sep 21 This Turkey Won't Fly nadezhda (0)   Sep 21 One picture says it all nadezhda (0)   Aug 8 Obama's exercise in rhetoric nadezhda (0)   Jul 24 Obama Grand Tour and McCain Circus Roundup nadezhda (0)   Jul 21 Biden has Obama's Afghan back = update - and the Pentagon too nadezhda (0)   Jul 17 Bush's Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran "legacy" - updated nadezhda (0)   Jul 17 Then WTF is a "bail-out"? nadezhda (0)   Jul 16 Blogging making reporters more relevant nadezhda (0)   Jun 18 Ignatius and Zakaria - new WaPo joint venture nadezhda (0)   Jun 16 Reasserting US Hegemony: Russian rollback, Chinese containment and Iranian regime change nadezhda (0)   May 8 What's up nadezhda (1)   Apr 22 A "paddling" of lame ducks? nadezhda (0)   Apr 22 Voices of the New Arab Public nadezhda (0)   Dec 31 Time for a post-post-9/11 world? nadezhda (0)   Dec 21 Search
Public Views
Politics for Junkies
NetNews with a View
Media Watch
This Month
Month Archive
|
Comments
Re: This Just Sucks
by
praktike
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 01:14 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yeah. I just don't feel like being magnanimous today. You can't run a nasty, divisive administration and a nasty, divisive campaign and just expect people to turn around and embrace you because John McCain and Rudy Giuliani mumble some platitudes about reaching out. Sorry, I"m not buying it this time.
Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
Oscar
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 02:16 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
"You can't run a nasty, divisive administration and a nasty, divisive campaign and just expect people to turn around and embrace you"
Exactly what I would have thought (but not said) if the Dems had won. Re: Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
praktike
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 02:57 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
But here's the difference. The Democrats were nasty about Bush.
The GOP was nasty about liberals. But that is better because...
by
Oscar
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 05:49 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
if you are against liberals (probably more accurately progressive internationalists) you are against their IDEAS. If you are nasty about Bush, that is personal and hence TACKY. That is not the way to win an election in this country.
Re: This Just Sucks
by
JC
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 02:38 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yeah, it sucks. It is icomprehensible, actually.
But, Bush was elected this time, at least. No real doubt. I am prepared to say he is the duly elected President this time, as opposed to last time when it was pretty clear that Bush was elected by luck, hook, and by crook. It's four years. I maintain the hope that 4 year won't be enough time to eviscerate social security, or the current military. On the other hand, I'm not sure how the Democratic party will ever attract the "guns, gays and God" south. On a policy level, what more could have gone right? A war on false premises, Bush losing all three debates, blown up national debt, less jobs that 4 years ago, etc, etc. If the last 4 years of bad results doesn't discredit this party, and this adminsitration, what will? Only a spectacular failure, that I really don't want the american people to suffer through. But as you say, Bush will inherit the responsibility for anything that occurs now. Unfortunately, that means the people will reap the whirlwind. Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
Josh
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 03:13 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
But as you say, Bush will inherit the responsibility for anything that occurs now.
Only if we make him. As praktike said over at Abu Aardvark's, the GOP's already building up its "stab in the back" case. The key now is to make sure they fail. Re: This Just Sucks
by
JC
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 03:05 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Here's an alternative analysis on suburban, urban, and rural votes. suburban, urban, and rural votes
Ignoring the over the top "fear" element, any thoughts? Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
bondra
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 03:28 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Your link goes to a Microsoft page featuring an awfully attractive model, which is fine, but I don't think that's what you meant to do.
Re: Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
JC
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 04:01 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Oop! Let's see if this works.
New way of posting links - two http's, darn it! Could someone fix the above link, if it's not too much trouble!? Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
Trickster
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 04:35 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Well, I certainly respect his math, and believe him about the suburbs. And I do think Bush won on fear. As another blogger whose name I don't recall put it, we responded to 9/11 by becoming "a nation of pussies."
But while fear is a powerful motivator, it's a poor theme for governance. I think we have to find creative ways to defeat it, and to govern from hope and faith, and especially from logic. I'll be writing about this in the days to come. The guy seems off the rails
by
Oscar
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 06:00 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
The guy says "Fifteen million of those 57 million suburbanites live below the poverty line"
and then he says "Disproportionately middle to upper-middle class, with two income earners, higher home ownership (72% vs 48% in urban areas)" and YOU RESPECT HIS MATH????????? Re: Re: This Just Sucks
by
bondra
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 10:31 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Interesting. I'm not sure he's wrong. But if he's right, he certainly seems capable of mustering quite a bit more hatred for these trapped and desperate suburbanites than I am.
Re: This Just Sucks
by
Harley
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 06:35 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
The Prez announces that he has won a 'broad nationwide' victory. First, somebody buy him a map. Second? It was nice for him to suggest he will need the help of those who voted for his opponent. Unfortunately, by 'help' he means agreeing with everything he does, saluting when he does it.
If there was ever a Prez in our nation's history with a mandate for bi-partisanship, it was Shrub in '00. Then we got Ashcroft. And that was just the opening salvo. The Republicans are holding power in order to wield it (gerrymandering is just one example) and it would be foolhardy and ahistorical to expect anything else in the next four years. More environmental depredations, more tax nonesense, larger deficits, and increasing alienation from the rest of the folks who inhabit the planet. Oh, well. I live in Los Angeles. Divide the rest of my time between Seattle and New York. All that blue will no doubt continue to be a comfort. While I try to figure out what the hell my fellow citizens were thinking. Friends & enemies
by
nadezhda
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 06:47 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yes, we've seen how his Admin has treated the members of his own party on Capitol Hill who haven't agreed with his policies -- or simply had the temerity to expect him to tell them what his policies are. So he would have a great deal of spot-changing to do in order to receive help even if he wanted it..
They're just setting his opponents up for accusations of unpatriotic lese majeste. Keep the base energized, and toss them some cultural red meat every now and then. Seen this movie before in 1972. Re: Friends & enemies
by
Harley
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 06:56 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yeah, I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds. Hard to think of a two-term Prez in recent history whose second term wasn't impacted by scandal born of the kind of hubris that, well, a first term sometimes confers. (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton).
Release the hounds!! :) Re: Re: Friends & enemies
by
nadezhda
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 07:20 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Bush has said he wants to get as much stuff done as possible before he starts to quack. I'm thinking that's going to be a much shorter time than Reagan or Clinton had.
You know all those scathing editorials about Bush's incompetence and misleading the public that were published over the past two weeks in papers that are traditionally Rep (or at their most liberal "middle of the road" in heartland terms)? They're not going away. Quite simply, lots of people don't believe a word the WH says anymore, and there's a growing group of insiders or bureaucratic infighters who are willing to provide reporters with the evidence they need to make big stories out of the Bush Admin's propensity for dallying with misinformation. The credibility gap is just going to get wider and wider. Bush can give himself a bit of a honeymoon by putting some very different characters with a reputation for integrity into the top spots at DoD, DoJ and State, and if the new guys make the most of their honeymoon. But the honeymoon's going to be short. The big question in my mind iis whether it takes a presidential campaign to get attention focused on the disconnect with reality, or whether in fact the campaign gave the WH more cover, since they could divert attention with SBVs etc. Again, if 1972 is a guide, it was only after the campaign was over that the wheels started falling off. And I don't think that was simply that the Watergate investigation didn't get going until after the election.The press corps (or their editors) seems to have a very difficult time simultaneously handling elections and investigations that aren't campaign-driven. And the rats have to be convinced that the ship may really be springing some serious leaks. DOD, DOJ, State
by
Trickster
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 09:35 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
I don't believe for one second that independent persons with integrity will get those spots. It will be loyal insiders. I would bet big money on this. They are way past reaching out. They're playing their own game with their own people to their own base and planning on that being enough. They're going to put up an insider nominee in '08--Jeb if he wants it, Frist otherwise--and raise the stakes.
I hope you're right about journalists saving us. It's my hope, too, and I have some optimism. For starters there's Plame, Chalabi, and really somebody has got to put together the story of how we were lied into Iraq that really makes that case convincingly--it's there to be made. (It may be the missing motive that keeps legs off that story.) And then there's just the whole style of governance by deception. How much longer will the press corps allow their questions--on virtually everything--to go unanswered, before making that the story? Re: DOD, DOJ, State
by
nadezhda
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 10:28 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
I agree they won't put anybody in those slots who won't be total team players. But with the exception of Ashcroft's depty at DoJ (Larry Thompson? name has disappeared from the memory banks and I'm too tired from tracking raw vote totals to go find it), they won't be able to get the insiders into the top spots.They could get Armitage through, but they can't trust him. He's got too much integrity.
They may control the Senate even more now, but can you imagine the field day every bureaucratic infighter in the federal government would have leaking to the press and the Dem Committee staffs if Wolfowitz or Condi or Bolton were nominated and had to go through hearings? And unless the Senate For Relations Comm's membership is totally changed, you've got all the President's GOP non-friends on that committee and a well-functioning partnership between Lugar and Biden. Even Armed Services and Intelligence are starting to get pretty prickly towards the WH in the Senate. There's something about Senators and their prerogatives that unite the strangest Senatorial couples. Trent Lott and Ron Wyden on the classification review commission proposal is a good example. They're protecting their turf -- as they should. It's being severely eroded in a way that's not healthy. All the things the WH has managed to avoid dealing with by stonewalliing nd misdirection would come bubbling up to the surface and be fodder for cable. If Condi looked like an enraged deer caught in headlights at the 9-11 Commission, you ain't seen nothing yet. Will certainly be interesting to watch. Re: Re: DOD, DOJ, State
by
bondra
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 10:35 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
I'd betcha a five-spot that Jim Comey, currently an Assistant, replaces Ashcroft as AG. He's the former United States Attorney for the SDNY, and is absolutely solid gold. Through firm/personal connections, I've dealt with him and know some folks who know him very well. He would serve the country very well, and with the right kind of integrity.
Re: Re: Re: DOD, DOJ, State
by
nadezhda
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 09:04 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
That would be good news indeed, and hopefully the WH wants to send up at least one broadly acceptable candidate for one of the big positions.
I donno
by
Trickster
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 12:07 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
They're talking "mandate". I just see them putting Wolfowitz, Feith, whomever and just really not caring what the media says, drowning out whatever noise comes from committee by revving up the echo chamber with the message that pandering pols are leaving America unprotected because of partisan squabbling instead of filling these positions that are vital to the WOT.
It's true that there has been a lot of criticism of the White House coming out of Senate Committee, but it just hasn't been translating into votes and it's only filibusters that really stop anything. Will the Democrats filibuster anything so soon after a Presidential "mandate"? You make a reasonable argument, and maybe you're right. But I'm looking at the White House to come out playing hardball now. There's no re-election to worry about any more. They're unleashed. The '08 GOP candidates are unleashed too
by
nadezhda
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 12:45 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
In the For Rels Committee, Hegel and McCain (plus Lieberman et al) have been extremely vocal about how incompetent the Bush Admin has been re Iraq. And they are just about impossible to shoot down on unpatriotic grounds.
For guys like Hegel and McCain, especially given how Delay and Frist have been playinig, what do they gain from playing footsie with the Admin? They're not going to get many goodies as a reward unless they occasionally exercise credible threats not to go along. They have their own name recognition and power bases, and as mavericks they can actually turn persecution by the WH and leadership to their advantage. Their election base in the 2008 contest is going to be much more centrists but with their strong military background pulling the right wing in as well. What would they have to lose by working with Lugar to put the kebosh on Condi or Wolfie -- in fact, failure to do so would look like they were Bush stooges angling for '08 advantages. As for Feith, he's got too many FBI agents crawling around his office to make it through a confirmation, hardball or no hardball. The American press feel had - the number of scathing anti-endorsements of Bush by traditionally conservative or middle of the road papers was rather remarkable. Competence (or lack thereof) was probably the common thread. And who represents incompetence more than the key architects of Bush's foreign policy? Plus the bureaucrats will be feeding the press a steady stream of evidence. That's one of the big problems for lame ducks -- a lot less fear factor for the bureaucrats. Agreed that they intend to ram the mandate down everybody's throat, but these just seem too high-risk. You're talking very large cans of very messy worms, here, with a huge number of insiders who would love to see these folks go down in public flames. Their helpers are their keepers
by
nadezhda
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 09:11 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Via Otmar, Garry Willis' NYT op-ed today also reminds us of the limited scope for conciliation:
But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.Ya makes yer bed, ya gotta lie in it. And dogs and fleas and things... Re: DOD, DOJ, State
by
praktike
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 09:21 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
I'd say the first thing they'll do is replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice. If it's Scalia, hang on to your hats. If it's Sandra Day O'FlipFlopper, good news.
As for DOJ, it's clear to me that on stuff that matters (Patriot act, detainment, Geneva conventions), either Cheney's evil counsel Addington or Bush's boy Gonzalez or some lawyers from the NSC have run roughshod over both the DOJ lawyers and the JAG Corps. So unless somebody with both integrity AND infighting skill gets the nod, expect DOJ to get worse, not better. oh, and here comes ...
by
praktike
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 11:02 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Arlen Specter with an opening shot across the bow on judges. Good on Specter for keeping his promise.
Whoops!
by
praktike
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 04:38 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Somebody reminded him who's boss.
Re: Whoops!
by
nadezhda
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 04:43 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yeah, I was more than a little surprised by Arlen's earlier feistiness. These guys play hardball, and the overhaul of the judiciary is one of their top priorities because it takes generations to reverse.
Re: Whoops!
by
bondra
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 04:51 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
In the immortal words of Charles Barkley, ol' Arlen musta misquoted himself.
And ...
by
praktike
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 07:23 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
It's about to get ugly.
It's nice to know
by
MC MasterChef
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 09:48 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
That the Democrats won't be alone in the next two to four years of intra-party warfare!
Re: It's nice to know
by
nadezhda
on Thu 04 Nov 2004 10:06 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Oh yeah. There's a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party in the works. The WoT and Iraq has just kept a lid on it.
With the election victory, which Bush is treating as a mandate, there's a battle underway for the division of the spoils. They know there's only a certain time until he's a lame duck. Some want to get their forks in while he's still got clout or while they can still call in their chips. And others would like to hasten the time he starts to quack. We're going to have maneuvering in the competition to succeed him start immediately. This Judiciary Committee battle is one of the first highly visible opening salvos. It's why following politics is addictive -- if you've got the patience for it, it beats any reality tv Fox produces. BTW Harley
by
nadezhda
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 07:34 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Thanks for dropping by. Door's always open on your bicoastal swings.
Re: BTW Harley
by
Harley
on Wed 03 Nov 2004 09:39 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Bush is now saying he wants to Serve All Americans. Other than reminding me of the Twiight Zone episode To Serve Man (it's a cookbook!), I don't believe him. Nor did I believe him the last time he struck this particular pose.
But always willing to be surprised. Thanks for the invite. Cheers. Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
||||


