Topic Request #2 From Ara
Ara's Question:
I don't think Bush thinks he's weak, I think that he was attempting to mend fences with the Democrats by nominating Miers at Reid's urging. He was trying to be a uniter and unfortunately ended up dividing his own base. Bush doesn't need the Democrats for much of anything. He is trying to mend fences because he needs history to remember him better than the media is portraying him now. Much like Clinton's attempt to broker a Mid-East peace deal, Bush is trying to fix his legacy. He's making a mistake. History remembers winners fondly. Look at how Reagan is remembered compared to how he was portrayed. Bush needs to do the job we re-elected him to finish and keep the promises he made. He needs to stop worrying about making friends with the Dems, they won't bend if they want to be re-elected, and they do. Their base demands that they act like obstructionist assholes and they will continue to comply. That's why they will not make any gains in 2006 and most likely lose seats. They will continue insulting the electorate by calling them stupid and then wring their hands with wonder on how they lost, again.
I think that Bush has learned his lesson. He will nominate a strong candidate, in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, as he promised. The Dems will go crazy with bluster and threats but the candidate will win confirmation.
It doesn't matter who he nominates, to the Democrats, anyone to the right of Alan Dershowitz will be pilloried as a wingnut, the Dems are predictable that way. Bush needs to keep his word to those of us that voted for him and that isn't caving in to his base, that's called keeping a promise. I know that sounds foreign to liberals, like Ara, but we wingnuts expect a politician to keep his word. When he doesn't, he gets fired. Ask Poppy Bush.
How about whether you think Bush is acting from a position of strength or a position of weakness right now? It has quite a bearing on who he'll nominate next. If he's strong, he nominates a wingnut like Janice Rogers Brown. If he's weak, he nominates another stealth candidate or even a sitting (or former) US Senator (Danforth? Sessions?)
I don't think Bush thinks he's weak, I think that he was attempting to mend fences with the Democrats by nominating Miers at Reid's urging. He was trying to be a uniter and unfortunately ended up dividing his own base. Bush doesn't need the Democrats for much of anything. He is trying to mend fences because he needs history to remember him better than the media is portraying him now. Much like Clinton's attempt to broker a Mid-East peace deal, Bush is trying to fix his legacy. He's making a mistake. History remembers winners fondly. Look at how Reagan is remembered compared to how he was portrayed. Bush needs to do the job we re-elected him to finish and keep the promises he made. He needs to stop worrying about making friends with the Dems, they won't bend if they want to be re-elected, and they do. Their base demands that they act like obstructionist assholes and they will continue to comply. That's why they will not make any gains in 2006 and most likely lose seats. They will continue insulting the electorate by calling them stupid and then wring their hands with wonder on how they lost, again.
I think that Bush has learned his lesson. He will nominate a strong candidate, in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, as he promised. The Dems will go crazy with bluster and threats but the candidate will win confirmation.
It doesn't matter who he nominates, to the Democrats, anyone to the right of Alan Dershowitz will be pilloried as a wingnut, the Dems are predictable that way. Bush needs to keep his word to those of us that voted for him and that isn't caving in to his base, that's called keeping a promise. I know that sounds foreign to liberals, like Ara, but we wingnuts expect a politician to keep his word. When he doesn't, he gets fired. Ask Poppy Bush.
Posted by Rosemary on
10.28.2005
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Wasn't it you guys touting the number of Democrats who voted for Roberts? Not one Senator, GOP or Dem, asked for Miers' withdrawal, only the wingnut whack-job punditry. Frist can count, and let Bush know what the "up or down bote" would be after the hatchet job done on Miers by the GOP base.
Bush already has 96% of his judicial nominations approved, and the Dems even compromised on a couple far, far right wing judges.
Just whose base are acting like "obstructionist assholes?"
But you've got your mind-set and talking points. Don't let facts get in your way from spewing a good rant.
And as for the "non-indictment." This is the first time in 136 years a top White House official has been indicted. Don't forget that as an advisor to the President, Libby is (was) not only Cheney's CoS, but also an officially titled Presidential advisor.
And don't forget that he's indicted for nothing less than what got Clinton impeached -- and the underlying actions about which Libby has been accused of attempting to cover up are far worse than a sexual liason or a botched burglary.
And this is surely just the beginning. Don't fall into the trap of being cavalier about the nature of protecting national security assets as the White House apparently was. That's serious and serious damage was done.
POTUS will be ballsy like any caged animal, but he'll remain in that cage for all time. That's his legacy.
A place of power? Oh dear. I think you're in for quite a shock in the next year if you really believe that.
It's a little scary, but remember, I said it.
Rose while I agree with most of your post, I believe that the Democrats have a very good chance to pick up seats in 2006. Most people don't pay as much attention to day-to-day politics like bloggers and their readers.
Once in power the Republicans joined in a feeding frienzy with Democrats, spending our tax dollars as would make any Democrat proud. The people are not going to forget that. More that 14,000+ slices of pork. Both sides are responsible for the gluttony, but the party in power gets the credit/blame. The Highway Robbery Bill should be completely rewritten to save money for Katrina and Rita.
But spending isn't my big issue for 06 and 08, illegal immigration and National security are. Neither party will do a damn thing about it, in fact they encourage illegal immigration because the government profits from it as much as business.
In 1999 the Clinton administration at least collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies for employing undocumented workers. In 2004 the Bush administration collected zip, nadda, null in fines from any companies employing undocumented workers.
Sorry for getting off topic with the last part.
The Democrats want somebody on the Supreme Court who will rubber-stamp their agenda to enslave the doctors, confiscate the guns, abolish all rights of property and inheritance (see Kelo, also see Karl Marx), and censor all Politically Incorrect speech. If the Democrats want such a nominee, then let them win a Presidential election (God forbid!). Since President Bush and the Republicans won instead (thank God!), they are the ones who get to decide who gets to sit on the Supreme Court.
At the very outset, Bush promised to appoint another Thomas or Scalia. Myself, I must say that I would welcome another Thomas but would oppose another Scalia. But at least another Scalia would be more worthy an opponent than some non-descript candidate Bush chose in order to appease the Democrats.
I must add that it is imperative that we prevent the Democrats from seizing control of Congress in the next election. If they do, not only will they socialize everything in sight, they will cut and run in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and everywhere else and stab us in the back in order to appease the U.N.O.. A "soft, sensitive" War On Terror indeed! That means surrender and the destruction of our great nation. Vote Republican!
Although I have to say, I do agree with some of your points, I reiterate:
Tick.....tick....tick.....
Please answer my question! Strong or weak?
P.S. I began your post and found myself disagreeing more and more with each passing sentence until I finally found one statement I agreed with: "History remembers winners fondly."
Mark,
Yeah, Libby is indicted for lying. He, like Clinton will stand trial (Clinton's trial was in the Senate vis a vis the impeachment), my guess is that unlike Clinton he won't get away with it. Plus, he's already unemployed. So?
You are so wrong it's unbelievable.
What matters in Washington, what has always mattered inside the Beltway, is the perception of strength. And, believe me, if Congressman Foghorn (R-BF Egypt) feels free to take potshots at the CinC, something is very, very wrong and you can be sure that Bush is in trouble.
He badly needs another win right now. He needed one and he got it with Roberts. Now things are even worse, with the Miers debacle.
Does he energize the base with a wingnut like Judge Alito (who is nicknamed "Scalito") or Janice Brown? Or does he try to do what he did before (in your words) -- work with the Dems? Be aware that it wasn't the Dems that deep-sixed Miers. It was the wingnuts.
The other thing is, Ro, this isn't Clinton during Lewinsky -- in those days Clinton's approval ratings were stratospherically high. This time around, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet and circling the drain. It's the wingnuts who are keeping his nose above water (so maybe he nominates another wingnut after all). People around the country understand all of this. They're not stupid, they're smart -- and their Congressmen are getting an earful, trust me.
Bottom line: when Clinton said he's going back to do the work of the American people, a cheer went up. When Bush says it now, there's a collective cry of "Oh, nooooooooo!"
Wake up, Rosemary -- It's time for school!
Voters will remember next year the Iraqi war, Katrina (but not so much as the LLL would like), health care insurance, taxes and last but NOT least the state of the economy. Whether Bush is strong or weak is based on "perception" as our leftie contributors point out.
The Dems could capitilize on perceived weakness but are they smart enough to do so? If they keep lurching left, can't come up with some believable middle-class issues (that would not include SSM, national health care or aligning with failing labor movement groups), then in 2006, they won't gain numbers in Congress or Governorships. I'm not expounding where I stand on any of these issues. I'm just trying to look at the political landscape.
Sandi is so right. The ordinary voter isn't countin' beans and when it comes time to vote, the winning side will have campaigned on issues that Americans can figure out without being poli-sci majors or arm-chair historians. Only a few of us are spending time on the net and keeping up with the day to day silliness that goes on in the halls of governance. Plame-gate isn't gonna get much milage either. And whether Halburton is getting contracts does not resonate. Nobody in my office who talks about politics expresses any interest in Halburton, Scooter Libby, or Valerie Who?
Stealing from Ara - IJS