The essence of compromise boils down to five words: “What’s in it for me?”
So with Bush facing a congressional war-funding bill with deadlines attached–benchmarks that he himself mentioned earlier this year, and is now being asked to hew to–congress is hoping that he will compromise on withdrawal dates rather than veto the entire bill.
What’s in it for him to do so?
Nothing.
I mean, yeah, sure, there’s the concept of honoring his own promises. Don’t make me laugh: It’s too early in the morning.
There’s the concept of attending to the clear mandate of the people. See the non-laughing request above.
Naturally some will look to Bush’s well-known intransigence, his inflexibility, his disregard for human lives (unless they’re not yet born: Then they’re sacred). In short, it’s easy to blame his various tragic personal shortcomings that have contributed to the morass that is the Iraq war.
But consider: On a political basis, which is all that matters to a politician, what happens if he does what the Democrats want?
Well, basically, presuming that the Democrats can avoid tripping over their own pants cuffs–never a sure thing, granted–he’ll be not only cementing their triumph of 2006, but handing them the White House in 2008.
Consider the bragging rights he’d be giving the Dem candidates: You put us in power in 2006 and we, the party of the people, managed to face down a stubborn, dictatorial President and got our boys home. A compromise hands the opposing party a WMD–a Weapon of Made Democrats. They will have it made in 2008, promising a return to peace and prosperity of the Clinton years.
Bush gains nothing from it. He believes he’ll appear weak. He will have embroiled us in this war and needed the Democrats to bìŧçh-šláp him into cooperation, causing him to wind up looking like a recalcitrant child who just got his party privileges revoked. And worst of all, he will have removed from GOP hands the only weapon they’ve got for 2008. Believe it or not, remarkably, a considerable portion of the voting public STILL believes that the GOP is better for America in matters of national security. If there’s no war to stoke, then the GOP has nothing–NOTHING–to run on for 2008. The GOP needs to be able to say, “We have kept this country safe, and although you may not like the war, well, we won’t like it either, but it’s a necessary evil in the war against terror.”
The GOP strategy has to be painting the Dems as being soft on terror (an upgrade from the classic “soft on crime” gambit that has worked for so long.) If Bush caves on the deadlines, then he removes that tool from the GOP tool box, because then he (and by extension the GOP) becomes soft on terror as well. The Dems will be able to say, “See? Even the President acknowledges that we were right,” and the Dems can’t be right, because if they become right, then they become President.
People think that Bush is concerned about his place in history, but I think of more immediate worry to him is the GOP place in the White House, the only branch that they still control. Despite the fact that we’re embroiled in a civil war, despite the fact that occupations do not, historically, tend to work, despite the fact that our soldiers are dying and dying and dying to no point or purpose, GOP political fortunes trump all other considerations. Bush cannot compromise, dare not compromise, because the GOP strategy is to paint Dems as weak. If he compromises, they become strong. Therefore, he cannot, because if he does, then the GOP chances are reduced to one desperate hope: That sometime in the next two years, there is another major terrorist strike on the US. The Empire State building is blown up, the Golden Gate bridge is annihilated. Something. Because should such a horrifying calamity occur, the GOP strategy is clear: “See? While we were in charge of Congress, everything was fine. Put the Democrats in charge, the terrorists become emboldened, and we’re attacked. Just imagine how much worse it will be if you put them in the White House.” Understand, I’m not saying the GOP would WANT us to be attacked. Even I don’t think they’re THAT barbaric. But it’s the only counter they’d then have to Democrat strength.
So what it comes down to is this: Bush won’t compromise, and I doubt the Democrats will be able to muster the votes to override a veto. Which means that the Pentagon will have to fight the war as best they can. There is a GOP upside, though: Every casualty that occurs from that point on will be painted as being the Dem’s fault–avoidable if only the Democrats had been willing to let Bush fight his war as he sees fit rather than undercutting and refusing to support our troops. If the GOP can spin it right–and I believe they can–then by 2008 they’ll have convinced the majority of the public that the Iraq war is the fault of the Democrats and thus retain the White House, maybe even win back the legislative branch. Seem unlikely? They managed to convince the majority of the public that Saddam was behind 9/11, didn’t they?
PAD
• 
A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that’s the case, then I don’t think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto.
“A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that’s the case, then I don’t think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto.”
Nope. Not true. For starters, the Pentagon could scrape together another $7.5 billion from other programs to keep it going. Bush is already playing to that, stating in a recent press conference, that the Democrats will force “increasingly draconian measures” and “some of our military families could wait long for their loved ones to return from the front lines.” What he’s implying is that the first thing to be cut would be money spent on recruitment and training, leaving the army no recourse but to keep the troops who are already on site there indefinitely since there’s no one to relieve them.
In other words, Bush is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers while excoriating the Dems for allegedly doing the same thing.
PAD
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with what your point — that Bush personally only loses and gains nothing by compromising, and that will dictate his actions — but if the $7.5B is the neighborhood of what the pentagon scrapes together, then we’re talking weeks, not months. My point is I hope the democrats hold fast on this. It isn’t their fault Bush counted on a continued republican congress to continue to fund the war with supplimental spending-bills.
Of course, Chuck Hagel won’t be handicapped too much by a continued GOP decline, if at all.
Actually, the best thing the Democrats could do is when Bush vetoes this bill, they could give him money for 3 months & continue with short-term bills. Then every three months, he has to keep coming back and asking for more money. Again, they pass bills with timetables which are vetoed, then pass short term bills, and the issue keeps getting put in the news & in front of the voters. That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ášš.
Then fox news will just turn around and call the democrats politically-motivated and ineffectual.
“That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ášš.”
Except every three months Bush keeps getting to say the exact same sound byte: “The Democrats are playing politics with the lives of our troops.” Short. Punchy. Pithy. A talking point to be repeated by Condy Rice and every other Bush talking head, and it’s the sort of thing that takes root. History shows that if something is repeated often enough, the repetition itself is what people remember, rather than its accuracy.
PAD
Doesn’t matter Faux News will continue calling everyone names if they don’t agree with their stance.
Actually the Bush doesn’t need an attack on American soil, I have long feared since the rhetoric started up on Iran sooner or later there would be an “incident” justifying sending the troops in. With funding cut the chances of that double or quadruple.
The Dems need to cut funding and they need to take control of the message, any troop deaths after funding is cut is the direct result of the white house who refuses to bring them home.
Then fox news will just turn around and call the democrats politically-motivated and ineffectual.
Well, yes they would say that…but Faux News will always say that regardless of the underlying reality. If the Democratic Party somehow managed to end poverty (worldwide), end drug addiction, create cold fusion, and develop an inexpensive immortality serum…Fox News would say that their making it hard for people to get jobs because the immortals aren’t retiring.
And Bush is criticizing Pelosi’s visit to Syria, saying “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive”.
Here’s a guy who refused to use diplomacy with Iraq, then says we have to use diplomacy with North Korea and Iran, and is again saying diplomacy, this time with Syria, won’t work.
Is the term “flip-flopper” still about?
Oh, no, it’s not that: it’s just another case of ‘If Bush does it, it’s ok. If a Dem does it, it’s bad.’
Which just about sums up the Bush Administration as a whole.
As for the war, Bush expects to keep being handed blank checks, both for American money, and American lives. It has to end. Only, Bush is too thick to realize that.
If it was a “mandade of the people”, then the House of Representatives would have been able to present a bill that wasn’t filled with all kinds of pork ammendments. You know, the same ammendments that Democrats bìŧçhëd about for the previous 6 years? The Democrat leadership couldn’t even get it’s own members to vote for the bill without filling it with bribes. Some mandate there.
Just a thought here… The House should try to pass a bill that gives the money needed for the troops, but still puts in it’s deadline to leave Iraq. Simple. If it passes the House and Senate, then it’s in Bush’s hands. That’s how the system works.
>Oh, no, it’s not that: it’s just another case of ‘If Bush does it, it’s ok. If a Dem does it, it’s bad.’ Which just about sums up the Bush Administration as a whole.
Craig – Not that I’m a Shrub fan, but let’s be fair here. That represents the mantra of most political parties who will be ardently opposed to some initiative of the ruling party, only to find some excuse why “it wasn’t as bad as we thought” or “but WE’RE doing it for THIS reason instead” once they’re in charge. Hypocrisy, thy name is “politician”.
Hypocrisy, thy name is “politician”.
This is true, but I can’t recall a previous administration using the mantra to the degree that the Bush Administration has.
This Administration has all but accused it’s opponents of supporting terrorists and so forth if they don’t kowtow to Bush’s every whim.
PAD is absolutely right on this.
Anything bad that happens while the Republicans fail to have dictatorial control of all branches of government will be the fault of those lily livered Democrat terrorist sympathizers (but we’re “not questioning their patriotism, just their judgement”).
Bush is strapped in to Iraq til the end of his term come hëll or high water.
Bush? Compromise?
Don’t make me laugh!
If you make what fox says true, how much harder then is it to disregard what they say?
The only message the Dems have to put forth is:
If Bush vetoes the bill, he is denying funding to the troops.
That’s the only message they have to hammer home. People are already sick of this war and want the troops to come home.
PAD: Every casualty that occurs from that point on will be painted as being the Dem’s fault
I don’t follow that. I don’t doubt that it’s what the Reps would say, but then they’d say antything thta goes wrong is the Dem’s fault regardless of what it is that goes wrong.
But the Dems tried to pass a bill that would help end the war. Bush refused to sign anything that doesn’t authorize the money without any conditions. Seems to me the Dems are in the much better position to paint every casualty that occurs from that point on will as being the Rep’s fault.
Jeff: If it was a “mandade of the people”, then the House of Representatives would have been able to present a bill that wasn’t filled with all kinds of pork ammendments. You know, the same ammendments that Democrats bìŧçhëd about for the previous 6 years?
I reluctantly concede you have a point. The GOP wasn’t blown out in the last election, yes. If they had been, these bills would be veto-proof and nobody would have needed to be bribed with pork to get on board.
What I’m wondering is this: if all that matters to the Republicans is getting one of their people elected to the Presidency in ’08, why take this approach? Why not show, a la John Edwards, that they’ve had a moment of clarity and have seen that they were wrong to back the war in the first place? Then they could say to Bush “if you sign this bill and help end this war, then it will HELP keep the executive branch instead of hurting our chances. So for God’s sake, don’t take this stand for our sakes! The best way we can win the voters over right now is to be big enough to admit we were wrong.”
I won’t put what PAD has written past Bush, but I’m more inclined to believe that he isn’t compromising because he’s just that stubborn and thinks if he holds his breath long enough and keeps on accusing Dems of not supporting the troops, he’ll get his way.
I mean, my God, he won’t compromise on having his people testify under oath either and they still sent him a proposal where they wouldn’t have to be sworn in but would still have to testify on the record. Why did they make that offer when they have subpoena power and can compel these people to testify even if Bush refuses?
I think Dubya believes he can win any game of chicken he gets into. The troubling thing is that, considering the opposition and their track record, he may be right.
And Bush is criticizing Pelosi’s visit to Syria, saying “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive”.
And yet, not a peep came out of the White House when the republicans in Congress sent an all-GOP delegation to . . . wait for it . . .
Syria!!!!!
Yes, delegations, even bipartisan ones like the one Pelosi is leading, are only counterproductive when a democrat leads them.
I don’t follow that. I don’t doubt that it’s what the Reps would say, but then they’d say antything thta goes wrong is the Dem’s fault regardless of what it is that goes wrong.
This is the administration that has painted every one of their screwups as being Clinton’s fault.
The only question is, will the public buy. It’s clear from every single poll and the 2006 election results that the American people are sick of this mess and want out. But Bush is the Decider, right? And he’s decided that he’s going to run out the clock and let his successor deal with the mess he’s created. Unfortunately, unless we can get at least 16 GOP senators off the Kool-Aid, we’re aren’t going to be able get rid of the Decider until 2009.
I reluctantly concede you have a point. The GOP wasn’t blown out in the last election, yes. If they had been, these bills would be veto-proof and nobody would have needed to be bribed with pork to get on board.
It’s very rare for either party to ever get a veto-proof majority in both houses. That’s nearly impossible. There are always going to be a certain percentage of people of people who will always vote for their party even if their candidate was caught feasting on the heart of a virgin. With gerrymandering and the fact that some parties will always dominate certain states, geting 67% control of both houses is nearly impossible. Though this administration seems determined to find out just how unpopular they can make republicans.
I think it’s horrible (but not surprising) that the troop funding bill was laden with pork in order to ensure its passage, but that’s how the game is and always will be played in Washington (bridge to nowhere anyone?).
Will Bush compromise? What makes anyone think he’d start now?
It could work out well for the Dems:
Dems: Sign or Veto.
W: Veto!
Dems: [tries again]
W: Veto!
Dems: [tries again]
W: Veto!
Dems: Rats. Not enough Republicans support the measure to overturn the veto. I guess we’ll have to pass a withdrawal-free budget.
W: Hee-hee-hee!
Dems: Hey, America! We want to bring the troops home but the Republicans in Congress prefer that they stay in Iraq to die. Vote them out of office. [repeat as necessary]
Reps: Shìŧ.
Hmmm. Frankly, I do not think that Bush’s strategy is based on trying to maintain the Presidency for the GOP. I believe that Shrub is fighting a battle for his place in history. If he agrees to withdraw the troops, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. Listen, there is a small, very small chance that keeping the troops in Iraq will work. Shrub is willing to take the chance. Who cares how many more troops are harmed or killed? Not Shrub when his legacy is at stake.
You’ve already got a republican senator taking that position named Chuck Hagel — and the republican establishment does not like him.
Where democratic nominees tend to do badly the december before the primaries, republican nominees tend to be the frontrunners going into the primaries, and — new Hampshire upset or no — John McCain learned the hard way in 2000 the republican nomination will not go to someone the republican establishment will not tolerate. Karl Rove’s support still seems to be the single most important factor as to who represents the party in 2008.
Peter David: People think that Bush is concerned about his place in history, but I think of more immediate worry to him is the GOP place in the White House, the only branch that they still control.
Luigi Novi: Don’t they still control the Supreme Court?
Peter David: They managed to convince the majority of the public that Saddam was behind 9/11, didn’t they?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but was the quality of the evidence they provided for that as well known prior to the war as it was after it began? (I can’t recall clearly). Things like that, and Colin Powell going before the U.N., lent a certain amount of credence to that. Bush doesn’t have that anymore. What he does have is condemnation from various generals that were in the field (which forced Rumsfeld’s resignation), as well as from fellow Republicans. Bush doesn’t have the same political resources now that he had back then.
Peter David: History shows that if something is repeated often enough, the repetition itself is what people remember, rather than its accuracy.
Luigi Novi: I dunno. Sometimes it is. The “Just say no” anti-drug slogan was certainly repeated, but not because people accepted it. They lampooned it, partially because many felt it unrealistic.
Now that I think further, the democrats holding their guns on the timetable also gives Bush an excuse to bring home the troops immediately, blame the collapse of Iraq on the democrats, and minimize the issue of the invasion come election-time. Todd’s idea is the more foolproof way for the democrats to keep the issue alive 19 months from now.
Personally, the whole thing reads like a Warner Bros. cartoon
“IRAN SEASON”
“SYRIA SEASON”
“IRAN SEASON”
“IRAN SEASON–FIRE”
Guess who plays Elmer Fudd?
Have you considered sending this as an op-ed piece to The New York Times? It’s perfect!
I agree that the Dems hurt themselves by allowing pork into the funding/withdrawal bill. Totally unnecessary. But I guess, since it’s so early in their term that they’re a bit eager to spend again. (Make no mistake, both parties are big spenders; they differ only in that the GOP pretends they’re not.)
This is why I never joined the Democrats. They don’t know how to go for the jugular. A clean bill that offered funds but set a withdrawal date would have given the GOP far less ammo against it. And the Dems could say the bill does BOTH of what they promised: to support the troops and to end the war.
Today Bush used a recess appointment for Sam Fox (Swift Boat financier) as Ambassador to Belgium. Even though he was rejected by the Senate last week. Now that’s compromise.
Reminds me of the line from the new David Spade show;
“My wife wanted a cat, I didn’t want a cat. So we compromised, we got a cat.”
Luigi Novi: Don’t they still control the Supreme Court?
They’ve been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.
It seems that Obama doesn’t know how this game is played.
If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops,” Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday
You don’t make a stand by telling the other person that they’ll get whatever they want in the end.
A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that’s the case, then I don’t think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto.
That’s the point. One Democrat got caught on tape saying exactly that – they think this is a win-win. If Bush signs, they get the troops home, if he doesn’t they run out of money and the troops STILL come home. However, they don’t have to actually pull the trigger on de-funding them.
Not particularly a fan of Obama, but he certainly issued some good news this week: came in a close second to Hillary in Q1 fundraising, but since his donations came from twice as many people, it’s assumed more of Hillary’s donors paid their primary/general campaign donation limits, and if the trend continues not all of the money Hillary raises will match Obama in primary-spending.
Scavenger –
They’ve been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.
Which is to be expected – it’s been shown historically that once you make it on the SCOTUS, you’re going to exercise the freedom that belongs to the job.
That is, until some moron succeeds in using the threat of impeachment to get a SC Justice removed.
Michael Brunner –
It seems that Obama doesn’t know how this game is played.
Which means Bush wins yet another game of chicken with Congress.
GREAT week for Obama, great week for Romney, bad one for McCain, thumbs in the middle for Hillary. She’s still way ahead in the polls and one can reasonably expect her money will be wisely spent while Obama may have the sort of money burn rate that bedeviled Dean.
It all comes down to what Team Clinton does–bring out the long knives for Obama or just take him out in a way that still leaves him as a viable ally, maybe even VP candidate (though I think her caution and desire for loyalty will make that unlikely).
Smart money is still on Hillary.
J. Alexander said:
“If he agrees to withdraw the troops, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history.”
—–
Either way, he is the worst president ever.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 4, 2007 08:39 PM
“Scavenger –
They’ve been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.
Which is to be expected – it’s been shown historically that once you make it on the SCOTUS, you’re going to exercise the freedom that belongs to the job”
I’m sure that the SC ruling carbon dioxide to be a pollutant sent a shiver through his enviromentally friendly heart ;p.
Like it or leave it, Bush will probably not be remembered well in the future. A historian (can’t recall the name) opined that accurate appraisals of presidential terms begin fifty years after they end. I guess most of us here will never know, but I’m betting we’re providing ammo for the worst in history tag.
It’s very safe to say Bush will be remembered as the worst president ever. He got us mired in the new Vietnam under nothing but false presenses. He has shown absolute contempt for the checks and balances of government (signing statements), for the privacy of its citizens (warrantless wiretapping), for the rule of law (enemy combatants), and for international law (ignoring the Geneva Conventions). He even outrages many conservatives with his massive spending and intrusions into the private lives of U.S. citizens. His election in 2000 remains controversial, and his military service has yet to be proven.
I’m usually the first one to say that Bush and pretty much everyone else in DC and politics in general is currently pretty rotten. I don’t know that I’d say that he’ll be remembered as the Worst Ever. I’m not saying he’s a good president, but who knows what might either happen or be revealed in the time he’s got left in office? Although, having the leader of the country that has a better understanding of the native language might be nice.
Wiki has a ratings system for presidents. Currently, Warren G. Harding holds the, er, honor of being the worst. Harrison’s rated ninth, but how bad a job can you do in a month when you’re sick most of that time?
Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad. I had an uncle I never knew because of Veitnam, suppose to have his temper and other characteristics. I watched how his death affected my parents.
Bush will not be remembered kindly, nor any of his loyal bushies. Fifty years will also see the probable releasing of the documents and memoirs that will tell us just how far this administration went in shredding the Constitution and the ideals America was founded upon. Never a perfect country, but the ideals rested upon the best of intentions, which is why we have strived to be better, until recently.
I still have not counted Edwards out.
I do like listening to Pelosi respond to the White House and Bush. It sounds like she is putting them in time out. What is distressing is how Bush is trying to say Dems are stopping funding when they lead passage of a spending bill giving him more than the money he asked for. The pork, yes it has some, but money that should already have gone to aid in the recovery from Katrina was also in there.
I’m not going to go out on a limb and say that Bush will be remembered as the worst president ever. He differently will not be remembered as a great one or even a good. I’m betting he’ll be in the bottom ten at minimum. I know he’s banking on being remembered as another Harry Truman, who left office with dismal approval ratings but is regarded much more kindly by history. I think that’s major wishful thinking on his part.
I definitely agree with PAD, but I also think part of it is that Bush has to appear “strong” to the 30% of people that constitutes his base. If that support evaporates, he’s finished.
So, even though the rest of the country might want to get out of Iraq, he’s pleasing his base by appearing tough to Democrats. It keeps him in power by ensuring that he has enough support to override any veto.
“Seems to me the Dems are in the much better position to paint every casualty that occurs from that point on will as being the Rep’s fault.”
You’d think that, wouldn’t you. But in this case, I’m simply acknowledging the frightening, almost Borg-like precision with which the Bush Machine is capable of spinning talking points and sound bytes in their favor. Much moreso than the Democrats. The “Daily Show” nails this every so often when they show a half a dozen Bushies hitting all the news programs parroting the exact same phrasing. You never see the Democrats pulling off anything approaching that kind of organization. Then again, what’s the line attributed to (I think) Will Rogers: “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
PAD
“Dems: Sign or Veto.
W: Veto!”
Okay, am I the only one flashing on Eddie Izzard?
“Cake or sign!”
W: Cake!
“Ðámņ. He always takes the cake.”
PAD
The 30% approval rating for the war in Iraq does raise an interesting philosophical point. Bush is an elected official (we’ll just assume that the election was legitimate for the purposes of this discussion). While the 2006 election results can only be interpreted as a strong repudiation of his policies, is he obligated to change course just beause a majority of Americans no longer support it or should he just maintain a policy he believes in so long as he has the powers of the commander-in-chief.
You can look at this as a philosophical/moral question: As a servant of the people, Bush should be responsive to our wishes. On the other hand, his responsibility is to protect us from any external threats. So, if he truly believes that that Iraqi invasion is protesting us from such a threat, should he continue to fight that threat even if the public isn’t buying it? What if the threat exists only in his mind? I’m not saying he’s delusional, just factually challenged. So, what recourse do we have to force him other than try impeachment.
On the other hand, you can look at the political equation. The democrats in Congress are strongly opposed to an open-ended war. As public confidence continues to erode, many republicans, mindful that, unlike Bush, they still have to face the voters eventually, are starting to call for some kind of benchmarks or timetable for withdrawal. Can Bush effectively govern if he has no support in Congress. Granted, again, he believes he doesn’t need support in Congress and will likely do whatever he wants unless Congress votes to stop paying the utility bills on the White House, but we may see soon see what happens when a president’s congressional supports can fit inside a small conference room.
Den, you make several good points. However, I think you may have missed the psychological dimension.
Compromise requires not only political calculation, it also requires an acceptance that your side may be wrong. I don’t think George is capable of that admission.
He will admit when others make mistakes. He will deflect any responsiblity onto subordinates through intermediaries like Karl Rove. He will stay the course, but he WILL NOT admit he may be wrong.
I think this may stem from his faith. (Please hear me out). Bush has the faith of the converted, specifically those converted by circumstance. He believes his acceptance of Jesus as his saviour saved his life. He must bring others into the fold.
He has brought that same idea to office. He must save America from the heathens. Jesus saved him for this mission, God made sure he got elected (?) twice (??) for this Holy Mission. To doubt would be to doubt Jesus, God, his faith, and every decision he has made based on those ideals.
George’s christianity is the unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising faith of the crusader or the inquisitor. “Because God ordained me to this task, everything I do is inspired by Him. Ergo, any who try to deter me are against God, ergo compromise is against God. QED.”
Political calculation are the purviews of Rove and Cheney. Bush looks into Putins eyes and sees into his soul. And we all know how accurate THAT’S turning out to be.
His 30% base are either the hyper wealthy who are protected by tax cuts, or his co-adherants who would like to see America turned into a christian theocracy without compromise.
Den, it’s funny. Just this morning I was thinking of a story that someone I work with told me. They were shooting off fireworks, a policewoman shows up, they blamed it on some kids that ran off, and the policewoman’s about to call it in. So, my co-worker’s buddy tells her to be careful, does she REALLY want to do that? And apparently the policewoman then drove off. Now, taking that story as true,(I only half believe it) apparently this guy was counting on his connections to keep him out of trouble. So, even though there was a clear violation of law, nothing happened because of who this guy is. More than ever, there seems to be a “Well, the laws and common sense don’t apply to ME” attitude coming out of DC. Question is, is there anything that can be done about it?
“Can Bush effectively govern if he has no support in Congress.”
Well, he showed pretty clearly that he couldn’t effectively govern with the FULL support of Congress….
Alan Coil: “Either way, he is the worst president ever.”
It’s nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of “The worst president SO FAR.”
Manny and Sean, I think that’s one of Bush’s key problems. He’s already made it clear that he believes that Congress is not a co-equal branch of government and that he can govern w/o any support. I’m hesitant to attribute it to his religious views. I don’t think he has capable of admitting to mistakes when he was a drunken fratboy either. I think it’s just something hardwired into his “I’m rich and therefore entitled” mentality.
Besides, I still question how of his conversion was sincere and how much of it is just political expediency.
So, after Pelosi was criticized by Bush for visiting Syria, Republican Representative Darrell Issa is meeting with Assad today.
Will there be any outrage from Bush? Or just further hypocrisy on his part?