| |
|
Monday, September 02, 2002
|
|
Stupid NYT article on "Why the President Can't Lose in November"
Richard Burke wrote this stupidity. "...many prominent Republicans, including some of President Bush's most faithful backers, are convinced that the most certain way for Mr. Bush to continue to rise politically, and ultimately win re-election in 2004, is for Republicans to, well, lose in November." "Still, just consider the most convincing example (one Mr. Reed remembers well) of how divided government could play to Mr. Bush's advantage: the story of Bill Clinton. His presidency seemed destined to fail after the Republicans' rout in the 1994 elections. Suddenly Democrats no longer ran Congress — and Mr. Clinton had to contend with resistance to his agenda. But with advice from his chief political adviser, Dick Morris, who was cozy with many prominent Republicans, the Clinton White House devised a successful strategy of so-called 'triangulation,' where the president steered carefully between the extremes of the House Republicans and the liberals in Mr. Clinton's own party. He was liberated from the dictates of his own party."
This guy has no clue. Bill Clinton was a moderate that ran more to center than his party. Triangulation made a ton of sense for Clinton. When the Democrats controlled both houses, they had no discipline and undermined Clinton's agenda almost as much as the Republicans. Once the Republicans took control, Clinton stole their popular issues and vetoed their unpopular ones. But what really saved Clinton was the stupidity and hubris of the Republicans. If they hadn't shut down the government in 1995, I don't think Clinton would have won re-election in 1996. After 1996, the economy was doing so well that Clinton became untouchable.
Bush marketed himself as someone who is more to the center than his party, but the reality has been that he has been extremely conservative. The Democrats know that on most issues, they are on the side that the public supports. If the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, I would expect a steady diet of bills that are politically popular but anathema for Republicans and Bush. HMO reform, adding prescriptions to Medicare, increasing the minimum wage, increased protection for the environment, ergonomic standards for the workplace, campaign finance reform, rolling back the most regressive of the tax cuts in favor of smaller, more progressive ones, etc. Bush has been very successful in using the House to hide his support for politically unpopular issues and his undermining of politically popular issues. If the Democrats control both the House and Senate, the Bush has no way of hiding his true positions. Bush would then have to either alienate his base or the rest of the voters.
9:39:00 PM 
|
|
Has there every been a greater diplomacy debacle than Dubya's administration attempt to build support to invade Iraq?
On Sept. 12, the US had the support and sympathy of the world. Now, we have numerous critics and only one supporter - Israel. On Sept. 12, Iraq was a international piriah, shunned by even its Arab brothers. Now, even Kuwait has come to Iraq's defense. The Bush administration's attempts to build support for invading Iraq has to go down as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of all time. Now the US is in a no-win situation. If we don't invade, we have thrown away all of that international goodwill for nothing. If we do invade, we will have to pay for a massive operation completely on our own and the world will carp at us for any negative side effects. Dubya's "plan" for getting us out of this no-win situation seems to be dithering, arrogant posturing and publicly displaying the administration's internal disagreements. The only way I can see the US coming out ahead is if Saddam Hussein is overthrown by a group that opposes terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I really hope God answer Bush's prayers on this one.
6:49:36 PM
|
|
What's the deal with Republicans divorcing their wives and marrying younger staffers?
Back in 1986, Bob Barr ditched his second wife for a staff member. In 1999, Tim Hutchinson dumped "his wife of 28 years to marry his considerably younger former legislative director". Then in 2000, Newt Gingrich booted his wife of 18 years to marry a former staff member 23 years than himself. Besides immorality and hypocrisy, the three are about to share something else in common - all are or will hopefully soon be former politicians. In a country were incumbents so rarely lose, this should be quite a story. But as the VRWC controls media stories about personal immorality, it is not being covered.
Clinton and these three gentlemen all succumb to the temptation of a young staffer. Once Clinton succumbed, he did the right things - he regretted the affair, he put an end to it on his own, he never tried to justify his action, he worked to repair his marriage and he stayed married. Once the other gentlemen succumbed, they continued to do the wrong things - continued the affairs, ditched their wives, re-married their mistresses, and pretty much said. "I am going to enjoy the perks of power - social and religious conventions be damned!" However, I haven't seen social conservatives give Clinton any credit for having repented his mistake nor I have seen them give the other three gentlemen near the grief that they gave Clinton. Apparently, character is important to social conservatives - as a way of attacking non-social conservatives.
7:18:19 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2002 Unrelated Disney.
Last update: 10/1/2002; 10:10:32 PM.
|
|
|
