george w. wrecking ball

From a newspaper column by John Farmer:

The Republican Party is paying a fearful price for its loyalty to George W. Bush, something he rarely, if ever, has reciprocated.

Except for the whistling-past-the-graveyard propaganda put out by the Republican National Committee and its camp followers on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, Republicans in Washington and around the country are beginning to believe Bush is their very own national nightmare. The Associated Press even quoted one unnamed GOP lawmaker saying "there's talk of us going the way of the Whigs."

C'mon, now, it's hardly that bad. It's just your ordinary garden-variety looming election disaster.

Read the whole column

Farmer's essential thesis is that Bush has become a human wrecking ball where the GOP is concerned. Four senators and nine Representatives have chosen not to seek re-election this year, even though they are in districts or states that are, by and large, solidly Republican. He mentions John Sununu by name, noting that his association with Bush has him trailing badly in the polls, with dedicated conservatives crossing party lines to support his opponent.

Bush has insisted on a stay-the-course attitude pertaining to the Iraq war, despite the overwhelming unpopularity of that approach with the public. There's a place for being stalwart, and perhaps this is such a place, but it's also costing the GOP big time in political fund-raising. House Republicans have only $1.6 million so far; Democrats have more than 12 times that amount.

And Republicans are abandoning the principles of free trade, one of the hallmarks of conservatism. Farmer cites a WSJ poll that found that Republicans believe by a 2-1 margin that free trade is bad for America, costing too many jobs and bringing in shoddy products from overseas. (True, it's not like Bush has personally tainted toys with lead paint, but the measure of a president isn't how things that happen aren't his fault, but how he responds to them. Bush hasn't inspired the confidence he often seems to think he has.)

Agree or disagree with him, President Bush knows what he thinks is the right thing to do and will push as hard as he can in that direction without worrying about whether everyone's going to still like him by the time he leaves office. He reminds me of two people in this regard: The first is a bus driver who takes the bus through the guard rail and down the hill, crashing through bushes, smashing a fence, frightening livestock, and recklessly trying to ford a river. The passengers complain, and all he can say is, "Stop complaining. If you didn't want to go somewhere, why did you get on the bus?"

The other is his father, who also seemed unable to grasp that not everyone could see the superiority of his position and immediately follow it. The elder Bush was astounded when Clinton beat him; the younger seems unable to grasp why people disagree with his ideas, positions, and nominations when he's made no great effort to convince people that his judgment is sound. His "Trust me" around the Harriet Miers nomination was the most famous example.

Perhaps if he gave greater evidence that he was listening to advisers who weren't simply agreeing with him or (rather) giving him ways to advance his own ideas, but instead offered him contrary views that he could listen to and learn from, then perhaps his tenacity might be seen as an asset and less of as a liability.

health care

Count me really disappointed with the president and his decision to veto the SCHIP bill that Congress just sent him.

The bill, which Bush rejected on the grounds that it would cost the government too much and potentially would extend health benefits to people who already can afford them, was one with broad bipartisan support. From reports I've read, it had the support of some 44 state governors, many of them Republican; and also had the support of well-known conservatives Sen. Orinn Hatch (R-Utah). Hatch said Bush's decision was based on wrong numbers about the cost and relied on bad advice.

I'm disappointed. About 12 percent of families nationally can't afford health care for their children, and thanks to this veto, they still won't be able to get it, except for trips to the emergency room.

Just a quick and easy example, close to home: Evangeline requires weekly allergy shots that (thankfully) are covered by our policy through Natasha's employer. Because the shots are administered by a nurse and not by a doctor, there is no co-payment. (A doctor's visit costs us a $15 co-payment.) Insurance also covers the cost of the shots themselves, so these weekly visits cost us nothing more than gas and time.

Take insurance out of the question, and the picture changes drastically. Nurse's visits cost $21 a week, the allergy shots themselves cost a few hundred dollars per bottle -- she needs three different sorts of shots -- and the specialist we saw to get her allergies diagnosed correctly cost a couple hundred dollars as well.

I can't afford to pay that out of pocket. So what do I do? I listen to Evangeline coughing desperately late at night, watch her suffering through the day at school, and pray to God she doesn't get really sick, because then the only option before me is to take her to the emergency room, the sort of health care President Bush used to justify not expanding SCHIP.

It gets even worse if she's sick. Back in January, it seemed like I had taken Evangeline to the doctor's office at least six times for a nasty, persistent cough. At $100 a visit, that's $600, plus more out-of-pocket for antibiotics and heavy-duty cough medicine, all because it never occurred to the doctor until January to send her for a chest X-ray, where we learned that she had undiagnosed pneumonia.

Try paying for all that out of pocket.

Of course you wouldn't; you'd avoid taking your child to the doctor's until you were desperate for something to help, with the result that your child would be even sicker, infecting more children, missing more schooltime, and keeping you or your wife home from work, thereby exacerbating your financial situation.

That's not what I call a health care solution.

I suppose I could buy insurance privately, right? For a family in our state, with two children and an annual income of $41,300 -- that's about what we make -- the cost of a policy just to insure the children is about $5,000. That provides no coverage for prescriptions, and it only allows visits to a very small group of doctors. If the child has a pre-existing condition, like Eowyn's allergies, the insurance won't cover it for 12 months. So I'm still burning money on something other people take for granted.

By the way, that $5,000 figure is for two boys. Apparently, if I have two girls -- which I do -- that policy would cost $5,400. (These figures are courtesy of a column in the Star Ledger.) For the whole family, insurance could cost more than $12,000 a year in Iowa. I'd love to know how you feed a family, pay the rent, and take care of other utilities on the remaining $29,000.

Keep in mind that these costs are going up as insurance providers seek ways to boost their bottom line to impress the shareholders; health insurance premiums are up 78 percent since 2001. A number of small businesses are dropping health benefits, and even large employers are requiring greater employee contributions to their health plans. It's just getting too expensive to provide health benefits.

I can't find the exact figures right now; my understanding is that the Bush veto means that a number of families in New Jersey that have been eligible for NJ FamilyCare (our state's version of SCHIP) will not be eligible now because of projected cost increases. In other words, the veto isn't just keeping the program from expanding, it's forcing the program to drop people from the rolls.

As to the torture issue, I'll note that one doesn't generally seek legal advice or counsel out of idle curiosity. It's used to set policy. And given this administration's inclination to setting aside rules it disagrees with -- something it has been chastised for, not just in the public arena but in the legal system as well -- I am disappointed in the existence of these memos. It does not bode well for our nation that a sitting attorney general would opine in his official capacity that we have the right to engage in waterboarding or the other behaviors described in the NY Times article.

If Sen. Clinton (or Sen. Obama, my choice) becomes president and extends the domestic spying programs, I say shame on her too. I don't see the Vulcan logic in giving up my freedoms to protect my freedoms from people who want to take them away, and I find it disappointing that the administration has engaged in this behavior.

"Those who surrender their freedom to gain security will have and deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin

For a man who set out seven years ago to forge a path for "compassionate conservativism," Bush has beat down a different trail entirely. The legacy he's going to leave is not a compassionate one, nor even a very conservative one, from what I can tell.

If I had to guess at his motivations, I'd say he's probably trying to reduce federal expenses on the one hand, and probably believes he's bolstering our security efforts on the other.

For the first matter, I think the priorities are wrong; on the issue of torture -- and I can't see that simulated drowning is anything but torture, as with the other practices described -- I hold that it's morally unconscionable for a government to practice such acts, no matter what its motivation, and I also cite the arguments of Sen. John McCain, R.-Arizona, who has pointed out repeatedly that any "intelligence" gained from such actions is useless.

disappointment with bush

This just makes me discouraged. I was hoping for something different. Christ have mercy.

This particular quote resonated with me:

"I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country's good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better," said John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's top lawyer from 1997 to 2000.

Back around Easter, I passed around a column I had read, to several friends about torture and how every assault on a prisoner is an assault on the person of Christ. I was horrified when one friend, whom I generally respect despite our differences of opinion, said that he disagreed, and felt that God has given governments the authority to torture prisoners for matters of security.

I have to admit, I lost some respect for him on that one.

One thing that I find striking about Bush right now is how much he has changed in the eight years he has been in office. When he first came on, I was willing to give him a chance, because he had some goals that were worth exploring, such as his faith-based initiatives to help the needy. He even met with liberal groups and activists like Jim Wallis of Sojourners to discuss where the need was greatest and what he as president could do.

And now ... well, now he's vetoed a bill to bring health care to the nation's neediest children (after all, they already have emergency rooms), his administration has justified the nation's first-ever domestic spying program, they've insisted on the right to torture prisoners and to deny them third-party oversight; it's issued more signing statements than the previous 42 administrations combined, and (let's not forget) it misled the country into war while refusing to provide safe harbor for the refugees that war has created.

The stresses of being president are going to be hard on any one -- especially one who is president at as nerve-wracking a time as 9/11 -- but I can't say he has help up well under the stress.

irony

Since my general disposition politically is liberal and not inclined toward favoring Bush, I thought everyone would appreciate the unusual situation I was in a few days ago.

I had gone to pick up the girls from a play date at a friend's house, and as they were using up their warning time, I was sitting and talking to their friends' mother, and to their grandmother, who was visiting. The discussion morphed, as these discussions will, into a discussion of the charter school all four children attend, and then into politics and a discussion of the Bush presidency in general.

As the grandmother began describing Bush in superlative terms -- most stupid, most malicious, most evil, and so on -- I found myself in the unexpected position of defending him.

Who woulda thought?

uniter in chief

I recently was told that President Bush has been trying to unite the different factions in the country, and not just in hating him. He also has worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) on the recently failed immigration reform initiative.

Doubtless I'll be stomped to death for this if I'm incorrect, but I believe this is the first major initiative of the president's where he has reached across the aisle and worked with members of the other party. Six-and-a-half years into your presidency is a little late to start uniting.

Given the tone of his primary campaign in 2000, given the scorched-earth tone of the presidential election of 2004, and given his go-it-alone attitude on everything from backing out of the Kyoto Accords to deposing a foreign government against the express wishes of the international community and the United Nations (and given his oft-demonstrated willingness to shut out advisers who disagree with him or who offer advice he doesn't want to hear) ... you can count me among those who say he's not a uniter. I'll go a step further and say he's a lousy president too, all things considered.

I'll give the president credit, and say that (by and large) he is trying to do what he thinks is right. The problem is that too often, he's come at things with a with-me-or-against-me attitude, has not put forth a convincing case for his beliefs or attitudes, and still has expected people to see the perceived innate rightness of his actions. You can't govern like that, at least not in a democratically elected government like ours, where you need to build consensus, and persuade both allies and opponents, and yet that is how he consistently has tried to govern.

His presidency did get off to a good start, I suppose, with solid support for initiatives like No Child Left Behind and some of the other changes he made. Whatever capital he started out with, and it apparently included enough that some Democrats crossed the aisle to work with on those aforementioned efforts early in his first term, he's had one series of one high-profile mistep after another, not just with the war but domestically as well: the Miers appointment, the Gonzales appointment, and the recent immigration fiasco.

Of course, this is nothing new. If you look at Bush's record prior to the presidency, you'll see a man who consistently just squeaked by. Take someone like that and give him the most powerful office in the world, and he'll still just barely squeak by. The difference is that it's a much more spectacular squeak.

Bush had more clout on Capitol Hill early in his presidency and could get more accomplished because the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, and things were running in a more or less parliamentarian manner; i.e., the Legislative Branch backed many of the initiatives of the Executive Branch rather than Checks-and-Balance'ing them.

With the unpopularity of this war growing out of control and the lack of strategy beyond the "Depose Saddam" stage becoming clearer day by day, his rank-and-file support has been disappearing like rats from a sinking ship.

I'm hoping our next president is someone who really is going to unite us, someone who's going to be able to wave a banner and get the nation to rally together -- someone who won't fabricate a common bogeyman, someone who won't play to the lowest common denominator, and someone who takes a stand for something positive instead of standing against other things.

how low can you go?

According to an article in Newsweek, Republicans are doing so badly in the court of public opinion that if elections were held today, the Democrats would regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Bush's approval rating stands at 33 percent, only one quarter of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country and more than half believe House Speaker Dennis Hastert was aware of former congressman Mark Foley's peccadilloes and tried to cover them up to avoid scandal. On Iraq, 58 Americans out of every 100 believe that the administration deliberately misled voters in the leadup to the war, 64 percent believe we are losing the war, two in three believe it has put as at greater risk of terror attacks, and 53 percent believe the entire war was a mistake.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, incidentally, has a lower approval rating than Bush, at only 33 percent, with nearly half of all Americans believing he should resign.

As Newsweek puts it:

Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters’' choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning— for the first time in the Newsweek poll— on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34).

It's so bad that France has become Bush's closest ally.

Read the entire story.


Copyright © 2006 by David Learn. Used with permission.


Tweet

not all his fault

Hadn't thought of it before, but there really has been a lot of crap coming down out of the rafters during Bush's presidency, hasn't there?

Not to say it's all his fault: 9-11 is owed primarily to Clinton's lousy performance on foreign policy and his failure to deal with al Qaeda well in Somalia, after the embassy bombings and after the U.S.S. Cole (though Bush did a good job of ignoring terrorism until 9-11).

Invading Iraq was his decision. To an extent, perhaps that can be blamed on faulty intelligence, but there's been plenty of testimony that Bush wanted early on to invade Iraq.

The hurricane, though, I can't see what he could have done to prevent that, aside from a) appointing a FEMA chief with actual disaster management experience, and b) doing whatever he could have done as chief executive to ensure that relief was ready to go once the hurricane hit.

President resigns amid Katrina scandal

Bush resigns amid Katrina scandal

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Grinn News Service) - His face heavy with remorse, a somber George Bush today announced his resignation from the presidency amid accusations that his administration had bungled relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

A palpable aura of grief and stunned disbelief blanketed the capital as news of the announcement spread. Bush, who has enjoyed record approval ratings in the wake of his largely successful war on terror, which has resulted in a free, democratic Iraq and the stabilization of the Middle East, said his resignation will be effective Nov. 20, when Vice President Dick Cheney will replace Bush as president.

"I take full responsibility for the federal government's failure to bring aid and relief to the New Orleans victims of Katrina," Bush said in a televised address from the Oval Office. "Our failed efforts to provide relief stem from decisions and appointments made during my presidency, and I believe it is essential that the right person be held accountable at times like this, and not a scapegoat. I am that person. The fault is mine.

"Therefore, I hereby resign as president of the United States. I will work closely with incoming President Dick Cheney to ensure that the transition is a smooth one and that the people of the United States and the people of the world will have no need to fear instability or an unsteady hand at the nation's helm."

Political analysts nationwide were stunned by the day's events. Bush's willingness to admit mistakes and his forthrightness in humbly taking responsibility for those errors have been hallmarks of his administration, but evidently few expected such drastic action.

Across the capital, political figures on each side of the aisle confessed themselves stunned by the gravity of the president's response, even considering the horrifying delays in the federal response to Katrina, which caused billions of dollars of damage in New Orleans, reduced the city to anarchy, claimed an estimated thousand lives and left thousands of others stranded with no food, water or medical attention.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, wished Bush good fortune in the twilight days of his administration.

"I wish he really wouldn't go," said Dean, who sought but failed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. "President Bush has been a uniter and not a divider all five years he's been in office, and it's hardly fair to place all the blame on his shoulders. He's being made a scapegoat."

Some political analysts believe Bush's resignation was inevitable once the news reports started rolling in about the situation in New Orleans. Jonathan Hanks, a professor of political science at Princeton University, said the pressure of precedent weighed too heavily upon Bush for any other decision to be possible.

"Just look at the spate of high-profile resignations in the past 20 or so years," Hanks said. "Clinton resigned after admitting to perjuring himself about the Lewinsky affair, and before that, Janet Reno took full responsibility for the Branch Davidian deaths in Waco, Texas, and resigned from being attorney general. Ronald Reagan, held as the example of what a Republican president should be, took full responsibility for the Iran-Contra scandal and resigned.

"The only president in recent history to take 'full responsibility' for something without taking any sort of redemptive action was President Nixon. Nixon acknowledged a role in the Watergate coverup, but refused to resign. True, he was able to complete the remainder of his term, but his legacy was tainted forever," said Hanks.

"Bush could follow that example and claim to take responsibility without actually doing anything, in the hopes that the American people will be satisfied with mere semantics," Hanks allowed. "But doing that would make a mockery of honor, responsibility and integrity. Who could respect himself after doing something like that?"

chief justice roberts?

So, according to ABC News and dozens of other news outlets, President Bush has nominated Roberts to replace the recently deceased Rehnquist as chief justice.

What the heck is up with that? He's not even on the Supreme Court, and he's already being considered for the top post? It doesn't really bother me that Roberts is considered a conservative, as long as he's qualified to be on the Supreme Court, but it really seems over the top to be nominating him for the chief justice spot. His experience on the Supreme Court is nonexistent. What makes him more qualified than the other justices, all of whom have been sitting there for more than a decade?

That's just crazy.

Still, give Bush credit for sheer ballsiness. Roberts generally has been considered a shoe-in for the court, with virtually no objections lodged so far from the Democrats in the Senate. Now that there are two justices to replace, since O'Connor is retiring, he may have made it unpalatable for the Democrats to fight him on this appointment, since there's another, potentially bruising confirmation hearing coming once a new replacement for O'Connor surfaces. If the appointment goes through, Bush's legacy on the nation will be considerable because of the hearings his justices will hand down.

But I'd still feel slighted if I were Scalia or one of the other justices being passed over.