For the record
 

How do you explain the whole saga of the prescription drug benefit?

For the record
 

Hmm. I think I understand what you mean, and I'll accept your correction. I think that the "permanent sell" was the point I was getting at, and I do agree that he often/mostly doesn't seem to be governing by the polls.

There are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule with Bush, in terms of policy shifts based on public opinion (and/or the opinion of his base) -- prescription drugs, the 9/11 Commission, the budget-cutting bill post-Katrina. I suppose you could say those are tactical rather than strtegic policy.

S_A_M

For the record
 

And yet, you don't get so ANGRY! Must be the lotion.

S_A_M

For the record
 

Right. Other than when he opposes a Department of Homeland Security, and then backs it. Or when he decides that steel subsidies are bad, then good, no bad, wait, which side is he on in that? Nope, no political calculus involved in his steadfast consistency.

ETA: Scroll, then post, Not Bob.

Why the Bush Administration really LIKES Murtha, after all
 

Oh, Hankypoo! Good news! Your policy and Murtha's are joining as one!

The Administration looks to be preparing to leave. Not that we're leaving because we're losing, or because we're stuck. No, we're choosing to leave now because we WON! To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

LA Times

• Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
  
  In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
  
  President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
  
  The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.
  
  It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease. Meeting in Cairo, representatives of the three major ethnic and religious groups called for a U.S. withdrawal and recognized Iraqis' "legitimate right of resistance" to foreign occupation. In private conversations, Iraqi officials discussed a possible two-year withdrawal period, analysts said.

As SAM put it, it's alll good.

Are You Still Here?
 

Well, this is your second announcement of your departure, and yet, you're still here. Unlike your predecessors, however, Penske, Paigow, the Eagles, Cher, and Frank Sinatra, you didn't choose to allow a decent interval to elapse before your comeback tour. But that's cool. We love you, Hank. We really love you.

At the same time, I find it funny that you're coming back to throw rocks at other people when, as you so often point out, your posts here have been, in your words, dada. I would call it trolling, but what's in a name.

If had truly wanted to elevate the level of discourse, you had it in your power, as much as any of us. Something to keep in mind as you and Penske plan your second reunion tour.

For the record
 

I think an administration has to choose priorities, and then with the rest of the stuff not buck public opinion so as to screw up the priorities. In addition, there may be some policies were they don't really care that much and take position that they think are political beneficial but when it turns out they are not they simply drop or change.

I don't think Bush really cared much about the drug benefit. I think the same was with Gay marriage. However he used Gay marriage to gain political capital to use on other issues.

I think all administrations are the same when it comes to this but some are more willing to sacrifice their main priorities than others. I Clinton was more willing to sacrifice his principles for political gain than Bush but it still is just a matter of degree. I think in the end I think there was some stuff Clinton would not sacrifice for anything.

I think Clintons foray against Serbia was a suicidial political move. If he screwed it up, it would cost him dearly, and if he won it would not really help him at all (which happened). I think Clinton bombed Serbia purely based on principle. He felt he had a moral obligation. He was willing to risk everything just to do what was right. The rights inability to see Clintons' conviction made them unable to take advantage of the situation politically. All their screaming about it just made them look stupid.

I think Bush's foray into Iraq was the same. Once he could not get world opinon on his side, and he saw how virulently the Dems hated him and would use this policy against him, politically there was not much upside in going into Iraq. But I think he really felt he had to morally. It is the left inability to understand this (just like the right with Clinton on Serbia) that has made it so hard to take him on politically on this issue. I think the left would get more politicla capital out of Iraq if they would say that Bush did this out of pure intentions but it was incredibly naive and stupid. That angle would work and make them seem more statesmenlike and not hurt the publics confidence in their ability to deal with foreign policy and take on terrorism. But to try and say that Bush did this for selfish reasons (lininig the pockets of big business, imperialistic ambitions) or that he was sinister when he did this (he lied or manipulated the information) just doesn't wash with the public (because most people see his honest conviction) that they have not been able to leverage the situation politically (especially in 2004 when it really mattered). Bush is really vulnerable on his competance and intelligence (I don't think this is valid because he is smarter than the public perception and he has smart people working for him) but in politics perception is all that matters. Luckily, the Dems and liberals are too stupid to see this and try and focus on Bush being evil and sinister and it has completely failed.

I think Carter did almost everything based on principle (no matter how important the issue) and therefore got nothing accomplished. Reagan was pretty principled, but he was flexible on some issues and he was much better at getting along with his enemies than Carter.

Clinton started off principled but after the Health Care fisco got much more practical. The strange thing about Clinton is that he would sacrifice political capital and his policies for personal kicks. I think he is probably the only President since Roosevelt that risked his own agenda just for personal kicks.

I should add that there are many smart Dems that see Bush's vulnerability and know that the political attack of being well intentioned but naive and stupid is an incredibly effective political tactic. The right uses it against the left all the time (esepcially on things like welfare and other social issues). But unluckily for the smart Dems (like Hillary, Bill et. al.) the idiots (like Cindy Sheehand and Howard Dean) are drowning out and eclipsing the people that know what they are doing. The focus on Haliburton, Bush lied, Bush is evil, imperialism, immorality etc has completely drowned out the srategic Dems and blown their strategy: risky to go in, need world support (not to make it moral or legal, but to reduce the strain on the US and increase the chances of success) very naive, but if you went in no room for error, not enough troops, complete incompetance, no plan for the occupation, nor armor for cars, etc - I don't agree with these attacks but they are effective.

Just like Jesse Helms and Tom Delay are the Dems best friends, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean are Bushs best allies. You can't buy help like that.

What I find so shocking is that many seemingly somewhat intelligent people that post to this board join in the chorus of the politically incompetant. I guess I should be happy because it shows that the Dems are really screwed up, but it is shocking that lawyers on this board could be so politcally unsophisticated.

Uh, lawyers are professional dilletantes. We all graduated from the Cliff Claven Academy of Know-it-allism. Half the people on this board (and in society) get most of their knowledge from crap they cobble together from the web. Many others just believe these idiot facts such as Bush went to war to avenge his daddy as a matter of faith. They're angry strange people who want to believe in conspiracy theories and that there is a group of evil old white men who are ruining what would otherwise be a utopian America. Idiots. They're the same shit-for-brains cabal who think Hillary is actually electable. I don't even listen to people who try to discuss her electability. If you really think she has a chance, you have never seen any rural part if this country, and are simply too clueless to warrant my response. I'll just smile and excuse myself from the convo.

Like you, I stand for no taxes, minimal govt interference and liberal social rights for all. We're so alien to the standard political debate - even though our views are shared by the majority of the educated piublic - that there's really no use even talking to the lefties or righties anymore. I just get frustrated listening to their silliness. Its beyond stupid. I just wish I could take the classic bog govt liberals and Jesus freaks and send them all to some island, to fight each other with tactical nukes. But that ain't going to happen. We're stuck with them forever. Hopeless.

For the record
 

A shameless attempt to buy the elderly vote.

Wow - that was really cynical. Do you ever have any trouble getting up in the morning?

My only respone is that painting the enemy as evil is a useful tool for energizing the base but it is not a good tool for reaching for the center. All demonization of Clinton by the right did not help defeat Clinton in 1996 and it didn't work against Bush in 2004. It is easier to hate someone, or dismiss someone, if you see them as corrupt or evil, but most people in the middle will not buy it unless you have strong evidence.

However, I think you may be wrong about Hillary. I agree with you that she just does not connect with Middle America the way her Husband did.

However, I think middle America relates to her more than you think. Especially women. Middle America does not love her but they do seem to somewhat respect her. Getting the center to respect you, and to get the far left to love you is a tough balancing act that she can pull off. The far left had to learn to love Bill Clinton and in the beginning they were skeptical of him. But for some reason, except for a few exception like Cindy Sheehan, the left really love Hillary. She is a superstar of the Liberals and W. showed that if you really energize your base you can win without the strong love of the center. You can win by simply not pissing off the center and energizing your base.

Unlike her potential primary opponents she seems to be able to reach for the center without pissing off the base.

The main problem I see for her is that the far right hate her beyond all rational belief. That intense hatred may create a large turnout that could be a problem. However, I wouldn't totally right her off.

That is my analysis, but on choosing the thorobreads I am wrong as often as I am right.

For the record
 

Well, I agree with you, but I would have thought that his stated principles would run counter to spending hundreds of billions of dollars to expand an entitlement. I guess I saw the whole program as somewhat contrary to his beliefs.

edited to fix spelling

For the record
 

This shows your prejudice. A liberals belief that conservatives don't care about the poor or elderly. Most conservatives care about the poor and the elderly but want to make sure the money spent on the problem fixes the problem in the cheapest way possible.

Bush always said he thinks government should do a few things and do them well. He may be for limited government but he definitely believes in a safety net. I am sure he believes that the elderly, especially the poor elderly should get free prescription drugs.

The prescription drug benefit may not have been delineated exactly the way he liked, but I am sure he considered the fact that many poor old people can get drugs as a benefit (although an expensive one).

Many conservatives felt there were cheaper and more efficient ways to get drug benefits to the old people that needed it and this was not the best way. But they had no problem with the goal.

For the record
 

I didn't mean to suggest that Bush was opposed to ensuring that the elderly can get adequate health care. But the program adopted bears very little resemblence to the ways that conservatives has usually advocated achieving this goal -- e.g., the fact that the program was more expensive than the Democratic alternative.

You suggest that Bush places policy before politics. A true test of this would be to find an instance where Bush has made a political sacrifice in the name of conservative policy. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Although the question is tough, because Bush has taken as a lesson of his father's presidency the need to keep the conservative base happy, so he often seems to act conservatively for political reasons rather than for principle, as when he nominated Alito.) For example, he barely talked about Social Security reform during the '04 campaign, only to throw himself behind it after he had been elected and would not face the voters again.

Let us pause here to observe that in the prior breath you expressed shock at "lawyers on this board [being] so politcally unsophisticated." Heal thyself, physician.