Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031127/D7V337S00.html

[Bush goes to Bagdad for TG]

[Gattigap]

As a corollary to Atticus' rule, the Bush Administration's approach to civility in Congress, and to changing the tone in Washington, also appears to be "Got the votes? No? Screw that. Let's threaten the political lives of people in our own party until we get it."

Bob Novak's piece sheds some additional light on what Bush, DeLay, and the rest of the Republican leadership needed to do in order to stretch a 15 minute vote on the Medicare bill into 3+ hours to get the result they needed.

During 14 years in the Michigan Legislature and 11 years in Congress, Rep. Nick Smith had never experienced anything like it. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, in the wee hours last Saturday morning, pressed him to vote for the Medicare bill. But Smith refused. Then things got personal.

Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.

Niiiiiiiice. I guess Nick Smith should count himself lucky that his son was running, so that Bush could simply threaten his son, instead of having to go through the trouble of putting a horse head in the guy's bed.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031127/D7V337S00.html

[Bush goes to Bagdad for TG]

Well, OK. But help me understand why it's brilliant (by this I'm assuming you mean from some macro-political perspective). Sure, it's a commendable gesture for a President to visit the troops. And, I'll concede that because of security concerns, you couldn't easily fly out there with any advance publicity.

But because of the way that the trip was packaged, it sounds like almost NOONE knew he was there until he was gone. 600 or so delighted soldiers, yes. But the rest of the 150k soldiers in the theatre, and all of America and the rest of the world had no clue. It's kinda like going to Baghdad, scaling a water tower, and spray-painted on the side "W was here. Saddam swallows."

I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to make of it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Gotta agree with you on this one. But, similarly, Bill Clinton reformed welfare and "those inclined to side with him [were] embarrassed by the hypocrisy" too.

Generally speaking, sure. The point was meant to be a mutual one.

So you listen to Rush?

I used to, but only in the pre-OxyContin days. After that, simply too much cognitive dissonance.

Gatti(hat trick!)gap

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, OK. But help me understand why it's brilliant (by this I'm assuming you mean from some macro-political perspective). . . . I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to make of it.

I think that it will inure to his political benefit in the long run, but, maybe, consider the simple possibility that he did it to boost morale amongst the soldiers, and that's . . . really . . . . all.

I remain convinced that he's much more of an upfront, no-hidden-agenda person than people think a president could possibly be.

While Clinton was a brilliant chess-playing type, thinking ahead thirty moves to the ultimate question of "what will this do for ME?", I think Bush acts out of fairly transparent and unselfish principles. I admire him for this. Other people, I think, dislike it intensely, as it presents a stark picture of how quickly he might judge them for what he would take as moral failings, while they see those traits as "different values", and not open for the judgment of others. If he could divorce his moral judgment from the religious-based system that so pervades his view, I think he would be even more compelling.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore

I think Bush acts out of fairly transparent and unselfish principles. I admire him for this.

It is easy to be unselfish when you were born rich and all that you have was given to you as a birthright.

I don't buy the ridiculous belief that it is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (and yes, I know what a needle was in Biblical terms). That is yet another moronic saying from the Bible. When you don't have to earn a living and you got to the top because of who your dad is, it is far easier to act magnanimous.

While I certainly don't admire Bill Clinton, life has been easy for GWB. The biggest hardship that has ever faced this guy was quitting drinking and snorting. Not saying that I don't comend him for that (and honestly hope that he can show his drunk of a daughter how to follow in his footsteps before she kills someone driving after imbibing). But I am saying that many, many people have conquered their drug and alcohol addictions and it is not something that makes someone a hero.

Yes, he did conquer his coke and booze habit, but that is all the guy ever did on his own (although come to think of it, he had Laura's help in that battle). He was handed his wealth and his political career. It is easy to turn daddy's millions into more millions, and not something to be impressed by. And who would deny that he was picked to be the Republican presidential nominee by his daddy's cronies?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is easy to be unselfish when you were born rich and all that you have was given to you as a birthright.

I can't argue with much of what you wrote. That being said, I wonder how it was responsive to what I wrote earlier.

Really, the only way in which one could read your post as being responsive would be to interpret it as an anti-elitist creed - "he's never suffered, and he's been given much, so he has little merit" - but you expressly disclaimed that aim within your post. (Yes, I walked through your post single file, leaving my camel outside.) If that was not, in fact, your point, what was it? And, is this emblematic of the Bush-hate that Atticus denies? The "we all hate the little rich kid" syndrome that can exist independent of the merit, or lack of merit, of that rich kid?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I wonder how it was responsive to what I wrote earlier.

I wasn't responding to the points you made in your posts. I was simply commenting on your statement that you admire Bush for being unselfish. I hardly think that is worth admiring in someone like him.

BTW - I am not a Bush hater. Given the events of 9/11, I think we are better off with Bush in the white house than we would have been with Gore. I don't think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, which was necessary to dismantle the Taliban.

I am certin that Gore would have never invaded Iraq. And after we did invade Iraq, the reality is that Iraq and its surrounding regions are now where the terrorists have focused much of their activities. However awful that is for those poor kids in the US military getting killed and maimed every day in Iraq, its keeps the terrorist activity away from US soil.

I don't believe that this was an unintended consequence of invading Iraq. I think it was an intended consequence.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
On the same theory that says that you should strive to learn one new word every day, I like to have and meet daily personal goals. So, this is doubly gratifying.

(I will add, as an edit, that you characterize this all as business as usual, but even the lefty pundits are writing semi-wondering essays on the new phenomena of sheer Bush-hate.)

I have seen some such articles, which note the phenomenon (you'd have to be blind not to) -- but tend to compare it to the hatred of many Republicans for Clinton. So, it is New in the sense that it is new for the left to have such a President to despise, but not out of keeping with the way that the other side did it for eight years prior.

So, while I hope it is not so -- perhaps it is now "business as usual."

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

A few interesting articles and notes in today's WSJ.

Following a thread from a few weeks ago on how best to license/regulate etc.... illegal immigrants, the WSJ notes that there is something like 370 billion in social security funds that are not matched up properly with social security numbers. Largely due to illegal immigrants submitting false social security numbers to employers.

While I was arguing that the illegals aren't entitled to general governmental "benefits" like welfare (again, generally), I guess I'd draw the line differently with something like social security, inasmuch as its something that is tied directly to their individual work and pay.

Anyway, the article was written to highlight that the SSA sends letters out every year to employers who have been submitting funds for faulty SS numbers. Well, not so much to highlight the letters as to highlight the fact that employers typically respond by terminating the employees. Anyone think that's efficient?


On another note, Barry McAffrey notes that Rumsfeld is in denial about troop levels... particularly in view of the reservist call-ups for next year.

It was hard to interpret what he meant in one of his paragraphs, but I think he was calling for increasing the size of both the active duty and the reserve components of at least the army.

That is all.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Why I heart NY, except the Yankees: From today's Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...s_parking_war/


Remember how we used to hear that the diplomatic missions at the UN wouldn't pay their parking tickets? Like the Russians? And now the Egyptians?

The NYPD and the NYFD are now parking in the diplomats' dedicated spaces on the streets. And nobody is getting ticketed for it. Some sorta revenge thing.

One of the funnier things I've read this week.

Hello

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that it will inure to his political benefit in the long run, but, maybe, consider the simple possibility that he did it to boost morale amongst the soldiers, and that's . . . really . . . . all.

I remain convinced that he's much more of an upfront, no-hidden-agenda person than people think a president could possibly be.

While Clinton was a brilliant chess-playing type, thinking ahead thirty moves to the ultimate question of "what will this do for ME?", I think Bush acts out of fairly transparent and unselfish principles. I admire him for this. Other people, I think, dislike it intensely, as it presents a stark picture of how quickly he might judge them for what he would take as moral failings, while they see those traits as "different values", and not open for the judgment of others. If he could divorce his moral judgment from the religious-based system that so pervades his view, I think he would be even more compelling.

I actually think Bush is more more politically acute than most people give him credit for. I don't think this in any way conflicts with your view of him as a fairly transparent guy; I just see this evidence of transparency as a good way of winning the trust of the voters. In other words, a good pol, but a different kind of good pol than Clinton was.

That said, I think this is a great chess move, because it allows him to show solidarity with the troops over there without having to get into the negative PR implications of attending a soldier's funeral, or allowing news footage of the body bags arriving at Dover AFB to be shown. Maybe it's just me and the pinko commie newspapers I read, but I had started hearing more criticisms of the admin in this vein in the fast few weeks than I had heard previously.

Also, credit where credit is due, on a gut level I think it is commendable of him to spend some energy and time to get over there and support the troops who are working so hard for our country and whose efforts will ultimately make much of the case for whether GWB's admin is judged a success or a failure.

I am hoping that by posting this praise of the admin over the Thanksgiving weekend it will somehow slip under the radar of the leftist thought police out here in the Bay Area. However, if you don't hear from me after this, assume there was severe foul play and re-brainwashing involved.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
Hello, Pot? Hi, this is the kettle. You're black!

I guess self-deprecation doesn't translate very well on these internet chat boards. Well, thanks for reading.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Note to Dems. If the message is "don't use force unless you have a plan that will work and that you can explain", then say it more clearly. As an electoral ploy, I think it will resonate with many (see earlier National Guard/Reserve posts).

In fact, as talking points, I think you would resonate well by focusing on:
1.) Don't use force unless its against a dangerous enemy who threatens our peace; and
2.) Don't use force unless you have the plan that will work and that you can explain.

Totally agree. That's why I had such high hopes for Clark; I thought with his experience in the Balkans he could find a way to talk straight to the average Joe Twelvepack about how best to structure our military interventions in the new age of our unparallelled dominance. But he hasn't really gotten there yet, at least not that I have seen. He's been a disappointment for me in this regard.

Btw, I'm currently reading David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace, which is a great analysis of the US foreign policy in the 90s. Very interesting stuff about the evolution of the Powell doctrine and the interaction between the military and the civilian foreign policy apparatus as they planned for and executed the US response during the Balkan crises. FYI, the book is very well done and is not as slanted as my usual Frankenesque fare, so I'd recommend it for folks on both sides of the "Clinton is the antiChrist" question.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
...He's been a disappointment for me in this regard.

Btw, I'm currently reading David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace, which is a great analysis of the US foreign policy in the 90s. Very interesting stuff about the evolution of the Powell doctrine and the interaction between the military and the civilian foreign policy apparatus as they planned for and executed the US response during the Balkan crises. FYI, the book is very well done and is not as slanted as my usual Frankenesque fare, so I'd recommend it for folks on both sides of the "Clinton is the antiChrist" question.

He's been a disappointment to me too, though I think its partly because the field seems like it detracts from anybody who might otherwise standout. Its hard not to laugh just looking at Kucinich, let alone listening to him say things that I can't imagine he means (let's get our boys out and the UN in!).

I might be interested in the book you note, though I am 2 1/2 books behind in my reading right now already (and getting worse). Broken record here (again), but I would like to find out who to blame for us not intervening, or pushing for intervention, in Bosnia earlier than we did. My take on it is that Americans never, ever want to see snipers deliberately shooting women and children (who look suspiciously just like most of us) in the streets of their cities. It might not be much more than emotion, but those images are impressed on my mind almost as much as a half-naked American soldier's body being dragged through the streets of... forget it, didn't mean to start changing the topic.

Finally, a bonus tip for the focused talking points for dems. Does anyone have a headline in a mainstream or conservative media source about the Shiite leader Sistani pressing for elections (I think its in the Wash Po today) rather than caucuses? The White House is saying they will do it if its what the Iraqis want, but they are already starting to sound defensive about how difficult it will be to do. The wailing and gnashing of teeth includes comments about no voter registrations and no electoral process.

So here is my soundbite for yas... "Do We need Shiite Mullahs [Ayatollahs might even be better] to tell us how important it is to have elections in a free and democratic nation?
We didn't think so. So why hasn't the White House been preparing for elections in Iraq?"

Just trying to help ya all.

Ya know something? For many reasons, I wouldn't mind hearing the White House's answer.

Hello