Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

An Imperial Presidency

2005-12-13

Bush's travel schedule seems to involve as little contact as possible with the country he is in.

I'm simply going to ignore the content of this mess (Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek, about Bush not getting out and meeting the folks when he travels, then riffing to American arrogance in dealing with furriners.) Instead, I'm going to do the Loyal Opposition a favor.

The attacks on Bush aren't working.

There. I said it. It's out of my system. To explain: They're repeating themselves, and they're searching in the wrong places for things to criticize. Bush isn't really stoopid. He's not controlled by insidious mind masters, whether Karl Rove or aliens from Arcturus. He didn't know about 9-11 beforehand and he didn't screw things up afterhand. The war's going relatively well, and the light at the end of the tunnel is not an on-rushing train. Laura's a nice lady, Barny's a nice little dog, and Cheney owned Halliburton rather than the other way around.

Now, if I was the Dems, I'd sit down and have a bit of thought before hollering about how the war can't be won, that we brought it on ourselves, that the administration is corrupt (After Bill Clinton's administration?)

There are a limited number of times that the populace will listen to charges that tax cuts help only the rich. It's not 1969 anymore. Altamont's in the past. Everything isn't Worse than Watergate™ and not everything is Just like Vietnam™.

I know the MoveOn.org crowd would never bite, but for the remaining Dems who haven't lept off a cliff with the rest of the crowd, a few suggestions:

Dems have been taking positions of automatic opposition to everything the Publicans do. This often makes them look stoopid, since many of the things being done are done out of necessity. It would make a lot more sense to say "we can do it better," though admittedly that would require some skullwork to determine precisely how. (Don't like provisions of the Patriot Act? Come up with modifications that still let it work.)
The WoT has become tedious to the nation, but it's necessary for the nation's survival. Admit that now and then. Try and encourage the nation to victory, rather than merely agonizing over the human toll. Try and show a bit of enthusiasm when we score a major success. Discover a hero here and there and shower him with praise. Look angry when you say the name "Zarqawi," and utter it regularly. Make a few suggestions as to how to win the war, rather than criticizing the details of what Bush is doing. Make the war a bipartisan effort, competing with the other side to pursue it.
If Dems are going to criticize Bush, then look at the places where he could use improvement, rather than trying to attack him on his strengths.
- Bush isn't stoopid, and he's no more arrogant than most politicians and less so than many. His main fault is that compared to Reagan he's a lousy communicator. There's a large difference between thinking and communicating. But he needs to communicate with the public more. Find somebody a bit more articulate than Howard Dean and there are some political points to be made.
- Bush is a linear thinker. When he concentrates on one subject, the others tend to get ignored. It's a fairly common failing, and it's why he has a large and competent staff. When the boss or the staff drops the ball, that's grounds for a conversation on national priorities, which I might add are not limited to abortion and the environment and "good jobs at good wages."
- The combination of the staff system and the American penchant for producing murderous lunatics who want to bump off the President do tend to isolate him. If Dems can find some real Merkins who're more credible than Mother Sheehan to keep him in touch with the rest of us they might have a beneficial effect.
- Immigration's one of Bush's weak points, because he's trying to please his base, please Vicente Fox, and protect the country at the same time. Since two and possibly three out of three are mutually exclusive, there's always room for helpful suggestion. The Dems could actually take the issue and run with it. If they cold come up with a plan that goes further than registering all newcomers to our shores as Dems they'd collect some credit for the ideas.

Up until Barry Goldwater there wasn't too much difference between the two parties. Pubs were free trade and business-oriented, Dems protectionist and union-oriented. There were conservative Pubs and liberal Pubs, conservative Dems and liberal Dems. Goldwater made it a "choice not an echo," and the Pubs became the conservative party and the Dems the liberal party. With liberalism in its dotage, it's now become a choice between Publican policies and Dem obstructionism and incoherence. The only way Dems are going to fix that is by concentrating on problem solving, rather than sloganeering.

Posted by:Criger Uleling7101

#8 It would make a lot more sense to say "we can do it better"

That French senator from Massachusetts tried that:

"I would do it better, I would do it smarter"
How exactly??
"By doing it better and smarter"
Exactly, what does that mean??
"I would involve our allies"
You mean like France and Germany who never miss an opportunity to stab us in the back
"Also, I would do it better and smarter"
Thank you Mr. Kerry

Posted by: DMFD 2005-12-13 23:02

#7 Not really relevant to this thread, but interesting nonetheless: the first Congresscritter to install a 1-800 phone line to his office so his constituents could reach him for free.....

Barry Goldwater.

Posted by: Seafarious 2005-12-13 17:14

#6 The only way Dems are going to fix that is by concentrating on problem solving, rather than sloganeering.

No, the only way the Dems will fix anything is by leaving office, whether by retirment or natural causes, and making way for a new generation with new ideas. The current crop has neither the ability nor the desire to move off the old ideas. The same way the trunks were the me too party until Goldwater, the donks are now the negative party.

Posted by: Jineth Sloper3800 2005-12-13 16:38

#5 What I find amusing is that Colin Powell travelled even less than Bush when he was Secretary of State, and the guy's whole job was to make nice with foreign heads of state. Has Zakaria ever commented on Powell's travel habits? What Zakaria can't get into his tiny brain is that a tiny part of Bush's job is to figure the objectives of American foreign policy and it is the Secretary of State's job to figure out how to carry it out. Foreign interests or junkets don't figure into this. What can't be worked out amicably - well, that's for the ~~War~~ Defense Department to deal with.

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-12-13 16:30

#4 Yo, Newsweek, this is not nearly as interesting as a good Koran-flushing story.

Posted by: Matt 2005-12-13 14:26

#3 FOTSGreg, Hitler met lots of "the people" of the countries he invaded, conquered, and occupied.

Therefore, Bush is worse than Hitler.

ZF, to follow on your thoughts, one thing that really bugs me is how the US is never entitled to "its own best interests" in international dealings. Ev'rybody insists that GWB must act upon behalf of the universe in matters related to borders, industry, economy, and security even as all the other countries pursue their policies based on the interests of their own citizens.

Posted by: Seafarious 2005-12-13 14:20

#2 Oh my word!

It's that dirty Bushitler again!

Why, or why doesn't he listen to all them furriners and git their take on how the US ought to be actin'?

Oh, that's right. He's from Texass and everybody knows them Texicans are barely capable of dealing wit' their neighbors and all - or even listenin' to 'em. After all, nobody from Texass could possibly have anythin' higher'n a single digit IQ!

Heaven forbid that someone actually says this and then does exactly what they say they will!

Oh, the humanity! Why, or why won't this halfwit of a President just listen to anyone, 'specially thems whats in the State Dept. and the mainstream media (like the author of this drivel) or them durned furriners he's always goin' t' visit?

It's gotta' stop! It's gotta' stop, I tell you!

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2005-12-13 13:57

#1 An imperial presidency would be one where we appointed their leaders and made them carry tribute, perhaps 10% of their annual GDP, to Washington. What some of these foreign leaders are angry at is the fact that we no longer automatically defer to their wishes. In the old days, we obeyed them in the interest of maintaining the various alliances and treaties we had in place. Today, we are coming round to the conclusion that (1) many of these treaties benefit them much more than they do us, (2) we are bearing the vast majority of the costs of these treaties, (3) we've run out of concessions we can reasonably make to preserve these treaties and (4) America's interests might benefit if these foreign countries do as they threaten and back out of these treaties towards which we have made so many concessions to preserve. Fareed Zakaria's position is the standard leftist view that foreign interests are more important than American interests. They try to obscure their position by stating that foreign interests are American interests, which is, of course, wrong.

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-12-13 13:49

00:00