Comments on: Center of Attention

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:03:27 +0000

Not vetoing pork and bad legaslation isnâ€™t a sign of good goverance, it is a sign of a grab for power. The Bush and Rove legacy was suppose to be a Republican majority for a generation, what they have is six years of incompetence beyond the level of Jimmy Carter.

yes, rudi. The GOP Congress didn’t annoy Bush by providing any oversight, and the WH responded in kind by failing to veto any legislation that would help reelect the GOP Congress, and by using government agencies like Justice and the GAO to help reach the goal of a permanent Republican majority. It worked for them, but not necessarily for the American taxpayer.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:40:30 +0000

She has created confusion even chaos.

Chaos? What are you talking about?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:21:43 +0000

Komrad Marlow says:
But Kritter, it hasnâ€™t been difficult at all for Bush to govern for most of his presidency. He has probably used his veto power less than any president in history.
Not vetoing pork and bad legaslation isn’t a sign of good goverance, it is a sign of a grab for power. The Bush and Rove legacy was suppose to be a Republican majority for a generation, what they have is six years of incompetence beyond the level of Jimmy Carter.

By: The Heretik : Dicked Update

The Heretik : Dicked Update — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:20:56 +0000

[...] Who’s right?Â More: Informed Comment, Bloomberg, Firedoglake, Booman Tribune, The Moderate Voice, The Huffington Post, At-Largely, The Gun Toting Liberalâ„¢, Think Progress, State of the Day, Norwegianity, New Pairodimes, The Washington Note, Brilliant at Breakfast, Ezra Klein, The Osterley Times, Prairie Weather, Sadly, No!, Liberal Values, Wonkette, Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n, Rising Hegemon, Connecting.the.Dots, Macsmind, American Footprints, Unqualified Offerings and Cliff Schecter [...]

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:23:28 +0000

He hasn’t had problems with Congress because of Tom Delay and Rove helping to enforce party discipline- but that doesn’t make his policies any more successful. Even in the first part of his presidency he had difficulty with the Harriet Miers nomination, the Terry Schiavo incident, and failure on his immigration and social security initiatives. Abu Ghraib and Katrina also cannot be viewed as successes. All of that occurred before the Democrats regained control. The Iraq War policy was poorly thought out and the spending on it wasteful.NCLB has succeeded somewhat, but lacks federal funding.

He did succeed in pushing through his tax cuts and national security policies, but they have been highly controversial, and even in the case of the wiretapping – probably illegal. He has also tread on the will of Congress by using over 800 signing statements which allowed him to flout the will of the legislature on issues like torture and the Geneva Conventions.
I do give him credit for changing course and putting in Gates and Petraeus, and also feel he has made progress in N. Korea and Iran. But it bothers me that he seems to think that Congress is irrelevant.

By: SteveK

SteveK — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:10:22 +0000

I would point, famously, to Churchill after Munich.

To compare George Bush to Winston Churchill brings to mind when Lloyd Bentsen replied that he knew Jack Kennedy, and as he replied to Dan Quayle, “And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.“

By: Marlowecan

Marlowecan — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:58:46 +0000

Kritter said: “He predicted back in 2001 that it would be difficult for Bush to govern if he chose to do so in an uberpartisan way, that he would be perceived as arrogant by taking that path.”

But Kritter, it hasn’t been difficult at all for Bush to govern for most of his presidency. He has probably used his veto power less than any president in history.

9-11 changed all that…which illustrates the danger of making predictions.

After all, in July 2001, Giuliani was a washed-up politician, derided by the MSM for his heavy-handed arrogance in NYC.

Kritter said: “If a president no longer represents the will of the majority and understands the constitutional limits on executive power, then he is a renegade. ”

No. I would point, famously, to Churchill after Munich. Chamberlain represented the will of the majority…and the majority is always right, no?

Presidents are not supposed to follow polls. That is why there is a Republic, and not a democracy. The greatest presidents have had catastrophic poll numbers at times…look at Reagan’s during the recession of the early 80s…or Roosevelt’s in 38…or Lincoln’s in 64.

Actually, I agree with you almost entirely…Bush is arrogant, and much of his current situation is of his own making.

But that does not make him a “renegade”. Nor even wrong. Nor does it make his critics right.

By: Michael van der GaliÃ«n

Michael van der GaliÃ«n — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:49:47 +0000

Kim: I am currently reading a book about how Bush governs from the perspective of a Bush supporter (more on that later, either today or tomorrow). Quite interesting.

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:42:26 +0000

Michael Stickings does make a good point, though. He predicted back in 2001 that it would be difficult for Bush to govern if he chose to do so in an uberpartisan way, that he would be perceived as arrogant by taking that path. He has continuously chosen to ignore the will of the American people and has thumbed his nose at Congress. That is why he has met with so much resistance from Democrats, Independents and even many moderate Republicans who wonder about the direction their party has taken. If a president no longer represents the will of the majority and understands the constitutional limits on executive power, then he is a renegade.

By: The Gun Toting Liberalâ„¢

The Gun Toting Liberalâ„¢ — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:40:02 +0000

[...] Michael van der Galien of The Moderate Voice has included this post in the Center of Attention roundup Technorati Tags:Â 2008, Al Qaeda, Bush, CIA, Current Events, Dick Cheney, Elections, Faulty Intelligence, FBI, Halliburton, Headline News, Headlines, Iraq, Joe Wilson, KBR, Military, Nancy Pelosi, Neocons, News, News and Politics, Osama, Pentagon, Plamegate, Politics, Rants, Rush Limbaugh, Saddam, Support The Troops, Valerie Plame, WMDs Bookmarkz [...]

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:08:38 +0000

Marlowe: at my own blog I spend an entire post on Klein and it ain't positive.

Push back partisanship. Bush is always wrong. Pelosi is always right. Make sure the media remember that!!!

Nobody has to remember some of them of that.

By: Marlowecan

Marlowecan — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:03:08 +0000

The Time-Klein critique of Bush, and WashPost editorial critique of Pelosi, are an interesting point in contrasts.

Klein has recently been badgered by the Left, and it seems like it had its effects. Klein is now back on the reservation – attacking Bush in harsh terms – and has met with favorable responses.

But the WashPost dared to criticize Pelosi…and has been accused of being “savage” “sexist” etc.

Exercises in the PushBack of liberals. I know Kritter tried to make a parallel between an GOP congressman no one heard of in Columbia in the 90s, and the Speaker of the House initiating what her colleague Lantos declared “an alternative Democratic Foreign Policy”.

The Secretary of State is under the Executive after all…but what does the constitution matter.

Push back partisanship. Bush is always wrong. Pelosi is always right. Make sure the media remember that!!!