« Book Review: Thomas Pynchon’s ‘Mason & Dixon,’ An 18th Century Musing On All Things
Bob Barr Leaps in as a Libertarian — Interview (GUEST VOICE) »
Abandoning Bush
The rush to get off the S.S. Bush turned into a stampede this week as John McCain, Congressional Republicans and even the Saudis headed for the lifeboats.
King Abdullah, who used to hold his hand, gave Bush the royal finger when asked to pump more oil to ease gas prices.
John McCain backed away from the Imperial Presidency, not only by promising to emulate British prime ministers and regularly going to both houses of Congress to answer questions but also, as a New York Times editorial put it:
“McCain said, if elected, he will…work in ‘concerted action’ with other nations to counter the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea; and eliminate a tax meant for the rich that is crushing the upper-middle class. He promised to not ‘subvert the purpose of legislation,’ as Mr. Bush has done, with signing statements.”
Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans were jumping ship by joining Democrats in ignoring Bush’s veto threats with lopsided votes to boost food stamps and farm subsidies and to order the Administration to stop pouring oil into the nation’s emergency reserves.
Over vocal White House opposition, 35 of 49 Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass a $290 billion farm bill to increase food aid for the needy. A hundred House Republicans had voted the same way after the party’s third straight loss of a long-held GOP seat on Tuesday.
After seeing the results of Dick Cheney’s help in that special election, Congressional Republicans have a sinking feeling about November. If George W. Bush is looking for friends until then, he will have to turn to his dog Barney.
Cross-posted from my blog.
28 Responses to “Abandoning Bush”
[...] BartBlog – The Blog of BartCop.com wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAbandoning Bush May 18th, 2008 by ROBERT STEIN The rush to get off the S.S. Bush turned into a stampede this week as John McCain, Congressional Republicans and even the Saudis headed for the lifeboats. King Abdullah, who used to hold his hand, gave Bush the royal finger when asked to pump more oil to ease gas prices. John McCain backed away from the Imperial Presidency, not only by promising to emulate British prime ministers and regularly going to both houses of Congress to answer questio [...]
Good. We get a GOP holiday.
No more GOP. No more conservative thought. No more filabusters. No more blocking votes. No more Harry Reid whining that he can't get things done.
Its put up or shut up time for the democrats. This will be their moment to shine or go down in blaze of glory.
The loyalty of a canine can be pretty unconditional, but even Barney might have had enough.
NEocon,
The real question is what is the U.s. getting with the coming one party state? If you look at places like DC, Baltimore, LA, or Detroit, it should be obvious that many Democratic voters do not care about suceess of any policy as long as they get thier own personal benefit from a Democratic controlled government.
Superdestroyer
Is it really so bad to have the democrats in control?
If they fail they will be thrown from office with a fury that will make GWB look like a good guy. I predict 72 senators and 310 in the house for the Democrats this fall. It really is time to put up or shut up.
The Question then becomes will they indeed force things on people that they know they really dont want. Such as Gay marriage, Abortion, Appeasement, Pulling out of the middle east. How will they fight the war on terror or is there really a war on terror?
Times change. We went thru 30 plus years of a conservative slant in this nation while the people themselves have tended to become much more liberal. When you put the liberals in charge I am betting that the governing powers that be will become more conservative in their governance.
It is how it works in this nation because their have been many times in our history in which one party or the other has had vast power and did very little to change things.
We shall see
Neocon said:
I have to laugh Neocon.
When most LIBERALS refer to LIBERALS (Democrats refer to Democrats; Republicans refer to Republicans) they use the pronoun “WE” not the pronoun “THEY.
Liberals call Conservatives “They”… Republicans call Democrats “They”…
Neocon continues to call liberals and Democrats “They”; “Them”; and “Those”. Thinking he's coming across as a “liberal Democrat”. Sorry job of wool pulling there buddy but you just keep trying.
“Is it really so bad to have the democrats in control?”
Not really, at least not in the short term. We even have years of knowledge and experience with Hillary Clinton and her radical politics in the past (we are not fooled by any fake “centrist” or “moderate” ploy this year) and we're not aghast at the prospect she (or Obama) would be the next President. In fact, we're anticipating this, as this is most likely.
“We went thru 30 plus years of a conservative slant in this nation while the people themselves have tended to become much more liberal.”
Not true. The public has become more conservative, not more liberal, than prior to 1980. That's despite the Dems' easy entitlement temptation of everyone, health care.
“I predict 72 senators and 310 in the house for the Democrats this fall.”
I overheard someone saying this past weekend or just before it that the Dems expect to have well over sixty seats in the Senate after November. This should be, hmmm, interesting. Sixty-plus seats in the Senate and the White House, too?
They will have the chance to enact at least some of what they want. Now, what do they want?
SteveK
Why are you calling me a liar Steve? Bored?
As for me I try to keep politics impersonal and therefore do not become angry when people like you call me a liar. My world will not end if Hillary is not elected. Im afraid yours might if Obama is not elected.
Sad for you.
Neocon,
Your suggestion that I called you a liar got me to go back and check my last twenty posts.
1) I have NEVER called you a liar though I have on several occasions pointed out that you don't sound (write) like a liberal OR a Democrat… You sound like the image your “TMV UserID” implies… you sound like a Neocon. AND, you've never once answered when asked why you refer to liberals and Democrats as 'THEY', 'THEM' and 'THOSE'. This is probably why I am so “confused“. : )
2) I have a preference in the upcoming election but I have not mentioned it in my last twenty comments… nor will I now.
But I CAN (and will) say that as long as 'WE' liberals… 'WE' Democrats win the Presidency and strong majorities in both houses I will be happy. THEM, THEY, and THOSE who want the conservative Republican ticket are the only ones badmouthing either of OUR candidates because the longer this fiasco continues the stronger THEIR position becomes.
Maybe if you'd go back and read YOUR last twenty posts you'd have a better idea of who is acting like their world is being threatened.
I agree with Neocon that now (or more accurately if a Dem is elected prez in Nov and Dems control Congress) is the time for Dems to produce. I remember when Dubya took office there were definitely some missteps and adjustments while he settled in. The same will be true of the Dems- there will be some missteps and adjustments. In some cases the Dems will probably over reach with their newfound power. So there should be a honeymoon period of six to eight months. But if the Dems egregiously misbehave and become corrupt, they should be held accountable (I'm not suggesting that the Dems be given a carte blanche, rather that they need to be given some time to settle in).
If the Dems can't set this country on a better course, then we should elect people who will.
BTW: Anyone who claims that the Republicans are permanently out (or are on that path) have a lot of convincing to do before I believe that. Lots of people thought the Dems were out just four years ago. Personally I hope we get grown-ups in both parties in DC and that by 2010 the GOP wins back some of its seats. I'm not comfortable with one party (either Dem or Rep) control of both the WH and Congress. Though after the Bush reign I hope the Dems have that control to help undo some of Bush's misdeeds. Actually I hope there is a third party that gains a lot of power, perhaps a party geared towards the environment.
stockboySF,
The only people who thought the Democrats were out in 2000 did not understand demographic trends. They were inside the beltway types who really thought that niche marketing worked. They actually thought that the Republicans could appeal to blacks and Hispanics.
Part of the reason to believe that the Repubicans are in a death spiral is purely demographics. Another is the total lack of leadership along with the Bush Administration's taint on all the people who ever worked for them. The last point is that no group can be out of power for very long. Money that used to go to the Republicans will now go more to the Democrats. And last, the Republicans just do not have demographic groups lke blacks or jews to tied it over in the lean times
“The Question then becomes will they [Dems] indeed force things on people that they know they really dont want. Such as Gay marriage, Abortion, Appeasement, Pulling out of the middle east.”
I have to respond to this. First of all the Dems are not forcing gay marriage or abortion on anyone. If you are a straight guy and want to marry a woman, you can. No one is telling a straight guy that he has to marry another guy. Gay marriage is about all citizens having the same rights. Another way to view it is that arranged marriages are not part of American culture. Right now a man and woman meet and if they like each other they can get married. However if you're gay and want to marry and have children, then you're told that you have to marry a woman, gays are not given any other choice, whereas a straight man can marry any woman he wants (assuming the woman wants to marry him).
On abortion.. No one will force you to have an abortion. It's about leaving the choice to the individual (and not the state).
I don't think any Dem has called for appeasement. And I've posted on here before that I think Bush is the appeaser of the terrorists because instead of going after the person who is calling for attacks on American interests (and who did attack us), Bush turned his attention away from bin Laden, claimed bin Laden wasn't important and then Bush proceeded to invade Iraq, a country with a castrated military and posed no threat to us. In so doing, Bush created a haven for terrorists to kill Americans and sap our treasury.
As far as “pulling out of the middle east”… I assume you mean Iraq… well I thought most Americans do not support the war…. so I fail to see how the Dems could force something on the Americans when that “something” is what most people want.
This is exactly the biggest problem I have with the GOP. The GOP claims that want limited government, but then the GOP meddles in decisions best left to the state or local governments or even decisions that are the right of individuals (Terry Schiavo, the brain dead FL woman who Bill Frist “diagnosed” over video and the Bush jumped into the fray to save). The GOP is only for limited government unless it means more votes, in which case they forget their Republican principles and pander to retain (or increase) their power. Certainly not all Republicans, but after seeing the GOP in action under Bush, too many Republicans have shown this willingness to stray from their values so they can retain their power. Thankfully it's coming back to haunt them now. Once the Republicans get their act together (and find a true leader) and act like grown-ups, and the Dems need to behave like grown-ups, too, with each side truly willing to sit down and negotiate with the other, our country will be stronger. The Dems don't have all the answers, and the Reps. don't have all the answers. But together there can be sensible policies and legislation. Call me idealistic, or naive, but I honestly think that this country needs political parties willing to sit down and negotiate together.
“Now, what do they want?”
If you have to ask, then you haven't been paying attention. But what the heck, let me help you out:
Most importantly, an end to the most inept, deceitful, and damaging government we've seen in decades. Next, how about genuine advocacy for the middle class, (including greater opportunity for affordable healthcare), or the restoration of a sane foreign policy, and maybe a serious push for responsible energy policy (the long view, not the short one), and leadership that approaches environmental issues from a scientific standpoint. Those would be good starters… perks might come in the form of a leader who is literate and articulate.
Hey there, SD. I think the Republicans need to get with the times and stand up for their principles. They have a platform and I agree with a lot of it, but the leadership throws it out the window if they can gain more votes by doing so. Plus the religious right wing of the GOP wants to make America into some theocracy.
Even though I think the Dems will make some mistakes if they win the WH and control Congress, I also believe that the Dems will make enough **serious** mistakes (and corruption) that the American public will start voting for Rep. candidates.
As far as this: “The only people who thought the Democrats were out in 2000 did not understand demographic trends. They were inside the beltway types who really thought that niche marketing worked.”
I'd like to point out that the American public steadily increased the GOP power from 2000 to 2006. In 2006 it was difficult to hide the failures of the Rep. leadership so the American public started giving the Dems more power.
In time the same ills that befell that Reps. will befall the Dems. But I **hope** (and it truly is hope because I don't see much chance of it happening, I'm not naive, just wishful) that a third party comes into power along with the Dems and Reps.
Thanks for the comment, SD. You could be absolutely right that the Republicans are out, I just think it's too early to tell. If the Dems behave honestly and well after the Nov. elections, then I would agree with you. But if the Dems. misbehave, then people will start voting Rep. again. And I think the Dems will misbehave because power tends to corrupt and the temptation is too great. Not all Dems, mind you. Just like there are some honest Republicans.
JSpencer, I couldn't have said it better (and that goes for both of your posts on this topic). Only my comments would have been longer
Thanks!
StockboySF,
The Republicans hig their demographic high around 2000. The baby boomers were at the age for maximum voting and were in middle life where taxes and social issue seem to be greater motivators However, the Republicans threw away all of their advantages for short term gain.
However, in the future, the demographic trends are going to be against the GOP. First, blacks have finally started voting at rates close to whites Second, the birthrate of blacks and Hispanics are both higher than whites When you consider that newly naturalized citizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Also, since public employment is growing relative to private sector employment, there will be more Democratic voters. The only demographic trend helping Republicans is that republican families have a higher fertility than Democratic white families.
superdestroyer,
I know this is your pet issue. But instead of decrying the low popularity of the Republican party among ethnic minorities, you should be thinking of why that is the case.
SD, I agree with ChrisWWW, the Republicans need to think about their lack of popularity. That's what I meant when I said, “I think the Republicans need to get with the times and stand up for their principles. They have a platform and I agree with a lot of it, but the leadership throws it out the window if they can gain more votes by doing so. Plus the religious right wing of the GOP wants to make America into some theocracy.”
You're right that the demographics don't look good for Republicans. If the Republicans honestly work on their agenda and stop pandering to certain interests which go against the principles of our country, then the Reps. can regain some power in a healthy and productive way. The GOP is not a lost cause because the Dems will more than likely lose popularity in a couple years and people will start voting for Republicans.
ChrisWWW,
there is a number of reasons ithat the repubicans cannot do anything about ncludng history going back to FDR, blacks living in areas were Democrats were powerful, majority/minority districts, employment patterns (higher percentage of blacks in civil service), living patterns, position issues, the move of whites from Democratic Party to Republican Party in the south in the 1970's. The Democratic Party has been great at cultivating black politicains (raced based redistricting has really helped). The Demorats are good at pandering to blacks. If you are the big government party, it is easy to support minority set aside contracting, affirmative action, and social welfare spending.
The tradition of blacks voting for Democrats is so ingrained now that the Republicans could come out for reparations and blacks would still vote for Republicans. Claiming that if the Republicans changed their positions, it would attract more blacks is false and has been proven false.
Hispanics benefit from the same programs as blacks, Have the same level of destructive lifestyle choices and really want a large government to back them up. Besides they see it that whites pay taxes that pay for programs that benefit them.
Republicans are stuck with their past, stuck with the current state of demographics, and are stuck being the party whose policies will benefit blacks less than the nanny state that Democrats support.
You know, none of the black kids I knew growing up gave a damn about history going back to FDR. It was the perception that the Republicans were the party of the pasty white rich dudes. And the Republicans have done hardly anything to alter that perception.
The government has exploded under Bush's leadership. Republicans just haven't set aside enough of their budget for helping people that makes less than $200k a year.
The reverse was certainly true. Remember how the party of Lincoln used to be able to count on black support? When your party shows disregard for working class voters and supports quasi racist policies (like voter suppression) you're bound to start pissing people off.
Hrmmm… I don't really want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. But I think destructive lifestyle habits are a function of socioeconomic status rather than race. I'm not sure how the government backs them up either. They seem pretty tough on drug use for example.
Also, let's not forget that rich (mostly) white folk, have their bad behavior backed up by the Federal government. Remember Bear Sterns?
ChrisWWW, I second your post.
SD, what “destructive lifestyle” habits are you referring to?
Your suggestion that I called you a liar got me to go back and check my last twenty posts.
Sorry job of wool pulling there buddy but you just keep trying.
Over 75% of black children are born out of wedlock. Blacks commit crimes at seven times the rate of whites. Blacks, on average, are much less likely to come from a two parent home, to finish high school,or to finish college if they attend. They are likely to have lower credit scores for the same income as whites (different spending habits for same level of income).
Poverty has much to do with it but race and ethncity seems to have a synergystic effect. If it was just due to poverty, poor whites would have the same out of wedlock rates at blacks but they do not. However, since poor whites get married at a much higher rate, they get divorced at a much higher rate.
Even something as simple as newspaper readership is lower for blacks than whites but higher than Hispanics.
Racial set aside programs generally do not help poor blacks. It is middle income blacks who benefit or recent immigrants. There was the study of Harvard admissions that showed that half of the “African-American” students were immigrants or the children of immigrants. Not exactly the people whose ancestors suffered from the effects of slavery. The same goes for 8A contracting or hiring quotas. Do you really think that forcing fire departments to hire lower scoring blacks really helps poor blacks?
However, there is no way that a conservative party will ever make inroads into the black or Hispanic community. If the Republicans come out for minority set asides and quotas, the will be hypocritical flip floppers. If they do not, they have no chance of getting the black vote.
I don't think it would be hard to argue for greater need based educational aid, rather than race based.
There is already a huge amount of need based educational aid. However, it does not begin to pay the price of an elite college education. In addition, what Senator Obama has hinted at in Affirmative action for poor families in addition to keeping affirmative action for certain minorities.
Is everyone hear avoiding the real point? That picture/headline choice is hilarious.
Angela, I know I love the picture/headline! In the background there's a white structure that everyone is rushing towards. I think of as a tent (it's probably neither a structure nor a tent, but that's how I see it). So why can't someone photoshop that tent to make it a big tent for Obama?