On the last full day of the Bush presidency, let me extend my congratulations to our President for fulfilling every expectation placed upon him when he first ran for our nation’s highest office. Specifically, he didn’t cheat on his wife.
When Bush said he’d restore honor and dignity to the White House, did anyone think he was talking about public policy? No, he meant no interns under the desk.
And I have every reason to believe he fulfilled that sacred promise.
We must remember that Bush did not run as a policy wonk, or visionary, or commander-in-chief. He ran as an alternative to the morally permissive (and promiscuous) ways of the Democrats, as exemplified by Bill Clinton. He ran as someone who would freak-the-hell-out if Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed on television.
Our nation got exactly what it was promised: a dull person, in every since of the word.
We got a bland mind in bland body. Someone with the ingenuity and sex drive of a 1950s sitcom. A placeholder in history who could occupy the Oval Office for four (or eight) years without once forcing Tom Brokaw to utter the phrase “oral sex.”
Unfortunately, history happened to our placeholder president. He got caught with his pants down.
He got caught with his pants down on 9/11.
He got caught with his pants down on Iraq. And Afghanistan and Hamas and Iran. And North Korea and Cuba and Venezuela.
He got caught with his pants down on Katrina.
He got caught with his pants down on the economy. On spending and the deficit. On reforming Social Security and healthcare. On jobs and regulations.
Hopefully our nation has learned something from this experience. That the president needs to be more than a “nice” guy who won’t cheat on his wife. That we need a president with intelligence and vision and ambition.
I think we did learn it. That’s why we looked past race and elected someone who wants an active government tackling real problems.
Of course, I don’t think it’ll take too long before we forget it again. Before we grow complacent. And distracted. History is cyclical after all. But don’t count me as cynical. We’re here now, with President Obama ready to take the oath of office tomorrow, and I for one intend to rejoice in this moment in history for as long as it lasts.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Turning a Blind Eye
It’ll be nice to have a functioning EPA again:
The Environmental Protection Agency eight years ago said it wanted to set a national standard for ponds or landfills used to dispose of wastes produced from burning coal.
The agency has yet to act.
Eight years, huh? That’s a pretty telling number.
The notion that the Bush Administration neglected an issue that would have been uncomfortable for the energy industry will surprise no one. The idea that if the Bush Administration had bothered to act, the TVA ash disaster in East Tennessee might have been averted will be lost on deliberately blind-eye Republicans like Rep. Zach Wamp.
Once again the Bush Administration failed to foresee or prevent a disaster that they had been explicitly warned about. Leaving President-elect Obama to deal with this:
Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a practice the federal government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has left unregulated.
An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to the one that collapsed last month in Tennessee.
Only 11 more days until the White House is once again the head of the federal government instead of its primary obstacle.
The Environmental Protection Agency eight years ago said it wanted to set a national standard for ponds or landfills used to dispose of wastes produced from burning coal.
The agency has yet to act.
Eight years, huh? That’s a pretty telling number.
The notion that the Bush Administration neglected an issue that would have been uncomfortable for the energy industry will surprise no one. The idea that if the Bush Administration had bothered to act, the TVA ash disaster in East Tennessee might have been averted will be lost on deliberately blind-eye Republicans like Rep. Zach Wamp.
Once again the Bush Administration failed to foresee or prevent a disaster that they had been explicitly warned about. Leaving President-elect Obama to deal with this:
Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a practice the federal government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has left unregulated.
An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to the one that collapsed last month in Tennessee.
Only 11 more days until the White House is once again the head of the federal government instead of its primary obstacle.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
No Kidding
A two-year investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee turns up the obvious:
The physical and mental abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the direct result of Bush administration detention policies and should not be dismissed as the work of bad guards or interrogators, according to a bipartisan Senate report released Thursday.
Kudos to Sen. John McCain for his strong role in the investigation:
"These policies are wrong and must never be repeated," he said in a statement.
Of course, President Bush and his crew continue to hide/break the law:
The report comes as the Bush administration continues to delay and in some cases bar members of Congress from gaining access to key legal documents and memos about the detainee program, including an August 2002 memo that evaluated whether specific interrogation techniques proposed to be used by the CIA would constitute torture.
The physical and mental abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the direct result of Bush administration detention policies and should not be dismissed as the work of bad guards or interrogators, according to a bipartisan Senate report released Thursday.
Kudos to Sen. John McCain for his strong role in the investigation:
"These policies are wrong and must never be repeated," he said in a statement.
Of course, President Bush and his crew continue to hide/break the law:
The report comes as the Bush administration continues to delay and in some cases bar members of Congress from gaining access to key legal documents and memos about the detainee program, including an August 2002 memo that evaluated whether specific interrogation techniques proposed to be used by the CIA would constitute torture.
Monday, December 8, 2008
And You’re Bragging about That??
"If not for Chip," [Tenn. Lt. Gov. Ron] Ramsey said, "Al Gore would have been elected president but instead Tennessee went for George W. Bush in 2000."
Ramsey apparently thinks that’s a great reason to put Chip Saltsman in charge of the national Republican Party. Because that Bush thing turned out so well.
Saltsman may well be the GOP’s most formidable choice for chairman, but delivering us into the hands of GWB is probably not his best selling point.
Ramsey apparently thinks that’s a great reason to put Chip Saltsman in charge of the national Republican Party. Because that Bush thing turned out so well.
Saltsman may well be the GOP’s most formidable choice for chairman, but delivering us into the hands of GWB is probably not his best selling point.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Bush: Grass Green, Water Wet
Actual headline from the AP - Bush: Iraq war longer, more costly than expected
Thanks for the update, Mr. President.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Robert Gates - the Handbreak on Bush's Handbasket to Hell
If Obama is a complete reversal of Bush’s policies, but Bush had already started to reverse himself a little bit, does that make Obama just more of the same? Hogwash. Complete garbage.
Still, that’s why David Brooks tries to argue in the New York Times today.
Brooks claims that President George W. Bush (learning from the unmitigated disaster of Iraq from 2003-2006) launched a new, holistic approach to foreign policy under Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. And Brooks goes on to praise President-elect Obama for following in Bush’s recent footsteps.
Bringing in Gates as Secretary of Defense was an important step towards replacing recklessness with common sense; I’ll give Bush that. But to pretend that a holistic approach to foreign policy is somehow a Bush invention is preposterous.
Alleviating global poverty, strengthening the rule of law, and stabilizing peaceful governments has been a vital part of US foreign policy since World War II. Only Bush was stupid enough to think it could be accomplished by the military alone.
Gates was never that stupid. He was never a neo-con. He doesn’t represent Bush’s governing philosophy or foreign policy; he’s a repudiation of it. Gates comes from outside Bush’s circle – not just his circle of people but his circle of thought.
Gates represents “continuity,” Brooks claims? Ha. At best, Gates represents that even Bush knew his own political ideology led to total failure.
Still, that’s why David Brooks tries to argue in the New York Times today.
Brooks claims that President George W. Bush (learning from the unmitigated disaster of Iraq from 2003-2006) launched a new, holistic approach to foreign policy under Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. And Brooks goes on to praise President-elect Obama for following in Bush’s recent footsteps.
Bringing in Gates as Secretary of Defense was an important step towards replacing recklessness with common sense; I’ll give Bush that. But to pretend that a holistic approach to foreign policy is somehow a Bush invention is preposterous.
Alleviating global poverty, strengthening the rule of law, and stabilizing peaceful governments has been a vital part of US foreign policy since World War II. Only Bush was stupid enough to think it could be accomplished by the military alone.
Gates was never that stupid. He was never a neo-con. He doesn’t represent Bush’s governing philosophy or foreign policy; he’s a repudiation of it. Gates comes from outside Bush’s circle – not just his circle of people but his circle of thought.
Gates represents “continuity,” Brooks claims? Ha. At best, Gates represents that even Bush knew his own political ideology led to total failure.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
$1,000,000,000,000
A one trillion dollar budget deficit in 2009! The entire 2009 federal budget (as submitted by President Bush) is only $3.1 trillion! Holy crap!
That’s what President-elect Obama will inherit, thanks the President Bush’s reckless mismanagement of the federal government, taxes, and economic policy.
The AP describes it pretty well:
While nobody likes a deficit, many economists agree that heavy federal government spending—on food stamps or unemployment benefits or public works projects—may be necessary to keep economies moving in times of recession or war.
The problem is that this time Washington was racking up massive deficits even before the current economic downturn.
We can’t cut government assistance in this economy. We can’t cut anything that would result in significant government layoffs. So the deficit explodes…
If President Bush wants to do what’s best for his country, he’ll immediately start recommending specific cuts to the military budget since these are best received when they come from a Republican (the “only Nixon could go to China” philosophy). Obama, as a Democrat, can then tackle non-military spending cuts.
However, spending cuts can only get us so far. In fact, they’re a drop in the bucket compared to $1 trillion deficit. We’re not talking about trimming the fat here; we’re talking about nearly one third of the entire federal government being financed by deficits.
We’d have to eliminate one third of the federal government to catch up. It’s almost beyond comprehension what that means.
PS: Maybe President-elect Obama bought himself a little political capital on military spending cuts by keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense. If Gates gives the green light to certain cuts, that might help. Perhaps Obama understood that he need the credibility of a Republican Secretary of Defense to do what needs to be done, not just for defense spending but for bringing our troops home.
That’s what President-elect Obama will inherit, thanks the President Bush’s reckless mismanagement of the federal government, taxes, and economic policy.
The AP describes it pretty well:
While nobody likes a deficit, many economists agree that heavy federal government spending—on food stamps or unemployment benefits or public works projects—may be necessary to keep economies moving in times of recession or war.
The problem is that this time Washington was racking up massive deficits even before the current economic downturn.
We can’t cut government assistance in this economy. We can’t cut anything that would result in significant government layoffs. So the deficit explodes…
If President Bush wants to do what’s best for his country, he’ll immediately start recommending specific cuts to the military budget since these are best received when they come from a Republican (the “only Nixon could go to China” philosophy). Obama, as a Democrat, can then tackle non-military spending cuts.
However, spending cuts can only get us so far. In fact, they’re a drop in the bucket compared to $1 trillion deficit. We’re not talking about trimming the fat here; we’re talking about nearly one third of the entire federal government being financed by deficits.
We’d have to eliminate one third of the federal government to catch up. It’s almost beyond comprehension what that means.
PS: Maybe President-elect Obama bought himself a little political capital on military spending cuts by keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense. If Gates gives the green light to certain cuts, that might help. Perhaps Obama understood that he need the credibility of a Republican Secretary of Defense to do what needs to be done, not just for defense spending but for bringing our troops home.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Benefit of the Doubt
Should Pres. Barack Obama keep Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his post? Looks like it may happen. I can’t say I’m thrilled with the idea, but I’m willing to trust Obama’s judgment.
Some Obama fans may be horrified to see anything short of an crisp, clean break from President Bush and immediate abandonment of his foreign/war policies. But there’s something to remember -- Gates was already a repudiation of Bush’s war policies. After 2006, Bush was forced to fire Donald Rumsfeld and pretty much acknowledge that everything in Iraq up to that point had been a total disaster.
Gates is not a neo-con. He’s not a Rove-ite. He’s not part of that inner Bush circle that ransacked the federal government, politicizing everything they could and burning the rest to the ground. If President-elect Obama says he can work with this guy, then I believe him.
I can’t stand Republicans who would drive this country into a brick wall just to spite the Democrats. I can’t stand Republicans who confuse reckless ignorance with “principles.” The last thing I want is for President-elect Obama to start mimicking that behavior. If he did, that would represent a far more dangerous continuation of President Bush’s behavior than keeping Gates in charge of the Defense Department.
If President-elect Obama says the best thing for our nation and our troops is to keep Gates around another 6-18 months for a slower, more gradual changeover, then I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Some Obama fans may be horrified to see anything short of an crisp, clean break from President Bush and immediate abandonment of his foreign/war policies. But there’s something to remember -- Gates was already a repudiation of Bush’s war policies. After 2006, Bush was forced to fire Donald Rumsfeld and pretty much acknowledge that everything in Iraq up to that point had been a total disaster.
Gates is not a neo-con. He’s not a Rove-ite. He’s not part of that inner Bush circle that ransacked the federal government, politicizing everything they could and burning the rest to the ground. If President-elect Obama says he can work with this guy, then I believe him.
I can’t stand Republicans who would drive this country into a brick wall just to spite the Democrats. I can’t stand Republicans who confuse reckless ignorance with “principles.” The last thing I want is for President-elect Obama to start mimicking that behavior. If he did, that would represent a far more dangerous continuation of President Bush’s behavior than keeping Gates in charge of the Defense Department.
If President-elect Obama says the best thing for our nation and our troops is to keep Gates around another 6-18 months for a slower, more gradual changeover, then I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Monday, November 17, 2008
We're All Going to Die!
The Bush Administration has agreed to a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, a move that President Bush previously assured us would lead to the death of countless Americans on American soil.
According to the AP, the deal between the US and Iraq would set: “a timeline for their withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and from the country by Jan. 1, 2012.”
So either Bush is a bald-faced liar or he wants you and your children to die.
Possibly both.
According to the AP, the deal between the US and Iraq would set: “a timeline for their withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and from the country by Jan. 1, 2012.”
So either Bush is a bald-faced liar or he wants you and your children to die.
Possibly both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
