I just watched President Bush's press conference, and haven't had much time to analyze it quite thoroughly. But I will share my immediate thoughts.
I think he hit a home run. And for a President who has just suffered the biggest "thumping" (his word) of a mid-term election in recent history, that's saying a lot. I found his mood relaxed, and almost jovial. There were hints he may be humbled by the election results, and he seemed quite aware of his need to embrace a more pragmatic style of governance.
I believe he heard the message that was sent yesterday at the polls. He admitted he was surprised, and did not expect the results to be so overwhelming. Does that mean he is "out of touch" as many pundits and some Democrats are fond of saying? I don't think so. He was asked that very question, and he said he's an optimist, and I believe him. Plus, he was listening to Rove and Cheney and all the other sycophants that have failed him so miserably during the past few years, so how was he to know? They protected him from the burden of dealing with facts. The knowledge of the intense anger, and unhappiness most voters have voiced. Pollsters knew, we knew, most administration officials (other than bush) knew. It was clear that voter anger, the 'right track wrong track' polls, Bush's falling approval ratings, the intense disgust of the Iraq war, and the growing awareness of the culture of corruption and many hypocritical fiasco's regarding Republicans and moral issues; could only result in bad news for the GOP at the polls.
Americans are notorious for short attention spans, shallow knowledge of civics and current affairs regarding government and the players, and an inability to connect several challenging issues together for any substantial length of time. We've seen over the past few years, how corruption, scandals, abuse of government, abuse of power, misleading information, secret commissions, and other questionable actions have occurred, with no oversight, or questioning by the Congressional representatives we've elected to protect us from these problems. The players became the problem, so the GOP Congress had turned a blind eye, rather than investigate themselves, or (gasp) their President. Nancy Pelosi stated yesterday when asked about the Democrats plans to initiate oversight, "that's our job." And it is. Americans were fed up, and someone had to pay.
Yesterday proves a clear and definitive mandate for Democrats. They are now tasked with bringing a brutally split, partisan body together. They must work with a President who has never in 6 years reached out to work with anyone, really, inside or outside of his party. Especially if they embrace a differing view on the issue at hand. They must entice this President to listen to their ideas, as they work towards putting America first, again. All parties must put aside the partisan rhetoric, and move closer to the center, to work towards pragmatic, realistic solutions that the majority of Americans support.
We are the middle! We are not the partisan extremists on either side that the Congress and administration has painted us to be. Their rhetoric over the past few years has been to demonize democrats, belittle ideas they've never heard, and try to scare average American's into supporting their insular cabal, and concentrated power base. Americans rejected that yesterday, used the power of the vote to send a message that we are fed up. Moderate and conservative Democratic candidates across the nation illustrate the breadth and range of ideals and independance our party embraces. As a truly wide umbrella party, it really is up to us to help heal the nation through our example of tolerance, broad acceptance of varying views and ability to work on behalf of all Americans, not just a small fractured few.
It's time for the teams to huddle, and get back to sharing the same bench. We are not opponents in the war on terror, or the war on poverty, or the war on job outsourcing, or the war on domestic security, or any other number of issues that our lawmakers seem to want to fight about. Gay marriage, abortion, flag burning. Who talks about these things? Congress! Most Americans talk about high housing prices, high college tuition fees, affordable health care and prescription drugs for seniors. Taxes, national debt, the Iraq war, and veterans issues. Whether Republican or a Democrat, we all basically want the same things. A safe secure nation and the means to a better life. We want our soldiers to return to a healthy economy with health care for their families, mental health care for themselves, and an ability to move up.
We are all on the same team. We have been acting like we are opposing players, and only one side can win. Either Democrats or Republicans. But the only side that can and should win, is team America, made up of all political persuasions; in all the ranges of the political spectrum.
I believe from watching Bush's speech today, that he has heard the message, and he is ready to shed his ideological team jersey. It's not a winning strategy in any respect. Domestically, politically, foreign policy wise or diplomatically. He has access to counselors, strategists, diplomats, thinkers and wise men he's known all his life. Starting with his Dad, and others from that era.
For years Bush has been trying to distance himself from his father. I'm sure there are all kinds of psychological explanations for that. He has made a habit of "adopting" older, father figure type mentors, throughout his career. Starting in the early years of his Texas political races. He's had quite a few good solid mentors, and they've served him well. He is loyal, he listens to them, and he rarely if ever questions them, as if their advice is the gospel.
And then there was Cheney. We may never know how Cheney finagled his way on to the ticket as VP to Bush's presidential race. It's common knowledge that Cheney was hired to vet potential Vice Presidential candidates. And it's also common knowledge, that after investigating, interviewing and vetting a few candidates; Cheney moved to the front of the line. So who vetted Cheney? Cheney did. And since Cheney was Bush's "father figure" at the time; he advised Bush as to his apparent skills and aptitude, and Bush bought it.
I think Cheney has been one of the biggest negatives for Bush. I believe he will be the reason that Bush's legacy will fall well below any Presidents of modern history. There will be few actual accomplishments to highlight a historically significant war Presidency. There will be questions of corruption, incompetence, secrecy, and abuses of power; as well as too many others to list here. And most, if not all, can be easily traced to the policy principles advanced by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld from early in their careers. They wanted a unitary executive, with expanded executive powers as far back as the mid-70's; but were knocked off track by White House scandals (Watergate) back then.
It was really a million to one chance that either Rummy or Cheney would ever have the opportunity to finish the plans they'd longed for, and written about in great detail, so many years before. But the Bush Presidency was a perfect opportunity for the two of them, along with the other neo-cons, to storm the home of our Democracy, and insert themselves in seats of power, to solidify their plans for war with Iraq, implement their Pax Americana plan detailed in the PNAC documents, and execute their design of expanded executive powers.
It almost worked! But yesterday's midterms shattered their reality, and we will now see a change in direction out of necessity, and maybe an awakening by President Bush. At least I hope so.
He announced today that he has accepted Rumsfelds resignation, though he made it clear that regardless of how the elections had turned out, Rumsfeld was out. Bush said he met with Rumsfelds replacement on Sunday, in Crawford.
So this is where things get interesting, and as far as I'm concerned, look promising. The Rumsfeld announcement was pretty much a total surprise to most, especially at the pentagon. They said many pentagon officials were notified only 15 - 20 minutes prior to the public announcement. What's even more inspiring, is that Cheney was dead set against this. He wanted Rummy to stay, and he was even more unhappy with the replacement.
Why? Because the new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is a well respected, experienced public servant, a pragmatic realist, and not a neo-con. Gates is currently part of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group, head of Texas A & M University and served in the first Bush's administration as head of the CIA. He was the first head of CIA that moved up from the rank and file. He is a pragmatist in every sense of the word.
He brings in a fresh perspective, he knows the players, and he works well with others. He is like the anti-Rumsfeld. Where Rumsfeld and Condi Rice don't usually see eye to eye, Gates and Condi worked well together in the former Bush's administration. He worked with Steven Hadley. Gates worked under Brent Scowcroft, Bush Srs, national security advisor. The same Scowcroft that is banned from advising this administration, and is off limits to the President, due to his critical editorials as to how the war was planned, executed and continued.
So why am I so positive that maybe, possibly, President Bush has heard us? Mainly due to Rumsfeld resignation, and the appointment of Gates. He has stood up to Cheney in two respects; retiring Rummy and appointing a well regarded pragmatist, that will have no ties to Cheney, or his plan for dominance.
Cheney is now the isolated neo-con on the hill. All the rest have deserted him, and many have gone public in their criticisms. This months Vanity Fair has a great summation of where the neo-cons have fallen off, in regards to Cheney, BushCo and Iraq. Fukayama (considered the father of neo-conservativism) and others jumped shipped prior to the 2004 election, but again, most of America was still sleeping.
Rumsfeld may take the fall for the war, but there is enough blame to share. One of Rumsfelds greatest downfalls is only peripherally connected to Iraq. One of the first things Rummy did, early on, was state "The Army is broken" and I'm going to fix it. And everyone agrees that Rummy is truly a hardworking, energetic, focused man. Maybe a little too focused. He is disliked for his total inability to listen to others, and for his biting tongue when anyone gets up the courage to challenge him. He started off on the wrong foot, and immediately lost the respect of many at the pentagon. Then came war. He needed allies, and friends, and he had none. By then, they were his minions, and most chose to walk softly. He wouldn't listen to other voices, and was adamant that his strategy would prevail. He was wrong. But all along he had Cheney on his side, so therefore, the President was also.
But I think President Bush woke up today, after a good nights sleep (more than most of us), read the headlines, or the scrap paper with the results, and finally said "Enough!"
I don't know if it was his idea, or Rove's to announce Rumsfeld's resignation, but it was brilliant! Today the headlines, news shows, blogs and office chatter should by all accounts be nothing but rehashing of how the Democrats swept the elections. The why's and how's and what nows?
But what are we all talking about now? Rumsfeld is gone, and is the President finally "hearing America?" I must give Bush credit, it was a brilliant recapture of the headlines. He got the ball back by intercepting the news cycle. I think there are more great things ahead, even though I know many will be painful for this President. He is loathe to change course, consider options or analyze facts that do not support what he already believes.
He believed the GOP would hold both houses, and he was wrong. He thought the war in Iraq would be finished, or at least going better by now, and he was wrong. He has been fed misleading information for too long by his cabal of advisors, who were obviously feathering their own little bases of power, for whatever reasons; and he will pay a great price for that. It is time for him to take back the reigns of power, which were probably never in his hands to begin with, and simply be our President.
President Bush woke up today and probably for the first time realized that Carl Rove is really a dick. For months I've wondered why so many people call Rove "the brain" and give him so much credit as the architect of Bush's wins. Rove is truly an evil doer. And as much as Cheney has ill served this commander in chief, Rove is the close second. Rove knowingly used the religious right, briliant move. He strategized thier wins in 2000 and 2004, by knowingly splitting the nation, playing up to their most extreme base, fully aware that the administraton would only appear to serve the faction they appealed to. What he failed to realize is that eventually, you have to govern all the people, all the time. Sure he knows how to design a strategy for winning, but they had no idea how to govern a full spectrum of ideals, ideologies, beliefs and everyday americans with broad political stripes.
Rove strategized and implemented the micro targeting that works so well for last minute get out the vote. That's a positive, and the Dems incorporated that into their plans this cycle. But Rove's real talent reveals itself in the crash and burn, smear and deceptive campaign tactics he has trained his proteges to use nationwide. Negative ads are at an all time high. Truth in ads is at an all time low. Rove mastered the tactic of attacking your opponents strengths, before he can use them, setting them on the offensive and having to disprove false information (think Swiftboats). But writing about Rove's dirty tricks would fill a book.
If Rove is the 'brain' that everyone thinks he is; why has Bush been below 40% in the polls for over 24 months? Even leading into the 2004 elections, there had been nothing but bad news for the White House for 8 months, but Americans weren't ready to start putting the pieces together at that time. Why did Rove allow the fiasco of Katrina to turn into such an ugle PR event, that has been burned into our nation's collective memory? How did he misread the Terry Schiavo tragedy? Why did Rove allow so many mis-steps, and miscalculations, and instances of cronyism to occur on his watch, as Bush looked more and more out of touch? If Rove is so brilliant, why was he insisting as late as Sunday, that the GOP would hold both houses of Congress because he had the "real math?" I kept telling friends from both parties, if that is Bush's brain at it's best, I'd get a lobotomy!
President Bush needs to distance himself from those that have doomed him these past 6 years, because they have also doomed us, America. President Bush has two years to work his bipartisan magic, he did it in Texas (with mostly conservative Dems), and set his legacy on a higher more positive track. Bush should use his own brain, as well as the brains of others with more depth, knowledge, historical knowledge and perception. He is great at bringing people together, and people like him! He may not be a deep, critical thinker, or policy wonk. He doesn't need to be, he has the power and the access to the best and brightest. He needs to shun his ideological bubble, and listen, embrace and consider opinions of others.
I know he can do it. I know the Democrats will work with him. My only fear is that he has become so rigid, that he will be incapable of change. Let's hope and pray that isn't so. If today's press conference was any indication, we have reason to hope.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
this was a regular second term middle-year election. i don't know how the republicans expected to hold on to the power so long, especially not listening to the voters. how the voters felt was no secret. i think they expected their base to insulate them from having to change. i think the media expected "business as usual" and that didn't work. and i think rove expected the same-sex marriage amendment would save them.
and i think people were tired of demons. clinton/hillary/gore/harry reid/kerry/pelosi, the list would have gone on and on. the truth is that there are democrats in the world. and they all aren't the devil.
they said bush was a uniter. maybe if bush always got his way. now bush is going to have to deal with democrats. and it would be better if he would turn on his uniting skills now.
I felt similarly after 9/11 when he also spoke about working together, etc., etc., but I am afraid what he says and what he winds up doing are always different things.
I still detected a smirk behind his words. I don't trust him or his coterie of cronies.
My favorite part was poor little chubster Karl Rove with a nasty scowl. Mr. Scowly face really screwed up and have to say I am enjoying the replay on radio about "the math."
Ummm what you are missing, Barbara, is that Bush never did anything that was right for Iraq... he did what was right for him and his buddy's wallets... Iraq was never the problem. How many times do we have to point out to you that the alleged 9-11 terrorists were NOT from Iraq?
Was it REAL ? I don't know, but I think he may actually believe what he said. In some ways I think he welcomes the opportunity to work with Dems on some issues. He has never been a genuine Republican in many ways, and I don't think he is anxious to squander the possibility of "cooperating" enough to avoid determined attempts to unveil the depths of the duplicity and dark aspects of his first six years. He knows he will suffer badly if he does not share some power willingly.
How many times do we have to tell you that nobody ever said the 9-11 terrorist were from Iraq. Its not in the record. The tape can not be found. The words were never spoken. NO body ever heard anyone ever say that. Speaking of which are saing by the use of the words "alleged...terrorist" that the terrorist never existed?
He is easily swayed when cornered. Cheney has lost the last power ranger neo-con in the cat box (Rumsfeld), and you cannot brush aside the fact that Bush is willing to employ the likes of Baker and Hamilton (Baker is Dad's old friend, but very independent); as well as appointing Gates.
That is huge. It is a huge step for Bush in so many ways. Plus, bush is now in legacy mode, and again, you have to go back to his early remarks fro 1998 and 99 regarding the importance he puts on "legacy"
He stated that the best way to earn a great legacy was to be a war president. So the war was an wasy sell to him; though he didn't understand the fundamentals, the historically relevant social and cultural issues, or the strategies needed to win the peace.
But he said his Dad lost his politcal capital earned after the first Iraq war; and if given the Chance, Bush, Jr. said he wouldn't make the same mistake.
So all this stuff is incredibly complex and intrinsically wound up in Bush's psyche.
When cornered, this guy can cut and run like the best of them. This time, he has the opportunity to make changes that will reflect positively on his legacy....and other than winning in Iraq, that is all he is thinking about.
What am I missing? I don't think I'm missing anything. How anyone can degrade and berate our president with so little insider information is beyond me. How lucky we all are that so many people are so much smarter than those in power!
Heaven help us!!
See Barbara, I couldn't agree with you more. Those in power have made it perfectly obvious to those former and currently serving patriots from the diplomatic core, the middle eastern scholars stationed abroad and the numerous intellegence agencies, that they don't know what they're doing.
Many of the 20 architects of this failed war, including the signatories, have jumped ship. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb B and Bill Kristolare the only ones still hanging on. 10 have spoken out publicly, and it is public information, available for anyone to read.
...Yeah, I guess you're right. We should all just shut up and wait to see what the masters want us to think.
I see. then what was the justification for attacking them again...? Oh yes. First it was to get the terrorists (which were not from there), then when People pointed that out, it was oh umm yeah WMDs (which were also a fantasy), and then oh hell, ok let's pretend it was a humanitarian effort... And all the while you people keep backing this non-existant "War on Terror" and keep repeatedly pointing to Iraq... which we all know has nada to do with terrorists, or didn't until we attacked them.
9-11 was what was used to stir up the populace to go to war on Iraq. Apparently, some people are still living in those past delusions and haven't bothered to stay current at all.
And Barbara? I am not a slave to the American press. I travel. A lot. I am not being fed Bush propoganda. All the necessary info is out there, if one cares to find it...
I have been trying to figure out for years whether W is evil or that stupid or a bit of both. Does he really believe the crap/lies he says? The man has been the WORST president this country has seen. I agree with a lot of what you wrote but I do not really forgive him for the damage because he was ignorant enough to be duped by the likes of Rove and Cheney.
They choose him for this position to get their biddings done. He did it. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died. Our constitutional rights have been abridged. He has legalized torture and suspended habeas corpus. Then we have this lovely 9 trillion dollar deficit!
So now you think he has wised up enough to realize that he has been led by the likes of those two. He is the President for Christ sake! This emperor truely has no clothes.
What kind of person has that much faith in authority?
Someone who doesn't know crap about history, obviously.
It's not a matter of forgiveness, or wisdom. The man is not foolish or insane. If he doesn't "play ball" with Pelosi et al, he could easily wind up in a very unpleasant place for the rest of his life. That is a great motivator.
James S. Baker III did the "deciding" and made Bush fear the PERSONAL consequences if he didn't obey.
He is also a liar of psychoapthic dimensions (and I think that the Oedipal problems you touch on explain quite a bit). If he had come out and denounced the voters for abetting terrorism (consistent with his position last week), he would have ensured spending the next two years with his whole administration answering subpoenas, so he "made nice."
It is good that Rumsfeld has fallen on the sword, but from wanting to topple Saddam long before 9/11 to preferring bombing to troops on the ground, Rumsfeld was doing what Bush had said he wanted. The ones who should resign are Bush and Cheney. Although Dennis Hastert has not shown himself to be a good manager, he doesn't have any big agenda (neither does the woman who will take up the gavel). 12 years Republicans clamored that Clinton would resign for doing considerably less damage to the US Constitution and international law.
The Democrats have a chance to show that they can remain the fiscal conservatives when in power in Congress. The Republicans can rescue the party from Big Government neocons and/or the Christianists, mindful of the considerable margin of Rick Santorum's bid for re-election, the failure of mobilizing the same-sex marriage bogey man to swing New Jersey, the failure of the South Dakota total ban on abortions, etc.
We'll see. You can give W a gold star for the day, but undoing what his government has done will take decades (and paying off the debt he has run, even more decades).
You know what they say about politics and bedfellows.
It seems obvious to me now as it was obvious to me when he first became president: Bush got this far on charm alone. He failed with every business that he headed, which he headed on charm alone. Who looks at a record like his and says, "Hey we should make this guy President of the United States." His record as president reflects his record in business. Maybe Texas was looking good while he was Governor, but that was of course before his buddies at Enron were exposed. On a side note, I don't really believe that his golfing buddy Ken Lay is really dead.
We're going to see a different Bush that's for sure, but it's not because he has really changed.
We are in the era of scorched earth, take-no-prisoners politics.
Watch, and you will see.
Lots worse things can happen than gridlock. Think big.
I knew it would happen during his presidency, but I thought it would have happened a couple years ago.
And as for working well with the new players...it really behooves everyone to play nice. Bush et al., know that even with impeachment off the table, they have lot's and lot's of questions to answer. Pelosi et al., will walk a fine line in balancing investigations, war planning, policy making, and continuing to fight off the constant labeling and derision from the hard core right wing nuts (the Hannity's, etc.).
Even the supposed "liberal" media, continue to portray the Democrats as shallow and lacking a substantive agenda. Today, I counted 11 times on 4 news channels, a host or pundit stating that the Democrats have no plan for Iraq, or for the country.
But what is Bush's plan? Stay the course, until they decided that didn't play -- and they reverted back to we can't leave till we achieve victory!!!
Hell, what kind of "plan" is that? so far it's not working.
And as for the Dems upcoming agenda, since they don't take control till January of next year, and they haven't even caucused yet with the new moderate and conservative members of their party; or decided on leadership positions and committee assignments; it would be premature to speculate on where the party may stand on various issues, or know which issues will take precedent.
Pelosi and the others released the 6 pt. plan months ago, and have promised to address many bread & butter issues immediately (minimum wage for instance). This will prove to be a smart and savvy move for everyone. Bush will most probably go along, and it would be a good first step. They could follow that with immigration reform, and go from there.
As far as Murtha gunning for Pelosi's spot....don't hold your breath. Pelosi has earned this spot, she kept the party together trough some of their darkest days, and Murtha is a huge Pelosi supporter. He will be in a leadership role, as will Jane Harmon, who is a well known Pelosi adversary. Plus Rahm Emmanuel will look to capitalize on his current celebrity, and try to garner a leadership rols also. There will definitely be alot of backroom finagling, and power tripping going on; I just hope they keep the lid on it, and present a united front.
Pelosi is going to pick her battles wisely; she knows we have two years to prove that Democrats are capable, accountable, and remarkable -- something we haven't seen from congress in several years. It's not fair that we will have such a short time, with assets and energy directed to the 2008 Presidential race to compete with; but we have to play the hand we're dealt.
Stephen is correct, it will take decades to undo the massive legacy of damage this administration has saddled us, our kids and grandkids with. It's troubling and sickening to contemplate.
Today I was looking towards the immediate future -- the attainable goals that can only be achieved by focused determination.
We have to discredit the continued lies bantered around teh cable news stations (and networks too): Pelosi as a left wing ultraliberal, Democrats want to lose in Iraq, Democrats have no plan, Dems will raise taxes, kill puppies, close businesses, and cram the "homosexual agenda" down America's throat. The Repubs have nothing left to offer, so for the next two years they will demonize the democrats and try to frame reality through thier wierd otherwordly lense.
We all have to work hard the next two years to address every misstatement whenever possible. And it is far easier to use deeds not words in getting our point across.
If you really think that you can believe ANYTHING this ambulatory Turd says, I think you need to adjust your meds. LOL
He may have never received my vote in an election for a political contest, but if there were a contest for master manipulator............
Now it's time to turn the page.
And Jean -- I know Bush is pissed! GOOD!!!!! And I loved his little swipe at Rove...good! And he was caught off guard by the landslide victory...even better!
That's the whole point of my post. He is pissed, he is angry, and he is incapable of taking responsibility for anything. Therefore, he will blame every one around him, and pick "new" Daddy type friends. This is what our country, our foreign and domestic policies needed!
I hope you will analyze the structural significance of his actions. And as for gridlock -- the Dems don't want it. The Republicans will try, but now they're in the minority. Bush will find his veto balls again, and there will be some tough battles.
But right now, 2 years is s short time in politics. Especially when Congress only works about 90 - 120 days a year! Keep in mind, both parties will now start jockeying and clawing their way toward the presidential race.
In their addled, tilted, egotistical minds, they want to make themselves (not the party necessarily) look good.
There will be hateful, hurtful comments flying both ways; in an attempt to paint the opposition as weak, corrupt, whatever. But I think we've learned that Americans are much smarter than our elected representatives, and their party politicking.
I think what you are missing is the fact that this administration has tried to hide everything possible from us, and what little they fed us was false. We have had to dig to find the real information we need to be informed. To criticize those who have done the hard work and exposed the lies not wise.
Did you sleep through the last part of the 2oth century?
Just because you don't like a president or his policies and even if a President is deemed incompetent by some is not grounds for impeachment. Heck if that was the criteria we would have had to impeach every President since George washington.
Just like the incessant hypocricsy of his entire time in office, he says one thing, then does the exact opposite. He acts humble and says he looks forward to working with the democrats, then goes and pushes hard to get the spying bill passed and bolton confirmed and all the dirty bills passed that won't have a chance to pass with a new Congress.
No, he is not contrite, he has not turned over any new leaf and he will not "play nice" with the new kids in town. But for once, it doesn't matter because dems will be able to put their agenda on the table and make the Republicans defend their corporate-benefitting, help the good-ol'-boys policies.