Bush Alone

[TexasTiger 13,017]

So says the Prince of Darkness:

March 26, 2007

Bush Alone

By Robert Novak

Two weeks earlier on Capitol Hill, there was a groundswell of Republican demands -- public and private -- that President Bush pardon the convicted Scooter Libby. Last week, as Alberto Gonzales came under withering Democratic fire, there were no public GOP declarations of support amid private predictions of the attorney general's demise.

Republican leaders in Congress (asking not to be quoted by name) early last week predicted Gonzales would fall because the Justice Department botched firing eight U.S. attorneys. By week's end, they stipulated that the president would not sack his longtime aide and that Gonzales would leave only on his own initiative. But there was still an ominous lack of congressional support for the attorney general.

"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

Republicans in Congress do not trust their president to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. Rep. Adam Putnam, the highly regarded young chairman of the House Republican Conference, praised Donald Rumsfeld last November, only to find him sacked shortly thereafter.

But not many Republican lawmakers would speak up for Gonzales even if they were sure Bush would stick with him. He is the least popular Cabinet member on Capitol Hill, even more disliked than Rumsfeld had been. The word most often used by Republicans in describing the management of the Justice Department under Gonzales is "incompetent."

Attorneys general in recent years have ranged from skilled political operatives close to the president (most notably Bobby Kennedy under John F. Kennedy) to non-political lawyers detached from the president (such as Ed Levi under Gerald Ford). Gonzales is surely close to Bush, but nobody has accused him of being skilled at politics. He puzzled and alarmed conservatives with a January public speech in which he claimed that he would take over from the White House the selection of future federal nominees.

The saving grace that some Republicans find in the dispute over U.S. attorneys is that, at least temporarily, it blurs debate over an unpopular war. But the overriding feeling in the Republican cloakroom is that the Justice Department and the White House could not have been more inept in dealing with the president's unquestioned right to appoint -- and replace -- federal prosecutors.

The I-word (for incompetence) is used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to described a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader told me. "How can we claim that anymore?"

The reconstruction of his government after Bush's re-election in 2004, though a year late, clearly improved the president's team. Yet the addition of extraordinary public servants Josh Bolten, Tony Snow and Rob Portman has not changed the image of incompetence.

A few Republicans blame incessant attack from the new Democratic majority in Congress for that image. Many more say today's problems by the administration derive from yesterday's mistakes, whose impact persists. The answer that is not entertained by the president's most severe GOP critics, even when not speaking for quotation, is that this is just the governing style of George W. Bush and never will change while he is in the Oval Office.

Regarding the Libby-Gonzales equation, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president never -- not even on the way out of the Oval Office in January 2009 -- will pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president never will ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...bush_alone.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

Gonzalez is a shining example of why Bush will never be a great President. His nepotism is out of control. From Harriet Myers to Alberto Gonzales, Bush displays his best character, his unyielding determination to pick, promote and defend his closest friends, even when they are so clearly completely mismatched for the jobs in which they were placed.

*edit * Scooter Libby should have been pardoned yesterday. Alberto Gonzalez, while not having done anything wrong ( besides force the President to do his job for him ) should never have been picked in the 1st place.

[AFTiger 282]

TT, I thought it was about the lying?

[AFTiger 282]

Oh, wait a minute. Lying is normal for Democrats.

[otterinbham 0]

I think the key word in the article is "incompetence," a word that I have long felt characterized this administration. Iraq, the Medicare Prescription Plan, Katrina, the Patriot Act, the failure to reform Social Security, the general tone deafness to political trends in this country, the nepotism, the dramatic growth of the federal government independent of national security needs, etc. etc. etc., all points to an administration that is sadly out of touch with the American people, the core governing philosophy that brought them to office, and reality.

Essentially, the people of this country have been buffeted by one disaster after another since GWB took his oath of office. Some (The recession caused by the Internet Bubble and 9/11) could not have realistically been prevented on his watch. The rest have either been caused by or exacerbated by Bush's bungling. Personally, I look forward to Inaugural Day in 2009, when we will be rid of this halfwit for good.

[CCTAU 3,345]

I think the key word in the article is "incompetence," a word that I have long felt characterized this administration. Iraq, the Medicare Prescription Plan, Katrina, the Patriot Act, the failure to reform Social Security, the general tone deafness to political trends in this country, the nepotism, the dramatic growth of the federal government independent of national security needs, etc. etc. etc., all points to an administration that is sadly out of touch with the American people, the core governing philosophy that brought them to office, and reality.

Essentially, the people of this country have been buffeted by one disaster after another since GWB took his oath of office. Some (The recession caused by the Internet Bubble and 9/11) could not have realistically been prevented on his watch. The rest have either been caused by or exacerbated by Bush's bungling. Personally, I look forward to Inaugural Day in 2009, when we will be rid of this halfwit for good.

Yes. Keep adding Katrina in there. Bush's hot-line to God allowed it to happen. I heard he had a choice between LA or TX and he chose LA to get hit.....

Damn that Bush for causing Katrina.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I think the key word in the article is "incompetence," a word that I have long felt characterized this administration. Iraq, the Medicare Prescription Plan, Katrina, the Patriot Act, the failure to reform Social Security, the general tone deafness to political trends in this country, the nepotism, the dramatic growth of the federal government independent of national security needs, etc. etc. etc., all points to an administration that is sadly out of touch with the American people, the core governing philosophy that brought them to office, and reality.

Ok, let's clarify some things here:

Medicare Prescription Plan - W's fault.

Katrina - Very little of W's fault.

The Patriot Act - Bush is no more at fault than anyone else.

SSI Reform - None of W's fault. He's the ONLY one who had the stones to try to do ANYTHING.

general tone deafness to political trends ? I don't even know wtf that's suppose to mean. If it means " doing what the Dems have been screaming he should do " ,then good for W on that.

nepotism - W's fault

Growth of the Fed Gov't - Yeah, I can lay at least 1/2 the blame of that on W. Not all, of course, because it's the Congress which introduces the spending bills, not the Executive Branch. W definitely didn't carry with him to office the core CONSERVATIVE values which so many thought he would, and on that point, you're right about him being disconnected w/ Joe Public.

Essentially, the people of this country have been buffeted by one disaster after another since GWB took his oath of office. Some (The recession caused by the Internet Bubble and 9/11) could not have realistically been prevented on his watch. The rest have either been caused by or exacerbated by Bush's bungling. Personally, I look forward to Inaugural Day in 2009, when we will be rid of this halfwit for good.

Never has this country NOT been buffeted by one disaster after another, whether it's GWB in office or anyone else. Iraq? Sure, that's his. Afghanistan ? Goes along w/ the 9/11 territory. New Orleans was doomed DECADES ago, thanks in large part to the Army Corps of Engineers, and graft / fraud of the local and state Gov'ts. But we have no Monica-gate, no Iran/Contra, or hostage crisis, as we've seen others have to deal with. Sure, W's made some mistakes, all Presidents have. Fact is, there is so much GOOD going on with the economy and some very REAL substantive issues, that W should be getting far more praise. If he were a Dem, he'd be held in much higher esteem.

And for all his faults, W's still smarter than John Effing Kerry. And he's probably smarter than you.

[otterinbham 0]

I think the key word in the article is "incompetence," a word that I have long felt characterized this administration. Iraq, the Medicare Prescription Plan, Katrina, the Patriot Act, the failure to reform Social Security, the general tone deafness to political trends in this country, the nepotism, the dramatic growth of the federal government independent of national security needs, etc. etc. etc., all points to an administration that is sadly out of touch with the American people, the core governing philosophy that brought them to office, and reality.

Ok, let's clarify some things here:

Medicare Prescription Plan - W's fault.

Katrina - Very little of W's fault.

The Patriot Act - Bush is no more at fault than anyone else.

SSI Reform - None of W's fault. He's the ONLY one who had the stones to try to do ANYTHING.

general tone deafness to political trends ? I don't even know wtf that's suppose to mean. If it means " doing what the Dems have been screaming he should do " ,then good for W on that.

nepotism - W's fault

Growth of the Fed Gov't - Yeah, I can lay at least 1/2 the blame of that on W. Not all, of course, because it's the Congress which introduces the spending bills, not the Executive Branch. W definitely didn't carry with him to office the core CONSERVATIVE values which so many thought he would, and on that point, you're right about him being disconnected w/ Joe Public.

Essentially, the people of this country have been buffeted by one disaster after another since GWB took his oath of office. Some (The recession caused by the Internet Bubble and 9/11) could not have realistically been prevented on his watch. The rest have either been caused by or exacerbated by Bush's bungling. Personally, I look forward to Inaugural Day in 2009, when we will be rid of this halfwit for good.

Never has this country NOT been buffeted by one disaster after another, whether it's GWB in office or anyone else. Iraq? Sure, that's his. Afghanistan ? Goes along w/ the 9/11 territory. New Orleans was doomed DECADES ago, thanks in large part to the Army Corps of Engineers, and graft / fraud of the local and state Gov'ts. But we have no Monica-gate, no Iran/Contra, or hostage crisis, as we've seen others have to deal with. Sure, W's made some mistakes, all Presidents have. Fact is, there is so much GOOD going on with the economy and some very REAL substantive issues, that W should be getting far more praise. If he were a Dem, he'd be held in much higher esteem.

And for all his faults, W's still smarter than John Effing Kerry. And he's probably smarter than you.

"Ok, let's clarify some things here:

Medicare Prescription Plan - W's fault.

Katrina - Very little of W's fault.

The Patriot Act - Bush is no more at fault than anyone else.

SSI Reform - None of W's fault. He's the ONLY one who had the stones to try to do ANYTHING.

general tone deafness to political trends ? I don't even know wtf that's suppose to mean. If it means " doing what the Dems have been screaming he should do " ,then good for W on that.

nepotism - W's fault

Growth of the Fed Gov't - Yeah, I can lay at least 1/2 the blame of that on W. Not all, of course, because it's the Congress which introduces the spending bills, not the Executive Branch. W definitely didn't carry with him to office the core CONSERVATIVE values which so many thought he would, and on that point, you're right about him being disconnected w/ Joe Public."

I would argue that the failure SSI Reform was Bush's fault. At best, he made a lukewarm appeal and bolted the moment there was any hue and cry.

If you believe for a nanosecond that Social Security is indeed a looming crisis in American economics, then Bush showed a true absense of leadership in rallying his party and the country to the crucial need.

I would argue that, while the events leading up to Katrina were certainly not W's fault, the lukewarm response of the federal government was. Sure, you can blame Blanco and Nagin all you want and would be fully justified, but a disaster of this magnitude merited a Federal response under the charter of FEMA. Heck, when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police managed to show up in New Orleans before the National Guard, then you know that the disaster response was royally botched.

As far at the Patriot Act goes, I think it represents the greatest constitutional challenge to the country since Lincoln suspending the Habeus Corpus. The chief difference between now and Civil War is that Lincoln was fighting a war with tangible objectives, whereas Bush has not had that luxury. However, torture (And yes, that's what we have employed, despite your rather elastic definitions) has never been an endorsed part of America's war fighting doctrine.

Of course, the most resounding failure was Iraq. We've covered this ad nauseum on this board. However, it's worth pointing out that The Administration utterly ignored every planning recommendation on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and began this war with fully 1/3rd the troops recommended and zero thought assigned to the extraordinarily difficult aftermath from the war. In short, the man is this decade's answer to Lyndon Johnson, and we will be enduring the consequences of this ill-considered adventures for a long time to come.

[AFTiger 282]

I would argue that the failure SSI Reform was Bush's fault. At best, he made a lukewarm appeal and bolted the moment there was any hue and cry.

Democrats declared it dead on arrival. MSM declared it an attack on Social Security. AARP sided with the Dims. Lukewarm support by his own weak kneed Republican Senate, Bush was shouting into a bucket. Democrats should take the hit for obstructing reform but who will point that out?

I would argue that, while the events leading up to Katrina were certainly not W's fault, the lukewarm response of the federal government was. Sure, you can blame Blanco and Nagin all you want and would be fully justified, but a disaster of this magnitude merited a Federal response under the charter of FEMA. Heck, when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police managed to show up in New Orleans before the National Guard, then you know that the disaster response was royally botched.

The idiot governor of Louisiana refused to release the guard and call for help. Alabama and Mississippi handled it well. When Nagin emerged from the meeting with Blanco and Bush, you could tell Blanco blew it. Our constitution will not allow the federal government to enter a disaster area without the invitation of the state governor. You bash Bush enough on phoney constitutional issues but he followed the law on this one. This was a disaster of monumental scale never before encountered. It was made evern worse by the monumental incompetance of the New Orleans Mayor and the Louisiana Governor. FEMA allowed itself to be stampeded into bad decisions and Brown was fired when that became clear. In my opinion, Home Depot is better equipped to handle this type of emergency than is FEMA.

As far at the Patriot Act goes, I think it represents the greatest constitutional challenge to the country since Lincoln suspending the Habeus Corpus. The chief difference between now and Civil War is that Lincoln was fighting a war with tangible objectives, whereas Bush has not had that luxury. However, torture (And yes, that's what we have employed, despite your rather elastic definitions) has never been an endorsed part of America's war fighting doctrine.

We are fighting a new kind of war. We are fighting a war against an extreme form of religion that is using tools never anticipated by the Constitution. Congress passed the Patriot Act as required by the constitution. I don't see the complaint here.

Of course, the most resounding failure was Iraq. We've covered this ad nauseum on this board. However, it's worth pointing out that The Administration utterly ignored every planning recommendation on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and began this war with fully 1/3rd the troops recommended and zero thought assigned to the extraordinarily difficult aftermath from the war. In short, the man is this decade's answer to Lyndon Johnson, and we will be enduring the consequences of this ill-considered adventures for a long time to come.

Iraq is not a failure yet. It is one front on the war on terroism. If you recalled, Turkey blocked deloyment of the 3rd Division. Hot weather was rapidly approaching and we were anticipating a chemical war. You have never been in a chemical suit in the summer and 120 degrees would have killed far more of our troops than the enemy. If the Democrats prevail, Iraq will be a failure and the war on terror will become very deadly to us.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I would argue that the failure SSI Reform was Bush's fault. At best, he made a lukewarm appeal and bolted the moment there was any hue and cry.

Democrats declared it dead on arrival. MSM declared it an attack on Social Security. AARP sided with the Dims. Lukewarm support by his own weak kneed Republican Senate, Bush was shouting into a bucket. Democrats should take the hit for obstructing reform but who will point that out?

No one with brain. Bush's strength was at it's highest and he had control of both houses of Congress. He failed to sell it to the American people, plain and simple.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I think the key word in the article is "incompetence," a word that I have long felt characterized this administration. Iraq, the Medicare Prescription Plan, Katrina, the Patriot Act, the failure to reform Social Security, the general tone deafness to political trends in this country, the nepotism, the dramatic growth of the federal government independent of national security needs, etc. etc. etc., all points to an administration that is sadly out of touch with the American people, the core governing philosophy that brought them to office, and reality.

Essentially, the people of this country have been buffeted by one disaster after another since GWB took his oath of office. Some (The recession caused by the Internet Bubble and 9/11) could not have realistically been prevented on his watch. The rest have either been caused by or exacerbated by Bush's bungling. Personally, I look forward to Inaugural Day in 2009, when we will be rid of this halfwit for good.

When you use the word nepotism, I assume you mean cronyism. If so, I would say that cronyism is the key to the incompetence. This President favors personal loyalty and ideology over competence every time. It is the hall mark of this administration. It is hard to get past consistently choosing ill-qualified people and then loyally standing by them. Some very competent USAs got canned because they weren't deemed "loyal Bushies." Just another illustration of the fatal flaw of this woefully unqualified joke of a man.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I would argue that the failure SSI Reform was Bush's fault. At best, he made a lukewarm appeal and bolted the moment there was any hue and cry.

If you believe for a nanosecond that Social Security is indeed a looming crisis in American economics, then Bush showed a true absense of leadership in rallying his party and the country to the crucial need.

First, I'll say it again. Bush did what he could, but the cowards in the Senate and House no more wanted to deal w/ SSI than take a visit to the dentist for a root canal. Bush could have been more of everything we've become to see he's not, like Bill Clinton, and try to sell the issue, but it would have come to the same end. Yeah, I blame him, some, but the vast bulk of the blame lays w/ the fools on the Hill.

I would argue that, while the events leading up to Katrina were certainly not W's fault, the lukewarm response of the federal government was. Sure, you can blame Blanco and Nagin all you want and would be fully justified, but a disaster of this magnitude merited a Federal response under the charter of FEMA. Heck, when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police managed to show up in New Orleans before the National Guard, then you know that the disaster response was royally botched.

IF The Royal Canadian Mounted Police showed up before the National Guard, it's because Blanco didn't ALLOW for the Guard to enter the city. Sure, we saw a FUBAR response, but it can't be overstated enough that the State and Local Gov'ts fouled things up so much, there was NOTHING Bush could do! And FEMA isn't designed to 'come in and make it all better'. They're there to ASSIST the state/ local services. They're not SUPPOSE to be the first responders, but only the backup support. Was it 'botched' ? HELL YES, and there are reasons why. Reasons that no one seems willing to listen to, they just want to blame Bush. The LAST person responsible for all the mess. Yeah, that makes sense.

As far at the Patriot Act goes, I think it represents the greatest constitutional challenge to the country since Lincoln suspending the Habeus Corpus. The chief difference between now and Civil War is that Lincoln was fighting a war with tangible objectives, whereas Bush has not had that luxury. However, torture (And yes, that's what we have employed, despite your rather elastic definitions) has never been an endorsed part of America's war fighting doctrine

. The P.A. is much ado about nothing. So far. It may, in the future, be used to limit freedoms, but as of now, there's nothing much to it. The ficticious 'torture' crap being brought up is laughable. Utterly.

Of course, the most resounding failure was Iraq. We've covered this ad nauseum on this board. However, it's worth pointing out that The Administration utterly ignored every planning recommendation on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and began this war with fully 1/3rd the troops recommended and zero thought assigned to the extraordinarily difficult aftermath from the war. In short, the man is this decade's answer to Lyndon Johnson, and we will be enduring the consequences of this ill-considered adventures for a long time to come.

Militarily, the take down of Iraq was a phenomenal feat. Afterwards, it was one massive Fed Imperial Gov't bungle after another. The decission to use 'brand new' service vehicles while communities here in the states got stuck w/ old ones is one of a long list of bone headed screw ups that stands as testament to the think skulled thinking from D.C. Many positive and amazing feats of victory and achievement have been completely white washed by the left leaning , biased media. Sadly, the ineptness of this administration is shown by its failure to bring the good word, and yes there are plenty of good things, directly to the American people.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I would argue that the failure SSI Reform was Bush's fault. At best, he made a lukewarm appeal and bolted the moment there was any hue and cry.

Democrats declared it dead on arrival. MSM declared it an attack on Social Security. AARP sided with the Dims. Lukewarm support by his own weak kneed Republican Senate, Bush was shouting into a bucket. Democrats should take the hit for obstructing reform but who will point that out?

No one with brain. Bush's strength was at it's highest and he had control of both houses of Congress. He failed to sell it to the American people, plain and simple.

Wrong as usual. Whose side of the isle erupted in cheers when the president mentioned that his privatization plan for social security had been defeated? Hint; it wasn't the Republicans.

The American people, those that knew the details of the plan, were in favor of privatization (by a 52-40 percent margin) according to data from polling.

Social Security plan backed in new poll

Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.

The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.

"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."

"There are a large number of voters, especially those under 50, who don't think they are getting the best possible deal from Social Security," he said.

As in past surveys on the president's personal-accounts proposal, strongest support comes from younger voters under age 30, who embrace the idea by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent.

Support declines somewhat among voters between 30 and 50, with 58 percent in favor versus 37 percent who oppose it.

Voters over 65 oppose personal accounts 52 percent to 40 percent and those over 70 oppose them by 55 percent to 38 percent.

The survey also contained a warning for the Democrats about how their opposition to any reform of the Social Security system is playing with the electorate.

"By an overwhelming 70-22 percent margin, voters believe that opponents of President Bush's proposals for Social Security reform have an obligation to put out their own plan for reforming the program," including 55 percent of Democratic voters, Mr. Zogby said in a report of his findings.

Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."

The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview.

"Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."

Among the poll's other findings:

• Support was strongest (57 percent to 36 percent) in the "red states" that Mr. Bush carried in his 2004 re-election. Support split more evenly (48 percent to 44 percent) in the Democratic "blue states" that Sen. John Kerry won.

• Voters by 62 percent to 30 percent remained deeply skeptical about Social Security's promise to pay future benefits. Skepticism was highest among younger voters, with more than 70 percent saying they doubted that the system would be able to pay their benefits when they reached retirement age.

The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.

Link