Policy = those able to discern reality in this context, right? Why not simply state, "those able to discern reality"?

Spot on, Kevin. Nice work.

Unbridled fealty to business interests? That's probably the closest to the truth, but what about Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold?

SOX and McCain-Feingold are really just scapegoats. They do almost nothing to conceal where C-whore-porate America makes it's money: by using the US military as muscle to manipulate markets.

That soldier-blood is pure gold.

'cmon America! Keep sacrificing your children to Mammon!

But why hate policy wonkery?

Eschewing policy serves some purpose, right?

It seems like it serves the purpose of letting Bush/Cheney to do whatever they want. What feels good?

But how do they determine what feels good? Is it as simple as pissing off the wonks? And why have journalists embraced it so enthusiastically? Do journalists hate academics and other wonks too?

The defining characteristic of Bush is the big agressive ideas - win or lose, he tries 'em. For example Iraq, Afghanistan, not signing Kyoto, tax cuts, more tax cuts, social security, Medicare Prescription & immigration.

He is almost the anti-Clinton in his hatred of 'kicking problems down the road' and willingness to address difficult issues in foreign policy or domestic policy at the expense of his own popularity.

Compassionate conservatism is what he said he was. The compassionate part, turned out to be a willingness to spend. But he's still definitely a modified conservative of some sort.

Mr. Drum,
Did you just give credit to Bush for McCain-Feingold and Sarbanes-Oxley and use it as evidence against his corporate fealty?

You've got to be kidding.

I would view his 3 guiding principles in order of importance.

1. Act rather than react, using Clinton-style triangulation often enough to win.

2. Christian values matter

3. Pro-business is pro-economy is pro-people

One influential Republican with close ties to the White House said Mr Zoellick was leaving “soon” because he was not getting the Treasury job. The Republican added that the White House wanted someone who would be a better salesman. Mr Zoellick is more widely admired for his policy knowledge.

One 'influantial' republican said it. His quote (which may or may not be in context) indicates that they wanted somebody who would effectively communicate the administration policies to the American people. That makes sense; anybody within the department can make policy, but only the top guy gets invited on to talk shows.

Off of that, however, Kevin creates an elaborate theory in which Bush "doesn't care about policy". What it reminds me of is the early days of Microsoft. Gates was visionary and ruthless. Most people said his decision to not grant an independent license for DOS showed he didn't understand/didn't care about business plans, when the opposite was true.

Bush is like that. He's playing three dimensional chess, when the democrats insist on playing checkers. His thinking is long-term; he's growing the economy of the future with deficits of today, knowing that the growth will be worth it. He's fixing social security now, so it's not a problem for later. He's kicking off the fourth wave (Huntington style) in the middle east, thus making it so future americans can sit back and watch democracy spread.

He is shifting a lot of the burden for improving the future onto the current generation. In a sense, that's unfortunate. In the long run, though, I think we as Americans should be willing to make those sacrifices.

I think Bush's problem is his pure, unadultrated cynicism. There are no morals, no conscience, no consideration beyond pure self-interests. Truth is what we say, facts are whatever back up our policy, our policy is whatever furthers the agenda, the agenda is to gain more power.

Laws are auctioned to be written by the highest bidder. Pork goes to the most lavish contributors, regulations to those who stand in our way. Jobs are given to the most loyal, the executive branch is there to intimidate the rest.

It's not how the world is, but how people should believe the world is to most benefit us. We make our own reality: tax cuts stimulate the economy, Iraq's going great. If people don't believe it, we aren't selling it right.

Maybe he's just an obstinate asshole with an anti-intellectual bent who doesn't like to hear self-assured policy wonks with PhDs and "experience" tell him what to do and how to do it.

we as Americans should be willing to make those sacrifices.

Posted by: American Hawk on May 24, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmn, you are trying to reason with Clinton's baby boomers and asking them to sacrifice. Are you kidding me?

You are talking to the people who think that a head of state should not be asked to refrain from interns under the desk. Hey, its his personal life and he had a tough childhood!

hear self-assured policy wonks with PhDs and "experience" tell him what to do and how to do it.

Posted by: toast on May 24, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

No, he listens to neo-conservative academics. He just happened notice that there are a lot of academics who are basically full of it.

My grand unifying theory of Bush is "Faith in Faith". What good is policy or analysis or reality when you have faith in what you're doing? And I don't mean to denigrate religious faith by saying this. I mean simply to say that decisions must be guided by more than simple belief that the outcome is assured.

Another example: As I think you pointed out years ago, a good CEO doesn't just delegate; he follows up to ensure that the delegated task was successfully completed. Bush "delegates" and takes it on faith that the expected result will be achieved. Again, what need is there fore follow-up when you have faith?

Every time I click on the comments here I am astounded by the Republicans that post here. I can't figure out if they honestly believe what they write or are so desperate to stop the downward spiral of the GOP that they will say something that they know anybody who has paid attention for the last 5 1/2 years will know is idiotic.

case in point

Hmmn, you are trying to reason with Clinton's baby boomers and asking them to sacrifice. Are you kidding me?

You are talking to the people who think that a head of state should not be asked to refrain from interns under the desk. Hey, its his personal life and he had a tough childhood!

Are you kidding me? What exactly has the leader of your cult asked us to sacrifice? Tax Cuts? Energy consumption? Supporters of this war, like you, to sign up and go do a tour or two?

It is remarkable to me that you fools are still so obsessed with a friggin blow job. How absolutely pathetic.

New Orleans drowned and the gulf coast was ravaged. Billons of dollars have been wasted on a recovery effort that could have been done better by my 9 year old nephew. Regardless of the happy talk Iraq is swirling the toilet bowl, at the cost of over 2.5 billion dollars a week. K-street owns our government.

But, OH MY GOD, Bill Clinton got a blow job.

No, he listens to neo-conservative academics

No shit McSherlock, he listens to facists and fiction writers with no (successful) real world experience.

New Orleans drowned and the gulf coast was ravaged.

Posted by: Mike S on May 24, 2006 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

And the natives re-elected the Mayor in charge. They must like getting ravaged. :)

listens to facists and fiction writers with no (successful) real world experience.

Posted by: toast on May 24, 2006 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

So who has real-world experience in responding to an attack on your homeland? Any Pearl Harbor generals you want to recommend. At last check, they responded to that by going to war with two countries (one of which didn't participate in Pearl Harbour) too.

Thank you Kevin. You have articulated my own view of Bush and the reason for his failed administration. If you want another example just remember that Karl Rove was, until recently, the administration's chief domestic policy advisor. Mr. Rove is many things, but a deep thinking policy wonk isn't one of them.

...Bush is like that. He's playing three dimensional chess, when the democrats insist on playing checkers...

He is shifting a lot of the burden for improving the future onto the current generation. In a sense, that's unfortunate. In the long run, though, I think we as Americans should be willing to make those sacrifices.

Posted by: American Hawk on May 24, 2006 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

Absolutely delusional!

W playing 3-dimensional chess? He couldn't find his way around the block.

"Burden onto the current generation"? Deficits out the wazoo. IT'S ALL ON THE NATIONAL CREDIT CARD!!!

Corporate fat cats getting waaayyyy fatter but 70% of the country hardly better off. Programs for the poorest cut. The only people really paying for this are the poor sods out in Iraq, with sweat, tears and blood. The rest is getting shuffled down the road. The new wave of dribble on economics.

And to show how inane you are McA turns up to pat your back.

And the natives re-elected the Mayor in charge. They must like getting ravaged. :)

"The Natives?" Your white hood is showing.

The bottom line with Bush's "administration" is
that he and his gang are there to prove that
government CAN'T and WON'T work. Then they can
point fingers at how bad government is and that
we really need less of it.
It is no accident that FEMA is such a disaster.
It's supposed to be that way. One screw up after another just drives home the point that
government is something we don't need.
Hence Grover Norquist's infamous "make the federal government small enough to drown in the
bathtub" remark.
I hope the American people wake up from their
stupor in time to see this bunch of cads for what
they really are: incompetent criminals who
want to spread as much misery and destruction as
possible.
Think that's cynical? Come to New Orleans and
look around at their handiwork. Or Iraq.
If they aren't stopped soon there won't be much left to salvage.

a belief that ideas are all that matter.

Grand rhetorical flourishes? Desires? Politics?

I don't really see how ideas matter much either. Impulses, wants, victories, whatever. Respect for say 'democracy' in Iran might have driven them around to being sensible a lot faster.

It's like that bit at the end of The Hidden when the Senator has been taken over by the alien and the alien stands up and makes the Senator say 'I want to be President'.

Say it with me: 'I want cheap oil. I want to get rid of Saddam. I want lower taxes. I want to be re-elected no matter what. I want to be bigger than Daddy.'

ash
['Hell: 'I want more Mexicans.'']

No, he listens to neo-conservative academics. He just happened notice that there are a lot of academics who are basically full of it.

Posted by: McA on May 24, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

Come on. Admit it. You guys are a comedy duo. I couldn't make this up. How long does he listen for?

There are lots of everybody who are full of it. It's the US way of advertizing that's spilled into daily life. The difference is the neocons have been proven to be full of it. All their best layed plans...whoops, "inspirations" have been proven to be misguided, inapt failures.

It's OK to put a horse trader in a position of life and death responsibilty, it's only other peoples lives! Send in the troops; they're not us! Give a tax break to the rich while the deficit spins and there's not a single conservative economist who judges it to give any measurable boost to the economy; we'll just spin out the same old tired line. It's not our own arse we're blowing smoke up.

The unbelievable thing is you don't see anything wrong with this crap. Maybe it's just a game to you and nobody really matters.

Kevin's observation that the Buish administration's failure to take policy seriously would probably be seen as a compliment by Bush.

I think 43 views himself as a conservative movement figure engaged in a long-term struggle to shrink government to pre-FDR times.

Bush's view of government is basically that it's a process of trying to find out how little is needed to sustain the operation of a free market. Taking policy seriously would give too much credence to the legitimacy of government.

I think Bush is willing to accept mainstream America's judgment of his administration as a failure because he is judging his own performance on entirely different terms. Bush's goal has always been to see how far he can move America down the road to the conservative utopia of a Voluntary Society. In his view, the carnage left in his wake is just the detritus of 60 years of bloated, liberal-democratic government policy.

You have to destroy the country in order to save it.

You're no more going to be able to explain every action of the White House with a single value system than you could explain Bush's like of pretzels, bicycling, and his dog with a single principle. Bush does care about immigration, fundamentalist issues such as abortion and gay sex, stem cells, and (via Laura) education, and these interests are as various as those of any other person. But, like bicycling, these activities are fundamentally hobbies: allowable so long as they function politically (eg, as wedge issues), and necessarily jettisoned when they cause damage.

Any Grand Unified Theory to explain the "policy" choices these guys make has to explain not what they do with their extra political capital, but what they do when push comes to shove. And here there really is one fundamental principle that trumps all others: power.

These are powerful white guys, usually sons of powerful white guys before them, and the name of the game for all of them is increasing their power. Not to any end--the power is the end. Just as money trumps religion when push comes to shove, power trumps money--after all, what does money buy you but stuff and power? And these guys value power way more than yachts.

The thing about them all playing the power game is that it's often worth their while to cooperate--a rising tide lifts all yachts. But though they often actively work to gather more power to themselves (tax rates, executive power), it's often easier just to let break down of its own accord the machinery that previous governments have put in place to prevent the nature accrual of power to the powerful. Thus most of their "policy" goals can more easily be achieved by inaction and targeted incompetence than by actual active policy.

The most interesting thing is watching what happens when the power-game players get almost more power than they know what to do with. Like many who win lotteries, they start gambling with bigger stakes. Like most power-lovers who make it to the top, they have to turn to bigger stakes--in this case, the world stage, and, like so many before, to military conquest abroad. Of course, that didn't work out like they planned, and now it's mostly just covert ops abroad and, at home, beating down the other major teams--congress, judiciary, the media, democrats.

Power explains just about everything with these guys. The only other element you need is that, luckily, they're a bit dumb--either burnt out from playing the game for decades, or, like Bush, the dumb children of smarter power-players before them. Let's just hope we can get rid of them before they get new blood in.

Tilli,

Yes, and he's dismantling the country in an incremental, very politically calculated manner.

He knows where he wants the country to go (Harding, Hoover times) and as he tests his conservative vision from one situation to the next (Social Security, hurricane response, etc.) He budgets as much as he thinks he needs to in order to keep the Republicans in power to continue pursuing the conservative movement's vision.

As spending goes through the roof, appointees at the middle tiers of government are changing laws and regulations one by one each day, steadily removing the justification for taxes, oversight, environmental protection, legal protections. Government reports are being edited to remove any controversial information that doesn't support the minimal government message, including important information about climate change, water quality.

The huge deficit itself will eventually become a tool to reduce the size of government, once people realize our tax and financial systems cannot sustain the deficits.

You know, you're absolutely right.

First I thought you were being flippant. Then I remembered the candidate Bush from 1999 - the one thing he wore on his sleeve as a badge of honor that really annoyed me was his discounting of conventional wisdom.

Ignoring people who have a deep interest in policy allows him to choose people who he believes will think "out of the box" for new solutions. I bet he thinks this his best bet at shaking the status quo - he's throwing darts, hoping that one radical change will do well and assure him a place in history.

Fool - he'll take the country down in the process of playing his ill conceived game. This is the danger of putting a semi-educated person in power.

Bush is like that. He's playing three dimensional chess, when the democrats insist on playing checkers

Um, back in 2000, we were told that Bush's main appeal was that he was simple-minded and wouldn't get obsessed with, as you would call it "three dimensional chess" sorts of issues. Why is Bush all of a sudden some kind of policy-mastermind, when it 2000 he was the simple-minded boy who was going to lead us back to a simpler time?

Bush plays complicated games when it comes to social manipulation and aggrandizement of power. You're confusing this with actual policy.

"And the natives re-elected the Mayor in charge. They must like getting ravaged. :)

Posted by: McAristotle on May 24, 2006 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK"

Maybe the "natives" know the failure was federal and not local.

I was there and thought the local authorities did fine. The Feds did not even show until the fifth day after the levees broke.

Fine waste of Federal tax dollars.....one great failure after another.

Maybe the "natives" know the failure was federal and not local.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on May 24, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINK

Well, other cities did better in hurricanes - largely by not depending on the Feds.

But if they want to depend on the Feds next hurricane - its their choice.

Glug!glug! glug!

----------------

The thing about how irrelevant the radical Left is - is that no one operates on the same assumptions you don't even realise you are making.

1. No one thinks that the Democrats can replicate the Fiscal Results of Clinton's deep defence cuts with Islamic Terror outthere or thinks that you guys can bring back the dot com bubble

2. No one really thinks the problem is all a plot of Bush including faked 9-11 attacks.

You've all gone so deep in conspiracy zone, you guys are foaming at the mouth.

Glug!glug! glug!

Wow. You are a really disgusting, reprehensible excuse for a human being, aren't you? How do you live with yourself?

I do policy analysis for a living in DC and this is the single-best post on the current situation I have read.

Policy is the art of asking "Do something, what happens next?".

Politics is the art of asking "Do something, what happens now?"

The Bush administration doesn't do policy.

Glug!glug! glug!

Posted by: hamletta on May 24, 2006 at 6:05 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I think that communities who spend money they could have spent on their own dams on wasteful activities, who tend blame others and then re-elect the same leadership - like chaos, looting and poverty.

I have no other way to explain Chocolate City Nagin being the Mayor.

Kevin, good analysis and synthesis of unrelated threads of evidence. I think your Unified Theory may be spot on. Not to be pedantic, but your last sentence doesn't work - isn't it, "the one thing Bush disdains so utterly is what might guarantee his success"?

Mike S.:

I agree - some of the conservatives who post here, American Hawk as Exhibit A, border on delusional. He attributes all of these grandiose goals and sweeping visions to a man who still wears cowboy boots, takes his "pilly" with him on trips and goes mountain biking when he should be reading research studies on global climate change. In short, Bush's few remaining followers see a Napoleon where most people see Sad Sack. Bizarre!

Stephen Kriz

手机铃声免费下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
mp3铃声下载
下载手机铃声
三星手机铃声
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
铃声下载免费
搞笑铃声下载
搞笑免费铃声
铃声下载免费
搞笑下载铃声
下载铃声
三星铃声
免费铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑免费铃声
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声下载
下载铃声
mp3手机铃声
三星铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑手机铃声
手机铃声免费下载
免费铃声下载
铃声下载免费
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
和弦特效铃声下载
文秘写作
竞聘演讲稿
个人工作总结
八荣八耻演讲稿
中国文秘网
治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药
免费歌曲铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
mp3铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
免费手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
搞笑铃声
免费手机铃声
免费铃声
免费铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声免费下载
mp3铃声
免费手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
手机mmf铃声下载
mp3手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声免费下载
铃声下载
免费铃声
手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声
免费铃声
免费手机铃声
mp3铃声
mp3铃声下载
免费铃声

So Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry are smart?

The liberal tendency to assume everyone who disagrees with you is stupid is so persuasive!

I would say that Snow has been quite a success; he has managed to keep the tax cuts and even extend them in the face of record deficits when economic orthodoxy would call for their elimination. How has he not been success in the eyes of BushCo?

My Grand Unified Theory (GUT):

1. money for me and my friends
2. power for me

Policy? As those quotes from folks like O'Neill, DiIulio make clear: They. Dont. Care. It's not what they are there for. They are there to maintain power and enrich their friends. Any apparent legislative achievments (such as NCLB) are merely exceptions that prove the rule.

A nice tasty bait is out there ... c'mon someone take it, take it

Excellent insight Kevin.

All theory and no execution. Kind of reminds me of Detroit's mayor, Kwame. He wins elections because he has some good ideas and understands some basic socio-economics, but in office he just takes care of himself and doesn't get anything done.

McA -- do you mean that the long list of Chinese characters is tasty bait? It makes more sense to me than your raving.

Yeah, critical thinking is for wussies.

It seems to me that Bush is in permanent re-election mode. That seems to constitue his entire policy making pattern in the WH. Whatever will get yhim re-elected, which is weird because he can't get re-elected. What ekese explains whiy his main policy director (Karl Rove) is essentally an electioneering wonk. And it's not like Bush is trying to generate a permanent Republican majority in Congress either sinc he has never advanced any policy that help Republican Congressmen over and above his own needs.

Good post, Kevin. Not sure about the McCain-Feingold example, but otherwise great work.

A guy gets passed over for promotion. Big frigging deal, it happens all the time.

But Kevin "Drama Queen" Drum uses that as a launching pad to bash Bush. Amazing, the never-ending emotional rants of the Bush haters.

Unbridled fealty to business interests? That's probably the closest to the truth, but what about Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold?

Um, how about because Bush's claim that he does what he thinks is right without regard to polling is hogwash, and he feared opposing popular reforms?

Chocolate City Nagin

Faubus Redux

McA,

how much are they paying you to haunt this site with your pseudo-debate? I mean, why would anybody want to hang around here among the brain-dead, trying to beat some sense into them?
You are obviously selling viewpoints that nobody here is buying, so by any normal market-rationale, your time is more wisely spent elsewhere....but I guess you won't just come out and say why it is worth your while in your usual confrontational style, would you?

McA,

"Well, other cities did better in hurricanes - largely by not depending on the Feds.

But if they want to depend on the Feds next hurricane - its their choice."

No, you are quite wrong.

People pay into a fund through taxes and expect certain things in return.

FEMA is the visible part of a federal insurance program supported by such a tax program.

If you wish to downgrade such a program then the Feds should refuse taxes for such and local programs can be funded from such, reducing the umbrella effect and driving up costs.

Also, were you at all familiar with geography, the "other" disasters due to hurricanes struck areas of the country above sea level, reducing the effects of flooding to a great degree. Comparing one to the other is simply ridiculous, yet, why would I think a wingnut would ungrade himself from a fatuous argument to a logical one.

By the way - Gore and Kerry ARE smart. It sure would be nice to have a smart President again.

Bush shows his true colors again by making a point out of the fact that he won't watch the Gore global warming movie. Imagine Clinton in a similar situation. He'd grin and say something like "I'm looking forward to seeing it." And he would watch it and probably make some presceint comments on it, whether or not it affected his policy actions.

Bush thinks ignorance is a virtue and something to brag about. God help us!

The philosophy of this bunch is that government is useless, except for the military. If you believe that none of the programs are worthwhile, then why not take the money for the programs and use it to reward your political patrons? Current Republican philosophy is bankrupt and useless when it comes to actually governing the country.

Bush doesn't do policy because he does not believe in policy. The Bush attitude comes from knowing nothing but priveledge.

Spot On! As with political discourse (ignore valid criticisms of your actions and immediately attack the critic), in this administration, policy is for losers and spin is everything.

In their mind, ANYTHING can be manipulated through a combination of carefully crafted language and image. Presidential "dialogues" with the public have nothing to do with real dialogue and everything to do with creating a carefully staged atmosphere totally devoid of a hint of criticism.

Backdrops are carefully chosen for the image they convey and to buttress the message, little slogans are pasted so that TV cameras and photographers cannot shoot from any direction without including an instance of that slogan in the resulting shot.

Perhaps the best indicator of where this Administration places its focus....the quarter of a million dollars it spent creating a backdrop set for Iraq war press briefings (plus the $75,000 FedEx bill for shipping the sucker to the Mid East.)

Image is EVERYTHING. Substance is nothing. Black is white, up is down.

Off of that, however, Kevin creates an elaborate theory in which Bush "doesn't care about policy".

That's right, Chickenhawk, that's the only evidence we have that this administration cares nothing about policy. We never heard Bush appointee John Diullo (sp?) claim that meetings always evolved around politics, not policy, never heard him claim that in his 2+ years in the administration that he never heard any substantive policy discussion.

No, we never heard Paul O'Neal say that with this administration, "politics trumps policy every time. And I mean every time." We never heard Richard Clarke complain that the administration never held any discussions about terrorism prior to 9/11. But all of these people, I'm sure, were just disgruntled former employees who are lashing out unfairly at their former boss. We should really listen to those who are employed now.

As always, Chickenhawk, you need to get your head out of your ass.

Bush is like that. He's playing three dimensional chess, when the democrats insist on playing checkers.

That is the second funniest thing I have ever heard about Bush (the funniest was when Hinderaker said Bush was bordering on brilliance, or words to that effect).

The post-war in Iraq? The non-starter Social Security plan? Having his first post-Katrina photo be of him staring forlorn out the window of Air Force One? All of these are things that I think even conservatives would accept were badly strategized ... and I haven't even mentioned The Pet Goat yet.

I like it when the trolls keep bringing up Katrina. Let them carry our water for us. Because Katrina is the zenith of Bush's failures. In one fell swoop, it told the public (1) Bush's national security prowess was a myth, (2) there was nothing compassionate about his brand of conservatism, (3) the black, the poor, the ill and the elderly don't have a friend in Bush, (4) the FEMA that failed Louisiana and Mississippi was not the same caliber as the FEMA that handled Andrew under Clinton, and (4) this is the leading issue that will dump the GOP majority in November.

So let the trolls remind folks often.

And Kevin, I think your analysis rocks because it's the first explanation that makes perfect sense.

So no one's going to touch the 'God wants me to...be President even unto rigging elections, invade Iraq, run huge deficits while cutting taxes to the wealthiest...He told me so himself' aspect of the delusions?

"It can't be said often enough: what American conservatism has become, as a practical ideology, is the perpetuation and augmentation of privilege for those who are already privileged. And Bush is an extreme practitioner of that ideology. This new round of tax cutting is just the latest of countless examples that makes the point."
- Jonathan Weiler

September 25, 2005, Sunday
By NINA MUNK (NYT)

"In 1985, the combined wealth of the Forbes 400 was $238 billion, adjusted for inflation. Today, the 400 richest people in America are together worth $1.13 trillion. To put that number in perspective, $1.13 trillion is more than the gross domestic product of Canada. And it is more than the G.D.P. of Switzerland, Poland, Norway and Greece - combined."

Kevin,

You've hit the nail on the head. The anti-intellectual animus of the President and his governing coalition has finally come home to roost in the spectacular reality-based disasters of gas prices, Katrina, Iraq among others. It will no longer be sufficient to call the press biased in favor of liberals and Democrats just because the evidence they collect is inconvenient for conservative causes. And going into the 2006 election American voters may have arrived at what Richard Hofstader once called a "Sputnik moment." It was OK to pummel the public schools for undermining public morality by teaching evolution or subversive foreign notions like socialism or communism, but once the Soviets threatened our actual security by putting a piece of metal into space "suddenly the national distaste for intellect appeared to be not just a disgrace but a hazard to survival. After assuming for some years that its main concern with teachers was to examine them for disloyalty, the nation now began to worry about their low salaries." Despite our heated ideological disputes, at the end of the day Americans are a practical can-do people whose most important concern is that something works. It's all about competence, not ideology, as someone famously once said.

George is lazy and he doesn't like doing homework.

I'll echo some questioning of Kevin's examples:

1) "Pure, ruthless political calculation? There's plenty of that, but it really doesn't explain things like No Child Left Behind, the Iraq war, or his immigration policy."

Actually these illustrate ruthless political calculation at the best.

No Child Left Behind was crucial in building his image as a "compassionate" conservative - despite the fact it was unfunded, built on shoddy statistics and forced kids into endless testing - it was a great political tool for a long time.

Iraq War - wow, this was a brilliant political tool for awhile. It allowed Bush to paint himself as a "War President". In 2002 it knocked Enron and coporate scandals off the front page, distracted from the fact that terrorism was getting worse world wide, and was a great tool to pound the democrats.

And in 2004 Bush still managed to use it as a tool to paint Democrats as unpatriotic. Granted the Democratic strategists were idiots not to use the complete evident failure of Iraq in 2004 as an effective issue - but they never chose an angle.

2) Unbridled fealty to business interests? That's probably the closest to the truth, but what about Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold?

In both these cases, Bush had no choice. Sarbanes had to be done to show some concern on the corporate scandal front, and McCain-Feingold they tried to sabotage at each step of the way and or gut.

So here are two other possibilities:

1) Bush hates having people who are smarter than he is around. He puts up with Rove because he has to (and he had to have Powell and others to look good in 2000.) But in general he has mediocrities around him - because he just can't stand being out-shone. All those put down nicknames like "turd blossom" support that theory.

2) He's not a thinker and thus addicted to simple answers. Each one of his major initiatives is based on a simple idea - a magic answer. Unfortunately, the devil's always in the details, and life isn't that simple. But Bush hates that, and thus each initiative goes wildly off track.

Again, that seems quite clear, because Bush has never explained a nuanced idea in his life. He sounds like a simpleton probably because he is a simpleton.

Kevin, I wish I could say this nicely but the American people are going to have to recognize that the excuse making time is over. Bush sounds like an ignorant, spoiled dolt because he is one: and they more or less elected him twice. Nobody else did - we did.

the American people are going to have to recognize that the excuse making time is over

they already have, and Bush's poll numbers reflect it. even (honest) conservatives have given up on him.

Apologies if someone already mentioned this but,

A) I agree, Kevin hit the nail on the head and

B) Did anyone notice the striking parallel with Jeff Skilling & Enron? In the movie, 'The Smartest Guys In The Room,' Skilling's philosophy is revealed essentially as this: What really matters is the idea, not the execution. So, I should be able to bank the profits from my idea regardless of whether the idea has been executed, tested, proven or produced actual profits!

All of which, I think, is well described as pure, infantile narcissism.

McA is such a dependable punching bag!

The liberal tendency to assume everyone who disagrees with you is stupid is so persuasive!

Read this slowly, McA: We don't have to assume that you are stupid. You have provided us with a cornucopia of evidence.

It's a--commonplace--observation, not an assumption.

A bit of inanity from American Chickenhawk:

His thinking is long-term; he's growing the economy of the future with deficits of today, knowing that the growth will be worth it...He is shifting a lot of the burden for improving the future onto the current generation. In a sense, that's unfortunate. In the long run, though, I think we as Americans should be willing to make those sacrifices.

I'm sorry, but do you really mean this? The "defecits of today"? Have you ever had a class in basic finance? Ever balanced a checkbook? Ever paid a credit card bill? Apparently not, if you can write a bit of whimsy like that quoted above with a straight face.

By their very nature, "defecits of today" push the burden of current spending onto future individuals. In fact, by accruing massive defecits we are not, in fact, sacrificing anything for future tax payers, but demanding that future tax payers sacrifice for us. Thus, we saw both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton having to raise taxes to pay off defecits created by Ronald Reagan. And, in turn, my daughter will no doubt be paying higher taxes at some point to pay off defecits created by George W. Bush.

That's not a sacrifice on your or my part pinky, it's quite the opposite. That you think it's some sort of sacrifice on your part suggests either vast ignorance or incredible delusion. Which, of course, probably explains why you continue to argue that GW is a great president.

Chee-rist.

There have been many times where I've been very critical of you, primarily because you're a bit too moderate for my tastes, and because I think you sometimes criticize the left without offering any valid alternative reasoning. However, I also have to say I believe this is your finest post ever, and I intend to refer many of my friends to this permalink. Excellent analysis.

What sets Bush apart from other Presidents is he's extremely lazy. Intellectually lazy, lazy when it comes to developing a policy, lazy when it comes to making the government work, lazy w/ execution (Katrina), lazy when it comes to asking "what happens if plan A doesn't work". Lazy.

I concur that this is a good attempt at sythesis.

One ingredient that could be emphasised more is the emphasis on personal loyalty in the Bush administration. Bush owes everything he has to wealthy backers who bailed him out repeatedly in the oil business, provided him with sweet heart loans and deals, and then set him up with a baseball franchise before bankrolling his political career. In turn, political loyalty is emphasized over competence in his selections of those to run government whereas those who rightfully put service to the nation first are quickly let go.

In addition, while politics are important in many administrations, how many have had political hacks like Karl Rove given such prominent roles in a Presidential administration. According to hacks like Karl Rove good politics IS good policy and he makes no apparent distinction between the two. This emphasis on political and emotional impact is reflected in the reckless use of deficit spending and Cheney's famous "Deficits dont matter" since in the short run typically the gains outway the heavy long term costs.

It is true, its not all political calculation, Bush has shown a fondness from acting from his gut, as demonstrated in his statements about looking foreign leaders in the eye and seeing into their souls.

Finally we have a highly competetive President who wants to beat his fathers record by avoiding all of his fathers mistakes, but perceives the problems as being almost all political.

Oops. "Deficits". Replace throughout.

"the American people are going to have to recognize that the excuse making time is over

they already have, and Bush's poll numbers reflect it. even (honest) conservatives have given up on him."

Yes, his poll numbers are down, but he still hasn't lost an election. And there seems painful little willingness to take any hard look at why we, as a country, failed so miserably.

So who has real-world experience in responding to an attack on your homeland? Any Pearl Harbor generals you want to recommend. At last check, they responded to that by going to war with two countries (one of which didn't participate in Pearl Harbour) too

Well that's symptomatic of the bubble world the far right lives in - they think that no country ever experienced terrorism before 9/11.

Might have done us some good to talk with our European allies, who after all have been dealing with terrorism for quite some time. Instead, we dismissed them as "old Europe" and expected them to either slavishly be our lap dogs (cough couch Blair cough) or told them to get out of our way. While some of the solutions we may have come up with from consulting with the Europeans may have made civil libertarians unhappy, I'm quite confident none would have involved invading Iraq.

Speaking of which, funny you should mention Pearl Harbor, as it was someone with a lot of actual experience in war (WWII, Korea), Eisenhower, who warned about the danger of the military-industrial complex.

Read an analysis that explains the Bush presidency in terms of a political strategy employed by Karl Rove that is singularly focused on maintaining a 51% majority constituency and gauges the "tolerance threshold" for disappointing each of the various groups....here:

www.thoughttheater.com

My personal belief is that all of the boy-king's actions make sense if you look at them from one perspective. Basically everything he's done has been to transfer as much wealth from the lower 80 or 90% to the top 1% (give or take on the exact numbers).

Hence you get tax cuts, gutted regulations, corporate giveaways, crony capitalism, etc.

The screw-ups, like Katrina, are simply things that don't hit his radar screen because there's no immediate wealth transfer involved. After the fact, when the no-bid contracts are handed out, well, that's a different story.

And I'm going to venture into tin-foil hat territory on this one. The point of Iraq was to take the Iraqi oil OFF the market. Look what's happened: production drops, prices skyrocket, and who makes money? The oil companies.

Then, when prices started to moderate earlier this year, they started rattling sabres at Iran to spook the market some more. The result? Oil prices go back up, the oil companies benefit.

Now, this requires the assumption that the boy-king & his cronies actually know what they're doing, and have the competence to carry it out. But look at the results: massive transfers of wealth upward, and who gives a rip about anything else?

To clarify a point above, I'm not necessarily opposed to deficit spending and I don't think liberals should be either. Deficits have their place in the panoply of fiscal tools. Thus, in cases where the national economy is in a downturn, it might be necessary to boost spending through deficits to spur further growth. Defecit dollars shouldn't be used in lieue of available tax receipts or, even worse as in this case, to actually fund tax cuts.

It's like home equity loans. Using a home equity loan to make repairs or improvements on the house to add value to it is smart. Using a home equity loan to buy instant depreciables like cars or consumer goods is just stupid. Most Americans wouldn't do that (I hope), so why should we give credit to a President and Congress that do that?

I will remind each one of you that for as incompetent and stupid as you all claim GW is, he has beaten you at almost every turn.

Across the board tax cuts
Retained control of Congress in '02
Trumped Kerry in '04
Staying the course in Iraq
Two fine conservative SC appointees

The pathetic elites that continue to post their diatribe on this site re: this administration may want to look in the mirror one day to really understand who the incompetent ones are.

Hmmn, you are trying to reason with Clinton's baby boomers and asking them to sacrifice. Are you kidding me?

You are talking to the people who think that a head of state should not be asked to refrain from interns under the desk. Hey, its his personal life and he had a tough childhood!

Let me guess, McA, you're a big fan of George's tax cuts, right?

klaus, this administration is spending over $380 billion on entitlements which is more than double the previous administration, which spent only $160 billion. Secondly, the tax cuts were across the board, meaning even the tax payers with very modest incomes realized a break. And finally, those tax cuts helped fuel the current historic low unemployment figure. So everyone (those who pay income taxes)received money back and more people are working today bringing home an income than the during the previous administrations tenure. Hmmmmm.......doesn't sound like transfer of wealth, but why let facts get in the way of drama queen liberal hysteria.

Yes, his poll numbers are down, but he still hasn't lost an election

there hasn't been an election for him to lose, while his numbers have been low. and there won't be.

And finally, those tax cuts helped fuel the current historic low unemployment figure.

prove it. show your work.

cleek, you prove to me all of the criminal activity you have laid at the feet of this administration first, and then I might entertain demonstrating economics 101 to you. If you actually had any integrity you would bring charges against this administration considering all of their high crimes and misdemeanors you have leveled against them. If not, you nothing but an empty elitist vessel.

It is very obvious that starting with 911 this country has been undersiege. It is obvious that George Bush represents a group of powerful people that want the American Democracy Experiment to be OVER. They are well on their way to weakening us so much that we will never recover. All of us need to pull together, regardless of our differences and save the experiment. I hate to imagine the world without the real USA.

cleek, in May of 2004 Bush's poll numbers were 41% and 6 in ten considered the Iraq war to be a mistake. And you still lost.......

Care to lie (try, I'm sorry) again.

You don't have clue what the "real USA" is jeanette. But thanks for playing.

i was reading this for amusement - why get involved with morons like american hawk and mca - but then jay conveniently posted some current piffle.

let's start with "entitlements." with people like Jay, it's not worth the time to look up the facts, so we'll limit ourselves to saying that yes, "spending" on social security and medicare goes up every year. There are more people eligible and we correct for inflation. That said, social security and medicare are currently funded through specific taxes and are in surplus (although medicare won't remain there) and bush is the one who expanded medicare in a spectacularly stupid way.

second, no, bush didn't cut taxes across the board. he cut income taxes across the board. that said, the way you judge the equity of an across the board tax cut is to look at after-tax income as a percentage of total income. the bush tax cuts have increased the after-tax income as a percentage of total income for the upper .1% of households, which means, by definition, that all other households had their after-tax income as a percentage of total income lowered.

And no, we aren't at a current historic low unemployment figure by the meaningful indicator there: percentage of working age adults with a job. The fact is, Bush's tax cuts have fueled a tremendous gain of about 2.5M jobs total (i'm rounding up), which was pretty much the average annual job growth after clinton's tax increase.

in short, jay, your entire recitation is typical of rightwing drama queen hysteria: ill-informed, ignorant, and ungrounded in the "facts" that you think you are the master of.

sorry Jay, no answer, no work shown. you get an F. go sit in the corner.

he's growing the economy of the future with deficits of today, knowing that the growth will be worth it...

Yeah, I remember the stock analysts and venture capitalists in the late 1990's saying these same kinds of things; it's a "new economy" - the price/earnings ratios show that the stock market can grow forever, etc.

Then the chickens came home to roost, and pooped all over the market.

The DJIA has been FLAT for the past 6 years, with only a very slight improvement in the past year, mostly based on the fact that corporate profits are up, mostly due to corporate welfare, and not due to competetive competency or actual productivity. The reason for the lack of competency is because the money that ought to be going to pay for expansion and worker's salaries is going to the executives. And while the workers are minimally employed, they're losing ground on the wealth front. And as workers, they're also consumers, but because they're making less money, sales are off in almost every industry.

It's simple math that proves that "trickle down" economics don't work. Our economy is 2/3 consumer spending. When you gut consumer income, guess what? Spending goes down.

The only way american corps can make money in this climate is by bribing congressmen for handouts. Which is precisely why the Republicans like this kind of economy, and constantly strive for it.

So you're claiming that the aging retirement community has doubled in the last six years hence the doubling of medicare and SS as it relates to entitlement spending. That's ill-informed and ignorant.

I did mention income taxes, which you conveniently ignored, and by your own admission were cut across the board. Fair is fair. Those who paid in more, received more back. Your understanding of that embarrassingly juvenile.

And finally, unemployment is currently under 5% despite the job losses that followed 9/11 and Katrina. Try as you might, that's a tough one to put a damper on. Good luck in '06 and '08.

btw, your current chair of the DNC didn't fair too well in his first high profile election. He backed the rich white candidate in NO and lost.........ouch.

A B.A. in psych is a dangerous thing. But since I have one, here's my two cents: Shrub is quite possibly the most insecure "man" I've ever seen or known. Nothing else has the success rate as a unifying theory of the Shrub Preznitcy as utter insecurity. The cockiness, the disdain for the media, the disdain for the academy, the scorn directed at "book larnin' ", the bullying, the cronyism, the insularity . . . all these things are consistent with insecurity. And the result of actions taken by an administration animated primarily by insecurity? Well, we may not be able to rectify all the mistakes and problems he's created in 8 years for a hundred years, if ever. God help us.

well, jay's ill-informed about lots of matters, not just economics!

for instance, the only "right or wrong" polling on iraq i can find in may, 2004, shows 48% thinking it was the right thing. And that was an interesting moment, which i'm sure Jay deliberately cherrypicked: that was the abu ghraib revelation period.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq6.htm

as for bush's approval, there was a very brief moment in early may, 2004, where his ratings were 41-42% (again thanks to abu ghraib), but both in april and later may, his approval ratings were in the upper 40s to low 50s.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

keep trying, jay: even monkeys produce shakespeare eventually, although it's not clear that college republicans do. we'd like to see the experiment.

"In the end, ironically, the one thing that Bush disdains so utterly is the very thing that guarantees his utter failure."

And our only hope against further catastrophes emanating from this White House. Three-dimensional chess? The guy hardly plays checkers, and if he lost two out of three, he'd challenge you to another six games.

Any half-educated observer of Bush could see this coming years ago. The guy is perhaps personally charming--although I find such men to be shallow and slippery--but ultimately, there is a reason why everything he's been involved in over the years has gone south. The man doesn't really have a head for business or politics. He only plays the game of them, slapping backs, making wisecrack remarks, and utterly depending on others to carry his water. A true third-generation wastrel (the first generation makes the money, the second spends it, and the third runs the rest of it into the ground), Bush really has no redeeming features other than his last name. (At least Jeb has some smarts, but he's prone to foot-in-mouth disease.) What I find troubling is the personality cult this goofball president seems to have inadvertently created, but an article in this month's Harper's makes it quite clear how the right wing in America has used the concept of "stabbed in the back" to vilify liberals and Democrats over decades for the right wing's excesses, bad decisions, and disasterous strategies. The article goes on to state that this strategy seems to be finally running out steam mainly because Bush and his crowd have run government wholly for six years, the culmination of several decades of right-wing funding, and that they don't really have any real excuses any more for their screw-ups.

I haven't read nor posted on this board for a while. Looks like the trolls have learned nothing, preferring to call those who they disagree with offensive names and offering mindless platitudes instead of offering respect and reasoned discourse. How typical...

Bush sounds like an ignorant, spoiled dolt because he is one: and they more or less elected him twice. Nobody else did - we did.

Posted by: Samuel Knight

With all due respect, sir: No, I damned well didn't.