It is clear that George W. Bush is the walking wounded
A president who roamed across the national and world stages with an unshakable self-assurance that comforted Republicans and confounded critics since 2001 suddenly finds himself struggling to reclaim his swagger. Bush’s standing with the public — and within the Republican Party — has been battered by a failed Social Security campaign, violence in Iraq, and most recently Hurricane Katrina. His approval ratings, 42 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, have never been lower.
A president who normally thrives on tough talk and self-assurance finds himself at what aides privately describe as a low point in office, one that is changing the psychic and political aura of the White House, as well as its distinctive political approach.
To the progressive movement, specifically the Democratic Party: you didn’t do any of this. You didn’t make this happen. These wounds of Team Bush’s are completely self-inflicted, from the Iraq nightmare, to high gas prices to the woefully inept and almost homicidal response to Hurricane Katrina. Unlike the obstacles that beleagured President Clinton, none of this happened to the Bushies because of their political opponents but rather – in spite of them. The George Bush of today is not much different from the George Bush who beat John Kerry in Novemeber.
What next?
The left needs to realize that they are no longer fighting George Bush. He won reelection and the only thing he has left to win is how he is remembered – his legacy. You create that narrative not by making up ads against Bush or participating in ineffectual protests that have no clue why they exist. It’s up to the politicians and the pundit class to make it clear that the malaise rolling across America is the result of con ideology gone mainstream.
The idea that the federal government can’t properly respond to a natural disaster because an unqualified crony pal of the president is in charge is what happens when you put these cons into office. When we have high gas prices and the White House makes no effort to stave them off, that’s what happens when you have a con-run government. When terrorists kill us and we remain unable to find and visit vengeance upon them, that’s a side effect of having a con in charge – it’s what they do, how they do it. That good service men and women are stuck in a foreign land dying for a cause nobody can really articulate for God knows how long, is what you get when you elect these cons into office.
From top to bottom, from local to national office, the con movement is bad for America and is making life harder, less profitable and less safe for its citizens. George Bush is just the figurehead here, you aren’t running and advocating against him anymore – but against the perverted movement he stands for.
“To the progressive movement, specifically the Democratic Party…”
The Democratic Party is not the “progressive movement” or even part of the progressive movement; it is an obstacle to the progressive movement.
eli;
pretty broad. care to erlucidate?
The Democratic Party is a once-grand mansion, abandoned by her true heirs and taken over by squatters. Progressives have a choice, we can start over from scratch or move into this fixer-upper, roll up our sleeves, and go to work.
I know what my choice is. I ran for, and won, a spot on the Executive Board of my local County Democrats last spring. I challenge all Progressives to put their money (and time, and energy) where their mouth is, and join me.
Please explain to me, of the two parties in America, which one is more progressive. Then explain to me if there is any way a third party could be succesful in America (not that I would want one). Now quit bitchin’.
Oliver, when you get a situation where presidential candidates are appearing at $1000 a plate dinners to lobby for funds from the super-rich to fund a campaign which costs tens of millions, how can either be progressive and keep it’s rich contributors happy?
Clinton may have been a more able president than Bush 43, but he didn’t change the laws on arsenic in the water until Bush was due at the door. If Gore had got the job, would this law have even been thought of?
Hey, whatever else, Eli is true to his ideals. He opposed the war here when most other progressives made a “deal with the devil” for Kerry’s sake. We all knew what was going on.
Dugger
We all knew what was going on.
Cryptic, but intriguing. Care to elaborate?
Not to go off on a tangent, Oliver, but President Clinton’s problems, just like President Bush’s problems, did not come about because of their opponents. They came about because of their individual choices, decisions, and actions.
Semant,
What was going on was that most posters here, really did not like Kerry’s, in effect, pro war postion, but silently acquiesced in the name of party unity. The politics are much more radical and the people much worse, but kinda what happened to the Communist Party after the Nazi Soviet Pact. Some stayed true to their ideals, some didn’t.
Dugger