The Bubble
Tweet
Clearly, George W. Bush’s role model is not his father, who every week would ride down from the White House to the House of Representatives gymnasium, just to hear what fellows like Murtha were saying. Nor is the model John F. Kennedy, who during the Cuban missile crisis reached out to form an “ExCom” of present and past national-security officials, from both parties, to find some way back from the abyss short of war. Nor is it Franklin Roosevelt, who liked to create competition between advisers to find the best solution. Or Abraham Lincoln who, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin writes in her new book, “Team of Rivals,” appointed his political foes to his cabinet.
Bush likes to say that his hero is Ronald Reagan, a true-blue conservative who knew his own mind. But Reagan also knew when to compromise, and when he got into trouble early in his second term, he reached out for help, making a moderate, former senator, Howard Baker, his chief of staff. The chance that George W. Bush will give a top White House job to an establishment moderate (say, Brent Scow-croft, his father’s national-security adviser) is about the same as that Texas will become a province of France.
For me, this is the most unforgivable element of Bush’s sordid presidency — the refusal to listen, to even pretend to listen, to anyone that isn’t in lockstep with the president and his idealogical sycophants. This contempt extends beyond just the beltway, with the president governing as if he only answers to one half of America — the rest be damned.
43 Responses to “The Bubble”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Murtha is curious as to who George is talking to. No doubt what dominates for BushII is the burning bush in the Rose Garden. It’s a two-way communique with the man upstairs which George favors over the eschewed human responses. The only trouble is it may not be the voice of God which guides our President. When God called Gideon to the battlefield there was no faulty intelligence, just clear-cut victory. Same with David. And don’t forget Abraham. Throughout history many have claimed to heed god’s voice in the furtherance of some agenda. The claim of divine guidance is no guarantee of the source of information. When the judgements have been so redundantly incorrect in the wrong-headed war in Iraq, it is doubtful the Omniscient is providing the edicts.
I would agree that this is almost a fundamental flaw of his Presidency. But it strikes me as more than a tad bit ironic that one of the nastiest partisans around is complaining that President Bush does not listen to the other side enough.
JD: I’m a partisan citizen, he’s the effing president of the United States. Understand?
He spoke to a Republican, once, about a possible appointment to the Supreme Court?
And all the time, I thought he never consulted Republicans.
Silly me.
Comment from the same post:
What we see a fundamental flaw, the right wing sees as a cardinal virtue. They brag about it; countless pundits have published and broadcast admiring testimonials to it.
What we see as rash and stubborn, they see as bold and resolute.
Good lord, Frank. Welfare reform was all about listening to and compromising with the Right.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Frank: Give me an example!
Oliver: Here is an example.
Frank: That’s just one example!
When will the hurting stop?
I don’t understand Mr. Bush at all. You’d think he would certainly be listening to all those great new ideas and rational discussions brought to the table by the Dems.
frame, surely someone as cynical as you doesn’t believe that crap.
Clinton was “triangulating”, his War Room’s nifty term for selling out for votes.
Bush hasn’t vetoed anything since 2000, but that couldn’t possibly be in a spirit of compromise.
You lefties kill me. It’s been the same old crap for years. Republicans are supposed to compromise with Democrats. Democrats are supposed to “develop a backbone.”
Do I really hear a defense of Bush’s cul-de-sac, ‘stew-in-my-own-juices’ decision making “process”?
Frankly, AWOL George’s refusal to compromise is a hallmark of people of low intelligence. It also demonstarates he doesn’t have a good grasp of the issues and that, in turn, compells him to seek out only those who agree with him.
This largely explains why every time AWOL George ventures out of the bubble, his appearances are highly-scripted affairs in front of screened audience of sycophants.
Sad to say but I’d trust a randomly selected sixth-grader than AWOL George.
Pres. Clinton compromised often with the right, to the protests of much of his base (ie NAFTA, Welfare Reform). Pres. Bush has not vetoed anything because he’s had the congress in his party for almost his entire presidency and they pass whatever he’d like. As I said in the post, Bush refuses to even pretend to listen to the opposition party. I don’t expect him to favor policies that Democrats prefer, but he should at least act like there’s somebody besides Republicans around. As the story at the heart of this asks, if he did that maybe he would have at least reconsidered the way he executed the war in Iraq — if not the actual idea of attacking Iraq.
JD, that’s what you get when you elect a fundamentalist dry drunk to the WH. There’s a reason that adherents of some religions ought not to be elected unless they can put the good of the country ahead of “God’s voice” telling them it’s time to remake the middle east.
It would be as foolish as .. I don’t know, setting things up so that one by one the Middle East becomes a Shiite theocracy. I’m not sure what Bush and his Bubble Boys were thinking (or even if they were thinking), but they’ve just set that in motion.
So, jadegold, let us use your “refusal to compromise is a sign of low intelligence” position. In my experience, you and frame have never compromised with somebody that had a differing perspective than yours. Is that a sign of low intelligence? Depite my disagreeing with almost every point you ever make, I do not think that you have low intelligence. Steadfast and unwilling to change your viewpoint, most certainly. Low intelligence. No.
So Christians should not be allowed to hold the Presidency ? Or only sort-of Christians should be allowed ?
It’s funny. When normal people ask Bush lickers for of an example of Bush behaving like a “uniter not divider”, they always, like clockwork, bring up his work with Kennedy on nclb.
Yes, once, five years ago Bush cooperated with a Democrat.
And then went about executing nclb in a way that make Kennedy (and every Democrat who voted for it) regret it.
George Bush pre-9/11 is different from George Bush post-9/11. Pre 9/11 he was the lucky beneficiary of electoral math who’d been outvoted by his phlegmatic opponent and who occasionally acted like the moderate consensus-builder he campaigned as. After 9/11, after he got a taste of war powers and 90 percent of the country behind him, he began to think that he could shape the world in his own image. Once you begin to think that it’s hard to stop thinking it, and there’s no sign he’s even trying.
“You and frame have never compromised with somebody that had a differing perspective than yours.”
JD, if you want compromise, first you have to be right about something.
That’s pretty funny considering the latest scuttlebut had Liebermen becoming SECDEF.
JD,
I for once have to agree partially with the slavering dogs of the left here. Regardless of why he did it, Clinton did some moderate things. I happen to agree that he did those things for less than noble reasons, but it doesn’t matter. He did them (welfare reform, decent budget parameters, some foreign military intervention etc) and gets credit for them. Unfortunately for the left, Hodean and his surrender brigade controls the party now – a far cry from the sometimes (ultimately) pragmatic Clinton.
Dugger
“… he did those things for less than noble reasons …”
I love you guys. When Bush and Rove concoct the phrase compassionate conservative and gin up a draconian education policy that compels teachers to teach directly to rote evaluation tests whcih they then refuses to fully fund it’s called compromise. When Clinton adopts welfare reform as a platform and wrestles with Newt Gingrich to get a policy passed that everyone can live with it’s called triangulation and ignoble. Too classic.
(poor) frame,
Still typing first, thinking second. Marvin Olasky is credited with founding the concept of compassionate conservatism. And I gave Clinton credit for moderation, regardless of my speculation as to his motives. Likewise, I give Bush credit for no T attacks on our soil since 9-11.
Dugger
Funny how the wingnuts always forget the anthrax attacks. Of course, that was an inside job, so if you don’t call the Bush administration terrorists, TECHNICALLY there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil.
“that was an inside job”
Right on factcheck!
Lets not forget how the right set up Teddy at Chappy.
And lets not forget (ANLF) we sabotaged Sentor Wellstone’s plane.
ALNF we DYNO-MITED (You see, some believe Jimmy Walker helped us)the dykes in New Orleans.
ALNF Bush seniors trip on an SR-71 in the middle of the night to get Iran to free the hostages for Reagan.
ALNF Bush knew about 9-11 ahead of time.
ALNF Lee Harvey oswald actually being in the pay of right wing extremists.
Dugger, I got a million of ‘em. ha cha! ha cha!
Dugger, who the hell is Olasky? If Bush didn’t invent the phrase, he popularized it and in so doing defined it to the American people. And I’m sure you give Clinton full credit for the lack of foreign terrorist attacks on American soil after the first Trade Center Bombing. So far Clinton still holds the record on that.
John S., proving once again liberals couldn’t buy a sense of humor.
Frank,
I agree with you — John S. represents all liberals, each and every one.
By the way, your own blog, Condipundit, is always hysterical as a very subtle work of good satire. I urge others to stop by and enjoy one rollicking post after another. Don’t be discouraged by the lack of double-digit comments under Condipundit’s posts — read and enjoy the brilliance of his excellent echo chamber. Now who are those two guys who always comment on your posts? They have me ROFL every time.
Dugger-
I see you get your sense of your humor from the same cesspool as our President who cracks jokes about not finding WMD in Iraq (are they under the sofa in the oval office? YUK, YUK).
Maybe you think it’s funny to ship dead soldiers home by air freight, too. Ha cha cha cha!
buma, thanks for visiting my blog…
hey frame,
Do your own research on Olasky. I’m right but I don’t mind you qualifying your post. And I give Clinton credit for about everything that happened on his watch Same with every other Pres. Reagan won the Cold War. Bubba had a very good economy and fixed the welfare system. And Bush stopped the terrorists after 9-11. Carter gave us a misery index over 20%. Quarrel with all of those if you wish.
John S,
Seriously, I thought the Pres was funny on the WMDs. But then he is just a regular guy, not an effete Massachusetts-Nantucket solar-power- thwarting snob llike the Haunted Tree. And the only person I have seen who has tried to exploit dead soldiers are liberals. The exploiters are merely using them to bring about policy changes they want. Soldiers evidently don’t die when sent to war by Democrats.
Dugger, A soldier who also went home by air freight (well, T-39)
Dugger: “Reagan won the Cold War.”
Except, he didn’t. By your logic (under whose watch), Bush won the cold war because the Soviet empire fell while he was president. Sure, Reagan helped it, but according to your logic, Bush won it.
Also, according to your logic, Bush II is responsible for 9-11.
Horse:barn door.
pionar,
Don’t be silly. If you want to give credit to Bush I, do so. The process of beating the commies was shifted into high gear under Reagan, especially with the weapons deployments to Europe.
Dugger
LOL…thanks for stating the obvious, buma. Often, the obvious escapes Frank – even when it bites him on the face.
I’m sure the families of those that have died in Iraq would agree with you. But, uh-oh! I just went ahead and lived up to your expectations…
I guess Bush doesn’t exploit the soldiers when he uses them as a prop or a backdrop for his ‘tough guy’ speeches. Nope. Not at all.
Frank_D Says:
December 12th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
buma, thanks for visiting my blog& >>
Just a thought, but I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to present the softer side of Condi on your blog, maybe add a post on where she bought some of her favorite shoes, maybe a coy little “Is she or isn’t she?” rumor message board. You know, something juicy to boost the traffic a little so you wouldn’t feel the need to spend so much time posting here.
An interesting but, as usual, pointless discussion in this thread.
But really guys … how can this be worse than Bill Clinton inviting Barbra freaking Streisand to the WH to discuss domestic policy?
Kinda reminds me of the “she’s a kook” reaction of liberals to the accounts of Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologer about her husband, compared to the “oooh – aaah – ‘she’s so spiritual’” attitude that the same people took when we learned that Hillary Clinton conjured up the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt for policy discussions.
Frank-
The real question is, are you enjoying your conversation with us?
Who said I was talking with you? I haven’t posted anything since 2:55PM
As evidenced by his post above, Frank is indeed trying to cut down. He needs encouragement.
Even in small things, Frank must lie.
“I haven’t posted since 2:55 pm!”
Frank_D Says:
December 12th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
buma and John S.: I hope you re enjoying your conversation.
I guess when you address people by name, you aren’t speaking to them.
Heh.
…and don’t get me started on inviting brainless Hollywood types to the White House.
*cough*Reagan*cough*
I missed the “oooh-aaah” part. When the fake, phony, eye-rolling over EleanorGate began, all I heard was that it was proof that Hillary was into New Age Lesbian Witchcraft or some such thing.
John S. Grow the fuck up, you twit.