Saturday, May 13, 2006

I know how she feels.

The Anchoress says what I feel in many ways. But I am not quite ready to pack it in yet:

And now, immigration…one man is to blame, one man is at fault, one man must find the Solomonic solution. And if he doesn’t, he’s a bum no matter what else he’s done. Meanwhile, the press can’t get over the president who smiled and cried his way through two terms, and they still work on his legacy. Can you ever recall a time in history where 6 years after an administration ends, the ex-president is still breathlessly being polled-on, still being given (on most days) as much press as the current president? I can’t.

When Clinton was being waylaid, his party closed ranks. Now Bush - a good man despite his flaws, (and what president is not flawed) is being attacked on all sides, and his party just jumps in with both feet and kicks away. It just doesn’t seem right to me. And I know, I KNOW…he’s been a job to defend for all these years against unprecedented attacks - I’m tired, too. But I cannot go along with the “get Bush” mentality from the right. The question I keep asking myself is…right now, at this moment in time, who is BETTER than him? Giuliani? The religious right will never go for
him. Allen? Mush-mouthed bore, the religious right will love him, and the rest will turn the page, and neither of them will be elected in this atmosphere - and if they could be, it won’t be for two more years. Bush is what we’ve got, the best we’ve got…but you know, maybe he’s too punch drunk, after 6 years of abuse, and a feckless party that squanders its majority again and again…one year ago, on May 10, he was dancing with free Georgians…but none of that counts, anymore, right? We forget the good stuff pretty easily, it seems to me.

Read it all, because she has much more to say.

I have to say that I have lost a lot of respect for certain conservatives here of late. Their insistence on impeaching Clinton years ago lead to an even greater partisan atmosphere which has plagued Bush for years...and now they are threatening to bail. This seems to be a pattern with them. Why should the rest of us ever trust them again? Just asking...

But what do I know? A commenter at a right leaning blog once called me a member of the Miers/Bush bootlick brigade. Needless to say people like me should be seen at the voting booth..but not heard.

UPDATE: Bruce Kessler at Democracy Project has a very good post in this vein. His response to the complaints of Professor Steve Bainbridge is very good.


Unknown said...


I think it is hysteria.

Meade said...

Seems to me a President Lieberman in '08 would be just the message from the sensible center that hysterics both left and right need to hear.

Unknown said...


I thought about that. But he would never get a nomination.

Syl said...

I'm with ya, Terrye.

David, I agree that hysteria is contagious. After a while one wants to yell: "I have issues too! It's not just you!"

But this backlash isn't all against Bush. Im fact I think most of it is against everything Republican in D.C. Congress has lower numbers than Bush even.

There seems to be this idea that Republicans should never compromise. "We're in power so we should just get our way". And therein they forget that the growth of the party is not entirely based on certain conservative platforms. Instead its membership shares a wide variety of positions.

In fact it's almost impossible for half a nation to homogenously believe in the same things. We all have different priorities.

So the base of the party having a conniption is alarming to many other Republicans who have fought just as hard for Bush in the last six years.

I think it's blackmail. Conservatives smell defeat in November so they're laying it on Washington to give them their way now or else you'll be sorry. They're afraid it may already be too late which will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"We lost because we were angry and sat on our hands" is a nice excuse, isn't it?

vnjagvet said...

I would be interested in Peter UK's take on Tony Blair's situation in GB. It seems to me he is in the same straits as is Bush.

Surely lack of eloquence is not his problem. He is one of the better extemporaneous speakers since JFK (the elder)in my memory.

Isn't his problem, like GWB's, a willingness to eschew the orthodoxy of his "base" to deal with the large problems besetting his country?

He, like GWB, is willing to make a decision which may not be popular with the majority of his nation's citizens.

The "pollists" are not kind to that kind of executive anymore.

chuck said...

Seems to me a President Lieberman in '08 would be just the message from the sensible center...

I keep hearing this about Lieberman but I can't see any reason to believe it. Part of that is that the guy is simply invisible -- not a useful trait in a politician. Then again, what I do hear doesn't sound unusual, nothing particularly grounded or sensible or anything like that. Lieberman may be the great white hope of those wishing for a more muscular Democratic party but I don't think he has what it takes. Lord knows, quite apart from presidential candidates, I would love to see another Scoop Jackson or Sam Nunn or Patrick Moynihan in the Senate, but the age when such folks were Democrats belongs to the mythic past.

Unknown said...

I don't know who could come along in '08 that someone somewhere would not have a problem with.

Barry Dauphin said...

Although the midterm elections often reflect satisfaction/dissatisfaction with a President to some degree, it is not only about that. It is interesting how all of the attention is on Bush's poll numbers. The story line is already written by MSM. The 2006 midterm elections will be all about Bush no matter what. Unless of course, the Republicans retain control. Then it will be about local races and how they managed to hold on despite Bush.