Repudiation was something of a minor buzz-word for a couple of weeks after the last Obama/McCain Presidential Debate. McCain took Obama to task for not repudiating inflammatory remarks made by a Democratic senator, then MSNBC took McCain to task every chance they could for his not stepping up and repudiating similar remarks aimed at Obama during campaign stops and other Republican events. As with most campaign moments, this burned itself out fairly rapidly.
Watching the election results last night and listening to the commentators speculating as to what this could mean for the Republican party (which, to listen to the reports circulating today, is eating its own tail trying to figure out who to blame and how to bounce back), I found myself coming back to that concept of repudiation. I felt as if the country had stood up and repudiated the past 8 years of Bush/Republican/Conservative control of this country. Eight years of failed economic policy that's led to the worst stock market crash since the Depression. Eight years of a failed foreign policy that's left us with two wars and no sign of victory, relief or even a cogent exit strategy in sight. Eight years of contempt… for the Constitution; for due process, civil liberties and personal freedom; and for any member of the electorate whose opinion differs in any way from the Administration's dogma. In short, eight years of the most incompetent, contemptible leadership this country's seen, perhaps in its history.
During the primaries and the early days of McCain's campaign, I speculated at the thought processes that would allow an otherwise intelligent man to follow the least popular President in US history with a campaign that basically said "If you liked the last 8 years, you're gonna LOVE John McCain." When we got to the general election campaigning, I was surprised to see little, if anything, done to shake this perception. For all his "if you wanted to run against George Bush" B.S., I heard little to to make me believe his administration would stray far from that Bush model.
The theme of Obama's campaign was change, and we started looking for, and believing in, change. What we got from McCain was the MOTS* candidate. Ultimately, I shouldn't have been surprised at last night's outcome. But I know I was on pins and needles for most of the night, and honestly didn't relax till I heard John McCain's concession speech. Then it was time to break out the champagne and toast the first exciting election results we've seen in years.
*MOTS: More of the Same. A term from gaming reviews, referring to a sequel to a popular game that does little more than rehash the original game with minor embellishments justifying the sequel.
Watching the election results last night and listening to the commentators speculating as to what this could mean for the Republican party (which, to listen to the reports circulating today, is eating its own tail trying to figure out who to blame and how to bounce back), I found myself coming back to that concept of repudiation. I felt as if the country had stood up and repudiated the past 8 years of Bush/Republican/Conservative control of this country. Eight years of failed economic policy that's led to the worst stock market crash since the Depression. Eight years of a failed foreign policy that's left us with two wars and no sign of victory, relief or even a cogent exit strategy in sight. Eight years of contempt… for the Constitution; for due process, civil liberties and personal freedom; and for any member of the electorate whose opinion differs in any way from the Administration's dogma. In short, eight years of the most incompetent, contemptible leadership this country's seen, perhaps in its history.
During the primaries and the early days of McCain's campaign, I speculated at the thought processes that would allow an otherwise intelligent man to follow the least popular President in US history with a campaign that basically said "If you liked the last 8 years, you're gonna LOVE John McCain." When we got to the general election campaigning, I was surprised to see little, if anything, done to shake this perception. For all his "if you wanted to run against George Bush" B.S., I heard little to to make me believe his administration would stray far from that Bush model.
The theme of Obama's campaign was change, and we started looking for, and believing in, change. What we got from McCain was the MOTS* candidate. Ultimately, I shouldn't have been surprised at last night's outcome. But I know I was on pins and needles for most of the night, and honestly didn't relax till I heard John McCain's concession speech. Then it was time to break out the champagne and toast the first exciting election results we've seen in years.
*MOTS: More of the Same. A term from gaming reviews, referring to a sequel to a popular game that does little more than rehash the original game with minor embellishments justifying the sequel.
Comments
Main Entry: my·o·pia
Pronunciation: \mī-ˈō-pē-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek myōpia, from myōp-, myōps
Date: circa 1752
1 : a condition in which the visual images come to a focus in front of the retina of the eye resulting especially in defective vision of distant objects
2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
— my·o·pic \-ˈō-pik, -ˈä-\ adjective
— my·o·pi·cal·ly \-pi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
You and the people crying in the streets and proclaiming repudiation and/or salvation suffer from a disease. I defined it above, though it may be worse than even that.
Barack Obama is not the answer to our problems. The obstacles and issues we faced Monday still exist today and he doesn't have a magic wand. He is a man. Worse - he is a politician. Government will never be the answer to our ills.
And, for anyone willing to do the leg work, willing to ask questions, willing to leave emotion at the door and look at facts - they will also realize that Bush's 8 years are not all to blame for our current problems either. His administration bears the burden of our market crash - but for those who look closely you will find he is not to blame.
For those who want to look closely at our real place in the world and in foreign policy and what our status in the world and particularly in the Middle East is - you will see there have been mistakes, but there is no sign of failure.
For those who want to look closely at abuses to the Constitution you will find that politicians and government have traditionally attempted to thwart our rights. As Bush spit on due process, the new administration readies itself to spit on the 1st Amendment.
And, for those who think Obama will shift radically from Bush's positions on the world...prepare for disappointment. Government is (thank God) limited in scope and power.
The one good thing coming from this election is that Bush is no longer around to bully. No more Bush derangement syndrome, please. He is not to blame for all our problems. And, I predict, history will not name him the worst President of all time.
Let's look closely at what he did wrong, and what he did right:
WRONG:
#1: He spent way too much money and inflated government far too much. Of course, he promised this in his campaigns, and that is the reason I did not vote for him in 2000.
He promised to increase Medicare. He promised "no child left behind". And, as with all government spending programs - they have become money sinks.
#2: He bungled a war multiple times and blew off a rightfully outraged and curious country. This was truly arrogance and ignorance at the extreme, and the primary reason for Bush derangement syndrome.
#3: I'll footnote the Patriot act here because it opens the door to trample on some rights. But, the fact is, ALL politicians supported the Patriot act. Both sides. The blame cannot be entirely laid on Bush.
#4: He allowed torture, ignored the complaints from his own country, and tried to cover it up. Again, arrogance at work.
#5: He staffed many jobs with cronies who had no right to be doing the jobs. Again, arrogance at work.
#6: He let Afghanistan slip back into chaos and had absolutely no answer to the Pakistan problem. In his defense, the Pakistan/Taliban/Al Qaeda problem is a doozy and I don't know if there IS an answer.
#7: He allowed too many people to keep jobs they sucked at for too long - Tenet, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc.
RIGHT:
#1: He immediately answered the attack of 9/11.
#2: He dismantled the Taliban regime and the Hussein regime in a matter of weeks.
#3: Despite the many mistakes along the way (see Wrongs), Iraq is well on the way to becoming a free and somewhat stable country and an ally to the U.S. And, we now have an airstrip and military presence in the heart of the most chaotic and unstable region of the world where our presence is welcomed - as opposed to Saudi Arabia who wanted us off their soil.
#4: America has not been attacked by terrorists on its own soil in 7 years.
#5: Qhadaffi and Libya have disarmed, de-militarized, and kicked all terrorists out of its country in immediate reaction to the U.S. attack on Iraq.
#6: Al Qaeda has been crippled and forced into Pakistan - their last stand.
#7: Taxes were cut, the economy was stimulated, and America saw growth and prosperity after a 9/11 attack that could have destroyed the economy.
#8: Bush and the Republicans attempted in 2005 to increase regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Unfortunately, they could not defeat the entrenched Democratic influence here. THIS directly led to our current market crash.
MYTHS (neither right nor wrong):
#1: Our position/respect in the world has not diminished. This turned out to be very much an exaggeration by the media. Yes, some countries don't like us...yes, many are jealous of us. But, our position in the world is as strong as ever. And, the world governments are seeing a shift to conservative and pro-U.S. governments (France, Canada, UK, Germany).
Contemptible? Maybe. Certainly, the arrogance of the administration and lack of communication to the public will be a note in history. But, bottom line is that Bush's legacy will be about Iraq. And, right now, it is on track to becoming a stable ally. Bush will rightfully get the credit for that. He will not be blamed historically for the market crash - the Freddie/Fannie debacle/scandal will be blamed, and the Dems are mainly behind that. He will be blamed historically for sinking us into debt. But, provided we eventually get out of that debt, it will be a footnote in history.
What if we're not looking to Government to solve all our ills, what if we're looking to that Government, as represented by our President (you know, Commander in Chief and leader of the nation) to LEAD us — perhaps to inspire us — and generally encourage us to find the solutions we need.
I hate to sound polly-anna here, and I know your expressed hatred of Obama's going to make that sound even more pie-in-the-sky, but if George Bush's arrogance can influence the country (as it so arguably has), then perhaps Obama's optimism may be able to do the same, only to much better affect.
I certainly hope he proves to be an inspirational leader. I already love the appointment of Rahm Emanuel to CoS, and I suspect he'll appoint a lot of bright, young minds. That is a good thing.
For better or worse, he's now my President too. So, yes, I hope he inspires all of us to think and work for ourselves. But, a lot of people on TV seem to think he'll wave a wand and fix their lives...
For what it's worth, you know as well as I do that you can define it all you want, and make your laundry list of reasons why you think that's the problem here. But what it comes down to, really, is human nature. When 93% of the people think the country's headed in the wrong direction, they're going to blame the people in power. When that 93% sit there watching Wall Street melt down and get told they’re going to have to bail out the billionaires that fucked up so horribly to keep things from getting much, much worse than they already are, they're going to blame the people in power for letting this happen. And when you're the least popular President in US history, it makes it that much easier to point the finger at you and anyone connected to you.
So for whatever validity there may be to your list of reasons why we shouldn't be blaming Bush… we all blamed Bush. Get me my glasses; I want to be sure I can see the Obama administration clearly.
As for Bush's record, I think we've got a real case of "glass is half-full/half-empty" here. Guess which side I'm on…
We actually can probably agree on most of the things he did wrong. I will point out that, where No Child Left Behind blundered isn't simply that it's a money pit, but an unfunded money pit. He made broad, sweeping promises and expected the states to step up and carry them out, without any help from the government that inflicted those changes on the states. For all the good intentions that might have prompted No Child Left Behind, good intentions with nothing substantive to back them up are that ever popular road to hell.
Regarding the Patriot Act, you're right… every fucking politician in office on 9/11 fell over themselves to vote for that damnable Act. And many since then have done the same thing. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it acceptable and I'll put my 2 cents towards anyone that's willing to oppose it. The fact is, George Bush's administration proposed it, campaigned for it, and made sure it became law. They've worked ever since to expand its powers.
[As an aside, Bush, just last week, signed a new regulation that allows state and local police to collect data on any one they want, at any time, without need for warrants or even a cause for suspicion. Considering the lunatic fringe is still falling over itself calling Obama a socialist and likening him to Hitler (shouldn’t those two be mutually exclusive?), it’s kind of ironic that George W. is pushing us closer to a police state. This is an administration that's expressed nothing but contempt for the Constitution. And when your oath of office is to "Protect and defend the Constitution" that should say something about the quality of your administration.]
The rest of his gaffs I’ll let stand as I think you’ve hit the salient points.
Moving on to “what he got right”… well, let’s see where I net out there (and no, I’m not going to address them all, just the ones I feel strongly about. We just don’t have that kind of time).
Shouldn’t item #1 be pretty much the minimal expectation for any President? If he hadn’t immediately answered the 9/11 attacks, there’d have probably been lynch mobs in Washington. And please don’t tell me you think that a Democrat (Al Gore, Obama, or anyone else from that side of the aisle) would have been any less quick to respond. As you pointed out regarding the Patriot Act, everyone in Congress voted for it. They’d have acted on 9/11. And who knows, they might have put down the storybook and excused themselves from the kindergarten class a little earlier.
The Taliban and Hussein regimes may have been dismantled in a matter of weeks, but that just calls attention to the blunder that is Iraq. His administration lied to the American public to justify invading Iraq out of some cowboy notion of defending his father’s honor and a plan to redraw the map of the Middle East into something more favorable to US interests (a plan Rumsfeld had presented to, and had rejected by, Bush’s father… that same guy whose honor Bush was defending).
You can make the argument that Iraq is “well on its way to becoming a free and ‘somewhat-stable’ (talk about hedging your bets, there) ally”, but that seems to be painting an awful rosy picture of an area with a daily body count on the news. And while I certainly am not going to argue the strategic importance of that airstrip and military presence, until (and unless) we GET a stable Iraq, those are minor bullet points in the plus column. And that same myopia you were talking about at the start of this will ensure that the credit for any of these accomplishments will, most likely, go to whoever’s sitting in the President’s chair when we finally get that stability. (So no, I don’t’ think Bush will ‘rightfully’ get the credit for Iraq.)
As for America not being attacked on its own soil in the past 7 years, that’s kind of like trying to prove a negative. (You can’t, of course.) The fact that we haven’t been attacked simply proves that we haven’t been attacked. It doesn’t prove that the Bush administration’s policies ensured that no attacks happened nor does it prove that a different administration with different policies would have done worse. It simply proves there hasn’t been an attack on US soil in 7 years.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your stats that tell you our diminished respect in the world was “very much an exaggeration by the media”, but I’ll continue to side with that “exaggeration,” because I do believe we can do better. If we’re supposed to be the good guys we hold ourselves up to be, then we shouldn’t condone torture and we shouldn’t have a foreign policy that equates to that of the schoolyard bully that’s had his eye blackened (“I don’t want that to happen again, so I’m going to beat you up first, to make sure you can’t surprise me again.) The Bush Doctrine is offensive and cowardly, and will not ensure our long term national safety.
So yes, I find Bush and his administration contemptible. Worst President in History might be overstating things (there are too many Millard Fillmore’s in our past for that to be true, and being Worst at anything smacks too much of accomplishment for Mr. Poster-Boy for the Underachievement set).
Besides, I didn’t say he was the worst, simply the most incompetent. And, decidedly, the least popular to date. That’s good enough for me.
And PLEASE, tell me what about Obama prompts you to make this claim: "As Bush spit on due process, the new administration readies itself to spit on the 1st Amendment." I'm dying to hear what that's all about.
I really don't have much else to dispute. I agree on the Bush disregard for due process and habeus corpus.
I would dispute the ol' 'Bush lied to the American people', but since that's been cleared up by the 9/11 commission, I don't feel I need to.
And, as for proving a negative about not being attacked...well, as Bush is 'repudiated' for all the things people feel are wrong, so does he get credit for all that is right. Even if you can't prove it. We weren't attacked again on his watch. Period. He gets credit. If we are attacked on Obama's watch, his credit cache increases as Obama's popularity plummets. And, if we aren't attacked during Obama's watch, Bush's 'credit' begins to fade with time.
"Bush lied."
He may have been absolved by the 9/11 commission, but seriously… has there been an administration that's been better at blamestorming than this one? He's had more high level people fall on their swords for him in 8 years than most Caesar's saw in their entire reign. (Yeah, hyperbole alert.) What I saw was an administration working to sell a questionable war to a panicked populace. They knew nukes were iffy, at best. Meanwhile, tying Hussein to terrorism wasn't much of a stretch, but linking him to Bin Laden and Al Queda was even more sketchy than the nukes. But these were the key points that were going to sell that war… and consequences (and the truth) be damned. (But let's please acknowledge that truth has GOT to be the first casualty in politics.)
"Proving a negative"
Granted. So let's just say that the point of my comments was that it seems a little premature to be sending "Terrorist Free Since 2002!" on to the G.W. Bush Legacy Committee. (Yeah, 'sarcasm alert'.) But while we're on the subject, doesn't he get dinged, even a little bit, for 9/11 occurring "on his watch"? Or is he absolved thanks to our "it couldn't happen HERE!" naïveté?
Sadly, I think they ended up with the same conclusion (or lack thereof) that you ended up with here.