Harry Reid states the obvious: Bush is the worst president ever:
Given that he believes that, we must wonder why he did such a terrible job opposing the man, and why he caved in to him at almost every turn.
(Video from Think Progress)
Harry Reid states the obvious: Bush is the worst president ever:
Given that he believes that, we must wonder why he did such a terrible job opposing the man, and why he caved in to him at almost every turn.
(Video from Think Progress)
Bush is busily trying to burnish his legacy, and while the Washington Post appears to be assisting in every way possible, it’s a pretty good bet that the American people have now arrived at a settled judgment that even the “liberal” media won’t be able to alter. Many of the articles discussing this subject date the significant shift in Bush’s standing to the Katrina disaster, but I would suggest that Katrina represented more of a knockout blow to an already staggering President.
Bush started his first term by trying to destroy Social Security, which didn’t set well with the 98% or more of us who will actually need that money to get by in our geezer years. But what really sent his approval on the downward slide was the now almost forgotten Terry Schiavo episode.
The American people had been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he was accused of preferring to extend his vacation rather than deal with a pre 9/11 terrorist threat. But the sight of him rushing back to Washington from yet another vacation in order to inject the federal government into a personal, family issue, on the side with which most sane people disagreed sent him into a tailspin from which he never recovered.
There were those (including me) who saw the political opportunities the Schiavo crisis gave to the Democrats, but in true Democratic style, which persists to this day (I admit the post to which I linked was wrong about Reid) the Democrats ran scared. But that didn’t matter much. The American people were appalled, and when the Democrats in Congress came out of hiding they realized that Bush had suffered a huge self inflicted wound.
It was the Schiavo fiasco (along with the Social Security debacle) that set Bush up for the Katrina kill. Not many people, except the usual right wing suspects, were willing to cut him any slack when he screwed that up, precisely because they had already turned on him. Katrina may have made his position irretrievable, but it was Schiavo that turned the American people against him.
In my own humble opinion, what Bush and the Republicans did about Schiavo (with help from some scared Democrats such as Dodd, and turncoats such as Lieberman) was worse as a matter of principle than the Katrina disaster. Katrina was an example of incompetence on a grand scale. That’s not good, but it’s not evil. Schiavo was an example of a calculated attack on our system of government and on the basic human rights of our citizens, all rolled up into one. It was evil, one among many, and perhaps not the worst atrocity in which Bush and his folks engaged. But it was one to which every American can relate (and it was free of ambiguity, as opposed to the torture issue, which after all only applied to suspected terrorists), because each of us knew that one day we might have to make the same decision that Schiavo’s husband had to make, and none of us wanted the government making that decision for us, particularly a government run by religious bigots.
Update: Digby agrees.
The recount is, as far as I can see, over, and Franken is ahead by 225 votes. You can watch the proceedings at theuptake.org.
Thanks to a reader for this suggestion, as well as a few more that I’m keeping in reserve. I never heard of this lady before, but I enjoyed this song.
A case can be made that the best President this country has had, since Roosevelt, was Lyndon Johnson. It’s more than arguable that Kennedy did not have the political skills needed to get the Civil Rights bills through Congress, not to mention Medicare and a host of other initiatives. Johnson had all the tools to be a great domestic President, but he was undone by Vietnam. He was basically uninterested in foreign policy, but also basically uncertain, so he allowed himself to be led around by the best and the brightest, who led us and him into a morass. What a different history we would have had, if he had pulled out of Vietnam at the beginning of his first elected term. He could have done it, with a minimal erosion of political support. The inflation brought on by trying to fund a war and government programs might never have happened. We might never have had Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan would have died as he should have, a doddering old actor. We would likely have gotten National Health Care in the late 60s. The list goes on.
There are no truly exact parallels in history. Obama is not Johnson. He has more self confidence on issues of foreign policy, for one. But during the campaign, whether out of expedience or actual conviction, he tied himself to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a war that could easily prove to be his Vietnam.
Afghanistan has a proud history of resisting foreign control. The people there would rather be under the heel of an Afghan than the thumb, however lightly pressed, of the foreigner. No one has ever been successful in dominating them and it’s unlikely that our culturally insensitive country will be any different. Add this to the history: our occupation was begun, and has been managed for seven years, by the most incompetent government this country has ever had. It’s a certainty that things will turn out bad when this is what we’ve created in the country so far:
Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.
A raft of investigations has concluded that people at the highest levels of the Karzai administration, including President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, are cooperating in the country’s opium trade, now the world’s largest. In the streets and government offices, hardly a public transaction seems to unfold here that does not carry with it the requirement of a bribe, a gift, or, in case you are a beggar, “harchee” — whatever you have in your pocket.
The corruption, publicly acknowledged by President Karzai, is contributing to the collapse of public confidence in his government and to the resurgence of the Taliban, whose fighters have moved to the outskirts of Kabul, the capital.
The bribes amount to a tax on ordinary Afghans of extraordinary proportions. Taxes are not so bad if the money is invested in something that benefits the taxpayer, but this money is mostly flowing into foreign banks.
I will hazard the not at all risky prediction that we will never succeed in establishing a stable government in Afghanistan. It is as rife, if not more rife, with corruption than the Vietnam we tried to prop up in the 60s. It will become as much of a Big Muddy as Vietnam and will, in the end, be far worse than Iraq.
Obama would do himself a favor if he could come up with some artful way of getting out. There will never be a good time to do so, but the best time is while he’s riding a wave of popularity and people are more concerned with the failing economy. Four years from now, were he to leave now, he will be judged almost solely on the state of the economy. If he stays, the war in Afghanistan, which started out as damaged goods he got from Bush, will belong to him. Just like Vietnam belonged to Johnson.
I have a tradition of spending the week between Christmas and New Years away from my office. I still put in at least half a day of work each day, but I do it here at home, which makes it more bearable.
Still, it means I have lots of free time on my hand, and I have found that when I have lots of time, I generally get nothing at all done. So it has been this week, as I have spent my time reading, idly roaming the net, and generally lazing around.
Tonight my wife and I expect to live up to another of our venerable traditions. Each New Years Eve we do absolutely nothing. This year will be no exception. If we wanted, we could use the snow as an excuse, but I refuse to take the easy way out. No, we are doing nothing because we always do nothing. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that we are in the Silent Majority so far as New Year’s celebrations go, but of course I can’t prove it.
In any event, I have no intention of writing anything of substance tonight. I will recharge my batteries and hopefully come charging out of the starting block tomorrow. It’s a whole new year, and in a few weeks, we’ll have a new administration that might actually act in a relatively responsible fashion. I’m going to have to re-think my entire approach to this blog. To echo a famous American, I won’t have George Bush to kick around anymore. He made life easy for people like me, in a bizarre sort of way.
Anyone reading this tonight will no doubt be enjoying a New Years Eve as boring as my own. To each and every one of them, and to everyone else who happens upon this, Happy New Year one and all.
Indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich has picked someone to replace Barack Obama, and Harry Reid has vowed to make sure he is never seated. It seems that Harry is at his best when he’s riding herd on fellow Democrats. You might recall that the only filibuster he quashed in 2008 was one led by Chris Dodd. Nor, if memory serves, would he honor a hold Dodd put on some legislation, though Republican holds have been sacrosanct. This is not to say that Blagojevich should have made the appointment, but it is odd how Reid just can’t bring himself to lay down the law to Republicans like he can do Democrats.
In any event, assuming Burris is certified by the Illinois Secretary of State (not a sure thing at all), its doubtful that Reid can keep him out of the Senate, nor does it seem proper to expel him once he’s seated, since he’s done no wrong. Assuming he’s certified, the odds are he will end up serving out the term.
Put this in the “Nobody Could Have Predicted” File:
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a “virginity pledge,” but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.
It’s no surprise that the pledges don’t work, but I would also suggest that it’s no surprise that the kids who take the pledge are less likely to use birth control or condoms. After all, those taking the pledge are not a cross-section, they are drawn primarily from that sector of our population that believes in promoting ignorance, especially about sex and sexually transmitted disease. Add the hostility of those same groups to birth control in all forms, and it’s no surprise that the lapsed abstainers are less likely to be prudent. It’s actually a wonder that the disparity is so small.
I get only a few legitimate comments a week, but I’m fairly inundated with spam. Most of it gets caught by a fairly efficient spam catching plug in, but the rest filters through for me to “moderate”, meaning I have to pre-approve it before it actually gets published. In fact, I have to approve every comment that comes in from a first time commenter. The comments come via email, with convenient links to approve, disapprove, or spam the comment. Once a commenter has an approved comment, future comments get published automatically. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, and with one exception, (a frequent commenter who I have to approve each time he sends something),= it works.
One indicia of a probable spam, besides the fact that they are obviously computer generated (usually consisting of regurgitated snippets from the post in question, which some generic language “commenting” on it in an inane fashion), is the fact that they tend to comment about posts from the relatively remote past, unlike real humans, who can’t be bothered to browse the archives.
Today I got a comment about this post about the Mormons, which dates from more than a year ago. It seemed nearly cogent and reasonably responsive to the subject of the post, so I clicked on the approve link, which brought me to an “are you sure?” dialog box. At that point I had second thoughts when I recognized the sender as a spammer I had seen many times before.
Could these folks have possibly come up with sophisticated software to get through the front door, so to speak, so they could post “pre-approved” spam comments thereafter? It seems like it would be pretty difficult. Or, could it be, that “payday loans” was really reading my blog and truly wanted to post a comment. Highly unlikely, it would seem. On the off chance that she or he really wanted to join the discussion I am reproducing the comment below, since I have since marked it as spam. As to anyone else that might chance to read this, what’s your opinion? Is it real, or is it computer generated?
I’m sorry you have such a bad view of the mormons. I myself have had nothing but good encounters with the mormons. I too went to Temple Square, actually twice now, and I was permitted to enter the tabernacle. Its the mormon temple they don’t let you in because some special mormon ceremonies go on there. I guess non- mormons wouldn’t understand their symbolism or meaning so they don’t allow non-mormons to enter. My experience has been that mormons are very, emphatic is the word you use, so yes, emphatic about their religion and arguing about it. This is because so many people have ciriticized and hated them for so long that this is how they are trained. They go around in couples to preach their church to those who want to listen, and yet all most people do is try to argue with them, push them to contention and nonsense like that. They only ever want to tell me whatever I want to listen to. I say sure come tell me about your church, i’m not going to join it, but sure, tell me about it, i have no problem learning. you should try that. My study of religion has lead me to believe that if there is only one, true religion on this planet, I would go with the mormons. Mostly because they are the only ones bold enough to proclaim it, but they are also the only ones different enough to be it. Mainstream christianity is so much the same, every church is the same. The services may be different, but they teach the exact same things. How can one say they are the true one? Mormons have a leg up on the competition so to speak. I would give them a chance if I were you. Not join them per se, but I mean, listen to them, look into what makes them unique, and try to get past Ko lob and godhood and what not. They say, milk before meat. I think if you understand the basic doctrine and theology of the mormons, these crazy sounding things might make more sense.