E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

An Imperial Presidency
Bush's travel schedule seems to involve as little contact as possible with the country he is in.
I'm simply going to ignore the content of this mess (Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek, about Bush not getting out and meeting the folks when he travels, then riffing to American arrogance in dealing with furriners.) Instead, I'm going to do the Loyal Opposition a favor.

The attacks on Bush aren't working.

There. I said it. It's out of my system. To explain: They're repeating themselves, and they're searching in the wrong places for things to criticize. Bush isn't really stoopid. He's not controlled by insidious mind masters, whether Karl Rove or aliens from Arcturus. He didn't know about 9-11 beforehand and he didn't screw things up afterhand. The war's going relatively well, and the light at the end of the tunnel is not an on-rushing train. Laura's a nice lady, Barny's a nice little dog, and Cheney owned Halliburton rather than the other way around.

Now, if I was the Dems, I'd sit down and have a bit of thought before hollering about how the war can't be won, that we brought it on ourselves, that the administration is corrupt (After Bill Clinton's administration?)

There are a limited number of times that the populace will listen to charges that tax cuts help only the rich. It's not 1969 anymore. Altamont's in the past. Everything isn't Worse than Watergate™ and not everything is Just like Vietnam™.

I know the MoveOn.org crowd would never bite, but for the remaining Dems who haven't lept off a cliff with the rest of the crowd, a few suggestions:
  • Dems have been taking positions of automatic opposition to everything the Publicans do. This often makes them look stoopid, since many of the things being done are done out of necessity. It would make a lot more sense to say "we can do it better," though admittedly that would require some skullwork to determine precisely how. (Don't like provisions of the Patriot Act? Come up with modifications that still let it work.)

  • The WoT has become tedious to the nation, but it's necessary for the nation's survival. Admit that now and then. Try and encourage the nation to victory, rather than merely agonizing over the human toll. Try and show a bit of enthusiasm when we score a major success. Discover a hero here and there and shower him with praise. Look angry when you say the name "Zarqawi," and utter it regularly. Make a few suggestions as to how to win the war, rather than criticizing the details of what Bush is doing. Make the war a bipartisan effort, competing with the other side to pursue it.

  • If Dems are going to criticize Bush, then look at the places where he could use improvement, rather than trying to attack him on his strengths.

    • Bush isn't stoopid, and he's no more arrogant than most politicians and less so than many. His main fault is that compared to Reagan he's a lousy communicator. There's a large difference between thinking and communicating. But he needs to communicate with the public more. Find somebody a bit more articulate than Howard Dean and there are some political points to be made.

    • Bush is a linear thinker. When he concentrates on one subject, the others tend to get ignored. It's a fairly common failing, and it's why he has a large and competent staff. When the boss or the staff drops the ball, that's grounds for a conversation on national priorities, which I might add are not limited to abortion and the environment and "good jobs at good wages."

    • The combination of the staff system and the American penchant for producing murderous lunatics who want to bump off the President do tend to isolate him. If Dems can find some real Merkins who're more credible than Mother Sheehan to keep him in touch with the rest of us they might have a beneficial effect.

    • Immigration's one of Bush's weak points, because he's trying to please his base, please Vicente Fox, and protect the country at the same time. Since two and possibly three out of three are mutually exclusive, there's always room for helpful suggestion. The Dems could actually take the issue and run with it. If they cold come up with a plan that goes further than registering all newcomers to our shores as Dems they'd collect some credit for the ideas.
Up until Barry Goldwater there wasn't too much difference between the two parties. Pubs were free trade and business-oriented, Dems protectionist and union-oriented. There were conservative Pubs and liberal Pubs, conservative Dems and liberal Dems. Goldwater made it a "choice not an echo," and the Pubs became the conservative party and the Dems the liberal party. With liberalism in its dotage, it's now become a choice between Publican policies and Dem obstructionism and incoherence. The only way Dems are going to fix that is by concentrating on problem solving, rather than sloganeering.


Posted by: Criger Uleling7101 2005-12-13
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=137321