The Failed Presidency.

This is sort of "what is the meaning of is?" question. Superficially no, but I do not think most people understand just how atavistic this administration is. The underlying goal of both Bush Sr and Bush Jr is to undo the New Deal. Historians have written reams about the depression and the impact of the New Deal to ameliorate it effects. But they have paid very little attention to the response of the wealthy to its programs, the taxing policies that funded it, and the regulatory policies that curbed the excesses of late 19th early 20th century capitalism. Roosevelt yanked this country into a wholly new direction because the trend up to that point had been toward an increased divergence between the wealthy elite and everyone else. There was considerable resistance among the wealthy, including a bumbling attempt to organize a coup (the general that they tried to enlist ratted on them). If the trends that marked this country up to 1933 had not been stopped, we would look socially and economically more like South America then the broad based middle class society we have experienced for the last fifty or sixty years. The Bush family come out of that elites whose social and economic ambitions were effectively curbed by the New Deal and they did and do deeply resent it. In that regard the Bush administration has been relatively successful because that South American social and economic model or more precisely the pre 1933 social/economic model is exactly where he and the radical Republicans are taking us. And it seems. that most of the country could care less

The legacy of Bush's failed presidency
By Anonymous 

  

(Editor's note: This column was written by a Washington, D.C.-based political analyst and friend of Aspen Daily News columnist Connie Harvey who prefers to remain anonymous.)
WASHINGTON -- It is accepted wisdom in this town that while the Bush administration is stumbling on economics and domestic policy, it has its real strength in national security and international affairs. This is unfortunately not the case -- and as the depth and staggering costs of Bush's weakness on international issues becomes clear, we will see the hallmarks of a failed presidency.
Yes, a failed presidency. You heard it here first, but it will soon be the buzz on the political circuit.
Domestically, the evidence is overwhelming. Between 1992 and 2000, this nation worked its way from the vast deficits of Bush I ($300 billion) into our first real surplus in 40 years. In only one year, Bush II has thrown us back into at least a decade of deficits, and all to pay for a tax cut to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. One has to look back to Louis XIV to see such profligate irresponsibility on a national level. And his deficit leaves Bush unable to use the usual Keynesian tools to end a recession.
Other domestic issues are equally damning. We have the most anti-environmental president in history; we are suspending civil rights in wholesale fashion; health-care costs are skyrocketing with no plan to control them in sight; Bush's election commission is gutting the recently passed campaign finance reform. And on. There are simply no significant, successful domestic policies under Bush, and many deeply worrying failures.
Now all of this might be ignored if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice were protecting this nation from terror and building national security in the world. But, as I will demonstrate, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bush administration's foreign policy can be characterized as aggressive unilateralism, wherein this nation pushes whatever policies it likes, whenever and wherever, with no regard to political considerations in other countries or political realities on the ground. Even that might be OK if our leaders were imbued with omniscience. American interests have been asserted with healthy results in hundreds of occasions over the last two centuries.
But the assertions made by Bush and Company are anything but omniscient. They are in fact the most blinkered policies our nation has ever proffered. Start with the small stuff: In the last 18 months, we have thrown away treaties on biological warfare, criminal justice and women's rights. We are one of only two states -- in cozy company with Somalia -- that have failed to ratify the 1989 Convention on Children's Rights. We have walked away from arms-control treaties with Russia. And to the outrage of almost every other nation in the world, the United States, with nearly 30 percent of global greenhouse emissions, has thrown away the Kyoto Treaty.
So let's forgive these transgressions, since we are at least winning the war on terror. Right?
Wrong. It is worth looking at some recent history. The first thing that the Bush foreign-policy team did upon entering office is disassociate itself with everything Clinton was working on, simply because it was Clinton's work. This was unbelievably bad judgment.
The most astonishing article I have read in years was in last week's Time magazine. It said: "A bold (Clinton) plan for the U.S. to attack al Qaeda was delayed by a Bush administration 'policy review process' and was approved just a week before September 11."
Let's revisit that statement. This plan to destroy al-Qaida was presented in detailed briefings by Clinton's national security advisor to the incoming Bush administration national security advisor, Condoleeza Rice, in January 2001. It was shelved for nine months -- despite the Clinton team's warning that this was one of the most significant issues they would face. Finally, in the week before Sept. 11 it was dusted off and approved. The costs of that delay are incalculable -- and inexcusable.
In that same nine months prior to Sept. 11, the Bush team walked away from a near-deal between North and South Korea. More dangerously, they abandoned the incredible amount of hard work Clinton had put into negotiating a peace treaty between the Palestinians and Israel -- and thus eroded U.S. credibility in the region. The Bush attitude was, basically, that the Israelis and Palestinians have to figure it out for themselves.
In fact, the United States has no cogent policy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The administration has sent envoys in and out, sometimes working with Arafat and sometimes condemning him. Although Arafat was elected democratically, Bush now says there can be no progress until he is gone. (In the meantime, despite the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and that regime is as far from democracy as possible, the administration has nary a word of criticism for our oil-supplying friends.)
The American disengagement in the Middle East is unforgivable. It is tossing matches in that powder-keg region. Consider the implications on our current goal to oust Saddam Hussein. Vice President Cheney recently went to rally Mideast nations around a move to get rid of Hussein. He failed utterly. President Clinton explains why: "It's very important to realize that these people didn't do that because they love Saddam Hussein. They can't stand Saddam Hussein," Clinton said. "They thought the United States was on another planet, talking about attacking Saddam Hussein when we were not involved in the Middle East peace process at the time."
A New York Times opinion piece recently said, "The randomness of American rhetoric on the Middle East is becoming its most distinctive pattern."
The United States will never be freed of terrorist threats unless we have a serious approach to the Middle East. For that, we need a foreign policy run by sophisticated, intelligent, dedicated people. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are clearly unable to enunciate any cohesive policy, and are proudly unwilling to take advice from other nations, or pay attention to local conditions, or consider the work of their predecessors. Powell seems more adept, but is apparently emasculated by the other three.
The Bush presidency is a failed presidency. It has only the most bitter domestic legacy, and has put foreign policy, and thus our national security, in shambles. We cannot afford such negligence.

This article was obviously written before the debacle in Iraq.

Bush's presidency did not fail. He lead by honor valor and compassion. It's a shame that only by the numbers and the money the people so selfishly worry about the economic status and the deficit budget in the powerful capitalistic america! Money is not what bush ruled by but by the unselfish drive to no longer take the same **** the clinton administration put up with in the world of international politics. And so selfishly these people have the audacity to talk about money, what about the welfare of the other people? This is not a matter of numbers, as far as concerning the success of the presidency, it's all about character and wisdom!

Character...

...and wisdom

You mean murder and deceit? Something wrong with your keyboard?

John Judge:

THe ReDHoRN

honesty, don't forget honesty!

redhorn: you need this!

So then you didn't really want anyones opinion on this topic, you just wanted to blast Bush and the people that support him? Way to continue looking like the jackasses that you are.

McGentrix,

Remember when you complained about personal attacks? How do you reconcile that with calling people jackasses?

Hey, If the shoe fits...

That does nothing to address the hypocracy.

True. My statement is somewhat hypocritical. But a question was raised, a reply given and then that reply was ridiculed and laughed at instead of discussed. What else would you call someone who does that?

You opened a whole thread to complain about vebal harassment that was not on that level. If you think the "shoe fits" excuse is a valid one then why complain when others want to choose your footwear?

And look at all the good it did.

Fools rush in where mortals fear to tread.

I think it can be called the failing Presidency -- the poll numbers slip day by day in support of this presidency and he is now behind in how many would vote to reelect him. He's taking his "working vacation" to plan the strategy to get reelected but in the meantime he could easily become a lame duck President (not in the usual way but just by setting aside action to concentrate on getting reelected). His heart might be in the right place but his head is somewhere where the sun don't shine.

McGentrix,

There are a few conservatives here who are rarely if ever flamed. If you want tips on how to respond see their posts. I'm not the guy to ask.

But now you understand when I didn't take your complaints seriously. You come here to goad, brag about it on other sites, and then complain about how you are treated.

What I do on other sites is none of your, or anyone elses business.

I never claimed it was my business. That does not change anything. If you don't want people to see you gloating about annoying liberals don't gloat about it on a publically accessible site.

Agreed. It hasn't failed yet.

Keep watching...this is what 'meltdown' looks like, in progress.

Yet, how did you find the site in question? It is a private site. I don't think you googled for it...