The Failed Presidency.

True enough. But keep following the money trail and you'll see what I mean.

aquiunk accuses the Bush Administration of being "atavistic" in their attempts to erase the "New Deal".
I am very much afraid that I recognize the word "atavistic" to mean reverting to an earlier type.

I do believe that the word 'atavistic" denotes a pejorative to most people.

If so, the invasion of Nazi Germany and the administration of the Allies after World War II could be viewed as "atavistic".

I do not think many would consider the political changes carried out in West Germany after World War II to have been largely negative.

Then why would the George Bush administration's "Atavistic" attempts to change the New Deal be viewed as negative?

Some may even look at these changes as positive.

Italgo,

Sure, some may, and others may not. Your sarcasm did nothing to address either.

Do you view it as positive? If so, why?

Tartarin,

I think I might have been unclear. I did not mean to imply that the credit Americans have goes strictly to American-made products.

My point is that credit adds circulating currency to the American economy. What it's used for is a whole different matter. Credict card debt is what you referenced. Credit card debt goes toward the credit card issuer, which is usually American.

And Craven, to add to the complications, overseas banks and other companies own a goodly portion of our debt... get the interest payments. In a diverse and globalized economy, the largest personal debt is in America. That means we sure don't want to alienate our creditors. And think how much of the now globalized economy depends on the American consumer to maintain a) our continuing personal debt and b) our continuing ability to pay the debt plus interest.

A lot of us were horrified when a Bush response to 9/11 was "keep spending." Just ol' cogs on the wheel of fortune...

Tartar, I really had to smile when you mentioned GWBush on a topic that has been boiling for many decades. Bush's "keep spending" statement needs to be put into it's proper perspective. He can't be blamed for the average household debt of Americans that have been accumulating for the past many decades. The American motto, "I want it now" has been in our vocabulary for a long time.

You're right, of course, CI. The habit was ingrained. As with so many other American habits (the dependency on the quick visual image, the media), Bush exploited it shamelessly.

President's Iraq
policy a shambles

"Never explain, never complain," Henry Ford 2nd, the original's grandson, said after wrecking a car that was not a Ford, accompanied by a lovely woman who was not his wife. This mantra, not original with Ford, could be the motto of the Bush administration. It has veered from one policy to another, changed direction on a dime, said one thing and done another - all without complaining or explaining.
Particularly on foreign policy, President Bush has been all over the place. During the presidential campaign, he denigrated nation building - he would do no such thing. Now we are up to our eyeballs in building a nation in Iraq.

Bush and company disparaged the UN. Now we seek its imprimatur. The administration told our European allies - the "Old" Europe of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's scorn - to kiss off. Now we'd like their troops and money.

Pragmatism and politics go hand in hand. Presidents, like parents, lovers and pension managers, sometimes break promises. But Bush is different. Above all, he was incurious, unquestioning and - as we have learned - unprepared. Always, though, he was certain.

That certainty was certainly misplaced. Bush's foreign policy has been a shambles - a war against the wrong enemy (Iraq and not worldwide terrorism), for the wrong reasons (where are those weapons of mass destruction?), a debacle in postwar Iraq (who are those terrorists?), a Middle East road map to nowhere (wasn't Iraq going to make it all so easy?) and a string of statements about nearly everything (the cost of rebuilding Iraq, for instance) that have proved untrue or just plain dumb. To make matters worse, truth tellers have been punished while liars and fog merchants have remained in office.

For Bush, the danger is that this sorry record will revive the cartoon persona of a dummy - not the steady custodian of our national security, as he seemed in the aftermath of 9/11, but a man without judgment, a naif who was manipulated by a cadre of hawks. For the rest of us, the danger is that the caricature was spot on, so obvious it was disregarded.

America is not a particularly ideological country. We simply like the job done, and pragmatism is generally admired. But foreign affairs is not Tom Edison's laboratory - if this won't work, maybe that will - but an area where lives are lost and nations suffer. It is not a field for amateurs or zealots - and the Bush administration is proving itself to have a surplus of both.

Bush won last time out because Al Gore lost. He won at a time when the world seemed safe, when it was unimaginable that the World Trade Center would become a hole in the ground. He won because he seemed the more genuine man, an aw-shucks guy we could take a chance on. We took the chance.

But these recent changes in course - the dash to the UN, the revised costs of rebuilding Iraq - may represent Bush's last chance.

In diplomacy, in foreign affairs, in the waging of war and, maybe, in protecting America, he has made mistake after mistake.

Like Henry Ford 2nd, he may never complain and he may never explain. But when you look back, there's still a wreck in the road.

and that wreck on the road is a 100 percent write off.

Dear Craven:

Aquiunk writes:

The underlying aim of Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is to undo the New Deal.

Interesting but needs proof.

That is why I wrote my post about "atavistic"

Acquiunk proves nothing with his statement.

When I wrote the statement, Clinton raped Juanita Broadderick, I was jeered and told- "You can't say that, there's no proof"

Correct, but more proof than,

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. aim to undo the New Deal.

Now, if acquiunk could offer proof, I would be happy to listen.

At the beginning of this post, AU1929 asked _ What has Bush accomplished.

I submit that Bush has accomplished the following:

Leading the Republican Party to a great victory in November 2002 when. contrary to all tradition in mid term elections, the party in power(the Presidency) gained seats in both the House and the Senate.

It is important to point out that President Clinton was excoriated by some on the left for losing the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

Italgato
The question was what did he accomplish as president for the good of the nation not for the enhancement of his political party. That seems to be the disease of our national leadership. They are more interested in political gain than the lives and welfare of those they allegedly represent.

Clinton, always Clinton. What would you do without him? And why is this staement important?


"It is important to point out that President Clinton was excoriated by some on the left for losing the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998."

If the Texas republicans are looked at as an example of exemplary behavior, the country's really sliding backward.

If the Texas Democrats hade a popular mandate, they wouldn't have to play keepaway to stay in the game. If avoiding debate and process is exemplary behavior, then a three-year-old's pouting tantrums are eloquent discourse.

Not quite accurate, timber. Redistricting takes place every ten years after the census. The Texas republicans, under the push of DeLay and Rove, made clear statements on why they were pushing for redistricting. To get the republicans more Texas seats, and thus give Delay the position he wants. This is stated over and over.

The democrats, with a majority, already have a mandate, so why else do the republicans want to change that? Why else do they want to change the voting rules? From what I'm reading in the Texas papers, seems like a number of ordinary voters are smart enough to see that, and to see that they're the ones who'll get cheated.

Remember the song "The Eyes of Texas are upon you?" Well, it seems to have switched to the eyes upon Texas. and there's not so much about democratic pouting as there is about republican bull-headedness and determination to get its own way at whatever cost. That is not exemplary.

I was in California when Bill Simon got soundly defeated. It wasn't so much Davis cooked the books (if, indeed he did) as Simon never stood a chance. He appealed to very few. And the WH made a mistake. And I was with a bunch of republican workers and fundraisers, who deplored the whole thing.

This is an uninformed comment.

If you care to, educate yourself on the topic by reading this thread:

TX redistricting etc.

As one who lives here can tell you, in most parts of Texas people like their local community to be run by Republicans and their national reps to be Dems. As someone who's a relative newcomer (15 years), I'm beginning to understand why. Texans, like many Americans like stability and predictability at home and progress and prosperity out in the larger world. It has affected my own political choices: I'd vote for status quo locally (it's a stable mix) but would never vote for the kind of militarism, alienation and out-of-control spending the Republicans indulge when they get their mitts on national offices.

I would submit, MJ, that the census results call to question the validity of the mandate claimed by the Texas Democrats ... precisely why there is Constitutional provision for redistricting. I wouldn't expect the party required to surrender power to be happy about that, but they should participate in the process or relenquish any claim to legitimacy whatsoever. I see the Democrats, in Texas, other states, and Washington as well, as bullheaded, obstructionist, revisionist, and reactionary determined to get their own way despite the overall will of the greater populace.
As to California, their state constitution provides for legislation by referendum ... by and large, the voters of California created their own mess. And I would submit that while Simon was not broadly endorsed by the electorate, Davis' campaign technique obscured the issues (Simon largely played into that, to his own discredit - and to their discredit, the California voters went right along with the game), and now Davis, and California, is paying for that bit of idiocy.

Timber - you trying to have this two or three ways at once? Could you please clarify your first sentence? What census results (two years after the fact) called into question the validity of the Texas democrat majority? What were these census results?

Caliornia has always been a fascinating state. But then so has mine. I have suspected that one of the reasons the repubs ran Simon to start with (no qualifications) was on the strength of his connections. His father, after all,has some influence, and is and has been a big donor to the party. And how they would love to get California.

And for a small digression - interesting how Bush, for the second time in two years, has not seen fit to come the site of 9/11, when he wraps himself in that date all the time. But the, his absence here was hardly noted.

I see you didn't care to open your mind a wee bit.

Your partisan slip is showing.

And yours isn't, PDiddie?