Reply
Tue 20 Jul, 2004 02:17 pm
The double binds of George W. Bush
Rich Lowry (archive)
July 19, 2004
Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.
If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.
If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.
If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.
If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it. If he signs a far-reaching anti-terror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.
If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" might run afoul of the law).
If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths -- his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.
If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.
If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.
If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.
Outstanding. A wonderful testament to our beloved left! Bravo!
Re: Sounds familiar...
jpinMilwaukee wrote:The double binds of George W. Bush
Rich Lowry (archive)
July 19, 2004
Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.
If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
b][/b]
Let's start here w/tax cuts and his "genius."
http://www.bushtax.com/
The Bush Tax: How Much Is It Costing You?
Rather than take responsibility for our common future, Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes skyrocket. State college tuition at 4-year schools has increased this year by an average of $579 nationwide. Half a million children have been deprived of health coverage. States and local government have cut vital services, and we're all having to pay more for less. That's the Bush Tax.
Bush is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis." Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services. That's the Bush Tax. (For details, see the link below to the CBPP report.)
Our children and grandchildren will be paying the Bush Tax. Bush promised, "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." Yet as a direct consequence of his tax policy, over six years an American family of four will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That's the Bush Tax.
How is Bush paying for his tax cuts? To pay for his tax program, Bush raided Social Security Trust Funds and made off with $500 billion, eroding our protections for the elderly. Then he borrowed another $500 billion from foreigners, putting our future in their hands. For every $100 you got back in tax cuts, $40 was borrowed from foreigners, $20 was borrowed from Americans, and $40 was taken from Social Security.
The Bush Tax is huge - many times greater than most people's income tax cut under Bush. For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925.
I have news for you... school costs have been rising long before Bush was president. Millions of children did not have health coverage long before Bush was president largely due to trial lawyers with frivilous law-suits raising the cost of health care.
While I have to admit that Bush's spending is out of control it may not be as bad as first thought:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/jk20040719.shtml
How do you think Kerry is going to provide health coverage for everyone? His spending habits are at least (if not worse than Bush's).
Now, in response to the rest of the post.
Bush is not in any kind of "double bind." He is a vile liar spewing lies and fear like molten lava over our country. He has pointed the finger elsewhere, preaching about terror and possible attacks to us, setting us up to be fearful and afraid of someone else, when it is Bush himself we should fear. He is manipulating reality to push his own agendas. He's a dangerous man and seems to be setting us up to rob us of our rights and freedoms, based upon fear of the shadows he claims to see. He's been playing the fear factor to its fullest effect since 9/11. He wants us all anxious and fearful because that will give him more power and control over ordinary citizens lives. he's not in any kind of double bind, except the one that states that the president should have the citizens best interest at heart. I fear he has his power-hungry madness most centrally in his heart, megalomania.
It is funny to me that you use the words "possible attacks" and then continue with "He's been playing the fear factor to its fullest effect since 9/11". If you recall 9/11 was a REAL attack by somebody else.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:I have news for you...
How do you think Kerry is going to provide health coverage for everyone? His spending habits are at least (if not worse than Bush's).
JP, what is the topic of this thread? "Poor Bush is in a double bind and misunderstood," or "Who's better able to provide healthcare?"
Just doubletalk to shift the onus from Bush to the Democrats.
I don't see it as contradictory. Many, even those of us that are moderate, actually get the contradictory actions and statements being made by this administration.
The conflicting claims noted in the article you site might be true and worth smacking the Dems around for if not for the fact that they are arrived at by the contradictions of the administration.
Roves statement regarding nAugust not being a good time to roll out a "new Product," in reference to the Iraq war was made in the Fall of 2002 before serious talks began concerning attacking Iraq. Certainly makes it appear planned in advance, rather than a sudden "Oh, my gosh we just found out Saddam has been trying to buy yellow cake!"
As to "If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius."... Change "he" in manipulative genius to Cheney / Rove / Rumsfeld and you will see that the two statements are not contradictory at all.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:It is funny to me that you use the words "possible attacks" and then continue with "He's been playing the fear factor to its fullest effect since 9/11". If you recall 9/11 was a REAL attack by somebody else.
Have we been attacked since then? Do you really think we have effectively secured all points of entrance into the USA using themethods we now do, or do you think that perhaps nobody is actively terrorizing the US? If somebody wanted to come terrorize us, they still could, but in spite of that, Bush wants to
postpone the upcoming elections if he thinks we need to. He's going to play the orange card to his own advantage was the point I was trying to make. And he's not in any sort of double bind about it.
You brought up children not having healthcare and followed it by $52,000 per family for the national debt. I just want to know how Kerry is going to solve this for you.
princesspupule wrote:
Have we been attacked since then? Do you really think we have effectively secured all points of entrance into the USA using themethods we now do, or do you think that perhaps nobody is actively terrorizing the US?
Of course not, but how can you forget the past so quickly?
Much of what you say is true......but consider this...at the end of the day who has brought poor junior to this horrible place where people hate him so much he can't do anything right? Who has brought him to this unenviable spot where his every word and action are suspect at best and untrusted at worst?
He has. Brought it on himself.
That of course depends on when you started not trusting him. Many hated him from the very first day as President because they feel he "stole" the election.
I'm off to celebrate my wife's birthday now...but keep writing I'll be back.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:That of course depends on when you started not trusting him. Many hated him from the very first day as President because they feel he "stole" the election.
and by taking office under such shady circumstances and being so unapolgetically smug about it he began his decsent into the black hole he now finds himself in....
Church lady types always trip themselves up in the end.....
Quote:How do you think Kerry is going to provide health coverage for everyone?
He said he's going to create 10 million jobs so the companies that hire them will be paying most of the healthcare accordingly, so he has that many covered.
The BS works in both directions, friend.
If Bush doesn't capture Osama, it didn't matter because he's "crushed" the taliban.
If Bush does capture Osama, it matters because he swore that he would get him, "Dead or Alive".
If we never find WMD, it doesn't matter because it wasn't just about WMD. We were saving the world from a "madman".
If we do find WMD, it matters because we said he had them, see!
Keep shoveling the BS, though. It makes for interesting reading for those of us who actually see through the absurdity of this idiotic administration.
Who here thinks it doesn't matter that Osama has not been caught? I think it matters. I want him caught Taliban or not.
Who else thinks it doesn't matter that we haven't found any WMDs? I always thought that was what the war was about. Getting rid of Saddam is just a by-product of that.
The article make me think though < nips his tea >
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace