Is Bush A Lame Duck?

[RBS]

He's history.

[Monte Smith]

Nice work, RBS. You raised the issue and then managed to invoke immediate cloture on the debate. You belong in Congress.

[Monte Smith]

By definition, any politician who does not face re-election is a lame duck. That's an extended but popular definition; the original political meaning of the term is a pol who has lost an election but still holds power for a period. All second term Presidents can, by the broader measure, be called lame ducks. Bush is a lame duck in that regard. But there are lame ducks and lame ducks. What you are asking, RBS, and perhaps you know it, is "Is George Bush unpopular?" Is he so unpopular that he no longer wields political clout that he formally did wield? I think the answer there is no. I think George Bush holds roughly the same esteem he has always held: none in Democrat circles, a tremendous amount in Republican circles, a variable amount in the smaller independent and uninterested circles. The only metric you will get on this is whether Republican candidates campaign with the President in 2006 and 2008 or avoid him like, as you say, a pox. If the candidates of these years associate with Bush because they believe he is a political asset, and they are elected, that will show objectively that Bush maintains the power that comes from popular esteem, which is something different and additional to the institutional mechanisms of power that come with the office and cannot be shed even by the lamest of ducks (think post-Nov. 1980 Carter or post-Nov. 1992 Bush I).

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

By definition, any politician who does not face re-election is a lame duck.

True.

I just feel Bush is lame.

And he should learn to duck.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by RBS

Those are good points, Monte. However, my point is:

Does he still have the same political clout he used to, what with his plan to "change" Social Security, his potential first veto over stem cell research and his inability (thus far) to get much accomplished in his second term?

Those are good points, too, RBS, and the points I figured you were probably going to bring up, at least to use as a peg on which to hang your most germaine point, which is that the man makes you ill. You have my sympathy on that.

I don't think Bush's inability to slam thru Soc. Sec. reform points to a loss of clout, if only because he couldn't have slammed thru a similar reform at an earlier time in his administration. This was going to be a sticky widget at any point, for any President. On stem cell research, that's a divisive issue. There are plenty of Republicans who disagree with Bush's leadership on it today, but there were many Republicans who disagreed with his leadership on it in the first term. I disagreed and disagree with it. There are others who agree. Does it point to a loss of clout, if the Congress puts up a bill that counters his stem cell policy? No. He'll veto it. I don't think it will cause massive political defection or dissatisfaction outside the Democrat caucus and including the editorial page of the New York Times. But that's not the President's majority constituency.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Bush's problem is that the Republican Party is starting to split along economic lines. Fiscal conservatives really don't like his fiscal policies. Also, there's a sense that some Republicans are disturbed by the power of the religious right. Finally, the Stem-cell vote and the deal made over the filibuster fight didn't go Bush's way. Previously, the Republicans were pretty disciplined about following the White House's wishes. But they realize that the President's decreasing popularity could damge them during their re-election campaigns.

I guess the big test will be the Supreme Court nomination(s). If Bush selects a hard-right candidate (as I suspect he will) then it will be on.

[graypencil]

Short answer: Slurpy beat me to it ..

Otherwise, I think Daryl is correct: The Republicans are beginning to percieve a schism between the far religious right and the more centrist oriented group.

Both the recent filibuster flap and the earlier way over-reaching Terry Schiavo issue ..( possibly uncostitutional.. as I understand it in my lay fashion) have shown such a division is becoming more obvious.

[sonic1]

So in light of the death of the democratic party (deserved) we only have the right and the far right to chose from?

Someone shoot me...

[Monte Smith]

There are and have always been frictions between constituencies in the Republican party. I think there may be more hope than expectation in declarations that today such frictions represent a declining Republican power. I don't think you can look at the results of American elections and honestly describe even the seeds of a Republican meltdown. Nor do I believe the President is subject to crumbing popularity and that other Republican figures are running scared. But again, we'll know objectively in 2006 and 2008.

Now one thing I know for a fact to be happening is this: Republican contestants are staking claims to swaths of the political spectrum in the run-up for 2008. We have no incumbant to put on the rolls, and so it is open season. That will get your McCains and Hagels and Allens and such allowing sunlight between themselves, each other, and the President in order to distinguish themsleves in what will be a fierce primary fight.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

There are and have always been frictions between constituencies in the Republican party. I think there may be more hope than expectation in declarations that today such frictions represent a declining Republican power. I don't think you can look at the results of American elections and honestly describe even the seeds of a Republican meltdown. Nor do I believe the President is subject to crumbing popularity and that other Republican figures are running scared. But again, we'll know objectively in 2006 and 2008.

Now one thing I know for a fact to be happening is this: Republican contestants are staking claims to swaths of the political spectrum in the run-up for 2008. We have no incumbant to put on the rolls, and so it is open season. That will get your McCains and Hagels and Allens and such allowing sunlight between themselves, each other, and the President in order to distinguish themsleves in what will be a fierce primary fight.

The election does not speak so much about Republican strength so much as Democratic weakness. Many held their noses voting, on both sides of the aisle. I doubt the republican party is suffering so much. But their habit of scape-goating the democrats will not work so well next election.

[tristano's ghost]

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Monte's analysis. W. is not nearly lame enough.

I do think that some GOP candidates in '06 will be much less fervent in their embrace, owing to W.'s SS debacle. Embrace him nonetheless they will.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by RBS

Part of the problem is not only Republican intransigence, but Democratic wussiness.

Get one guy to stand up for what he feels is right without any apologies, and you might have a winner.

Yes.

[Coda]

Ummm, unless social security is revamped, we will all be lame ducks. I think history will show that he tried to put forth a plan and that the plan was rejected not because it was bad, but because it was Bush's plan.

If the democrats want to have a fighting chance in the next election they better start making suggestions. There is nothing lamer than someone who sits on the sidelines and yells at the coach.

Play ball.

[tristano's ghost]

WTF? YOU play ball on Medicare, which is the real "crisis." YOU play ball on not making the allegedly "temporary" tax-cuts for the wealthy permanent. YOU play ball on factoring in the cost of the Iraq war as part of our deficit woes.

The notion that Social Security will be in a "crisis" because at some point it will be taking in less than it's spending is laughable when it's advanced by the same folks that turned huge surpluses into huge deficits. Bush wants to "save" Social Security by destroying it. You wanna talk incremental changes to the top tax-bracket, benefits, the tax itself, etc.? Sure, fine... after we deal with some of the real issues, and not Georgie-Boy's 30-year-old dream of doing away with SS.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by RBS

Part of the problem is that there's no problem You have Republicans yelling, "This has to be fixed! It's a big problem." The problem is... no problem.

Exactly... at the least, a minor problem compared to what's coming down the road in just a few years re: Medicare.

Or the problems caused by massive tax cuts in a time of war. Idiots and scoundrels, these guys. The Social Insecurity business is all about Bush's hatred for the program (he's quoted on record all the way back to his Harvard MBA days as saying that he wants to do away with it).

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Coda

Ummm, unless social security is revamped, we will all be lame ducks. I think history will show that he tried to put forth a plan and that the plan was rejected not because it was bad, but because it was Bush's plan.

Coda, look up. What color is the sky in your world?

Originally Posted by Coda

If the democrats want to have a fighting chance in the next election they better start making suggestions. There is nothing lamer than someone who sits on the sidelines and yells at the coach.

Unless the coach is an idiot.

Social Security will be fine. Common sense tweaks to the system will be made along the way.

[groover]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

The Social Insecurity business is all about Bush's hatred for the program (he's quoted on record all the way back to his Harvard MBA days as saying that he wants to do away with it).

Of course. He and his crowd never needed it and never will. And there's that big pile of money just sittin' there!

[Coda]

Medicare Modernization Act

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has been working hard to implement the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). This law brings the most dramatic and innovative changes to the Medicare program since it began in 1965.

A more modern Medicare brings more affordable health care, prescription drug coverage to all people with Medicare, expanded health plan options, improved health care access for rural Americans, and preventive care services, such as flu shots and mammograms.


MMA of 2003 doesn't count?


Lets talk about tax cuts. Would you rather we followed the lead of the French? 10-11% unemployment. Canada? 6.5% unemployment.

How about China? Huge ecomonic growth....why you ask? Could it be low taxes and a low currency???

[RBS]

Yeah, and freedom is on the march.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Coda

How about China? Huge ecomonic growth....why you ask? Could it be low taxes and a low currency???

Don't forget low, low wages!

[Coda]

Common sense tweaks? Is raising the retirement age to 72 a tweak?

[tristano's ghost]

>>Medicare Modernization Act

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has been working hard to implement the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). This law brings the most dramatic and innovative changes to the Medicare program since it began in 1965.

A more modern Medicare brings more affordable health care, prescription drug coverage to all people with Medicare, expanded health plan options, improved health care access for rural Americans, and preventive care services, such as flu shots and mammograms. <<

What GOP/govt. spin site (since they're so often one and the same these days) did you pull that language off of? You want me to point out that said "reform" expressly forbids the govt. from negotiating bulk discounts from big pharma companies? Why do you suppose that clause got put in? It's directly counterproductive to the fiscal health of the govt. And insane, to boot--unless the interests of those who crafted it are primarily feathering the beds of the drug companies.


>>Lets talk about tax cuts. Would you rather we followed the lead of the French? 10-11% unemployment. Canada? 6.5% unemployment.

How about China? Huge ecomonic growth....why you ask? Could it be low taxes and a low currency???<<

What is it with conservatives approvingly quoting/citing communists these days? First that wingnut judicial activist knowingly and happily citing Stalin's "No man, no problem..." Now you're citing one of the few remaining communist regimes on the planet as a model for economic growth.

Our tax rates are low, low, low. What's been passed in the past four years has been a sop to the rich. Unemployment? Oh yeah... that was at 3.9% when Bush took office. 5.2% now.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by groover

Don't forget low, low wages!

Not to mention slave labor and nightmarish environmental issues. But hey, commies are all the rage with the right these days...

[Darryl G. Thomas]

From what I've read Medicare and Medicaid are closer to the crisis stage than Social Security. Even many Republicans say that. Even Bush has stopped using the word "crisis" when talking about Social Security.

Coda, you've got to at least try to keep up with the current spin.

[GoodSpeak]

Nah.



Just lame.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Slurpy

Coda, look up. What color is the sky in your world?

Is it blue....just like ours?

[RedJazz]

"[How about China? Huge ecomonic growth....why you ask? Could it be low taxes and a low currency???[/QUOTE]"

The fact that China is one of the most totalitarian regimes in history where there are no civil liberties, no freedom of speech or assembly and where labor has no right to organize has nothing to do with its so-called "progress" I suppose? If that's "progress," no thank you.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

"[How about China? Huge ecomonic growth....why you ask? Could it be low taxes and a low currency???

The fact that China is one of the most totalitarian regimes in history where there are no civil liberties, no freedom of speech or assembly and where labor has no right to organize has nothing to do with its so-called "progress" I suppose? If that's "progress," no thank you.

The republicans don't mind sending our jobs there.

The American Flyer Red Wagon is now made there, as said on SNL "Made For Children, By Children"

[crawjo]

I think Bush's clout hinges more on the success of his foreign policies than the success of his domestic proposals. If the Iraqi insurgency continues to cause as much havoc as it has in recent weeks, and if the U.S. is unable to do much on the Iran/North Korea front with regard to nuclear proliferation, then Bush will have very little clout, and whatever domestic proposals he might put forth, or nominees he might make to the courts (which will be the more pressing issue in the near future, I think), will be much tougher to achieve. If, however, things (somehow, I don't see how at this point) stabilize in Iraq and the U.S. is able to accomplish something with Iran/North Korea, then Bush will have a great deal of political capital that he can expend on judicial nominations and so forth.

My prediction: things continue to be rocky on the foreign front, and the President continues to struggle to get his guys nominated and his policies taken seriously.

I don't think the stem cell issue is significant enough to hurt or help Bush, to be honest.

[Gary Sisco]

Sonic and Red Jazz -- Industrialization never happened any other way, anywhere. China is doing it in a different historical period, that's all. The only difference. The Republican Party has never had a problem with totalitarianism as such. They like to drag it out as an issue now and then when one of their totalitarians pisses them off, that's all. Most of the time, like capitalists, who understand these things if no one else does, since their capital rides on it, they have no problem with it. Indeed, there's nothing better when it comes to capital accumulation that a good, totalitarian regime, to keep pesky things like workers under control. Or engaged intellectuals, as well. Kill or lock up the pesky ones and the rest will just shut up and go back to work. What more could a capitalist ask for? Red is just the color of a flag in 2005. It could as well be blue or orange. Matters not in the slightest way.

And of course, no society ever has larger or faster growth than it has during industrialization, for obvious reasons. There's no mystery in any of this.

And besides that, capital knows no borders or nations or boundaries. It's not a national phenomenon and never was. The reason Marx said that proletarians have no country is because capital has no country. Nothing new about that, either. It's always been the case.