Bush Stranglehold Loosening
George W. Bush could be about to exercise the Presidential veto for the first time in his regime. The House of Representatives just passed a bill allowing some embryonic stem cell research, which would overturn the ban put in place by Bush. This is a further sign that he is losing his stranglehold on our Government. An early sign was that he had to fight so hard and dirty to just barely get elected in 2004. An enormous sign was the extent to which his campaign to undermine Social Security has failed to fool most Americans.
The bankrollers of the right got the red meat they wanted in the first four years of George W. - siphoning billions of dollars away from the Federal Treasury in spite of running up unprecedented budget deficits. They now have added gravy in the form of limiting the rights of their victims to obtain compensation in the Courts and making the Federal Government their free collection agent through the Bankruptcy Courts, and may also achieve the rape of ANWR if that provision survives the budget process.
The religious right has not been getting as much as they wanted in return for their Bush votes. Homophobia will not produce a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. The unconstitutional Schiavo intervention was a PR fiasco, as will be the pending stem cell research veto or a filibuster of the bill by Senate Republicans. About all the holier than thou crowd has received from Bush is Federal money for "faith based" proselytizing, some of which may eventually be declared unconstitutional and also be proven ineffective.
The most significant sign that power may be shifting away from the Bush Administration and back to the people is the fact that seven Senators from each party worked together to reach a compromise, preventing the Bush administration from achieving its goal of eliminating the filibuster right. Like the Social Security disinformation campaign, Bush has been waging a war of falsehoods to try to strangle the Senate and kill this historic right to Senatorial conscientious objection.
Whether Bush has to exercise the veto depends on whether the Senate passes the stem cell bill. A majority vote may exist in the Senate, but some Republican Senators who loudly clamor to end the filibuster regarding Bush judicial nominations are likely candidates to use the filibuster to block stem cell research. Consistent application of the rules is not a hallmark of that type of Republican.
In February, I posted a piece about the Civility Caucus. This Senatorial compromise on the filibuster was reached in that same spirit. Bush and Seantae Majority Leader Frist will continue to try to undue what these courageous Senators have accomplished, but the stranglehold has loosened.
The bankrollers of the right got the red meat they wanted in the first four years of George W. - siphoning billions of dollars away from the Federal Treasury in spite of running up unprecedented budget deficits. They now have added gravy in the form of limiting the rights of their victims to obtain compensation in the Courts and making the Federal Government their free collection agent through the Bankruptcy Courts, and may also achieve the rape of ANWR if that provision survives the budget process.
The religious right has not been getting as much as they wanted in return for their Bush votes. Homophobia will not produce a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. The unconstitutional Schiavo intervention was a PR fiasco, as will be the pending stem cell research veto or a filibuster of the bill by Senate Republicans. About all the holier than thou crowd has received from Bush is Federal money for "faith based" proselytizing, some of which may eventually be declared unconstitutional and also be proven ineffective.
The most significant sign that power may be shifting away from the Bush Administration and back to the people is the fact that seven Senators from each party worked together to reach a compromise, preventing the Bush administration from achieving its goal of eliminating the filibuster right. Like the Social Security disinformation campaign, Bush has been waging a war of falsehoods to try to strangle the Senate and kill this historic right to Senatorial conscientious objection.
Whether Bush has to exercise the veto depends on whether the Senate passes the stem cell bill. A majority vote may exist in the Senate, but some Republican Senators who loudly clamor to end the filibuster regarding Bush judicial nominations are likely candidates to use the filibuster to block stem cell research. Consistent application of the rules is not a hallmark of that type of Republican.
In February, I posted a piece about the Civility Caucus. This Senatorial compromise on the filibuster was reached in that same spirit. Bush and Seantae Majority Leader Frist will continue to try to undue what these courageous Senators have accomplished, but the stranglehold has loosened.
posted by Tom Blake | 9:21 AM
7 Comments:
Tom,
Good article. But I wonder why you didn't mention Senator John McCain from Arizona, the leader of the 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats who put together the compromise. McCain, at this point, is our best hope to wrest power from the radical, religious, right in 2008.
John from Phoenix
John, here is my impression of McCain, based on observation through the years, but without any research. I think it is useful to judge how he has come across to someone outside Arizona who might be asked to vote for him if he ever sought national office. I don't see McCain changing significantly for a national run and I don't see potential voters outside Arizona doing any more research than I have done.
McCain strikes me as a somewhat moderate Republican who talks and acts like a maverick, but in fact agrees with and votes for most of what the GOP wants. Republican insiders don't like his vocal independence, nor do they want to see him given credit for important acomplishments, so they work to diminish his impact. He works best with Democrats, on bipartisan efforts to take initiative and by-pass party leaders.
McCain comes across as a person opposed to authoritarianism and as not just a maverick, but perhaps almost erratic. His executive style, if blossomed for national office, likely would be something many people would be nervous about. I cannort see any true Democrats voting for McCain, and he would definitely lose votes from right wing Republicans. He would attract some independent voters if he could energize them, but I doubt he could hold the energy level high enough, especially in the face of the expected attack from the GOP mainstream and right wing.
Whatever prospect McCain may have had as a national candidate vanished in my eyes when, after having been smeared by the Bush machine in the 2000 South Carolina primary, he meekly kissed the Bush ass and glumly endorsed the scoundrel in 2004.
I don't see McCain ever having much influence on the national GOP or ever being a viable national candidate. With his popularity so high in Arizona, his best option to permanently bypass the GOP without becoming a Democrat (which he definitely is not), might be to do what Jeffords of Vermont did - declare himself an Independent.
Tom,
Interesting comments and I don't disagree with anything you said. I do disagree with your tone and your perspective.
Now let me retell it with my perspective in a much more positive tone.
There are many people in this country who are appalled by the extreme swing to the right our government has taken. They realize that the religious right has been a strong force in leading the change. But, at the same time, there is no doubt that the ordinary people of this country have become far more conservative since the early eighties.
The general mood of the country is farther to the right than where I stand. But I am farther to the right than where most of your readers stand. Still, I am outraged by most of the policies of George Bush.
Defeating George Bush was my strongest political view in 2004. Then the Democrats nominated John Kerry, a sure loser. Because of Kerry, the Democrats have lost the opportunity to overturn this radical conservatism.
Therefore, we must look to the moderates in the Republican Party. They are the ones who have a chance of saving our contry from right wing extremism. But the moderates are undergoing political assisination far greater than the Democrats have felt. The right wing of the Republican Party knows the Democrats are no threat. They are after the "Republican moderates".
The only Republican moderate who has nationwide appeal is John McCain. He must be supported by the Democratic rank and file because he is our only hope. The Democrats have failed over and over again. There is no Democrat now that has the slightest hope of defeating any Republican the right wing of that party proposes in 2008.
What do I personally think of John McCain? I think he is a good and honorable man who has almost always taken the right path. He admitted his error in the Keating affair. He stood by his wife when she was caught using money meant for charity to support her presription drug problem. I usually agree with his positions, especially his positions on government spending waste. I don't agree with him on my own personal hot button: defending the environment. But nobody is perfect.
He appears to be an effective politician who can go over the heads of the party leaders to the American people. I haven't seen him do that with world leaders. If he could, that would really strengthen his position. I don't think McCain is the perfect answer, but he is the only answer now.
Now is the time for memebers of the Democratic Party to realize it's time to cut bait. This country is in the hands of a small infuential group of people who are doing great harm to the majority of the people of the US. It's time to form new coalitions, because the old Democratic Party is moribund. John McCain can lead us in the right (correct) direction.
John from Pheonix.
John, we have dialogued here at Sense and elsewhere on many of the points you raise in your current comment, but I am still not sure I fully understand your thinking. Let me seek some clarification.
You say the general mood of the country is farther to the right than where you stand. You continue to try to bury the Democratic Party, which apparently is too far left for you. You seem to believe you are a moderate Republican and want to embrace McCain as your champion, but you also recognize McCain is targeted by the Republican right wing and you plead for help for McCain from the Democrats. Here are my questions to you for clarification of your position.
1. Do you see the Republican Party as composed of a minority of McCain type moderates and a majority of right wingers, with no significant group of Republicans between the moderates and the right wing?
2. If the right wing Republicans are effectively annihilating the moderate Republicans, then why don’t those moderates start a third party movement, which might bring some short term power through alignment with Democrats and some long term power by causing the right wing Republicans to lose power and force the Republican Party back toward the middle?
3. Why do you insist on blaming Kerry for the 2004 loss, while at the same time declaring the Democratic party dead and saying the Democrats have nobody with any chance of defeating a right wing Republican for President in 2008? What Democrat do you think could have defeated Bush in 2004?
4. Where do you position yourself on the political compass by comparison with Bill Clinton, whom I considered almost a moderate Republican? Would you prefer a Clinton Democrat to a right wing Republican? What about a choice between a Clinton Democrat and a McCain moderate (based on policy only, not personalities)?
5. You did not comment about McCain meekly endorsing Bush in 2004, after the Bush machine smeared McCain in South Carolina in the 2000 primary. How do you think McCain handled the 2000 smear and the 2004 endorsement?
Tom,
I will answer your questions point by point.
Introductory paragraphs: I am not a moderate Republican anymore than I am a former Catholic. This may be the major obstacle to our communication.
My identity is with the Democratic party. I am a fallen away Catholic and I am a fallen away Democrat. I yearn to rejoin both these institutions, but realistically there is very little chance either will reform in my lifetime.
1. Yes
2. I would love to see a new party formed from the Democratic party and the moderate Republicans much like the Republican Party was an amalgam of the Whig Party and the Know Nothings. But that won't happen in my lifetime either. I think it has always been hard to create new parties, but today it is almost impossible. There are too many entrenched alliances. Creating a new party would take billions and who is going to contribute that kind of money? That will only happen when the Democratic Party implodes, and it is on course to do that.
3. I don't blame Kerry for losing the 2004 election. He did a far better job as a candidate than I thought he would. I blame the Democratic Party for choosing someone who had no chance of winning. I believe the people in Seattle and Eastern Massachussetts have no idea how much Kerry was mistrusted and disliked by the majority of good people in the United States. A couple of people in Arizona told me how much they disliked Kerry, but they voted for him anyway because they did not like Bush's positions.
I believe most people did the opposite. They did not like Bush's positions, but voted for him anyway because they disliked Kerry. He is a liberal. He is from Kennedy land. He appears to be an intellectual. He doesn't know how to swagger and lacks decisiveness. He thinks too much before he speaks and hedges his answers. Those who objected to Bush's positions and voted for him felt that he would not get most of his policies passed. They were probably right, except for the environment.
What Democrat could have done better? Not many and that is the problem with the Democratic Party. Clinton revitalized it until he let Monica make him look like a fool. But still I think Wes would have had a much better shot at Bush, especially if Wes could have gotten a little of Dean in his personality.
What about 2008? I think the Democrats might have a chance for the Presidency then. The American people are leery of a government controlled by one of the two parties. After 8 years of Republican domination they just might elect a Democratic President. The people of Arizona elected Janet Napolitano Governor in 2000 had just such a reaction. I think the Republicans will hold on to Congress in 2008, so if Americans want to divide the government, they will have to elect a Democratic President.
But the Democratic candidate will have to be credible. If Hillary runs it will be John Kerry all over again. I think Wes has a good chance in 2008. Other than him, it will have to be a fresh face. Napolitano is a possibility.
4. I consider myself left of the Bill Clinton who was president. But I think Bill Clinton feels the same way. But he understood the mood of the country and was willing to work with it, at least after the Hillary health care debacle. The Democratic Party now is being led by sentimental fools who have their heads in the sand. To answer your question directly, my political views coincide pretty well with John Kerry's.
Would I prefer a Clinton Democrat or a McCain moderate? The answer is whoever would win.
5. That's politics. McCain is, after all, a leader of a minority faction in the Republican Party. He did what he had to do. I wish the leaders of the Democratic Party would learn that very basic lesson.
John from Phoenix
John, thanks for taking the time to helpfully respond to my request for clarifications.
The dual identity as fallen away Catholic and fallen away Democrat is intriguing. At the time when you and I were growing up, the two institutions seemed to share ideals and goals. They started to drift apart in the era of civil rights, when black Protestant leaders led the effort and Democrats jumped on board the freedom bus. Catholics in general stayed home, partly because of not wanting to associate with Protestants, but also because ethnic white Catholics felt threatened by the empowerment of blacks. When the rights movement expanded to include women’s rights and abortion became an openly discussed issue, the Church aligned with the Republican position. In 2004, Bush got 52% of the Catholic vote.
1. We are in agreement that the Republican Party has become very right wing, with only a few moderates and no middle group.
2. I suppose I generally agree with you also that a third party is not likely to form, although I think there possibly could eventually be a viable splinter candidate like Perot was in 92. Arguably Perot was not a splinter, just a rich eccentric. McCain could be a splinter, though his loyalty to the Party probably prevents it, so a political hope for the Democrats would be for another rich Republican eccentric - or maybe a Pat Robertson style ultra right religious eccentric.
3. I also think you are correct that enough American voters become uncomfortable when one party controls the White House and Congress for too long. Unless the Democrats somehow manage to regain at least one house of Congress in 2006, those voters will be looking seriously at the Democratic candidate for President in 2008. I don’t think America is ready for a woman President. As for Kerry, your most valid criticism is that people saw him as lacking decisiveness, thinking too much before he speaks and hedging his answers. As for Wes Clark, he does not have actual political credentials. America has not elected a General since Ike and does not seem likely to do so again in the foreseeable future, and Wes is not an Ike. As for the fresh face, if we knew who he [it won’t be a she] is now, then he would not be fresh by 2008.
4. It is interesting that you figure you are at about the same middle southwest political compass point as Kerry. That helps me understand why you are so hard on him - he represented your views and he failed to win with them. You figure the Democrats need to move more toward the compass middle, like Clinton did, in order to win, but I would rather see a candidate who can pull enough voters further to the southwest on the compass and still get elected. To me, a candidate who can do that is a true leader.
5. You say McCain did what politicians have to do and you wish the leaders of the Democrats would learn that lesson. I guess you mean McCain had to kiss Bush butt because Bush was the Republican candidate and McCain is a Republican. Kissing the butt of someone who is trying to cut your throat does not impress me. McCain may deserve credit for his part as one of the seven Republican Senators working out the compromise on the filibuster issue. However, that compromise did not bring the Republican right wingers any more toward the middle, it just made them sharpen their knives for future attempts to cut those seven throats, and I also expect they will do everything they can in the future to undermine the compromise that was reached.
I don’t want to see Democrats kiss butt and pander to people who have an agenda that is wrong and dangerous for America - that is what the Democratic Party did with the Dixiecrats before the civil rights era. The descendants of those Dixiecrats now vote Republican. Howard Dean was correct when he said they should actually be voting for the Democrats. What the Democrats need is a candidate who can get people like the Dixiecrat descendants to see that the Republicans have been selling them a bogus bill of dangerous goods and that the Democratic agenda is actually better for them and for the vastb majority of Americans.
Tom,
I liked what you wrote up to 5. A moderate Republican or Democratic candidate doesn't have to kiss butt to win. He (you have ruled out she) must act, speak, do, and, most importantly believe in, the important characteristics of leadership that will be current in 2008. If those characteristics don't change between now and then, they will include: 1. a practicing Protestant of a conservative stripe; 2. a belief in the sanctity of life. Only someone with that image can support a "woman's right to choose" and stem cell research; 3. a traditional happy family life; 4. an image of inclusion and a believable plan for dealing with illegal immigration; 5. support for a strong military. This is an area that the right wing Republicans could be vulnerable. The above are not characteristics of a right wing Republican, but, instead, the Republicans have made these characteristics their own, while successfully painting the Democrats as not embodying those principles. A Democrat or moderate Republican with these values could do much to further liberal causes in these conservative times. Kind of like Dick Nixon opening the door to China.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home