Bush's "malignant" legacy

Just so that no one misses the enormity of Bush's malignant legacy ... (0.00 / 0)

It's worthwhile to point to Brad Reed's article on Alternet.  (Brad Reed is the lovable BradRocket from Sadly, No!)

The Ten Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 15:56:37 PM CDT

There's two forces at work ... (0.00 / 0)

The role of the Republicans is to bring about repugnant change, the role of the Democrats is to quietly embrace that change and incorporate it into our daily lives.

So far, Obama's not for changing anything. True to form.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM CDT

Rs vs Ds (0.00 / 0)

Mark -

Seems to me the big difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans move very aggressively to use public resources to service their constituents' every need as soon as they get in office.  Remember Bush's famous line about "his kind of people -- the haves and the have mores"?  Well, that's who's received excellent service from the Bush-Cheney cartel over the last 8 years.  Tax breaks for the wealthy, unbelievable profits for the oil companies, the military-industrial complex rolling in the dough to keep selling the materiel to fuel Bush's useless wars.

When the Republicans took over the Montana legislature and governor's office, they didn't dick around worrying about what the Democrats would think -- they went right to work appointing industry lobbyists like Simonich and Clinch as heads of their most important agencies -- DEQ and DNRC -- to open the way for whatever extractive industries wanted to plunder Montana.  They cut oil and gas taxes (18-month "tax holiday" on new wells still exists), instituted "streamlined" permitting with timelines that, years later, are now responsible for court-ordered permits without environmental analysis for gravel pits and, the latest, court-ordered water rights for a Big Sky subdivision.

Democrats, on the other hand, are much more spooked at taking actions that may anger Republicans, for some unfathomable reason.  Maybe it's because the Democrats have such a diverse constituency they simply can't focus on "serving" the needs of the people who voted them into power -- or maybe they're just weenies.  Just look at Baucus on the Bush tax breaks -- which wouldn't have happened without his acquiescence.  Why would Max have ever decided it was his job as a Demo to service the rich?  Bill Clinton tossed out his roadless initiative in the last month he was in office and Bush immediately overturned it when he took office -- one of his first actions and, needless to say, completely to service extractive industries who enjoy the largess of exploiting public lands and resources.  I voted for and supported Jon Tester, but he has voted EIGHT TIMES to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, even calling for a "redoubling" of the effort in Afghanistan.  Does anyone out there really think he would be in office were it not for the support of the considerable anti-war vote in Montana?  Remember, 6 cities have already passed resolutions or ballot issues calling for an end to the war.  What, that doesn't matter?  It's more important to "support the troops" by continuing the wars?  Duh!  

Not one of the Republican degradations to our water quality laws, mining reclamation laws, MEPA or permitting laws has been overturned by the Schweitzer administration.  It's like the past is permanent with these guys, rather than feeling like they are duty bound to bring us back to where we were before the Republicans decided to trash Montana's environmental laws at the behest of industry.  

And that, as far as my experience goes, is the big difference between Rs and Ds.  

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We are in agreement ... (0.00 / 0)

you are fluent in details where I am not. But you have said what I said - our problem is that Democrats don't fight back.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, Mark (0.00 / 0)

It appears to me that you and George are saying very different things.  You are saying, quite clearly, that Democrats don't fight back.  Empirical, still a poor basis for inductive reason, but accurate.  What George appears to be saying is that Democrats won't fight back.  That's predictive, an inductive step further, based only on the observations you (continuously) offer.

When you keep claiming that Democrats don't fight back, I keep responding "so what, some of us are, why aren't you"?  And then we end up in a wearisome spiral of you attempting to tell me that I'm doing it wrong, and me telling you, "not now, I'm in a fight here".

As to the claim that Democrats won't fight back, I offer this:  what the hell are we doing here, then?  The Republicans, because they buy votes (when they're not purchasing those who can steal them), have rigged the game to the mythical 'center', which I don't think a single person here believes is anywhere near the greatest good for the greatest number.  But that's how one gets elected, is following the rules set by Saint Reagan.  Well now it's our turn, or should be.  The Republicants can't lead.  They've shown it time and again.  The Democrats can lead, but we don't like where they're leading.  If OUR problem is that Democrats don't fight back, then let's get them elected, and then beat the shit out of them if they don't fight back.  The mantra, for those of us who haven't given up on the party is "more and better Democrats".  We've got the more.  Now it's time to concentrate on the better, don't you think?

And keeping jed's quest for ideological absolution in the back of my mind, I would like to point out yet again, that if the Democratic party is about the people, then it's the people who need to fight back.  When a Republicant sucker-punches you or your candidate, don't invite them over for tea and a polite conversation about how 'yeah, our candidate really does kinda suck, huh?'  Punch them back, hard.  There's a reason we all discuss this in terms of a fight; because it is about pain and fear.  When yet another winger website (now defunct like so many) called me "rattlesnake mean", I considered that a badge of honor.  Every Democrat out there, wondering why 'the Democrats' won't fight back, should aspire to the same thing.  The Republicans have nothing to fear because fear is their lifeblood.  Our candidates, on the other hand, have a great deal to fear.  They fear our demand that they throw punches while we jeer from the back row.  That would be, exactly, why Democrats don't fight back.  If we've done that great a job at cowing our own politicians, then I think it's time we shift focus.  It's time we make the wingers fear us.  YMMV.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:40:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Distinctions without differences ... (0.00 / 0)

And wrong, to boot. I've written again and again that the purpose of the Democratic Party is to capture opposition, like you, and render it mute and moot. I am not saying that Democrats "don't" fight back. I'm the one saying they "won't", and I've offered up reasons. It's politically quite sensible to compromise the opposition by infiltrating with Quislings.

Here's a good example of the dynamic at work. Obama has stiffed liberals on a couple of issues now (NAFTA and FISA)(three, if you count faith-based subsidies - why not count?), and Democrats, faced with the contradiction of a Democrat embracing Republican positions, internalize the contradiction, make it into a positive thing. Hell - I think Anna called it "refreshing honesty", and I'm pretty sure you embraced it too, calling it incremental change or some such thing.

If Democrats are the problem, more Democrats is not the solution.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Mark (0.00 / 0)

As I wrote quite clearly, more and better Democrats are the solution.  You remained focused on the liberal position, refusing to accept the many Democrats are very centrist (the real kind, not the Republican kind.)  

And you still miss a rather major salient point.  Obama hasn't done anything to liberals yet, because he hasn't been elected.  (FISA is the only real issue you can point to, for now, but you still need to show his betrayal in implementation ... which he won't have the opportunity to do until he is President.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 16:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's not elected yet ... (0.00 / 0)

probably will not be, so maybe you're right - maybe we'll have to wait until then to see real betrayal. You're really splitting hairs here.

FISA, NAFTA, attacking Iran, Office of Faith Based Initiatives ... obviously it's all just words until he is elected, but the sellouts, reversals, strategic adjustments point to a man who has misled us about who he is and what he believes.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:19:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

O'Bama (0.00 / 1)

is not just another
Irish ward heeler
from Chicago.
He is just another
bastard descendant
of Yankee ingenuity...  

---

by: jed @ Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 13:31:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's predictive? (0.00 / 0)

Wulfie, I'm somewhat confused here about why you think what I wrote was "predictive"?  Looking at the historic record of what did and did not get accomplished over the last quarter century of Demo and Repub administrations and office-holders seems to be reality, not prediction.  Tester's votes are matters of record, as are the Repub changes to Montana's environmental laws, which have not been reversed in the last two sessions since Schweitzer took office.  

I agree with Jed that the executive is stronger when in control of both houses of the legislature, but my comment was based on at least trying to reverse the damage -- and the strong executive backing of same -- and that hasn't happened.  As a matter of record, Schweitzer promised even more "streamlining" in the permitting process, the exact Republican philosophy that brought us gravel pits being permitted with no environmental analysis as I mentioned.

I DO know how to fight -- for real, not just political theory, as the scars on my knuckles and face will attest -- and have been in the policy trenches for years through the Stephens, Racicot, and Martz administrations.  One thing I know is when you're in a brawl, which is often what the legislative arena most resembles, it's critical to have good pards with you who won't run or fold when things get nasty.  There are plenty of great Dems who fit that bill, but there are far too many who do not.  And unfortunately it seems the higher they rise in the party or in political standing, the less likely they are to fight for bedrock Demo issues.  

One good example from this week might be Obama's pledge to "expand" Bush's faith-based initiatives.  In a society founded on the separation of church and state, I'm wondering how our "change" candidate, at the top of the Demo slate, can condone giving public tax money to religious institutions?  

Or maybe take a read through what old Kelleher had to say about Baucus on tax cuts for billionaires, health care (and Max's cozy relationship with insurance companies), taking care of the less fortunate, and actually serving Montanans as chair of the Finance Committee.  Kelleher may be old, but what he has to say contains more than a little truth on these issues.  The response from the Baucus campaign was to say they "wouldn't engage in Kelleher's negative remarks."  Huh? What part about bringing up Max's record on these issues is negative?  Maybe a better question to ask is why more "progressives" aren't likewise pointing out these truths instead of settling for what Max decides is good enough for us?

I guess what I was trying to say, and I think what you somewhat backed up with your comment that "Republicants can't lead" is that "leading" is not the goal of Republicans. Serving their constituents, and particularly their wealthy, corporate constituents, IS their goal and is the reason they move so aggressively to do that when given the opportunity.  So far, no one has particularly addressed my comment that it is perhaps because the Demo constituency is so diverse that it seems harder for the Ds to focus on serving them...hence, their less-than-stellar record of accomplishment when they have the opportunity to move the agenda.

We all know that "predicting" the future by looking at the past can have its pitfalls, but my comments were primarily based on what has actually occurred rather than what we hoped or thought would occur.  Holding people accountable for their campaign promises seems to me about the only way we can ever hope to restore some measure of credibility to the political arena in general and in our Demo office-holders specifically.  Otherwise, won't we wind up like the millions of disenfranchised citizens out there who think politics isn't even worth bothering with because it's all lies, posturing, and corruption?

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll address your comment (0.00 / 0)

So far, no one has particularly addressed my comment that it is perhaps because the Demo constituency is so diverse that it seems harder for the Ds to focus on serving them...hence, their less-than-stellar record of accomplishment when they have the opportunity to move the agenda.

The Republican constituency is even more diverse than the Democrats, with their extreme libertarians and religious fundamentalists, and their pragmatic business leaders. But they hold them together becuase their leaders lead. Democratic leaders uniformly accept the Republican agenda, with only minor objections. hey are not leading Democrats, but instead compromising with Republicans as their main strategy.

You also said:

the higher they rise in the party or in political standing, the less likely they are to fight for bedrock Demo issues.

This goes back exactly to my issues with Dems - that their leaders are in fact not progressives or liberals, but rather agents of the other side who find it more practical to run for office as Democrats than Republicans because of the nature of the constituencies. Did not Baucus have to toss a coin when he ran for House on which party to choose?

How it is that non-progressives and non-liberals come to lead the supposed liberal and progressive party ... probalyy has to do with money backing.

 

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good question (0.00 / 0)

Mark -

You'll get no argument from me on what you've written although  I don't think the Rs are necessarily more diverse, they have big business, which is their main goal and then the right, further right, and extreme right to "service" -- albeit they don't do so well at that.  For instance, all those right-wing Christians are still waiting for Roe v Wade to get tossed by the Bush court.  The big business guys, however, are doing just fine with the Bushies in the White House.

In regard to your last paragraph about how certain individuals get to lead the Dem party, you ought to take a look at yesterday's Wall St. Journal editorial about Obama.  Here's just a tiny clip, but the whole piece is worth reading because, although I hate to admit it, on this one the WSJ is right.
"Bush's Third Term"
"We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of 'George Bush's third term.'  Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.

"Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely 'running to the center.'  He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy.  Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

"Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists...
"Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq policy...look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright 'was not the person I met 20 years ago..
"This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities.  Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' is not the assault on chrch-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed."

Maybe there's something here that you and I are missing, Mark.  Maybe we have to put on our party loyalty tin hats and communicate with the little voices in the press releases.  Or maybe this is reality and it's about time true progressives realize what a ride we're being taken for and on and stand up to demand an end to phony policies and the party propaganda that supports them.
 

---

by: ochenski @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 13:18:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My apologies, George (0.00 / 0)

I was actually riffing on Mark writing that Democrats "don't" fight back, when he was actually arguing the position ascribed to you.  You are the one, after all, who brought up the history of Democratic failures.  Consider it a poor joke, funny only to myself, and I would hope other logicians.  There is a profound difference between offering the evidence for an induction, and running with one, willy-nilly.  That's all I was trying to get across to Mark.

On most points, you and I actually agree.  The one on which we find discussion is the FBO.  I am adamantly opposed to FBO.  I also acknowledge that many faith organizations already have the structures in place for distribution of aid.  I don't see it so much as a "separation" issue as I do one of competent administration.

Other than that, we're pretty much in sync. I would only point out that:

Holding people accountable for their campaign promises seems to me about the only way we can ever hope to restore some measure of credibility to the political arena in general and in our Demo office-holders specifically.

pretty much demands that the people in question hold the office they are required to be accountable for.  In many (if not most) discussions between Mark and I, he has pointed to the inevitability of Gore's behavior, or Kerry's behavior, as President.  I'm not a fan of alternate reality scenarios.  I believe in holding people accountable for what they do, not what I think they'll do.    

---

by: Wulfgar @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 16:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One other note ... (0.00 / 0)

In addition to the three items I mentioned, Obama has also adopted and extreme right wing foreign policy, assuring AIPAC that he would attack Iran if he thought it necessary.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It appears you have both failed to remember--or recognize (0.00 / 0)

the stronger position an executive enjoys when his party also controls the legislature.  How long has it been since a Democrat had a full term with his own party in power?
From 2001 to 2007 the G.O.P. owned everything

But you're certainly right about the democrats being weenies...

---

by: jed @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 15:08:40 PM CDT

Clinton, 1993 to 1995 was the last time ... (0.00 / 0)

But I think it is more than Democrats being "weenies" - in fact, I don't think that of them at all. I think they are complicit. There's a portion of them - maybe a third or more, who really believe and practice liberal ideals, but the rest are merely playing liberals on TV.

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 15:38:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, (0.00 / 0)

yeah...

---

by: jed @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:28:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The notion of a government (0.00 / 0)

of, by, and for the people did not predate Lincoln; and has never existed since Lincoln.  (I suspect Lincoln may have coined the phrase for its literary value.)
Anybody who has read the constitution recognizes it is naught but a document of privilege; with the bill of rights intended solely to gain approval of the constitution by people who favored state's rights to federation.
The western frontier created governmental concern for the common man: when so many hoi polloi began to move beyond  control of government, it became desirable to make  governance seem more attractive to them.

And it would be a grave error, I think, to suggest Manifest Destiny was a populist movement; since its primary result seems to have been rebirth of corporations whose influences have become progressively problematic for anybody not included in the privileged class...

---

by: jed @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 21:53:03 PM CDT