Delusions
There wasn't much that intrigued me at Watching America this morning. I guess I'm a little jaded. It's been a lousy news week all the way around. One entry did spark some mild interest, however: a blog entry at The Economist.
It seems that another Bushista has written a "tell-all" book. This one is from former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, who apparently relieved himself mightily about his experiences and observations by writing his tome, entitled Speech-less (catchy, no?). Mr. Latimer informs us that Karl Rove was a crashing boor, the president had a nasty streak, and that Latimer's immediate boss was pretentious for no good reason. The book will probably sell well, both to Republicans who still would like to know how such a socialist got elected and to Democrats who want their blood lust sated since it's clear the Obama administration has no intention of investigating and prosecuting the miscreants of the last administration.
After a brief review of the book, Lexington (the blogger) moves on to briefly examine just what the book and its probable popularity actually portends. He concludes, not much. The last half of his essay is, in my opinion, a pretty astute analysis of just where the US is at this moment in time.
...people tend to believe what they want to believe, and Mr Latimer’s book has helped two pre-existing delusions to become stronger.
The first, which is popular among some Republicans, is that Mr Bush was unpopular because he was not conservative enough. Mr Latimer has proved that Mr Bush was not, in fact, a true conservative, argues Jed Babbin, the editor of Human Events, a socially conservative magazine. And this means the conservative movement need no longer be tarred by association with him, apparently. “It lifts the burden of George W. Bush from our shoulders,” exults Mr Babbin, clearing the way for a new Reagan, a genuine one this time, to lead Republicans back to victory.
The second delusion, popular among Democrats, is that Mr Bush will help them win elections indefinitely. It worked in 2006 and 2008, so why not in 2010? Some Democratic strategists think the surest way to keep control of Congress next year is to link every Republican to Mr Bush.
Each delusion, however, carries the seed of destruction for those who hold them as eternal verities.
...Republicans will not tempt tomorrow’s voters if they merely offer a reheated version of what they were selling in 1980. They will not win swing voters if they value doctrinal purity above all else. And they will not be able to govern if they treat all compromise as betrayal. Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Reagan, says the Republican Party has been taken over by “anti-tax fanatics” so extreme that he is not sure they wouldn’t rather default on the national debt than raise taxes. That may be an exaggeration, but it is hard to spot much seriousness in either party about getting the nation’s finances in order.
As for the Democrats, they need to realise that no matter how many Bush-baiting books are sold in Washington, DC, the rest of the country is moving on. Mr Obama is the president. His party dominates both chambers up on Capitol Hill. Come election time next November, if unemployment is still high, or Afghanistan has turned into a fiasco, or if health-care reform unravels, or if there is another terrorist attack, Americans will blame the people in power, not the retired guy in Crawford. [Emphasis added]
Bingo.
I don't know, or care, for that matter, about the problems the GOP is facing. That's their business, one that continues to look murky at best. The Democrats, however, as the only alternative at present continue to worry me. They allegedly have 60 votes in their Senate caucus (although I wouldn't count on either Arlen Specter or Joe Lieberman at all, and I definitely wouldn't lay my life down for any one of the Blue Dogs), and they own the White House, yet they can't seem to get much done on crucial issues ranging from health care, to Afghanistan, to knocking out the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act, to moving those detainees wrongfully held in Guantanamo Bay home or at least to the US mainland, or to stimulating jobs, rather than just a rise in stock prices.
If things don't turn around on these issues, it won't take a terrorist attack to defeat the Democrats. They will have done it on their own. And that means that the US will be screwed for a long time to come.
It seems that another Bushista has written a "tell-all" book. This one is from former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, who apparently relieved himself mightily about his experiences and observations by writing his tome, entitled Speech-less (catchy, no?). Mr. Latimer informs us that Karl Rove was a crashing boor, the president had a nasty streak, and that Latimer's immediate boss was pretentious for no good reason. The book will probably sell well, both to Republicans who still would like to know how such a socialist got elected and to Democrats who want their blood lust sated since it's clear the Obama administration has no intention of investigating and prosecuting the miscreants of the last administration.
After a brief review of the book, Lexington (the blogger) moves on to briefly examine just what the book and its probable popularity actually portends. He concludes, not much. The last half of his essay is, in my opinion, a pretty astute analysis of just where the US is at this moment in time.
...people tend to believe what they want to believe, and Mr Latimer’s book has helped two pre-existing delusions to become stronger.
The first, which is popular among some Republicans, is that Mr Bush was unpopular because he was not conservative enough. Mr Latimer has proved that Mr Bush was not, in fact, a true conservative, argues Jed Babbin, the editor of Human Events, a socially conservative magazine. And this means the conservative movement need no longer be tarred by association with him, apparently. “It lifts the burden of George W. Bush from our shoulders,” exults Mr Babbin, clearing the way for a new Reagan, a genuine one this time, to lead Republicans back to victory.
The second delusion, popular among Democrats, is that Mr Bush will help them win elections indefinitely. It worked in 2006 and 2008, so why not in 2010? Some Democratic strategists think the surest way to keep control of Congress next year is to link every Republican to Mr Bush.
Each delusion, however, carries the seed of destruction for those who hold them as eternal verities.
...Republicans will not tempt tomorrow’s voters if they merely offer a reheated version of what they were selling in 1980. They will not win swing voters if they value doctrinal purity above all else. And they will not be able to govern if they treat all compromise as betrayal. Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Reagan, says the Republican Party has been taken over by “anti-tax fanatics” so extreme that he is not sure they wouldn’t rather default on the national debt than raise taxes. That may be an exaggeration, but it is hard to spot much seriousness in either party about getting the nation’s finances in order.
As for the Democrats, they need to realise that no matter how many Bush-baiting books are sold in Washington, DC, the rest of the country is moving on. Mr Obama is the president. His party dominates both chambers up on Capitol Hill. Come election time next November, if unemployment is still high, or Afghanistan has turned into a fiasco, or if health-care reform unravels, or if there is another terrorist attack, Americans will blame the people in power, not the retired guy in Crawford. [Emphasis added]
Bingo.
I don't know, or care, for that matter, about the problems the GOP is facing. That's their business, one that continues to look murky at best. The Democrats, however, as the only alternative at present continue to worry me. They allegedly have 60 votes in their Senate caucus (although I wouldn't count on either Arlen Specter or Joe Lieberman at all, and I definitely wouldn't lay my life down for any one of the Blue Dogs), and they own the White House, yet they can't seem to get much done on crucial issues ranging from health care, to Afghanistan, to knocking out the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act, to moving those detainees wrongfully held in Guantanamo Bay home or at least to the US mainland, or to stimulating jobs, rather than just a rise in stock prices.
If things don't turn around on these issues, it won't take a terrorist attack to defeat the Democrats. They will have done it on their own. And that means that the US will be screwed for a long time to come.
Labels: 111th Congress, Election 2010
posted by Diane at 12:00 PM
2 Comments:
if unemployment is still high, or Afghanistan has turned into a fiasco, or if health-care reform unravels, or if there is another terrorist attack, Americans will blame the people in power...
yup...and don't be too surprised to see three out of four are in play.
The Pukes threw it in 2008, thoughtfully arranging it so that a (half-black) Democrat is in charge of the total collapse...
Brilliant!
They allegedly have 60 votes in their Senate caucus (although I wouldn't count on either Arlen Specter or Joe Lieberman at all, and I definitely wouldn't lay my life down for any one of the Blue Dogs)...........
================================
I'd trust Max Baucus and/or Kent Conrad as far as I could throw them.
And the allegedly liberal MSM remains firmly entrenched in the pockets of the notoriously liberal K-Street lobbyists.
~
Post a Comment
<< Home