As I have long argued, the behavior of politicians is driven far more by the dynamics of power structures than by ideology. The Democrats were not uniquely spineless during the Bush years. They behaved the way they did largely because their cost/benefit analysis led them to limit their fire in battles they knew they could not win. This isn't an apology for the Democrats, it's just an observation about human nature. If the Republicans had the votes to kill Hillary Clinton's appointment, they might very well go after her with everything from today's AP piece to the 'murder' of Vince Foster. But, without the votes, it's all about how great she is, how smart she is, and how fantastic it will be to work with her.
This is just a small example of a larger point. The sheer numbers of Democrats on the Hill creates a power dynamic that it is impossible for the old GOP to navigate using their old tactics. They cannot maintain unity and discipline while in the minority, nor can they bully through the terms of the debate. For the foreseeable future they will be weak and ineffective.
-- BOOMAN
Now it’s true that immigration reform is a tough subject for conservatives. True too, that when it comes to immigration there are some many on the restrictionist wing who consider Bush to be either a) a sentimentalist or b) corporate America’s pawn or c) both of the above. Equally, the orthodox Republican position on immigration - border enforcement first, then reform - is not desperately unpopular. But a popular (or at least not unpopular) position is only half of the matter: you have to sell it well too. And on a subject as contentious as immigration, that requires a degree of tact and sophistication that, by and large, seems alien to many Congressional and grass-roots Republicans.-- ALEX MASSIEA former senior official at the Justice Department routinely hired conservatives, Republicans and so-called RTA's — "Right-Thinking Americans" — for what were supposed to be apolitical posts and gave them plum assignments on important civil rights cases, an internal report found Tuesday.The former official, Bradley Schlozman, who helped lead the civil rights division from 2003 until he resigned in the fall of 2007 amid a political uproar over broad charges of politicization at the department, also gave false statements to Congress in denying that he had taken politics into account in his hiring and personnel decisions, the report found.
We already know that George W. Bush will walk away from his wreckage . . . having bequeathed us record budget deficits, a tanking economy, a needless war costing half a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, a sullied global image, and so much more.But one other facet of his legacy is widely overlooked: He wrecked his own Republican Party.
Don't take my word for it. Various Republicans rendered their verdicts on Bush long before the November election. For instance, Peggy Noonan, the commentator and former Reagan speechwriter, argued a year ago that "Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart."
If that sounds too harsh, perhaps Tom Davis, a former House GOP leader, will strike you as more diplomatic. Referring to Bush last spring, Davis said: "He's just killed the Republican brand. . . . The Republican brand is in the trash can. . . . If we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."
-- DICK POLMAN
Complicating [Bush's] last-minute legacy rehabilitation: Nobody seems to be paying attention. The White House had high expectations for yesterday's final, historic news conference. . . . But when the appointed hour of 9:15 a.m. arrived, the last two rows in the seven-row briefing room were empty, and a press aide told White House interns to fill those seats.-- DANA MILBANK
On matters of policy, [Bush] revealed himself to be as isolated and out of touch as his critics (including me) would have assumed all along. Two illustrations: he hotly challenged the premise of one question that his policies had made America less prestigious and respected around the world, saying that was just the view of some "elites" and other pantywaists in part of Europe. Go to China! he said. They still respect us there. Yes, sort of. As I've written many times in the Atlantic, China does not seem in any deep way "anti-American," and they generally think US-China relations are good. But no thinking person has the slightest doubt that the Iraq, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib policies, in particular, have hurt America's image badly here as they have in most other places. To say what the President did indicates how carefully he has been protected from any unfiltered feedback from the real world.
Cartoon by Nate Beeler/The Washington Examiner
No comments:
Post a Comment