Thank you, George W. Bush

On Feb. 7 I'm going with a friend to see Will Ferrell's one man Broadway show, You're Welcome America, where he plays our 43rd president.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. I was 18 years old, and politically aware and interested but not ideologically developed. The vote I cast for Al Gore remains my proudest. Before Bush took the oath of office, I had a conversation with my high school girlfriend's father. He'd voted for Bush, and I told him that after Bush was through the country would be worse off economically and socially. He disagreed.

On this, the last night of the Bush presidency, I want to take a look back at his time in office.

9/11

Just in case the above anecdote makes me seem like a know it all, indulge me one more. After 9/11, my friend and I were sitting in his dorm room watching ex- presidents and dignitaries file into the National Cathedral for a mass marking the tragic event. Gore was on screen and I remarked, "Man, I voted for him, but I'm really glad that he's not president right now. We need Bush in there." He agreed.

Bush's bravado and cowboy style comforted a nation that had its sense of invincibility rocked. He was a man who would punish those responsible and restore order to our world. Check out this SNL clip, where Ferrell plays the president just after 9/11. The cheers and hoots are remarkable and almost startling.



We craved this kind of call- out, we wanted revenge. Seven years later, this clip is more sad than funny. If you'd told the members of SNL's studio audience that night that bin Laden would be on the run and releasing tapes in 2009 I don't think they'd have believed you. I certainly wouldn't have.

But Bush was his best in those early days, even if he didn't actually accomplish anything. I'd argue the two best moments of his presidency came in late 2001:

Here, Bush is confident and well spoken, even eloquent. He's not giving prepared remarks, but reacting to the emotion of the moment and words of workers at Ground Zero.



I don't like George W. Bush, and I hate the New York Yankees. But this was pretty cool--



The Aftermath

Bush executed the War on Terror in a reckless way that was often politically motivated. The Senate's vote for use of force against Iraq was held right before the '02 midterms, which turned it into a political issue.

Dick Cheney executed his "unitary executive" theory, which gave the president new power at the expense of civil liberties and international law. Neo- Cons executed their Iraq- as- Petri dish experiment for American hegemony in the 21st century unfettered, at the expense of American servicemen and women, uncounted civilians and America's alliances.

And the president wasn't curious enough or interested enough or competent enough to stop them.

Iraq

The Iraq War was, as John Kerry famously put it, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with improved security in the country it has become Bush's best chance at lasting achievement, and the only thing that could rescue his name from historians' bottom tier of presidents, where he now seems destined to be remembered. A stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and the dismantling of an abhorrent dictator is a potential game changer for our world.

But it was sold under false pretenses and done on the cheap. And when it wasn't working, Bush didn't react. The failures in Iraq can fill books. And so it can never be a source of pride for Bush. But it does have potential.

The Economy

For much of Bush's eight years in office, before the economy collapsed in on itself, the country seemed to be doing quite well economically. Unemployment was stable near historic lows, the stock market routinely broke records, and home ownership was at its highest level ever. However, polls routinely showed that Americans didn't feel good about the economy. People didn't feel good about it because it wasn't working for them. Inequality skyrocketed during the Bush years, to levels that surpassed even the "Roarin' 20s."

Through tax cuts and loop holes corporate earnings and income for the wealthiest individuals were unprecedented. Yet the benefits failed to trickle down to the rest of us. And when inflated housing numbers popped they brought the DOW down too, and Bush's signature economic accomplishments were undone while he still lived in the White House.

The Administration

In Paul Krugman's 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal the economist distinguishes the Republican party of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush 41 from that of George W. Bush. Bush 43 emanated from what Krugman calls"movement conservatism," and one of its main tenets is patronage based on loyalty rather than expertise.

That became evident as figures drifted from the administration to companies they were supposed to be regulating and back. It was clear after the utter incompetence of horse breeder turned FEMA director, Michael Brown who still enjoyed George Bush's loyalty even as people suffered through the federal government's incompetence.



Conclusion

Bush's presidency might be best understood through the lens of what's known as the Peter Principle. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain.

George Bush rose to a level for which he was simply incompetent.

However, his presidency is not so much a personal failure, I think, as it is a failure of ideology and a corrupt politics. George Bush's disposition and personal character and story made him somewhat of a blank canvas on which movement conservatives could project their vision of government. For eight years we endured that vision.

Now, thanks to that experience, eroding racism and a shift in demographics movement conservatives have turned the Republican party into a mostly regional force. When the party returns to national prominence, we can expect it to look very different.

So perhaps Bush's legacy is that he made today possible. He helped elect the most progressive government since the 1930s. And I firmly believe our country will be better off for it. What's more, he put the country in a place where it was finally ready move past, not so much its racial divisions, but the cultural roils that defined the baby boom generation. Now that our first post- Boomer is in the White House we can close the book on George W. Bush's presidency and that tumultuous age.

So, thank you, George W. Bush.

"Cheney Out"- Quotes of the Day 12/16

"Once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, then they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place... We did not exceed our constitutional authority, as some have suggested. The President believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster.

"Guantanamo has been very, very valuable. And I think they'll discover that trying to close it is a very hard proposition. They're unlawful combatants. And you if you're not going to have a place to locate them like Guantanamo, then you either have to bring them here to the continental United States and I don't know any member of Congress who's volunteering to have al Qaeda terrorists deposited in his district."

"We're on the downside of a recession that may be the worst since World War II. And if the automobile industry goes belly up now, there's a deep concern that that would be a major shock to the system."

- Vice President Dick Cheney on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. Cheney's support for an auto bailout has some produced some unlikely liberal allies.

His comments on Guantanamo and expansive view of executive power are decidedly less surprising.

WSJ: Affluent Voters Switch Brands

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today on the shifting voting patterns of the wealthy. The Journal traveled to traditional- Republican- turned- swing state, Colorado, and spoke with people who have altered their allegiance in favor of Democrats.

Take James Kelly, an executive at the $7B firm Vistar, who supports Barack Obama. For all the Democrats' talk about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top wage earners, Mr. Kelly still writes big checks to Democrats.

From the article:

"The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

As for proposals by Democratic congressional leaders and presidential contenders to raise taxes on high earners, Mr. Kelley says: "The pocketbook, the taxes, that's issue 11. And the balance has swayed so far in [favor of] the 10 other things."

It's a pattern that has developed nationally over the last four years. In 2004, voters making at least six-figures favored President Bush 58% to 41% over Democrat John Kerry. During last year's Congressional races the margin was cut to 51% to 47%. According to a new Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll, "Americans earning more than $100,000 want Democrats to win the White House next year by 48% to 41%, and want Democrats to win control of Congress by 45% to 42%."

And don't think that shift hasn't already been felt in the '08 fund-raising race, where the top 5 Dems have raised $242M to their conservative counterparts' $167M.

In my opinion, the shift seems to be the product of the deep division the Republican party has dealt with post- Reagan, between social and fiscal conservatives. The uneasy truce between the two appears to have faded, and we now see the fallout. The social conservatives are having a hard time backing a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, and the fiscal conservatives are so turned off by the party's recent priorities that they've defected.

The old adage says that people will always vote their pocketbooks, but it seems that, like much of the traditional wisdom in this election cycle, has undergone a profound change.

For Romney, it's Family First

A mayor with more baggage than the Howells on Gilligan's three hour tour. A Mormon representing "Liberal America," and marketing himself to the Christian Right. A 64 year old senator with a SAG card in his pocket, and a 39 year old trophy on his arm.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 Republican presidential candidates.

But it's all in how you look at it:

America's mayor, the man who packs the emotional punch of a hurricane. A political legacy with a record of broad-based appeal, and success in business and administration. A two- term southern senator claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan, with the skills to back it up.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the front- runner. He has the most money, the most press, and the most support. But he's vulnerable. You know that crack about his baggage? Well it's an understatement. He's been divorced twice (once from his cousin), and had how many wives, Rudy? (see pic to right); he's estranged from his only son; has a history of supporting gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control; and the firefighters' union is trying to rip down his 9/11-hero persona with a slew of charges. I mean they are just itching to swiftboat this guy back to Brooklyn. Bottom line: he is not the conservative or establishment darling George W. Bush was, not by a long shot.

Meanwhile, Thompson hasn't even declared yet, so he's relatively new to the equation. Without his presence, John McCain's meltdown would have put Romney in a one on one match up with Giuliani. That was Romney's goal when he got his campaign together a year ago, so you know he's disappointed to even deal with big Fred.

The two each have to be the anti-Rudy, and whoever does the best job will square off with the Mayor for the nomination. So they share a goal, but also a problem: neither of them really is the anti- Rudy.

Romney is the son of the former governor of Michigan, and a practicing Mormon. His religion does not easily jibe with more mainstream Christian faiths. Also, he served as Governor of liberal Massachusetts, where he ran as a pro- choice moderate, never much caring about the social issues that have motivated conservatives in the recent past.

He has since "rethought" his stance on abortion and stem cell research, but voters may not buy what Republican candidate Tom Tancredo called "a conversion on the road to Des Moines, not Damascus."

Thompson doesn't offer bedrock conservatism, either. As reported by the Washington Times, "[His] most-oft-cited credential is his 86.1 percent lifetime (1995-2002) Senate vote rating compiled by the ACU, the leading arbiter of conservatism." However, this rating was consistently lower than his fellow Senator from Tennessee, Bill Frist, making him, the Wash Times snickers, the "liberal Senator from Tennessee." There are also questions that Thompson lobbied for a pro- choice group.

So neither have the record to stand up boldly against Giuliani as the "Conservative" choice. But that doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. For Romney, who married his high school sweetheart some thirty years ago, winning that battle means focusing on his family. The Romneys have five sons (all of whom are visible on the campaign trail), with five daughters-in-law, and ten grandkids. They'll all be in Iowa for the Ames straw- poll on August 11.

"I can't wait for you to meet our family," Romney says.

Yeah, no kidding.

Giuliani is on his third wife and isn't on speaking terms with his last one, or their son. Thompson is on his second, a very accomplished (and very hot) former political consultant, 24 years his junior.

In the early, small states where politics is retail and many voters actually meet each candidate, this advantage is huge.

Romney is the only leading candidate taking the part in the Ames straw poll. He leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. So his strategy is to come out strong, establish himself as a force, and hope his momentum carries. Without those early states Romney is a dead duck, but with his family by his side, he's looking good.

The other two guys know it, too, their strategies basically concede Iowa and New Hampshire (which the reshuffled primary calendar allows them to do).

Thompson will hope Giuliani takes Romney out in the big states in the Northeast and West, while he focuses on the South, setting up his preferred two man showdown.

There seems to be something missing in this equation. Perhaps someone with the conservative chops to actually be Giuliani's legitimate counterpoint. People are talking about former Speaker Newt Gingrich making a run. He has done zero to quiet the speculation, either, recently evoking Stalin (yes, Stalin) by calling the current field "pygmies." But I doubt he'll run.

The funny twist is that for all the talk about how Romney's Mormonism may hurt his campaign, it has had, shall we say, an unintended benefit of leading to quite a large (and photogenic) family. So sometimes a weakness can turn into a strength.

I guess it's all in how you look at it.

Adam's take

My friend, and consummate conservative, Adam Chmelecki sent me an email a few days back. I just got to it though, pretty funny stuff. Seems that he was jacked up about the Dow hitting 14,000, and about the success our mutual friends were enjoying in the "robust" economy, including his restaurant supply company, Sound Restaurant Supply.

I might as well bring to your attention the fact the yesterday the stock market hit an all time record high. The media wont report on this all that much because of fear that people will credit old G Dubs for turning the economy around and doubling the dow from its low of 700 hundred after 9/11. Everybody screamed that he was protecting the rich with his tax cuts well guess what the rich spend money and now everybody has a higher standard of living. people are eating out and Sound Restaurant supply is there to SUPPLY the Restaurants. Things are so good they even have eric managing projects.....the kid could hardly manage his Madden Franchise now they got him heading up several ventures....Things are so good right now somebody had the nerve to give doug a secretary, (coincidentally there is a new case study for passive aggressive sexual harassment at Mercy College)....so much money is being made the Bomber made a diplomatic trip to london to try and spread some of that fine Meehan Oil to the Brits.....the stock market is looking so good Yoshi got his assembly line hours extended at the Hello Kitty factory in Nagasaki. Republicans Good For The Economy. (Just Playin Yosh, you my man what up)

Well, Adam's email is hilarious, but I know that the president doesn't have much to do with the stock market, and that the stock market is not equal to the strength of our economy (see: deficit, strength of the dollar, consumer confidence, etc.). But the point still stands: the stock market is riding high. Of course it was riding high in the Clinton years, too-- it's a cyclical thing I guess.

What I'm asking is for someone who knows more about this than I (not hard) to explain the cycle of the stock market and its effect on the economy. Comment here or email me.

The Last True Conservative?

As you have probably gathered by now, I am no conservative. So, for me, there is a lot to like in the current field of Republican presidential candidates. Well, not really. But according to my calculations there is only true conservative on the stage at Republican debates.

Congressman Ron Paul has no shot at winning, but he's speaking truth to power and getting a lot of attention. And rightfully so. He is trying (in vain) to uphold traditional Republican ideals of being against war and government spending. In one exchange with front- runner Rudy Giuliani, Paul took the position that the US had to re-examine its policy of foreign involvement, and that over involvement in the middle east led to the 9/11 attack. Giuliani, right on cue, basically took the "they hate us cause we're free" position (to great applause), to which Paul suggested that Rudy listen to our enemies, or just read the 9/11 Report.

Anyway, even though I disagree with Ron Paul fundamentally, I could see supporting him just because he's so damn intellectually honest. He has made me rethink my policy against trusting people with two first names.

Check out his site here and there's a link for the Giuliani stuff here and here.

With that I'm off to Belgium for the weekend, so I won't be posting. I hope some of you all will though, enjoy!

The Idea Cycle

Has this ever happened to you? You are struck by a problem, issue, or idea - you read about it and think about it, and pretty soon you start to see references to it all around you. You ask yourself, have people always been talking about this and I am just now noticing because it's been on my mind? Or was my original thought a sign of something bigger, was it insightful or maybe part of a trend?

I found myself in such a situation reading an article in today's NY Times about Democratic presidential candidates. The Times reports that candidates have consistently been using a populist economic theme. Granted it's the primaries, and candidates always veer toward the "extremes," but the article confirmed something I've been feeling for a while now.

I think it's safe for Democrats to be Democrats again.

Bill Clinton taught the party a "third way," which was useful and important to overcome the "tax and spend" stigma and make the party viable again. However, politics (like everything else) is cyclical. And I think we are headed toward a cycle where the majority of Americans are willing to embrace old Democratic ideals.

Let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent expire.

Use the money to help parents pay for their kids education, or to expand health care coverage.

Put a check on the unbridled private sector: Don't automatically support free trade agreements. Negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

The 6 years of Republican dominance showed Americans the value of some of the cornerstones of liberalism, as witnessed in the Democrats' midterm victories. Now isn't the time to back down, but to push forward. Because, right now, it's a winning message.

Take Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who beat an incumbent by 12 points for his seat in 2006. He explains his success in a state that cost John Kerry the presidency this way:

“That’s because of the economic populist message. [Ohio voters] voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”

Indeed, Nancy Pelosi et al. were swept into office on the promise to raise the minimum wage, and cut the gap between the richest and poorest Americans, which is its largest ever (by a long shot).

The return of economic populism has been brewing for a few years now, and I expect it to stick for the near future. Until the cycle turns in on itself again. Sometimes it's hard to tell when one idea produced or simply preceded another. And sometimes it's hard to tell which came first.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Dems Dominate

Sites and newspapers are agog over the disparate fundraising numbers of Republican presidential candidates and their Democratic counterparts. Here's a run down:



Dems
Obama $31M
Hill $21M
Edwards $9M

Repubs
Gules $15M
Mitt $14M
The Candidate formerly known as John McCain $10M

Those were how the numbers shook out until the Camp Mitt got some great news. Out of nowhere it got a HUGE donation of $6.5M to its campaign. The source? A certain super-wealthy, Mormon, former governor, who shares his name with a piece sports equipment... yup, Cleats Cuomo. No wait, that would be Mitt Romney himself. What a generous guy.

So why are the Dems dominating the fundraising race?

It seems the Conservatives haven't really fallen in love with any of their candidates. The Dems are flawed, for sure, but their base is so jacked up for this election, they seem willing to look past it. 6 years of the Bush presidency will do that to you.

Beyond that, though, you have to just give it up to Hillary and Barry... they've got to be two of the best fundraisers in modern political history. You put two candidates with that kind of talent in this charged atmosphere, and all records are going to fall.

That's not to take anything away from the guys on the other side. Guiliani is talented, and moves people to act (and give) because his association with 9/11. Mitt looks like the real deal. And McCain, well, it seems like he's just trying to stay in the game long enough to save face.

Check out the NY Times Article for details:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/politics/04repubs.html?hp