Bush Unable to Govern

[SoDesuKa]

Bush won't be able to govern without the support of opinion makers - a group that is concentrated in the Blue States. All he can do is dodge blame for failure, but the Kerik fiasco shows that he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt about anything.

Despite some ambiguously hopeful signs of an economic recovery, America is losing jobs faster than the increase in the number of jobseekers. The war is going badly, and there are no signs of a turnaround.

Bush is a political trickster who cobbled together a winning coalition comprised of jingoists, zealots and grudge holders. He'll need more than that to govern effectively, and he won't succeed. He'll end up as unpopular as Nixon.

[impeachthescoundrel]

1. If he is so worried about

how history will portray him, he needn't worry. It will portray him as the scumbag he is.

[The Zanti Regent]

2. The Whore Press is solidly behind Bush

Read the SCREW YORK TIMES, the LIES ANGELES TIMES, the CHICAGO FIBUNE, the ATLANTA KKKONSTITUTION and especially the WHORESHINGTON POST.

All of them kiss MAJOR Elephant ass!

[SoDesuKa]

17. New York Post

The New York Post is to the right of Fox News, fergoshsakes. And they're embarrassed by the Kerik thing because it implicates them. The New York tabloids aren't supposed to drop the ball in a big way like that.

This is how it's going to go. You can't run a government when the opinion-makers are solidly against you. You can mark time, but you just can't govern.

[w4rma]

23. The NY Post is NOT to the right of FOX News. It's owned by the SAME person

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp owns BOTH.

[SheilaT]

3. Don't kid yourself.

He has the support of the opinion makers. Or the mainstream media which is essentially the same thing. If something isn't reported then it doesn't exist. As for a winning coalition, well, no matter how many voters really did press the Bush/Cheney button on the machine, the fact of the matter is he's going to be re-inaugurated on January 20th, and he has a majority in both houses of Congress, and the majority of the Supreme Court is on his side.

Plus, many of those at the top of the opposition leadership are not questioning the vote results as they should. They buy into the theme that the Bush side simply turned out more voters. What keeps on being overlooked is that in almost every poll you read, all subgroups but one (white males) Kerry held a lead. But no one goes on to connect those dots and figure out that the group of white males simply isn't large enough to overcome the voting deficit that would have occurred with every other group.

The fact that we weren't rioting in the streets on November 3rd tells you that Bush will govern quite nicely, thank you very much, for the next four years.

Read the book "Generations" by Strauss and Howe and you'll get an understanding that we are simply at the beginning of about a twenty year phase. Suffice it to say, things will get worse for a long time before they get better.

[SoDesuKa]

7. The Kerik Fiasco

I see the reaction to the Kerik fiasco as a straw in the wind. Right wingers are deeply embarrassed that Bush's nominee to head up Homeland Security is a guy who had mobsters as guests at his wedding. Not only does it make Bush look bad, it makes everyone around him look like Keystone Kops. Remember that incompetence was a campaign issue.

When the Big Guy lacks the support of opinion makers, he doesn't have underlings to take the political hit when things go wrong. Bush can't even fill his cabinet without looking like a dunce. This is a really bad omen for him.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Unfortunately, I have to agree.

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, it's nothing but wishful thinking. I've come to believe that Bush is the ultimate teflon prez, NOTHING is going to bring him down. The sheeple are just too damned stupid and ignorant for that to happen.

Look at all of the scandals and problems against him before the election, all the things we thought would finally bring him down. Not only did it not do so, he actually gained millions more votes than in 2000. That says it all right there. He could murder his mother on live television, and it wouldn't make any difference. The media is in the pocket of the RW, he can't do anything wrong. There's always an excuse or a whitewashing. Or a blaming of their favorite perennial scapegoat, Dems and libs and Clinton.

[depakid]

4. Wishful thinking

Republicans care nothing about public opinion when enacting and implimenting policy.

How many examples of profoundly unpopular (and often irrational) policies have they carried out, regardless of public opinion and against the advice of the so called "opinion leaders?" Even this early in the morning, I could easily count over 20 and given a litle more cofeee- well into the hundreds.

[SoDesuKa]

12. Nixon Gloated

Nixon gloated over his landslide victory in 1972, but by 1974 he had no friends left in Washington. He was tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Nixon misinterpreted the 1972 election, thinking that voters had forgotten what a scumbag he was. They hadn't! Bush is calling his slim victory a mandate, but people know he lied to get us into Iraq, and they know his handouts to the rich aren't helping the economy.

[Prodemsouth]

20. Please Please Please can we stop the comparisons to Nixon.

Nixon had a very powerful Dem congress much more powerful in numbers for Dems than Bush's Republican congress. Dems knew McGovern was a lost cause from the get go- no one - no one thought McGovern was going to win. They knew they would hang on to the house and senate and where happy with that. The 72 Dems knew just like the 96 Repubs knew after Clinton got a second term that they could slam on the brakes at anytime they became very unhappy. We have nothing like that now. I guess it needs to be repeated "wishful thinking" and "don't kid yourself".

[Prodemsouth]

5. I don't know- as David Corn pointied out in a column he seems with the

help of opinion makers you speak of to escape blame for many things. Maybe he will just "go out of style or not be cool anymore" with them and they wil turn on him. Sorry to say but the only thing that looks like it will shake this Bush is some sort of big blow up. Think on the scale of a Great Depression or a complete disaster in Iraq. What has been going on now is just the water in the boiler is just getting a little warm. It will have to boiling in a rage to make many of these frogs jump out of the pot.

[Fir]

6. The tide is turning

Even with the silence of a whore press the Bush followers are beginning to wake up to his total incompetence.

Hopefully just enough of the real facts of his corrupt governance will trickle out to the kookaid drinkers to make a dent in their stubborn allegiance to this brainless little man.

I predict it will be only a few more months before some real nasty facts emerge to topple this rise of the 4th Reich.

[Prodemsouth]

8. I wish that were true, dear newbie, but we have heard it all before.

Thanks for the dream and welcome!

[SoDesuKa]

10. Lasting Resentment

I've never seen such resentment at the outcome of an election. It seems everybody I know is seething about Bush's re-election, even people who aren't into politics. Even in a Blue State, I've never seen anger to last this long.

Bush will get his meagre little Inauguration celebration, but he'll get no honeymoon. People are pissed.

[indigobusiness]

11. It never did with Reagan.

He is still revered by those blind to the blood on his hands.

[SoDesuKa]

13. How Reagan Got Away With Iran-Contra

Reagan got away with Iran-Contra by pleading ignorance. If he'd admitted knowing what was going on, he'd have been impeached. He made his escape by claiming to be a California airhead. That's how he's remembered.

[indigobusiness]

14. He didn't claim to be, he was an airhead in fact. Bush sees hope in that.

Reagan also refused to acknowledge the reality of Aids, when he could've cornered it in NYC.

Reagan is remembered as a knight in shining armor, by those who love him. And, sadly, they are legion.

[tsuki]

29. No, I think Bush hates and envies Reagan even more than

Clinton. I think he saw himself as the new and improved Reagan. But Reagan is the ONE person that he dare not criticize.

[indigobusiness]

30. But...

he loves the parallels.

[Prodemsouth]

21. Yeah and to show you that Dems were in pink tutu's long before Bush..

The Dems said to Reagan just say you made a mistake- (remember the laughable "mistakes were made" remark by Reagan) and you will see the end of your term. The Dems were in charge of Conress then too, just as they were when Reagan did away with the fairness doctrine. And with the fairness doctrine the Dems had many Repugs on their side who were willing to overide his veto because they believed that the media would beome a whore for liberal ideas- boy they were wrong weren't they.

[carolinayellowdog]

18. Indeed it did-- lost the Senate in 1986 and approval plummeted

Went from 70% approval/26% disapproval in April 1986 to 44% approval/51% disapproval in February 1987. We can hope for the same with Shrub when the failure and catastrophe in Iraq become undeniable. Plus when (IF?) his privatization scheme is exposed for what it is. Somehow I think people are less likely to be lulled into complacency about this issue than about the deficit because it hits closer to home more obviously.

[indigobusiness]

22. Still didn't tarnish his teflon

among the true believers.

[Blue_Roses]

24. welcome to DU Fir

:hi:

[tsuki]

28. There is some stirring down here. Mainly military and military retirees.

CNN apparently showed the Sgt who spent 5 months in prison and was dishonorably discharged for scrounging spare parts from discarded machinery. That made alot of the M & MR, not angry exactly, but uncomfortable is the wrong word also. 'Bout half and half.

[indigobusiness]

9. Norman Mailer said it best...

Bush has one of the emptiest faces in America. He looks to have no more depth than spit on a rock. It could be that the most incisive personal crime committed by George Bush is that he probably never said to himself, "I don't deserve to be president." You just can't trust a man who's never been embarrassed by himself. The vanity of George W. stands out with every smirk. He literally cannot control that vanity. It seeps out of every movement of his lips, it squeezes through every tight-lipped grimace. Every grin is a study in smugsmanship.

--Norman Mailer

[pansypoo53219]

16. and this time IT IS

the mothers fault, who sees her darling boy as the greatest. a POX upon the succubus barB!

[indigobusiness]

19. ...and her evil spawn.

I just hope Jeb keeps his promise.

[immoderate]

25. Reagan was different.

I don't know if it's the deciding factor, but Reagan was a likable, charming man. He could play humility, and even through his senility he was smarter than Bush.

Bush is the bully boy, the dominant parent (see concurrent Dobson thread.) Bush may be playing to a dominant masochistic streak in America right now, but his style can't have the endurance of the Reagan facade. I could be wrong, but I think it's more possible that Bush could wear out his welcome than the obviously more talented Reagan. This is not to say that Reagan's talents extended to governance.

--IMM

[jazzjunkysue]

26. Who said anything about governing?

He's having too much fun de-regulating and privatising and stashing the kickbacks in his safe to bother doing anything as boring as running the country. You trying to ruin all the fun?

[tsuki]

27. He won't end up as unpopular as Nixon, he is now as

unpopular as Nixon.

[s-cubed]

31. I think the tide is turning, and once it starts on Bush, there will

be no fury like the press that has been kept from the BIG STORY. Would you have thought 3 weeks ago that Rummy would be being criticized by Repugs? Or how about the extravagent Coronation of King George? You're hearing mumbles about that too. And didn't the poll just show the majority of pepople think Iran was a mistake? Once the press feels his weakness, they'll be all over him like hyenas.