A conservative explains why we shouldn't pick on W

[struggle4progress]

As President writes his legacy, it's not a happy read at all

<snip> Well, here are two things the damage to Mr. Bush is doing that, in my view, are definitely not useful. The first is to send the high premium he normally puts on personal loyalty to him through the roof. The Harriet E. Miers nomination is the epitome of that phenomenon. He has proposed his personal lawyer as the person in the United States best qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. She has no experience as a judge. Her gender recommends her, since she would be taking the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor. But is that to say that there are no other female judges, law professors, or corporate lawyers who are better qualified than Ms. Miers? And she would be by no means the only crony wandering around Washington if she were confirmed. There was "Brownie" (Michael Brown) at FEMA, and there is virtually the whole Cheney family, as examples. Second, and a much more important potential threat to American democratic governance, is the fact that Mr. Bush under political fire is turning increasingly to the U.S. military for possible solutions to his problems as his 2004 electoral mandate dries up like a water hole in the Texas sun.

First we heard from him that if there were another Katrina disaster he might want to put the military in charge of the federal, state, and local government response. He said that without reference to - and, knowing him, in perfect forgetfulness or ignorance of - the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Next he tells us that if there is a bird flu epidemic, again he might put the military in charge of the response. Would a hung election like that in 2000 qualify as a disaster requiring military control in his eyes?

Then we learn that the Defense Intelligence Agency is asking Congress for permission for its agents to talk to potential intelligence sources inside the United States without identifying themselves. A change in legislation would be required, but the Pentagon's idea would be to just tack this reversal of the Privacy Act on to an intelligence bill already passed by the Senate. We will assume that the Pentagon already has assurances from Mr. Bush that he wouldn't veto this little effort to create an East German Stasi of secret informers in our midst. <snip>

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051012/OPINION04/510120401/-1/OPINION


I had to read that twice. Yep! he's sayin we shouldn't oughta be mean to Bush cuz it might could lead to military dictatorship! Now THAT'Sa stinky pile ...

[atommom]

1. WTF? What he's suggesting here is just blind faith, with no

expectation of accountability. Maybe, just maybe, if we're very, very good, Bush will magically become a good president:

So, all of that needs to be thought about carefully as we gleefully chop away at Mr. Bush. What we need from him in his second term is strong, wise, civilian, non-partisan, non-ideological leadership. We aren't getting it. He could turn to that, just as he gave up drinking, knowing that he won't run again, and that he is now writing his legacy.

[louis-t]

2. "..strong, wise, civilian, non-partisan, non-ideological leadership"

Ha! Never happen. Right- wing delusions. Actually, some nut jobs probably think that's what we're already getting.

[atommom]

7. For that to happen, he would literally have to become a different person.

He has already shown that he just doesn't have it in him to offer that type of leadership.

[pinto]

3. Really interesting Op Ed piece. (aside) For headline fans, here's how the

(Pittsburgh) Post-Gazette titled it (ran in both papers):

Dan Simpson: The sinking of the president
When Bush goes down, the well-being of the nation goes with him

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05285/586675.stm

[jobycom]

4. I understand what he's saying. You sure he's a conservative?

What he's asking, after effectively summarizing the high points of Bush's failures, is that we have no real goal in our attacks on Bush. So what if we defeat him? So what if we impeach him and get him to resign? We get Cheney, or Hastert, or more conservatives who will be just as bad.

What he's saying is if we back off Bush, and instead of bashing him relentlessly we make a truce, based on him acting bipartisan and listening to Congress, then we can get more accomplished in the next three years than if we bash him.

The coaxing would take the form of encouraging him to focus on his legacy, on making good choices that are best for America so that he will be remembered well,and have an easier three years. Otherwise, we melt him.

I think it's a good argument. Bush might be able to be controlled, and the nation could achieve a bipartisan government that gives up cronyism and partisan hatred and works on issues like poverty, environment and energy, and makes us all hold hands like shiny, happy people floating on angel wings towards a beautiful, sunlit meadow in the sky.

It's a good argument. I just don't trust BushCo enough to believe it's possible.

[Eric J in MN]

5. listening to Congress

Both the Republican-controlled Congress and Bush want to take away our civil liberties.

Bush wanted to take away our civil liberties when he was popular (after 9/11/2005) and he wants to now.

Not criticizing him isn't going to help.

[jobycom]

6. Congress is leaderless. They aren't even in the equation.

The Repubs in Congress would do whatever Bush told them to at this point. They know they are doomed as a party, and would do whatever they could to stay in power. The only issue is whether we could trust Bush.

As for them wanting to take away our civil liberties--that's not their goal. It's just a by-product of their goal.

[struggle4progress]

8. He was a Reagan-era diplomat and is a habitual Republican.

He did support Kerry in 2004, as discussed elsewhere in the column from which this snippet is lifted:

<snip> I am virtually a lifelong Republican, partly originating from the fact that my father was one of the few Republicans ever to hold city office in the small, Democratic, Ohio town I come from. My mother was always a Republican poll-watcher.

I cast my first vote for president in 1960, for Richard Nixon, for whom I voted altogether three times. I voted for Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan twice, George H.W. Bush twice, and George W. Bush in 2000. <snip>

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04301/402166.stm


The voting record rather speaks for itself, I think. And if you examine some of his other columns, you may find "conservative" a fair label ...

[jobycom]

9. You convinced me.

He just sees Bush more honestly than most of the lala Republicans I've read.

In that case, he has an ulterior motive. If people lay off Bush and help him become bipartisan for his legacy, then they have a chance of not losing Congress altogether over the next two terms.

[Thom Little]

10. I won't pick on him. I'll just vote against everyone in his party.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.