You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Bush' tag.
Iraq Is Obama’s Mideast Pillar
As an Arab democracy, it’s a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become.
Iraq Voted. Did Democracy Win?
I think this deserves a total copy and past from MR:
Here are a few key paragraphs from Time Magazine’s cover story. Read them carefully.
“…why are Americans so gloomy, fearful and even panicked about the current economic slump?
..The slump is the longest, if not the deepest, since the Great Depression. Traumatized by layoffs that have cost more than 1.2 million jobs during the slump, U.S. consumers have fallen into their deepest funk in years. “Never in my adult life have I heard more deep- seated feelings of concern,” says Howard Allen, retired chairman of Southern California Edison. “Many, many business leaders share this lack of confidence and recognize that we are in real economic trouble.” Says University of Michigan economist Paul McCracken: “This is more than just a recession in the conventional sense. What has happened has put the fear of God into people.”
…U.S. consumers seem suddenly disillusioned with the American Dream of rising prosperity even as capitalism and democracy have consigned the Soviet Union to history’s trash heap. “I’m worried if my kids can earn a decent living and buy a house,” says Tony Lentini, vice president of public affairs for Mitchell Energy in Houston. “I wonder if this will be the first generation that didn’t do better than their parents. There’s a genuine feeling that the country has gotten way off track, and neither political party has any answers. Americans don’t see any solutions.”
…The deeper tremors emanate from the kind of change that occurs only once every few decades. America is going through a historic transition from the heedless borrow-and-spend society of the 1980s to one that stresses savings and investment.”
Did the last line give it away? The article is describing the recession of 1991, an unusually mild recession that preceeded one of the biggest expansions in American history.
—x—
Talking about 1991, check out this video from Clinton’s run for the White House:
Funny and creepy.
Some interesting things I’ve read today:
Rep. Frank: Obama ‘Overestimates’ Ability to Unify
“But my one question is, I think he overestimates his ability to take people, particularly our colleagues on the right, and, sort of, charm them into being nice,” Frank said. “I know he talks about being post-partisan. But I’ve worked, frankly, with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, the current Republican leadership. The current Republican leadership in the House repudiated George Bush. I don’t know why Mr. Obama thinks he’s going to have them better than George Bush.”
Bush’s Legacy May End Up Better Than You Think
“Instead, the forces that allowed the financial sector to blow up — deregulation, for example — were in place when he took office. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who failed to stem the crisis, was inherited from the previous president. Bush even tried to avert the crisis early and often in his presidency, as he sought strict limits on the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-finance companies that were at ground zero of the crisis.
Bush was unable to stop the housing crisis and its fallout, but he tried. In that failure, he is hardly alone. The crisis has touched just about everyone, wiping out wealth in countries run by both liberals and conservatives.”
Obama wants Bush war team to stay
The chance to stay is “available to all willing political appointees with the exception of those who are contacted individually and told otherwise,” he stated.
I predict that as time goes by, we will continue to see these ‘nicer’ evaluations of the Bush presidency from the mainstream media. I mean much nicer. I mentioned this several times, and I repeat: there are many similarities between Bush’s presidency and Truman’s. Both inherited huge military messes, and got the job done. Both were very unpopular during their terms (Truman much more than Bush) but got unexpectedly re-elected (hence the famous “Dewey Defeats Truman”) . They also went through economic transitions and left office during economic recessions. I don’t know how much time it took to historians to recognize Truman’s value, but now a days he is considered a near great one (WSJ poll got him to 7th place all time)
One of the main reasons for the end of Bush-bashing is that a lot of the political bickering will turn to within the Democrat party. I think the honeymoon with the Messiah will go sour really quickly if he continues with his centrist approach.
A nomeação da Harriet Miers foi provavelmente o maior erro do governo Bush até agora.
Só existem dois motivos para uma escolha dessas:
- Querer evitar uma disputa com os democratas.
- Colocar alguém que, por ser tão desconhecido (e desqualificado), vai considerar a nomeação como um presente e vai ser um “amigo” do presidente no judiciário.
O caso do Roberts meio que seguiu o motivo número um, mas com uma diferença enorme: O Roberts é super qualificado. Tanto que até mesmo os super loonies como o Schumer admitiram isso (obviamente, no fim das contas votaram contra anyway).
O desastre dessa nomeação pode ser sentido no coração dos conservadores americanos: nenhum dos talk radio programs que eu ouço foi à favor da decisão do Bush, e muitos estão pedindo que ele volte atrás.
E se engana quem pensa que tudo isso tem a ver com o quão conservadora a tal Miers realmente é. Ninguém duvida que, no fim das contas, ela seja mais próxima do Scalia e Thomas do que um Souter da vida. O problema é que o Bush arregou. E isso é ruim do ponto de vista ideológico e partidário. Os republicanos no geral não querem “have their way” de maneiras obscuras. A grande maioria quer um debate aberto de idéias, e provar na prática que juízes devem seguir as leis e não inventá-las. Mesmo que a Miers vote contra Roe vs Wade* (o que nunca acontecerá), a sensação de injustica com os juizes abertamente conservadores não será esquecida facilmente.
A mensagem foi: shut up and be friends with the boss.
*Obs: Um esclarecimento sobre Roe vs Wade: Uma eventual mudança na decisão da suprema corte não proibiria o aborto nos EUA, como já li muitas vezes pela imprensa brasileira. A decisão sobre a legalidade ou não seria transferida para cada estado. E a idéia de que todos estados diriam não é abusrda. Tanto que antes desse rolo todo, vários estados como NY, California, etc, já tinham legalizado o aborto.
Como eu previa, esse plano do Bush de gastar 200 bilhões de dólares com a recuperação de New Orleans não está pegando bem com muitos Republicanos.
O Stephen Moore, do Wall Street Journal, lembra que “To put that $200 billion in perspective, we could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beach front home virtually anywhere in America.”
Simplificações à parte, parece que o populismo do Bush começa a parecer mais democrata do que republicano. Por aqui, esse pessoal que fica no meio do muro é chamado de Rhino (rinoceronte), já que não é nem burro (democrata) nem elefante (republicano).
And nobody likes the rhinos.
Como já era esperado, o governo Bush prometeu a total reconstrução das áreas afetadas pelo Katrina.
Na melhor tradição populista, ele usou a oportunidade para prometer não somente a recuperação da estrutura destruída, mas também a “solução dos problemas socias” da região.
O custo total pode chegar a 200 bilhões de dólares, e obviamente o dinheiro tem que sair de algum lugar: do déficit.
O discurso de ontem poderia ter saído da boca de qualquer democrata (LBJ 2 – A missão). Os estrategístas republicanos explicam que se Bush não fizesse isso, os republicanos transformariam esse assunto na maior arma democrata para proxima eleição. Além disso, os democratas achariam maneiras de gastar ainda mais dinheiro do que será gasto agora.
E mais uma vez lá se vai o small government pela janela. E o mais irritante dessa história toda é que, no fim das contas, os Republicanos tem razão.
Recent Comments