Bush The Arrogant — George Bush promised humility and delivered Ignorance and Arrogance. The legacy of this grim epoch, should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. President Bush’s latest permutation of crisis management is the last straw. But who best to roll back the excesses?
As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation’s economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty — who championed a “humble nation,” scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government’s role in the private economy since the Depression.
In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public.
In the so-called war on terror, that has meant the abdication of our most basic American principles. We have forfeited privacy and honor — the administration has monitored phones and e-mails without warrants and has secreted prisoners in foreign lands, arguing that they deserved none of our protections even while in our custody. As a nation, we have stooped to torture (while debating the meaning of the word) and refused to recognize one of our most basic Anglo-American notions, the principle of habeas corpus (thankfully, the Supreme Court, seven of whose members are Republicans, drew the line at that abomination). We have held prisoners in detention without trial, without charge, without end. In so doing, we have antagonized the world and debased America’s moral authority to lead.
The same administration responsible for these catastrophes has over the last month nationalized the largest source of funding for mortgages and the largest insurance company on the planet. And it proposed to intervene even more dramatically in the nation’s economy by having the Treasury Department — with no court, congressional or public oversight — relieve financial institutions of the troubled mortgages and related securities that have locked up the lending system.
There is no doubt about the depth and range of the crisis that provokes these calls for government action. The gyrations of the stock market have been dismaying, and the threat to the country’s financial institutions — and everyone who borrows from or invests in them — is real. Still, the audacity of this administration demanding expanded powers and curtailed accountability is a wonder to behold. The bitter irony is that this crisis warrants dramatic intervention, but President Bush’s record makes him difficult to trust even when he’s right.
These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks.
Politically, these developments raise two questions: Which candidate to succeed Bush benefits most by the events of recent weeks? And which candidate, if either, would have the strength to roll back these expansions of presidential power if elected?
To the first question, the answer seems to be Barack Obama, though only modestly. Obama’s poll numbers have inched up in recent days as voters have taken stock of a frighteningly complex economic meltdown and been left to wonder what to think of John McCain’s abrupt, halting responses — as McCain saw it, the “fundamentals” of the economy were sound one moment, at risk the next.
Questions about McCain’s judgment in recent days have only been deepened by the performances of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She has struggled in her rare public appearances, and her selection risks appearing all the more reckless and cynical when held against the seriousness of this financial crisis. Even McCain’s campaign “suspension” seemed like gamesmanship. He said he was rushing to Washington, but took his time, and the talks derailed soon after he arrived. He proclaimed that the situation was so dire he would not return to the stump until an agreement was reached, then did precisely what he said he wouldn’t. It was not an impressive week for the Straight Talk Express.
Still, Obama has hardly run away with this issue, and the economic news exposes his weaknesses as well. He is, after all, untested by executive crisis and a freshman senator of limited achievement in government. Voters may well blanch at his relative inexperience, given the gravity of these times. Indeed, it is telling that in a week when his opponent flailed, Obama made scant headway in the polls.
On the matter of which candidate could be trusted to roll back the excessive powers that Bush has aggregated, Obama is vague and McCain is exasperating. McCain has properly condemned the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and said he would close it, but when the court granted detainees there the rights of habeas corpus, McCain denounced the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” He condemned torture, but then, with the campaign underway, voted against legislation to limit the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation. Those oscillations do not reassure.
Obama, meanwhile, is more consistent and encouraging but offers few specifics. He pledges to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus and end the invasions of privacy undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are welcome positions and provide some hope that he would roll back Bush’s excesses. But while he pledges allegiance to the separation of powers, Obama has said little about how to honor that pledge. Rare is the politician who willingly cedes authority, and we have not heard enough from Obama to be convinced he’s that rare person.
These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not.
The hypocrisy of U.S. democracy and self-righteous foreign policy is troubling the world.
The U.S. Dept of Defense, the world’s largest landlord, operates 737 military bases in 63 countries with military personnel in 156 nations.
America is ready to strike any country to procure natural resources to extend its empire, keep the dollar afloat, and ensure its utopia.
The military-industrial complex has put over 80,000 innocent Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops in an early grave, while putting itself in $9 trillion in debt.
Alienating humanity and creating new terrorists daily, American foreign policy is a nightmare!
Sexually abusing and raping in Abu Ghraib, using chemical white phosphorus (its own WMD) in Fallujah, destroying homes, ransacking mosques, and killing innocents across Iraq–America is winning the war of terror.
Unprecedented soldier suicides attest to a disenchanted military.
At home the FBI violates civil liberties, while the FDA approves deadly drugs, and CIA concocts phony “slam dunk” intel for war.
A series of ads in Michigan highlight this year’s roughest political attacks: narrowly aimed shots from small groups. They are not coming with the loud, nationally recognized cannon blast of the type launched by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Senator John Kerry in 2004, but, rather, as more stealthy, narrowly aimed rifle shots from smaller groups armed with incendiary material.
The advertisements running here (Macomb County, Michigan) against Mr. Obama come from a group called Freedom’s Defense Fund, a political action committee based in Washington that was formed four years ago and raises money from conservatives around the country. The advertisements have stood out because of the group’s connections — including to its paid consultant, Jerome S. Corsi, the author of the highly negative, largely discredited political biography of Mr. Obama, “Obama Nation” — and what local critics say are their racial overtones…
A Mr. Centanni said said Freedom’s Defense Fund, with relatively scant resources to spread nationally, decided it could have the most impact by focusing its presidential efforts here for tens of thousands.
“We feel Obama can’t win the presidency without Michigan and he can’t win Michigan without Macomb,” he said. “We’re relatively small, but we’re trying to be effective and relevant.” | Read More |
Despite stating that he had apologized for what was described as a “series of bigoted and hateful posts,” Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation, wass scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show [Republican Hate Radio], which, according to its “Statement of Principles,” “represents a philosophy that is pro-White.” In a blog post, Edwards has stated that “interracial sex is white genocide.”
SPLC Exposes Anti-Obama Propagandist’s Appearance on Racist Radio Show
Jerome Corsi, the right-wing author who is promoting his best-selling book attacking Barack Obama, appeared as recently as late July on an overtly racist, anti-Semitic radio show called “The Political Cesspool.”
The SPLC reported Corsi’s racist radio connection on Aug. 13, noting that he was scheduled for another interview on Aug. 17. The earlier interview was also streamed live by the white nationalist website Stormfront, which is run by former Klan leader Don Black.
Corsi’s book has been roundly denounced by news commentators, the watchdog group Media Matters and the Obama campaign as being riddled with falsehoods and distortions. He was also the co-author of Unfit for Command, the book that helped torpedo John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.
Jerome Corsi is also a VICIOUS anti-immigrant RACIST/EXTORTIONIST
Mexican Immigrants Protest Corsi Insult-mongerer Jerome Corsi has made a career of peddling conspiracy theories in far-right publications and his own books, variously attacking 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, undocumented immigrants, and alleged secret plans to merge Mexico, the United States and Canada into a so-called “North American Union.”
But it was Corsi’s Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, that brought him and co-author John O’Neill to national attention — in part because of many falsehoods in its claims about the legitimacy of Kerry’s medals from the Vietnam War. Corsi followed that up with Minuteman: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders, written with Minuteman vigilante leader Jim Gilchrist, and most recently, The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada, which claims to reveal a secret plan, possibly including “an executive branch coup d’etat,” to merge the three countries. The new country, the two writers claim, will see the dollar replaced by the so-called “Amero.”
Corsi also is a bigot. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Media Matters for America compiled comments Corsi made on the far-right Free Republic website. There, Corsi described Islam as “a worthless, dangerous, Satanic religion,” described Muslims as “boy bumpers” and “women haters,” and suggested that “boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press.” And he mocked Kerry’s supposed Jewish ancestry. The comments set off an uproar, with Unfit for Command co-author O’Neill falsely claiming to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that Corsi was merely “an editor” of the book, not the co-author, in an attempt to put distance between himself and Corsi.
Corsi’s most incredible book has to be 2005’s Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil. In it, Corsi argues that oil — which scientists unanimously agree is derived from ancient organic substances like vegetable material — is actually “abiotic,” or not related to living things. Rather, Corsi and his co-author opine, oil is produced by an underground chemical process that is limitless. Therefore, they conclude, that oil is not a finite resource.
In 2006, Corsi suffered an attack from an unexpected quarter, with right-wing nativist commentator Debbie Schlussel accusing him of plagiarizing parts of her columns and using them under his byline. Schlussel called Corsi “a thief.”
But Corsi soldiers on. In January 2007, he was recruited to serve as the senior political strategist for TheVanguard.org, a major conservative effort meant to serve as a right-wing MoveOn.org. At press time, the project had yet to take off.
I’ve incurred the wrath of the Free Republic, an arch conservative organization committed to domination of America by the extreme right wing. Read the full story
In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.
But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”
Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs. If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny. [see reference #2 below]
On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage.
In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh.
Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem.
“I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending — which fails to reach many children — he declared that “when they say, well, poor children aren’t being covered in America, if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that.”
It’s not just the poor who find their travails belittled and mocked. The sick receive the same treatment.
Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox’s affliction was obvious.
And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it’s purely an act.” Heh-heh-heh.
Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.
Mark Crispin Miller, the author of “The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder,” once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family,” and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.
By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that’s when he’s speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared “zero tolerance of people breaking the law,” even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren’t getting from his administration.
What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.
And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.
So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.
Recent columns and multimedia by Paul Krugman of The New York Times: CLICK HERE
The hypocrisy of U.S. democracy and self-righteous foreign policy is troubling the world.
Insult-mongerer Jerome Corsi has made a career of peddling conspiracy theories in far-right publications and his own books, variously attacking 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, undocumented immigrants, and alleged secret plans to merge Mexico, the United States and Canada into a so-called “North American Union.”
