The most depressing article about Bush you'll ever read

http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2003/12/what_if_bush_is.html

Time to get drunk!

Why does this article depress you?

–milo
http://www.starshatter.com

Did you read it?

I skimmed it. It compared Bush’s policy agenda (to the extent that one could be identified) with the Nixon administration. The thesis of the article seems to be that because Bush is already doing (albeit badly) the kinds of programs that liberals normally espouse, he is not giving the Democratic candidate any place to stand in campaigning for the next election.

He also seems to think that a public “throw the bums out” style backlash will result in more Republican candidates being elected to fix “the mess.” That makes no sense to me. Since Republicans already control both houses and the oval office, anyone who wants to throw some bums out should recognize which bums are in office.

So, why is this “depressing?”

–milo
http://www.starshatter.com

Which was called Clintonian triangulation a few years ago. So it’s not exactly new, and it’s not exactly Bush-only.

Thankfully, this article has got it all wrong. How wrong? As the ultraconservative William Kristol reminded his fellow idealogues in a recent Weekly Standardcolumn, it’s been several generations since Americans have allowed one party to survive a national election with control of both the executive and legislative branches of government.

As milo points out, both branches are currently controlled by Republicans, who have used their edge to enact plenty of dubious if not downright dangerous legislation. (The Bush tax cuts currently meet the disfavor of 60% of the electorate.) Either Bush or his Republican Congress is going to be jettisoned in 2004. I’m guessing it will be his Congress, though I hope it will be him.

As to the thread title, I can suggest an infinitely more depressing article about Bush – try Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stonepiece on the Bush environmental record.

The thesis of the article seems to be that because Bush is already doing (albeit badly) the kinds of programs that liberals normally espouse, he is not giving the Democratic candidate any place to stand in campaigning for the next election.

Kind of; basically, like Nixon, he’s doing some “liberal” things. The problem is that he’s totally fucking them up, either intentionally or not; look at that travesty of a prescription drugs bill.

It has enough of the trappings to get him re-elected, but none of the substance. Oh, and there’s the firehose of money at the marginal groups he needs to get elected.

I hope that’s the most depressing Bush article I’ll ever read/skim. If it is, that means I’ll never have to read one titled “Bush wins another four: World Doomed, experts say.”

The Bush tax cuts currently meet the disfavor of 60% of the electorate

ROFL. I’d love to see where you got this data from.