Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Republicans: Governing vs Campaigning

I remember that my biggest frustration during the Bush/Cheney years was that they didn't seem to give a shit what the American people thought. Cheney made that clear.

We saw that same thing from House Republicans after 2010 when they voted for one bill after another that was deeply unpopular with the American public. That's what they do when they have a majority and they simply obstruct when they're in the minority.

Now its time for an election. Proposing things that are unpopular isn't going to cut it. So what do they do? Be vague on specifics and lie.

Isn't it about time voters caught on?


  1. At some level, Cheney and Rumsfeld might be seen as the high-water mark and last gasp of the Nixon administration. They really believed that the Executive should call the shots, completely.

    Rove, on the contrary, always cared (and still cares) very deeply what people think. He does so so he can maximize right-wing benefit and manipulate opinion in order to maximize benefit, but his whole approach is based on real people's ideas.

    There is as I know you and everyone else who reads this blog knows that whatever else we'll say about the Roves, Tea Parties, and Akins, there is a huge, genuine constituency for them. The goal on the right then is to boost that turnout and depress the turnout, by whatever means, of those who will vote against them. I know I'm stating the fairly obvious, but it's true nonetheless. I don't think the numbers favor them at this point, though.

    I'm actually one of the small group of people that thinks that Cheney was out of the loop by 2005-6, and I credit Bush and Rice. Call me crazy, but I think those two are why we didn't invade Iran.

    1. I agree with you totally that at one point in Bush's 2nd term, Cheney lost his grip on the administration.

      Seems to me that Bush Sr's boys stepped in and told the kids to "stop fucking around!"

      Things I saw that indicate that happened certainly include a backing off of brinkmanship with Iran. But also Rumsfeld's exit, negotiating a status of forces agreement in Iraq, and I'd also suggest - stopping the use of torture.

      It was in a discussion over that last one that I took my exit from Daily Kos. Someone who claimed to have worked at Guantanamo made the assertion that the use of torture stopped there long before Obama was inaugurated. Of course that burst all kinds of orthodoxy among the faithful and so soon it was decreed that discussion about it WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. I was a lone voice in a very long comment section suggesting that perhaps it would be helpful to at least talk about it and look at the evidence.

      I decided after that experience that I needed to opt out of discussions there. It set off a HUGE emotional reaction in me that mirrored how I felt when I challenged the religious orthodoxy of my background...creepy it was!!!

      Anyway, I went off course there. Sorry about that.

    2. If there were a course, you could go off it, but there is no course, so you didn't.

      We need to appreciate people on the right who are not murderously insane. It's like the prodigal son gets a big party upon return. Why, because it's needed.

      Yeah, orthodoxy. Ah, well. It sucks anywhere.

    3. Also, here's the story about why I stopped feeling hatred for Bush:

      I gather he had a younger sister he loved very much as the big brother. She died young and mourning was not permitted in the Bush household. I thought after finding that out that, jeez, everything has a cause. He was a disaster as President but definitely human.

  2. you + living in = the past
    simple math

    1. There is a BIG difference between living in the past and learning from it. I tend to do the latter.

    2. Apropos of an earlier discussion, I'd have given this one the gong.

  3. Those who ignore and refuse to learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it. So, ignoring this unfortunate history sure is a good way to "live in the past" as it were.