Pages

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Bush On Road To Success

[edit: Welcome OpinionJournal.com and Best of the Web readers! Please feel free to check out the rest of SerandEz - BOTW fans may especially enjoy The Roe Effect or Roe vs. Gay from a while back, which are among the posts in the Best of SerandEz scroll to the left.]

After a couple weeks of holidays, it's been hard trying to figure out where to start blogging from: Miers' withdrawal, Libby's indictment, the UN trying to shield Syria, Coburn's amendments to cut pork getting shot down... etc. Instead, I'm going to look ahead from this point.

Where does President George W. Bush go from here? US deaths in Iraq have hit 2,000, which sadly has the anti-war crowd celebrating. Harriet Miers' has withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court, which has just about everybody celebrating but Bush. Syria plotted to kill a Lebanese leader, and the leader of the world organization responsible for doing something about it tried to protect Syria instead. Tom Coburn put forward at least two amendments to cut pork, and just 13 Senators voted for it - including just one Democrat, Russ Feingold, who is looking more and more like a great Presidential candidate who sticks to his principles.

Things seem to look terrible for Bush - and yet, I think this is going to turn into a great success story.

Think long-term: There are two major actions Bush made in his first term: Toppling the Hussein regime in Iraq, and the tax cuts/economic policies he implemented. The Iraqi people, for all the horrible things that are still happening there, are progressing very nicely, including passing a constitution - just a couple of years after the war. That is a major success story, and somewhat unprecedented in history. Meanwhile, the economy has been running so well, nobody even brought it up for a while until the hurricanes hit - and yet, GDP rose 3.8% anyway. Bush is - wisely - sticking to his guns and refusing to raise taxes to make up the losses, as taxes would not solve the problem, only exacerbate it; as evidenced by the large rise in tax revenue, despite [re: because of] lower rates.

This forced the country to think of other ways of coming up with revenue - notably, not wasting it on pork projects. Bloggers rallied (and still are rallying) with Porkbusters, while Senator Coburn pushed to cut the pork in the Senate. At the same time, Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was met with opposition by conservatives and liberals alike, most importantly conservative bloggers. After enough poor feedback and other issues, Miers withdrew. Now, an interesting side note that has come from these issues is the dialogue that has been started between the Republican Party and conservative bloggers (which I've discussed a few times).

Bush, meanwhile, had the time and reasons to refocus. We will see who he'll nominate, but let's assume it is someone of the Janice Rogers Brown mold. The Democrats will be hard-pressed to fight a nominee they passed so strongly the first time around; and she will likely prove to be a solid justice. [edit:] He nominated Samuel Alito in place of Miers, and the Democrats will have a hard time convincing Americans that this nomination is worth a filibuster - especially when they've spoken so highly of him in the past. Toss in the threat of the nuclear option to get rid of filibusters, and the likelihood of Alito not making it to the bench is extremely low. Add in the already confirmed [and excellent choice] Chief Justice John Roberts, and Bush's impact on the Court could be felt for 30 years. Meanwhile, if Bush does begin cutting some of the pork from the budget, the already decreasing deficit could disappear - an incredible feat for a President who has presided over both 9/11 and a slew of major hurricanes.

Toss in the Middle East: In the next 3 years or so, Iraq should slowly grow stronger and stronger. If the US decides to take action against Syria (or Iran, for that matter), the already changing Middle East will learn democracy even faster. Bush's allowing Israel to direct the path they take is proving wise, and forcing the Palestinian people to choose democracy or terror. While it is still unclear which will win out, at least now they are battling over it.

If the President would also work on Social Security, he could go down as one of the most effective Presidents in history. His nomination of Ben Bernake to succeed Alan Greenspan as the Fed chairman was received with... quiet. The little that has been said has been mostly positive - just randomly clicking around on the Democratic Underground shows that the left thinkers believe him to be an excellent choice, much as the right does. If he can help push the neccesity to fix Social Security, to make the tax cuts permanent, and to seriously consider a different tax system, Bush will have covered just about every major issue - both foreign and domestic.

The biggest trick is to let his policies stay in place for as long as possible. Most of Bush's policies take the right approach - long-term fixes so problems do not recur; planned out ideas that do not rely on external revenues (taxes etc.) or fixes to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, many politicians rely on short-term fixes that make people happy enough to keep poll numbers high. It will take a dedicated President to let Bush's policies ride their course and build up this country and the rest of the world.

If - and this is not a small if - the people and politicians of this country can support the President, and if Bush himself can refocus his energies on doing what is in the best interests of this country for the long-term, rather than trying to broker compromises that serve nobody's interests, this country will be far better off. I think that the current situations have allowed Bush to realize this, and we will look back on this somewhat darker hour as the turnaround point of this Presidency. In the end, Bush will utilize this opportunity to push the proper - long-term - agendas and set this country for a healthy, prosperous, and safe future.

Technorati tags: , .

14 comments:

  1. I think it's safe to say that history is on Bush's side. What we are experiencing is typical of a second term. The real battle will be the midterms. Bush did really well last time around, and Democrats have yet to come up with a message. I do hope that they have Cindy Sheehan stump for all their swing candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. I also would point out that it's not quite as typical - each President has second-term battles, but usually they get bogged down in them. Bush has the good fortune to have situations that it should be hard for him to get further bogged down with, unless he blows the SC nomination tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What color is the sky in your world? Don't you think the Libby indictment might "bog" him down? And what if Rove - or Cheney - is next? Might that bog him down?

    Anyway, its nice to see you and r2j wearing your true colors. Next time you accume me of partisnaship I'll consider the source.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's ridiculous - the Libby indictment has done nothing to Bush, or his policies. If anything, the opposite is true: Because Rove was NOT touched; because there has been NO mention of conspiracy or any other accusation of the left, it is vindicating what the right has been saying all along - Wilson started this whole mess with false information, and nobody committed any crimes. Libby lying to the grand jury has nothing at all to do with the other stuff, as Fitzgerald himself made quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but you can garauntee that Cheney and Rove will be asked to testify at the trial which will no doubt take place next year. Whatever Fitz says, the subject matter of the trial (and their testimony) will be the admistrations efforts to "respond" to the Wilson alelgations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's ridiculous - the Libby indictment has done nothing to Bush, or his policies.

    His policies? It hasn't done anything to his skin color either. Does that mean he's not affected? The libby indictment certainly wounds him, and certainly affects his credibility. To say otherwise is absurd.

    If anything, the opposite is true: Because Rove was NOT touched;

    He wasn't indicted, but he was certainly touched - badly bloodied, in fact and he still might be indicted. He hasn't been cleared. And his credibility is also shot because now everyone knows he lied, schemed and bullied to advance the administrations fradulent arguments for the Iraq war.

    . because there has been NO mention of conspiracy or any other accusation of the left,

    There hasn't? What color is the sky in your world? I can't talk to you if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, Ezzie.

    it is vindicating what the right has been saying all along - Wilson started this whole mess with false information,

    What was false? The administration didn't lie about Niger???

    and nobody committed any crimes.

    Fitzgerald thinks otherwise. After all he INDICTED libby because he thinks Libby committed a crime. That's what an idictment means you dope!

    Libby lying to the grand jury has nothing at all to do with the other stuff,

    He also lied to the FBI and he obstructed justice. All that is in the indictment!! And they're both crimes! And it has everything to do with Palme because it shows the steps the mob surrounding the president was willing to take to sell the fraudulent war argument.

    as Fitzgerald himself made quite clear

    Huh? He indicted Libby! How does that "make it clear" that he thought no crimes were committed???? Sometimes I really worry about you.

    Oh, and your partisan hack colors are showing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Krum - granted. Nevertheless, I don't think anything will come out of the testimony other than the administration was trying to tell reporters that Wilson's own allegations were false.

    DB - No name calling on my blog: Not of me, not by me.

    His policies? It hasn't done anything to his skin color either. Does that mean he's not affected? The libby indictment certainly wounds him, and certainly affects his credibility. To say otherwise is absurd.

    It wounds him politically in the short-term, not the long-term, which was the focus of my post. Either way, I don't feel his credibility is affected.

    He wasn't indicted, but he was certainly touched - badly bloodied, in fact and he still might be indicted. He hasn't been cleared. And his credibility is also shot because now everyone knows he lied, schemed and bullied to advance the administrations fradulent arguments for the Iraq war.

    He wasn't indicted, which is a far cry from what the left was shooting for. In fact, nothing at all has been proven against him; all we have are the left's assertions, which keep falling by the wayside as the truth comes out. And, show me evidence of any of your claims that he "lied, schemed, and bullied" to advance "fraudulent" arguments, and I'd love to read them. So far, I've only heard the "Rove lied" "Bush lied" [on purpose!] with no facts to back any of it up.

    Fitzgerald thinks otherwise. After all he INDICTED libby because he thinks Libby committed a crime.

    That's clearly not what I was referring to when I said "no crime has been committed." I was referring to the supposed crime of "outing" Valerie Plame.

    What was false? The administration didn't lie about Niger???

    No, Wilson did, in his Op-Ed: "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer." What the administration did was answer - no, Cheney did NOT send Wilson; his wife did. Which is exactly the conclusion that the grand jury (or was it the Senate committee?) came to.

    Wilson came to the conclusion that Niger had not sold uranium to Hussein. However, Bush's speech said that Hussein "sought to" - which Wilson himself wrote in his report as well. Now, Novak has already explained how this all started: "During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by
    the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its
    employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is
    no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he
    said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the
    White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found
    me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.


    The whole mess was started by Wilson's lying and claiming Cheney sent him; once you recognize that as false, the rest of the story becomes quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You need to read something besides Town Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good recognition: But it's not all from TownHall. And I don't usually read it, I found it when I wrote about this in July.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent -- and mostly erroneous -- allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited.

    Not TownHall, but the Washington Post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ezzie vs. DovBear in the battle of the bloggers.
    Score so far:
    Round One:
    DB fires a salvo against Ezzie, with a chep shot in the middle.
    Ezzie throws it right back at DB, without the cheapness.
    Round One Winner: Ezzie, in a knockout.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Haha! Thanks Reb Abe... see you Thursday!

    ReplyDelete
  13. dont "out" me now!

    ReplyDelete