George W. Bush.

The biggest obstacle to Republicans winning the White House yet again is the mockery they have made of good governance over the past eight years. Unfortunately for John McCain, he's got a giant man-crush on Mr. 18%. Better yet, Bush plans to 'campaign vigorously' for the Republican nominee.

The 'Surge' is working? Try reading Fareed Zakaria's new column on just how poorly things are going on the ground. McCain's opponents may seize on what may possibly be the beginning of an uptick in violence in the country. But that's really secondary to the real issue which is that the strategic aim of the surge has failed. It's fastened us down even more firmly in Iraq whereas the aim was to jumpstart a political process in the country that would allow us to begin to disengage.

These points are completely lost on McCain. A savvy campaign should be able to make McCain's failure to understand the surge's failure into a potent political issue.

This is why Clinton laudatory statements about John McCain as potential commander-in-chief amounted to such folly. McCain was a Navy fighter pilot. Everything suggests he's incredibly weak on foreign policy. He doesn't get strategy, doesn't get the big picture of what's going on in the world. At the simplest level he can't grasp why it's not in the United States' interest to stay in Iraq for decades. The monetary costs, the inattention to the growth of other regional powers -- all lost on him.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184584.php

The biggest obstacle to Republicans winning the White House yet again is the mockery they have made of good governance over the past eight years. While Bush presided over the Presidency, America got involved in unwinnable wars costing billions of dollars, the national debt ballooned to near historic highs, health care, gas, and college tuition got more expensive, and job growth and wage increases slowed or fell. On top of that, Bush spied on American citizens, shredded the Constitution, and committed dozens of crimes that warrant impeachment, if not war crimes tribunals.

Americans like results from their government, and Bush has failed to deliver. The stark fact is we are worse off now than we were eight years ago.

So it gives me great pleasure to see the Republican machine gearing up for the general election:

Mr. Bush himself refrained from any explicit endorsement of Mr. McCain on Monday, in keeping with what one adviser called “studious neutrality” during the Republican primaries and caucuses. (“We’re Switzerland here,” the White House counselor, Ed Gillespie, said in an interview.) But Mr. Bush did refer to the Republican candidates as “good and honorable people,” and made clear that he would vigorously campaign for the ultimate nominee.

Bring it on.

Bush may be able to win over the 18% of Americans still supporting his poor excuse for a Presidency, but in doing so he draws McCain into his miasma. The harder people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other administration figures campaign for McCain, the more McCain looks like a simple continuation of Bush’s failed policies. The moderate independent coalition that McCain has built - who by and large want abortion to be legal, rarely attend church, and surprisingly are against the war - will likely balk at supporting a candidate largely seen as Bush III.

The 2008 election should by all rights be a referendum on George W. Bush’s Presidency. If that referendum were held today, Republicans would lose. So I look forward to see Bush pushing hard for McCain as the general election gets started. Voters will see McCain isn’t a “maverick,” he’s more of the same.

http://www.theseminal.com/2008/02/09/mr-30-plans-to-campaign-vigorously-for-the- nominee/

Now along comes the right to tell us how "in the latest poll" McCain leads ... and of course they will fail to mention how the Democratic voters are more caught up in the primary at this time. Not to mention how swiftly daily polls can change, as already demonstrated in the last month.

Now along comes the right with their less than intellectual babble about "surrendering" in Iraq and lack of foreign relations experience. Of course they will fail to mention the lack of experience the shrub had overseas not to mention his record of failures in the business world. Judging by what a mess of the economy the Republicans under Bush have made, its no wonder that Tom Bernstein whom went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him has defected the party. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president’s reelection campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece

Doesn't look good for my guy....

Why should this election be a referendum on President Bush, he isn't running, hey lets make it a referendum on carter.

McCain equals a Bush Third Term.

That's why it's a referendum.

Think about it. Either he's gonna do stuff differently or he isn't.

If he's the same, it's a referendum on Bush.

If he's different, well how?

" Why should this election be a referendum on President Bush "

That is a perfectly valid question. Can you think of ANY reason why people do this? And then, after you answer, do you think that is the BIGGEST reason why people do this? If not, then what do you suppose IS the biggest reason why people do this?

Nwokie writes:
Why should this election be a referendum on President Bush, he isn't running, hey lets make it a referendum on carter.

Well, McCain has embraced Iraq and Bush's tax cuts, the dual legacies of Bush's presidency. He's also endorsed Bush's immigration proposals. So perhaps you could put your thinking cap on a little longer and try to understand why people see McCain aas a continuation of Bush and not of, say, Grover Cleveland.

Andrew

Ok, then lets look at Obama as a continuation of carter, just a little more leftist.

Or we could look, as you suggest, at the people running. In one breath you say is ridiculous to compare or assign, then within 10 minutes you do the very thing dismiss.

Get a grip.

I asked you a pretty straight forward question, Nwokie. Plan on answering it? And WHY is it so hard to get answers from Republicans around here? Why do you guys ignore questions that would enlighten us until the subject shifts and then suddenly you are all hands?

That's a really infuriating trait that bites your logic in the ass, you silly little freaks.

Yeau I can think of why people do it, their trying to confuse the issue, which would be the same thing as calling Obama Carter-lite.

McCain does see some issues in the same way as President Bush, IE the war on terror and the need for a stable, neutral Iraq.

McCain also breaks with President Bush on some issues, such as immigration, Mccain will also probably break with President Bush on the economy, McCain will call for a little more govt intervention, and possibly some tougher trade policies.

Now Obama, I can't tell you what he thinks, all he says is change.

No, that's all you hear. But thanks for answering my question.They aren't trying to confuse any issues. They are voting against what is a campaign that is NOT a clear break from Bush. You can toss out " probablies " if that makes you feel more justified or better. But man, I ain't takin' no " probably " on the issues you listed as unclear from McCain.

So you don't think that anyone who is planning on voting for Obama has any valid reasons for doing so? You think we've all just accepted the word " change " as proof positive that things will, in fact, change?

Nwokie, since I have your attention - however fleeting - do you think that there are things in our country that need to be changed?

And Nwokie, I know you and I have had our differences in the past - but it would be really cool if you and I could have an actualy - well, virtual - dialogue on this topic. Are you game? Or are you going to fade into the sunset?

I'll start by saying that I do not have all the answers. I'm not even saying that lightly or as some in sincere dislcalimer that somehow allows for me to state things as fact - when in truth, they are only my opinion. I sincerely mean it when I say I do not have all - or even very many, answers. But I can at least walk you through the steps I went through to come to my conclusion. That's something you NEVER do for us, Nwokie. You leap to a conclusion - and then pick out one or two seemingly related things that support it. ( In your view, I assume ).

So you wanna really talk about this? I'd really like to with you. I have TONS of questions about you and how you get to the places you are. If you don't want to answer them, I respect that. But will you at least tell me that you don't want to answer them instead of pretending you didn't see them and ignoring that?

Then we can make out. Come on. I have nice breath.

Yeah, but he's not gonna break with Bush on Iraq, and that's what is ham-stringing us economically.

And a little bit here, little bit there would essentially be saying Bush did a good job, when he really didn't do a very good job at all.

Oh and Nwokie, if you are interested, you can ask me anything too. It's only fair. I suspect that if you ask the right quaestions, you will actually make me think about my answers and perhaps even reconsider some of my positions.

It's not a trap. But I will expect some honesty - even if you want to go back and say something like " Well, that's not exactly what I meant to say. Let me try again." Hey - I do it all the time.

To say that McCain would be "Bush III" is a bit misguided, IMHO. Unlike Dubya, McCain has the capability of self-thought, and acting in the best interests of the country instead of what the Neo-Cons want. He has a lot more respect and working history with the left, and things will actually get done.

-McCain WOULD help restore our standing on the world stage, and put us back ON the stage instead of UNDER it.
-McCain has stated that he would roll back Bush's trickle-down economic policies. Remember, he voted AGAINST them when they first came out.
-McCain would end waterboarding and other tortuous means of dealing with the accused ... and he would make damn sure that they would end, not look the other way and even condone them.
-Hopefully, all these free-trade policies will be addressed.

McCain and Bush have put on a happy face to work together for the GOP, yes. To say that McCain is George W. Bush Jr. is a bit misguided IMHO though, the two do not like each other.

To be honest, the Republicans can do FAR worse than McCain.

"McCain WOULD help restore our standing on the world stage, and put us back ON the stage instead of UNDER it."

"Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran"
-John W. McCain


"To be honest, the Republicans can do FAR worse than McCain."

And have for 7 long, long horrible years.

Ok, that's good.

Finally some differentiation. I can see some of that. I also see him doing a lot of pandering and flip-flopping to get votes. I not at all sure what McCain really wants to do.

Is that to just get the office and then kick ass, or what?

Double edged sword there. If he is doing that, then where's the trust? If not, why? Is he stupid, or just very malleable?

Then there's the party in general. The GOP has done a lot of stuff. Some serious ass covering is gonna be a part of the equation. That's going to hobble a GOP president, if we end up with one.

A GOP victory will be played as an affirmation for the party. That will happen no matter what. That's just what parties do. If we re-affirm the GOP is good for us, where is the support for that?

(which is a big part of why this is a referendum on Bush --party unity cuts both ways in this regard, both good and bad.)

Consider the above in that context then. Is he strong enough or trustworthy enough to deal with that? To really make a difference, he's gonna have to go against his party.

Now a batch of them are retiring, so that helps a little. Still, we've come down a long and ugly road, with much of the damage still hidden behind legal maneuvers.

We didn't get accountability in the party. If we don't get it at the ballot box, do we then just forego it?

I am bothered at how he has seemingly aligned himself with the Bush administration during this campaign ... when his voting record has not been lock-step with them on it, and he's probably one of the few Republicans to go against Bush at all in many areas.

I am also bothered greatly that he wants to stay the course in Iraq. He of all candidates should know that the will of the Iraqi people is not going to be broken by us. Why does he want to continue Vietraq? Deal-breaker.

I'm just pointing out that his ideas and policies and voting record demonstrate that he is NOT a "Bush Clone".

That said, it would behoove McCain to do what Al Gore mistakenly did in 2000 - separate himself greatly from the administration. In this case it would be a GOOD thing to make yourself look like somewhat of an innocent bystander.

I agree with that. Had the GOP put up somebody more differentiated, and without some nut-bag syndrome, it would be a very different conversation.

Another thing about Iraq. For me at least, it's carries a lot of weight. The economic drain is not sustainable period. If we continue that, we will absolutely be owned before it's over. We might be sovereign by the law, but won't be because of our obligations.

That makes it a deal breaker for me too.

On executive power, the GOP has pushed that and supported that pretty huge. I'm not so sure the Dems won't roll with it as well. Clinton is going to --as I've not heard anything from her that would indicate otherwise.

Some see that as a good thing --because a correction would happen.

I don't because the problem is a systemic one, meaning the process is broken. A correction of sorts would bring some people gratification, but the problem would still be there, meaning we would eventually end up with a different set of nasty problems.

That's a cycle we need to stop cold.

The process is broken there because largely of Dubya deciding that the Presidency is a Monarchy of sorts ... he decides what SHOULD go into the Constitution (gay marriage ban) and what part of the Constitution should be ignored.

I couldn't agree with you more on the executive powers needing to be reigned back a bit. While Bush is the face of this disturbing trend, he is not alone in the blame game. And I think you're right in that Hillary would be a continuation in this process, just from the left instead of the right.

That's just as dangerous, IMHO.

Yep. I hear that.

I've significant worries about her, and Bill Clinton frankly. We have term limits because of Roosevelt. He was a good President, but maybe too good and that's worrisome to everybody, even if things are going well.

The Clintons have been very secret about who their doners are and the roles they will play. None of that is good, even if it happens to serve my self-interest. (which it might!) I think supporting that would be the same kind of "ends justify the means" kind of thinking I hammer people on all the time.

Just can't support that. If cornered, I'll make a value judgement having to weigh shitty choices. Won't be my deal.

Where it is my deal, I clearly support Obama, hoping to avoid the dilemma before it is realized. He does not hold that view, meaning his election would be a decision not in favor of allowing the GOP interpretation to stand.

The really hard part in that kind of choice (Clinton -vs- McCain) would be not having a solid out for setting some kind of precedent.

Our law got bent with the Bush administration. It's a test really and that's how we establish the meaning of core law --case law. The body of core laws does not change much.

We either add to that body, choosing to regulate something not regulated before, or we eliminate regulation that currently exists. So think of the Constitution as the trunk, and Common Law as the roots it grew from.

Branching out from there is case law where we have chosen to interpret things.

Minor changes happen far up in the branches, clarifying this or that. Most of it ends up being somewhat malleable, mostly because there isn't much that depends on any one decision.

Go farther down, and cutting out or adding a branch impacts a lot! Entire volumes of law then just evaporate just like that!

The Bush administration's view of executive power is like that. If allowed to stand, a whole lot of established law is going to be rendered arbitrary again --unregulated essentially, with his elimination of that near the root branch being allowed to stand.

So this election is about that --big time. Congress and the courts are not able to deal with it. This one is on us.

Either we check that change now, or check it over many years as we regrow that branch through decision after decision for the next 50 or so.

Ugh...

McCain's biggest weakness....

Mango ice cream. He couldn't get it at the Hanoi Hilton.

Actually, maybe Boosh ought to campaign vigorously for the Dem. winner...

Me, I'm onboard with the first candidate who describes their comprehensive plan for job creation. In the long running era of mergermania, that leads to job loss in nearly every case while creating Mega sized companies, in many cases with the home office in another country, The solution might be to make the idea of Exxon/Mobil, Big bank/Bigger bank et al, unattractive from a financial standpoint. Average Joe really has no room in the budget for the additional costs of social experiments.

Note to congrASSman Dingleberry of Michigan....

A 50 cent per gallon gas tax hike to help curb demand? Are you frickin nuts? Demand didn't go down when gas moved from 1.50 to 3.50 and you think taking more money out of peoples pockets will solve the consumption issue?. How will that work, tax credits if you can prove you only used the fuel for commuting to work? Subsidies for working poor? Gas vouchers for people making less than 20k a year? A Federally mandated three day 13 hours per, work week?

Not an answer! YOU'RE OUT! Somebody please show Mr. Dingle to the door, and make him drive 35 miles one way to his retail job, then pick up extra money delivering pizzas three nights a week. See how that tax plan flies when it hits your wallet!

If you think John McCain won't continue the policies of George W. Bush, then you're kidding yourselves. He supports an endless occupation in Iraq, supports tax cuts for the wealthy while creating large deficits to fund them, and he will nominate neo-con judges to the courts. If you are happy with the results of the Bush Administration, then cast your votes for McCain to continue those results!!

"what Al Gore mistakenly did in 2000"

Whoa! Just imagine what we'd be discussing now had he won . . .



Saddam still contained. $2 Billion a year to keep him contained.

World-wide embargo on Iran keeps them "contained".

Green peace accord with North Korea results in pioneering green research technologies.

Green Supreme Court interpretation of 2nd amendment means a right for individuals to carry bamboo spears.

Futurama now in 9th season.

. . .


</hijack>