thedrifter
01-22-05, 07:14 AM
Learning From the First Bush Term
January 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. and his associates are out and about this week, merrily gabbing about the White House’s second-term agenda: social security reform at home — plus a little tort reform on the side — and a continuation of freedom-spreading efforts abroad. The talk is warranted. After all, what else is inauguration week for? We defeated Michael Moore, George Moneybags Soros, Sen. Hairspray, and Teresa’s Husband in one fell swoop. We should be celebrating.
But I’m still a crusty neocon, wholly in opposition to fun, so I’ll be gloomy and rant about the next four years. It is of the utmost significance that Bush be just as toxic to liberals as he always has been — and more so. These people must be crushed, and though Bush has done quite a heroic job hitherto, he can do better. On his first-term report card, he gets a B+ in Making Liberals Weep. Admittedly, the part where he defended America earns him major points (such prosaic activities don’t much amuse these liberals), but he could have been much harsher domestically. Much harsher.
Remember the tariffs, for example? Which Republican, outside the White House, supported them? And last November, which voter did we earn because of the abominations? I don’t remember union leaders coming out en masse for Bush-Cheney. Only union dissidents voted Republican. The Bush team miscalculated tremendously, and they’re lucky conservatives forgave them. In the second term, Mr. President, there will be no more of this outmoded “reaching out to the working man.” Cut the working man’s taxes, spend wisely, and the job is done. That’s all The Base requests.
There will also be no more “reaching out to Democrats.” As Gov. Schwarzenegger delicately put it, they’re losers. Case in point: the education bill. Contrary to what Armstrong Williams thinks, “No Child Left Behind” was just as silly a political error as those tariffs. Policy-wise, the legislation is truly not as terrible as many conservatives contend; on principle it may be bad, but in actual practice its benefits are considerable. (I’ve not been paid a dime.) But to let Teddy Kennedy come anywhere near it showed appallingly poor judgment. We may not have known that Sen. Kennedy was going to become the most vocal — and most incoherent — antiwar voice, but we did know a little something about his past. His slurred words and muddled history should have been enough.
Campaign finance “reform” was also a losing issue, insofar as no one actually supports it. Conservatives rightly understand that it’s unconstitutional, and liberals think it’s too weak. McCain-Feingold gave us George Soros — and could have given us John Kerry. The lesson: Don’t be nice to liberals, even if they claim to be Republicans.
Even today, well after the election, we’re seeing the benefits of Bush’s little gift to the Left. Russ Feingold, an aggravating little fellow from Wisconsin, just won reelection to the Senate, which has prompted the media to wonder if perhaps he’s planning a White House run. The San Jose Mercury-News recently printed a story under the headline, “Bigger Things Seem Possible for Wisconsin’s Sen. Feingold,” and the Duluth News Tribune says his reelection “sparks questions about [Feingold’s] national ambitions.” Bad news.
Feingold couldn’t win the presidency, but the Democratic primary is within his grasp. As we’ve learned over and over, Democrats aren’t very good at choosing candidates. See Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and John F. Kerry.
The president must also refrain from sticking his nose where it’s not wanted. If a right-wing Congressman from, say, Pennsylvania, is running a hard primary battle against the GOP incumbent no one likes, the president should stay in Washington and let the electoral process happen. Had Bush not interfered, we could have had Sen. Pat Toomey — which, in turn, could have painted Pennsylvania red.
Of course, there are times when a president should campaign for others. Hypothetically, for instance, if a likeable, educated, experienced Republican woman wants to challenge Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate, the Republican leader — George W. Bush — should campaign for her. Bush did nothing for Rosario Marin, and now — shock of shocks — Boxer’s still in office, now debasing Condi Rice.
The moral of the story is: If it helps liberals, don’t do it.
Isaiah Z. Sterrett
Ellie
January 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. and his associates are out and about this week, merrily gabbing about the White House’s second-term agenda: social security reform at home — plus a little tort reform on the side — and a continuation of freedom-spreading efforts abroad. The talk is warranted. After all, what else is inauguration week for? We defeated Michael Moore, George Moneybags Soros, Sen. Hairspray, and Teresa’s Husband in one fell swoop. We should be celebrating.
But I’m still a crusty neocon, wholly in opposition to fun, so I’ll be gloomy and rant about the next four years. It is of the utmost significance that Bush be just as toxic to liberals as he always has been — and more so. These people must be crushed, and though Bush has done quite a heroic job hitherto, he can do better. On his first-term report card, he gets a B+ in Making Liberals Weep. Admittedly, the part where he defended America earns him major points (such prosaic activities don’t much amuse these liberals), but he could have been much harsher domestically. Much harsher.
Remember the tariffs, for example? Which Republican, outside the White House, supported them? And last November, which voter did we earn because of the abominations? I don’t remember union leaders coming out en masse for Bush-Cheney. Only union dissidents voted Republican. The Bush team miscalculated tremendously, and they’re lucky conservatives forgave them. In the second term, Mr. President, there will be no more of this outmoded “reaching out to the working man.” Cut the working man’s taxes, spend wisely, and the job is done. That’s all The Base requests.
There will also be no more “reaching out to Democrats.” As Gov. Schwarzenegger delicately put it, they’re losers. Case in point: the education bill. Contrary to what Armstrong Williams thinks, “No Child Left Behind” was just as silly a political error as those tariffs. Policy-wise, the legislation is truly not as terrible as many conservatives contend; on principle it may be bad, but in actual practice its benefits are considerable. (I’ve not been paid a dime.) But to let Teddy Kennedy come anywhere near it showed appallingly poor judgment. We may not have known that Sen. Kennedy was going to become the most vocal — and most incoherent — antiwar voice, but we did know a little something about his past. His slurred words and muddled history should have been enough.
Campaign finance “reform” was also a losing issue, insofar as no one actually supports it. Conservatives rightly understand that it’s unconstitutional, and liberals think it’s too weak. McCain-Feingold gave us George Soros — and could have given us John Kerry. The lesson: Don’t be nice to liberals, even if they claim to be Republicans.
Even today, well after the election, we’re seeing the benefits of Bush’s little gift to the Left. Russ Feingold, an aggravating little fellow from Wisconsin, just won reelection to the Senate, which has prompted the media to wonder if perhaps he’s planning a White House run. The San Jose Mercury-News recently printed a story under the headline, “Bigger Things Seem Possible for Wisconsin’s Sen. Feingold,” and the Duluth News Tribune says his reelection “sparks questions about [Feingold’s] national ambitions.” Bad news.
Feingold couldn’t win the presidency, but the Democratic primary is within his grasp. As we’ve learned over and over, Democrats aren’t very good at choosing candidates. See Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and John F. Kerry.
The president must also refrain from sticking his nose where it’s not wanted. If a right-wing Congressman from, say, Pennsylvania, is running a hard primary battle against the GOP incumbent no one likes, the president should stay in Washington and let the electoral process happen. Had Bush not interfered, we could have had Sen. Pat Toomey — which, in turn, could have painted Pennsylvania red.
Of course, there are times when a president should campaign for others. Hypothetically, for instance, if a likeable, educated, experienced Republican woman wants to challenge Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate, the Republican leader — George W. Bush — should campaign for her. Bush did nothing for Rosario Marin, and now — shock of shocks — Boxer’s still in office, now debasing Condi Rice.
The moral of the story is: If it helps liberals, don’t do it.
Isaiah Z. Sterrett
Ellie