Tuesday, September 20, 2005

The post-Bush era

The veil has been lifted. Anyone who has watched any decent coverage of Hurricane Katrina has no doubt seen George Bush for what he really is: weak, incompetent, stupid, phony, fraudulent, a miserable failure. He's a lame duck now, his plan for Social Security is dead, his plan for the Estate Tax is dead, and Iraq is dying almost as quickly as our soldiers. What can he accomplish with a Democratic leadership finally united against him? John Roberts. That is it.

We are seeing the absolute failure of conservative governance. How will they fix the Gulf Coast, with so much already invested in Iraq and Afghanistan, with so much invested in ridiculous tax cuts for the obscenely rich? How will they trim fat out of a budget that Tom Delay called very lean already? You expect Republicans to actually trim it out of that transportation bill? Or maybe their bloated and ineffective Medicare-drug package? Maybe out of the leviathan Defense budget?

Not these Republicans, they'll pass the debt on to our children and our children's children (or die trying). In what should be the largest domestic recovery package since the New Deal, the president has appointed Karl Rove to oversee Katrina Recovery. They will use our tax dollars to fatten the coffers of (yes) Halliburton, just like they've done in Iraq. Americans will not accept this. Republicans cannot even be counted on to do the right thing in plain sight.

It is time for Democrats to show America what we really stand for. In the post-Bush era, the future is for us to make.


At 12:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No doubt, Bush is a lame duck. His approval rating went down after the speech. He's losing his base as well as the rest of the country. His capacity to govern is in question.

Bush should resign.

Dr. JB

At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my take on Blanco's acceptance of 'full responsibility.'


Dr. JB

At 4:56 PM, Blogger Synthesis said...

I actually read a very cogent argument as to why Bush lost numbers after his speech.

It's main point was that, having bottomed out (for the forseeable future) with Democrats and Independents, Bush could really only lose points among his base. By calling for a large, expensive, governmental solution for the Katrina problem, he antagonized some of his supporters who are so selfish, they'd rather not pay one penny rebuilding New Orleans. Instead, they'd actually prefer the town abandoned and its citizens in exodus.

This "boot-strap" philosophy was popularized most by Reagan, and I believe we are witnessing how ineffective and cruel it actually is when dealing with problems of Katrina's magnitude.

At 12:48 AM, Blogger Dr. John Barkdull said...

Definitely. My rule of thumb has been that Bush could count on about 40% of the electorate to follow him into hell. There's no doubt that a few of that crowd have decided they don't like the trip after all.

Gallup alone showed Bush's approval rating on the rise. But they continue to over-sample Republicans. They justify it because Republicans tend to turn out to vote more than Independents and Democrats. The problem there is that polling on Bush is not horse-race projection of the next election. It's about how all Americans evaluate his performance now, regardless of voting patterns. After all, Shrub can't run again.

John Kerry made a nice statement about Katrina:



Post a Comment

<< Home