Bush's Rats are deserting the ship early

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Billy T, Sep 1, 2007.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Current issue of The Economist*:

    " ... One by one, the president's men are leaving: Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and now Alberto Gonzales, the hapless attorney-general. The Democrats scent more expulsions, more Bushies yearning to spend time with their families. The Republicans talk of witch hunts. The image of George Bush tottering around an empty building—empty, that is, except for mad old Uncle Dick in the cellar—is hard to resist.
    ...
    None of this is to mourn the departure of Mr Gonzales. As with Mr Rumsfeld, the tragedy lay not in his ouster, but in the length of time Mr Bush put up with an incompetent crony. At least the former defence secretary hid his uselessness under an impressive, pugnacious veneer. By contrast, Mr Gonzales was simply not up to the job—something that became depressingly obvious during the recent hearings called to discover whether he had sacked nine federal prosecutors for political reasons. Worse, his main qualification—a friendship with the president that went back to Texas—was an especially unhealthy one for the Justice Department. ..."

    FROM:
    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9724384
    --------------------
    *This issue printed before the latest rat (Larry Craig) resigned, (just two hours ago) saying: " ...I apologize for what I have caused, I am deeply sorry. ...'' Craig, 62, at a press conference in Boise. More details at:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBiCofCs0MuA&refer=home
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Ahh... Billy, it's pretty keeping with other administrations that have served two terms. Much of the executive officers are generally expected to leave within 18 months of the end of the administration. It's a common thing and has nothing to do with this administrations, admittedly, mountainous failures.

    ~String
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Nothing to see here. This happens all the time. Everything is under control. Move along now.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    This topic is, unfortunately, a mess at the outset. To consider a few people:

    Rumsfeld - Was a normal departure for a disgraced Secretary of Defense trying to hide the failure.

    Rove - Is a normal departure for a political strategist getting ready for the next electoral cycle.

    Craig - Is an abnormal departure but not fairly considered one of "Bush's rats".

    Snow - The departure of the Press Secretary is the only one that I would consider normal per String's suggestion.

    Gonzales - A remarkable departure after a spectacular failure and sensational embarrassment; to suggest that the Attorney General's departure reflects a normal event for the last eighteen months of an administration is rather quite ... uh ... hmm ... since people don't like me to use certain words even when they're obviously true, I'll have to come up with another. It is rather quite supercalifragilaccidentally inaccurate.​

    NPR commentary that I will leave otherwise uncited because I don't wish to chase it down suggests that the administration recently put out its call that everyone who's not staying should leave before January. This makes sense even for an administration not hanging onto its dignity by a mere shred of pretense. It is also worth noting that with Rove's departure, Bush's inner circle at the White House was finally devoid of the friends he'd come to Washington with. Gonzales' departure may have been the last gasp of Bush's close circle about Washington. The months 'twixt now and January, 2009, will be among the loneliest ever spent in the White House. It's enough to make one sad for the President, except that when regarding one who behaves as if compassion is weakness, it is best to reserve compassion until the danger is passed. Bush may be lonely, but he doesn't want us to see it, and he doesn't want us to feel it. Fair enough.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2007
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "The months 'twixt now and January, 2009, will be among the loneliest ever spent in the White House."

    We don't know Dick. Dubya does.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Isn't that kind of like taking your mother to senior prom?
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Yes, but this is more sick. Bush is saving the last dance for Dick.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Or, possibly,the other way around.

    The aging clique of Reagan retreads that came into the Executive Branch with W could hardly have been W's selection of compadres. Ashcroft?
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I think so many 18 months before the end is highly unusual. Can you give any prior example to support your POV. That is why the thread title's last word is "early."

    Usually only one or two will leave prior to the start of the last year and then it is not because of shame / obvious incompetence / politically motivated abuse of power being exposed / etc. but often because of financial need. (I.e. they take a position in Wall Street or some big law firm with at least 10 times the salary.)
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Look. I'm not defending the Bush cronies. My opinion of Rummy and Rove are about as low as any person can get. The entire Bush cabinet (much less the President) is lackluster in terms of talent, character and charisma, so please do not interpret my statements as saying, "...perfectly normal, nothing to see here." But, executive departures within 18 months of the end of the administration are par for the course-- corruption or no corruption.

    The Clinton Administration, for better or worse, had pretty good tenure-- which either speeks volumes about the ease of working with the man (which my secret service buddy confirms-- he claims that Clinton was the cat's meow when it came to friendliness).

    Reagan lost a large number of high level officers in 1987 & 1988.

    Carter had loads of departures in 1979.

    ~String
     
  14. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Um, String, I think people parachuted out of the Clinton White House all the time. Dick Morris, Stephanopolous, Larry Summers, etc...
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    All administrations are peppered with scandalous and not-so-scandalous departures. I remember several high profile ones in the Clinton administration. That said, he did manage to keep a lot of his staff for a pretty long time. The abortion that is Janet Reno, comes to mind.

    ~String
     
  16. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    countezero: "people parachuted out of the Clinton White House all the time. Dick Morris, Stephanopolous, Larry Summers, etc..."

    I suppose that this is where the those of us considered "Democrats" from the other "side" are expected to chime in with declarations that all was right, or at least superior with the "other team". But all was not right during the second term under Clinton- his was an embattled administration that stepped out of line also. More importantly, this is not a football game, and every issue is not a contest for all Americans to choose one of two sides in. Comparisons with the Clinton Administration can only get us so far.

    All issues confronting American society are not limited in implications to a game-like contest between two rivals. There are issues that transcend the posturing of these national herds, that run in parallel in times of stress. The limits of Executive power is one such issue that will shape the future of our country, and that transcends the facile comparisons of the relative shortfalls and sins of two parties. Diverting all discussion into Republican-said / Democrat-said is falling into a superficiality that can never penetrate the overarching issues.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2007
  17. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Which is why I rarely humor most Republican bashing contests here. The party is deeply flawed, I just get tired of hearing it from partisans who cannot see that the only active alternative to the Republican party are just as much rats.

    ~String
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Fair enough, but I forget why I had poor opinion of her.

    Also let me sincerly add, from the other side of the politcal fense (than you), that it was good idea to make you monitor to help hold up the right wing some too. I was specifically critical of your failure to do some of the "house keeping" tasks a few months ago (related to much too long "sticky" posts as I recal) so this is only fair compensation (and sincere).
    ----------------
    Later (after reading hypewader's post 13) let me strongly agree with his point. In fact go even more extreme - I do not really care much about small corruptions if the judgements and decisions of importance are good. (Clinton falls in that group for me) I especailly feel sorry for Idaho - losing a long term Senator over an insignifiant human characteristic (and of course for Craig, himself) My concern with the current bunch of "rats" is just that - they are the current ones. My concern (well lets be fully honest -HATE FOR) Bush is the terrible policy he has put into place - it has destroyed the US, both morally and economically, but his now inevitable depression may not come while he is still in office.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2007
  19. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    What was that cheesy song? Oh, yeah. Never Surrender.

    Fair enough, except it's not quite fair. True, the Democratic Party is in moral disarray, but here's the thing. You can put any party name on it you want. You can call the Democrats the Idiot Party, if you want, and the Republicans the Moron Party. But there is a fundamental difference. Right now the Democrats are associated with liberalism, though few of them are actually liberal. And, at the end of the day, if we could clean the parties out and make them live up to their moral pretenses, I'll still side with whatever you want to call the liberal party because the underlying force of liberalism is what moves humanity forward. Right now the reality is that if I could make the Democrats live up to their promises and do their jobs, life would get better for the vast majority of people in the United States; to the other, if the Republicans lived up to their promises and did their jobs, life would get worse for the vast majority of people in this country. Maybe someday this will switch; after all, if we were alive in 1865, I would have been a Republican.

    The end truth is that if the people chose to force the Democrats to live up to their liberal reputations, things would be okay. If Republicans live up to their conservative reputations, the vast majority of people would be screwed.

    I understand, String, that you're tired of simplistic partisan politics, but beyond the corruption of Democrats and Republicans, the only people you can actually blame are your neighbors. And mine. The people. Of course, it wasn't liberals who made civil disobedience and direct action something shameful. It is, of course, the fault of liberals for giving over to conservatives and believing it. Hiding out and feeling self-superior by claiming two things you don't like are equal doesn't help the situation at all. Unless you're prepared to give up the whole of modern society and return to entrenched privilege and widespread deprivation, the wounded system we have is the one we need to work with.

    I had one of those discussions tonight where someone bothered to remind me that every government in the history of the world has failed to do its job. When trying to focus on the question of form vs. function, I saw the question quickly change to something about martial arts and the Navy. It's sad to hear otherwise-intelligent people decrying the concept of government. Our governments, especially in this modern age, are reflections of ourselves as a community. The so-called "libertarians" are simply cowardly anarchists who are no better at providing solutions than anyone else. The truth is that any solution requires the good faith of everyone participating, and good faith is simply too much to ask of our neighbors. Until that changes, we're screwed.

    In the meantime, I'll generally throw my lot in with the people who at least put forth the pretense of progress instead of seeking to preserve and augment injustice. If, under the social contract, I manage to hold the progressives to their obligations, things can and will get better. Pretending otherwise is aiding and abetting the revocation of human progress and social evolution. Equivocating is merely seeking to excuse injustice.

    I get your point, String, but I reject its myopic surrender.
     
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    That's subjective. We've seen the failure of socialism and that's the hope of liberalism? Barring the horrific discrimination of the 40's and 50's, I'd say that society was a lot better off back then when the government didn't meddle in every aspect of human life.

    Tiassa-- you say "the end truth", as if it were an absolute unchanging and empirical fact. That's utter hogwash. That's YOUR speculation, which is fine, but it's still utter speculation.

    So Libertarians are cowards because they just won't get on-board the liberal bus and agree that a quasi-socialist society is the best one? What utter tripe is this? Here's the issue with liberalism which is reflective of conservatism: both see their issues as doomsday issues and any other choice makes humanity "screwed". Intelligent and honest people just see the plain truth, that is: liberalism is the way to go, and conservatism and/or libertarianism is bad. Baloney!

    The other big issue with liberalism is the notion that we NEED a government to solve human issues because we should all just "have faith" in a big establishment to fix these ills, which ills, are the obligation of a collective humanity to solve. Which, of curers, (IMHO) is also utter nonsense. LIFE, Tiassa is a gorey, messy struggle. And it's liberal squeamishness that can't stomach the fact that life is about the struggle to survive and in that struggle, unfortunately, some people don't make it. Babies die. Parents abuse their kids. People kill each other. Bad things happen. These things are simply not preventable unless you have a big brother style government that meddles in everybody's life, the ending result of which, is almost certainly a tyranny of some kind. Liberals want everybody to have a doctor "free of charge", everybody to have a house and food, "free of charge" if necessary, and for sure, there shouldn't be TOO many super-rich people, which problem is solved by heavy taxation on those rich people in order to pay for all the "free of charge" stuff that liberal governments offer.

    Inevitably you have a system of entropy where people begin to lose the motivation to better themselves because, ultimately, human beings require BOTH the carrot and the stick, to get their asses moving. Tempting people with the good always needs to be balance with threatening them with the bad, if they don't succeed. In a liberal society, the carrot is still there, but the stick is not. There is the ability to succeed (to a degree... BUT NOT TOO MUCH, OR WE'LL TAX THE BEJESUS OUT OF YOU!), but the possibility of failure is permanently removed by a cushion of social institutions (free housing, transport, welfare, medicine, etcetera) for those who ultimately fail.

    This whole delusion, inevitably, betrays the society its purports to help: Human beings are far too instinctively lazy. There are just too few human beings willing to live off that system because, it's just so much easier than getting jobs and finding work.

    To you, Tiassa, it may be cowardly anarchists, but in fact, it's libertarians who have human individuality and evolution at heart.

    But your clinging to a subjective better. What is better? Is better, more advanced technology? Better medicine? Freer humanity? What's better, a society that is hampered by mountainous red-tape and huge social programs? Okay... for you, that's better because it delivers the liberal wet dream: a society of forced equality, ennui and entropy.

    ~String
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2007
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    There are rats all over the Congress and every once in awhile a few of them leave but they just go to another bureaucracy somewhere else in America and become part of that body. You can move out but you can't get rid of them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2007
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Libertarians live off society same as everyone else. For them to abstain from giving back whats due towards society, is sheer hypocrisy. Especially when the entire economy is based on paper money determined by natural resources in other countries. Every single person who supports the fiat economy in the US, is essentially on welfare, provided by those who actually own those resources. IOW, you are doing to others what you claim the lazy and inept in your own society are doing to you. And you can't stand it. Sheer hypocrisy.

    Imagine a situation where America owns the oil, and the Arab currency is the only one that can be used to buy/sell it.
     

Share This Page