Maybe I should act chagrined now that my record is
in the toilet about par for the pundit class…heh, of course not. Smart pundits just keep making predictions, which gives people something to think about other than how the last predictions turned out. So here goes.
Last night’s news hit president Bush like a figurative freight train. As referendums go, and exit polls suggest that is exactly what it was, messages don’t get more explicit. Bush doesn’t very much like it when a news cycle spins out of his control so naturally he wants to get ahead of the next round of headlines with a presser of his own. Maybe he’ll say something newsworthy or make a particularly scandalous accusation. Then at least the news becomes a give-and-take, rather than the nation giving its rebuke via the Democratic party and the president silently taking it. More importantly the president’s words will very likely set the tone for the next two years of intragovernmental relations.
David Broder and friends expect the president to channel his governor-era bipartisanship, which I will consider the antithesis to my thesis, for two important reasons. First, it would be the smart political move. A gesture of bipartisanship would be politically difficult to turn down. It could easily pull the oxygen out of a no-holds-barred subpoena party and the press would eat it out of his hand. Second, Broders have the collective memory of a fruit fly. The president hasn’t seen bipartisanship since around the time he declared Tom DeLay a crucial ally; by now he wouldn’t recognize comity if it sat down next to him. Every word and deed out of the White House telegraphs contempt for the Democratic party (for example, he refuses to call it the Democratic party). The minimal self-abnegation required for the kabuki of saving face acknowledges weakness, even if only ceremonially, and when it comes to the Democrats even kabuki humility won’t happen in this president’s lifetime.
In line with similar thoughts from Grover Norquist, I expect the president to invoke 9/11, complain about Democrats wanting to lose Iraq and invite Speaker Pelosi to kiss his black ass. Stupid and politically self-destructive, yes, but the model by which these guys have operated for six years allows for nothing else. Once again being wrong will make me quite happy.
WTF? Okay, I predict that New England will win the superbowl.
No way this happens. Bush is an idiot in so many ways, but you have to have some ability to win election twice.
Reagan was smart enough to work with the opposition party and ensure a successful presidency. Clinton was smart enough to work with the opposition party and ensure a successful presidency, and his challenge was even tougher because the Republican takeover came from out of nowhere. He adapted extremely well.
I don’t think Bush has anything near the governing ability of Reagan or Clinton. He’s in this mess right now precisely because he was too stubborn to ever give an inch or acknowledge that the opposing party might be anything more than terrorist-lovers. He’s not suddenly going to discover the meaning of statesmanship.
John acts as if the President is in a position to unilaterally set the agenda. Somebody needs to remind us that the Congress will be taking iniatives of its own.
Various new chairmen will be looking into:
Prewar intel (OSP etc)
The Pharmaceutical deal
Domestic NSA snooping
Stuff like that. And they know Cheney has a 17% popularity rating. Dick better hand onto his birdshot belt. He’ll be needing it.
Bush couldn’t figure out how to work with a friendly party and ensure a successful Presidency. Will an end-of-term Dem resurgence suddenly change Bush’s Donkey-Hate’n ways?
*Checks Magic 8 Ball*: “Outcome looks not fucking likely”. Hmm….
Here’s a simple rule: For every mention of “The Democrat Party”, we send out twelve subpoenas. That’ll really drive Bush up the wall.
HaHa! suck this beatchez.
On another tone: Wow, wishful thinking pulls thru. I knew no republican had a chance in Maryland, but VA and MT are so close. I think Tester and Webb will be interesting Senators.
I think Broder et al. may be right in their predictions, in a limited sense. Take a look at Bush’s strategy of staying the course in Iraq; a month ago, with hardly a pause, he was saying, “We’ve never been stay the course,” and he switched to a different piece of rhetoric, without any substantive change in policy at all. I expect Bush to talk a good deal about bipartisanship, with no mention of the rancor he has caused in the past, and also with no intention of changing his ways. The media will eat it up, Democrats will be cautiously optimistic, and nothing will change. Talk is cheap, for Bush.
Looks like the good times are already beginning. Rummy is stepping down.
CNN reporting that Rumsfeld has resigned.
Da Bombz Dggity
I think that Bush will begin to, at the very least, appear to be bipartisan, as he did with many of the disasters under his administration. For example, in his Katrina response he admitted to a preexisting problem of poverty that affected who could not get help. Although, Bush will admit to certain failures, there is no indication that Bush will not continue on the same path that he has. This is why Democrats have until the Presidential election in 2008 to make significant changes in Congress that will poise them to take the Presidency. Democrats have plans to fix the problems that the Bush administration has created. Why give their plan to the Republicans so that it can be used and the credit not given to the authors? This election was a referendum on the Republican party’s disconnection with the values of the voters in the US. The Democrats have only to do as they have said they will do. You can count on the Democrats making significant changes in Congress because they want the Presidency in ’08. At this point, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they don’t change the course of America.
Any Texan knows that this so called bipartisanship that Bush is credited with actually had nothing to do with him. It was because Bush knew better than to go against the desires of the Lt. Gov of the time, Bob Bullock. All that Bush did that was supposedly good or successful as Texas governor was really the work of Bob Bullock.
So I hardly expect Bush to be able to show any statesman abilities now with the switch over.
But then again, Texans knew this back in 2000 – not that the rest of the nation listened.
Told ya so ;)
t. jasper parnell
The President also asked “Do I look nuts?” to which one can only answer, ya sure ya betcha.
David Broder and friends expect the president to channel his governor-era bipartisanship
We’ve already seen in his handling of the Republican Party that, as he did in Texas, Bush can unite conservatives and ultraconservatives. Anything else, not so much.
Yeah, my prediction for House and Senate seats was on the low side too. I was being conservative. Better to be proven slightly wrong on the positive side.
Comity? Yeah, right. Only heard a few pieces of his press conference, but one question asked if Iraq played a part in the elections. Duh.
Bush conceded that may have played a part, but he went on and on in this answer about how the election was almost stacked against them. His reasoning being in DeLay’s and Foley’s districts voters had to write in the Republican candidate. Persecution complex still going.
I still predict Bush will try to block any subpoena power directed at the admin from the House and now Senate.
My prediction is that Republicans in the Senate very quickly rediscover the love of the filibuster and parliamentary procedures they have been busy gutting and denigrating for the past 4 years. I for one would love to shove an “up or down vote” in the face of those righteous fucks.
And in the House, Republicans will rediscover their love of ethics committees and the procedures that would allow the minority party to get their amendments considered, see bills before they have to be voted on, etc. I for one say a big fuck you to the second one (I’m fine with robust ethics committees + oversight). House Republicans can rot in the wilderness for the next couple of years with no ability to set or control the agenda of the House.
If they’re willing to vote for iron-clad laws that require multiple days to review bills, single issue bills (no more Trifecta bullshit), required inclusion of non-partisan analysis in considering new spending or tax cuts, PayGo, etc. – then maybe we’ll go along with them. Until they, I’m happy they’ll be hoist by their own petard.
My third prediction is the media buys the whining of Republicans in the Senate and the House and spends a lot of time talking about how “partisan” the new Democrat Congress is, and how it’s harder than ever before for Republicans to even get considered, or get a room for a committee. FOAD press.
Cheney’s been doing this for years – Energy policy negotiations? Visitor logs?
You just know they’re gonna get hammered with requests and try the same thing Cheney’s been doing (stonewalling, claiming executive privilege). You don’t continually try to invent new rules for the executive unless you either have something to hide or anticipate you will.
Plus I expect GW to discover the joy of his veto pen as well as up-the-ante when it comes to signing statements.
Good news about Rummy resigning…if it’s and true and if Dubyah accepts it. RoonnieRoo is right about the bi-partisanship thing. For Dubyah “bi-partisanship” is “I tell you what I want, you voice a meek objection, we do what I want, and you get to be in the ‘photo-op’ picture with my hand on your shoulder…now ‘smile’, look happy.” I expect he’ll mouth a few words today about “working together” and “bi-partisanship, blah-blah-blah”, and then go back to his usual arrogant and wrong-headed obstinacy.
The Other Steve
I hope not. I don’t think the Democrats need many investigations. Just assertions of what has been fucked up, and a plan to address it.
Investigations just waste time, and provide no value politically. Maybe they’re feel good for your base, but a feel better would be a plan to address the problem and it’d give us far more credibility going into 2008.
Well I guess the guy who was most correct in his predictions was Saddam Hussein. He predicted a quick US victory initially in Iraq and then the eventual US defeat as Americans would be easily manipulated by the casualties on their TV screens.
Maybe he should get a consultancy job because he seems to undestand the Americans better than many Americans do.
see, this is why you conservatives don’t win elections – your disdain for americans.
Not all Americans, just the stupid ones.
Unfortunately, this really won’t be necessary since the Presidential veto is a far easier method of opposing Democratic legislation.
By the way, I caught the end of some segement on CNN a week or so ago that a Venezuela backed company bought out and runs voting machines in California and maybe other places. They tried to trace back the ownership and they saw all kinds of shadowy company names, and figures who had some past history to Chavez. Any more info on this. I have been very suspicious of elections held around the world lately- Iran, Palestine, Nicaragua. This would all tie it together and give my suspiciouns some ground if Chavez was getting involved in this. I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard for him to do if he set his mind to it.
Anyone know anything else about this?
Okay just looked it up – here’s an article.
t. jasper parnell
I heard that too, it was like totally all these you know shadowing figures or whatever and like it was really, I dunno, about how this guy? Hugo Chavez, except like his first name is yugo or something, any way he like could have of might have like something to do with like this company or whatever? and he, you know, could like do, stuff.
Meanwhile if the Dems do not make the mistake of the cabal of crooks, boobs, and kleptocrats they can return America to greatness.
Not if they write like you.
OMG! You’re right! In voting Democrat I just unsuspectingly voted for Saddam Hussein! What a fool I’ve been, oh whoa is me, oh heavens. There is only one pastry that may console me now. Please someone pass the pie.
t. jasper parnell
Gadzooks, wounded am I.
t. jasper parnell
Now that I have mulled over the sling of the most clever of clocks, scs, I am not sure that it means anything.
But really, scs, more on who exercising the franchise helps Saddam; I always suspected that democracy was unamerican. Maybe you and Darrel can marry, quick before the Dems make it illegal, and flee to safety.
By an amazing coincidence, the Bush Administration currently has a job opening for someone who can make accurate predictions about war. Time for a recess appointment!
t. jasper parnell
By the way, scs, if you add all the “stupid ones” who have voted agin the good ol’ boy in chief, you will find that you hold the majority of Americans in contempt. Shameful, your hatred of America; and at time when our troops need us more than ever. Why do you hate our troops?
Scs needs to eat more pie and less Redstate Spooge.
The Other Steve
Does anybody seriously think the public has spoiled on the war because of casualties?
Rather, I think it’s lack of progress.
NOW can we nuke them?