43 posts tagged “worst president ever”
I only feel sorry for Americans while listening to the BBC's. We're so far away and the announcers talk in cultured voices about the "bleak situation in the United States." The weak dollar. Rising gas prices. The mortgage crisis. Home foreclosures. They sound so kind and sympathetic for "middle class Americans feeling the pressure of a sagging economy." I actually start to feel bad, momentarily forgetting that in my part of the country those poor suckers are the same dumb saps who drive around with "God Bless America" bumperstickers and ever thought invading Iraq was a good idea, and by and large voted twice for the Worst President Ever.
Imagine two boats: one a big ocean liner with double hulls and one a rickety little overcrowded fishing boat. That seems to be the new model of America. On the big boat, rich folks stand on the upper decks drinking cocktails, and whenever there's trouble, they get the first handout. Big boat springs a leak, all hands to the bilge pump. Little boat springs a leak, well, let's just say the little boat has had a leak all along. This is how the government has reacted to the mortgage loan crisis: rushing to bail out the very banks who made the irresponsible decisions that led to the crisis. Don't even bother blaming the people who took out loans they had no hope of repaying--it's the banks' job to evaluate borrowers to establish their worthiness. The borrowers are being held responsible for their mistakes--they're losing their houses. The banks, not so much.
Worse, bailing the banks out isn't going to solve the problem, which currently is a wasteland of foreclosed houses. In Detroit alone, 73,000 houses were repossessed in 2007. 73,000 houses sitting empty, abandoned, or gone to auction to the highest bidder. Neighborhoods blighted, property values down, tax revenue plummeting. How is this going to help the economy?
Of course, the people in the big boat don't get all the blame, because the people in the little boat aren't rowing. No, I take that back. They're rowing, but they're rowing in the wrong direction. They're rowing towards an impossible future, where everything gets better every year. How can people think that's possible? Really, we really think that forever and ever and ever and ever, the "next generation" is going to be "better off" than their parents? How the fuck would that work? We're already consuming our natural resources at an insupportable rate and the planet's population keeps going up.
The fact is, we need to turn this boat around and row ourselves closer to shore. We need to seriously work towards contracting our lifestyles to one that's sustainable. Use less energy, consume fewer goods, be content with less. Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without--remember that?
Denmark once again this year rates as the "happiest country." Ronald Inglehart, who oversees the study into national levels of happiness, believes that happiness has a direct correlation to: peace, democracy, and a sense of freedom to choose how to live your life. Of course, Denmark is prosperous, but note that doesn't seem to be the big element in happiness. It's not how much stuff the Danes have or how much they can buy or how quickly their economy is growing. The United States, still the world's richest economy, only ranks 16th on the national happiness scale.
Some days I wish I didn't follow current events. I wish I didn't read the news or listen to the radio. Today is one of those days.
Seymore Hersh reports that the US is currently preparing for military action in Iran. According to Hersh, the build-up of troops and equipment is taking place in Afghanistan. US officials counter by denying that they're launching any attacks from Iraq. Iran, meanwhile, offers that they're already digging graves to properly bury the bodies of invading troops.
It's like both sides have hired Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the former Iraqi Minister of Misinformation. On the one hand, he regrets to inform us that we are "too far from reality." On the other hand, "There are no American infidels in Tehran. Never!"
Could we possibly bump the presidential election up to August?
One quote from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf cannot be denied, but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day: "I speak better English than this villain Bush."
Dear Scott McClellan,
Does the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" mean anything to you? You spent two and a half years as George W. Bush's official spokesman, but now, now you want share with the world that you feel the White House used "propaganda" instead of "candor"? Wasn't that your job, you asshat? To pass off propaganda as truth?
Everything that you swore for years was true, now you're telling us it was the result of Bush being "ill-served" by his advisers? So, what? Bush gets a pass? He's not responsible for parsing truth from falsehood? That's not the president's job anymore? Wasn't that what his excuse for being an ignorant fuck--that he was going to have a bunch of great advisers to make up for his stupidity?
As for you, do you think this is going to earn you points with anyone? Now, when it doesn't matter, when nothing you say or do is going to pull America out this spiral of debt and war, you're going to tell us, "Oopsie, some of those things I said weren't really true"? Are you worried that there might some day be a tribunal to investigate the crimes of George Bush and you hope that this book will absolve you of any responsibility for your role in those crimes?
If the White House is "puzzled" by your tell-all book, color me utterly fucking perplexed. What's the point of telling everything now? We've already figured it out.
With contempt,
~Redzilla
I thought I'd feel better when people who supported the Iraq war began slowly to come to their senses and admit they'd been wrong. I don't. I don't feel even a little bit better, because when I read their excuses for why they were wrong it's just a litany of ignorance. That's the excuse at heart--a failure to understand the implications of war, deep-seated cultural divides, all things that could have been fixed with a little research.
So Andrew Sullivan can claim he committed "four cardinal sins," but he didn't. He committed one: willful ignorance. He believed what he wanted to believe, based on the data that he chose to consider. In his little confession on Slate.com, he writes, "What I failed to grasp is that war is also a monster." Come on, Andy! What? You haven't seen any of the hundreds of war films that have been made in the last 70 years? You missed Full Metal Jacket? Saving Private Ryan? The news footage coming out of every war zone in the last twenty years?
General William Tecumseh Sherman spelled it out at his speech to the cadets of the Michigan Military Academy over a hundred years ago: Cadets of the graduating class--boys--I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here. Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!
It's no secret. You don't have to go very far to find out how monstrous war is, but that didn't serve Andy's purpose. Doing research might have made him wobbly in his early support of the war. Knowledge might have undermined his faith in Bush's morality. That's the other thing Sullivan writes in his admission of wrong-doing: that he made a "fatal misjudgment of Bush's sense of morality. I had no idea he was so complacent—even glib—about the evil that good intentions can enable."
No, asshole. You made a fatal misjudgment of your own intelligence, because with access to all the information necessary to take up an anti-war position, you chose to place your faith in someone who had repeatedly shown a complete lack of real morality. You got it wrong because you were willing to take form over content. You were willing to believe someone who claimed he was a Christian with moral values, instead of looking to see what his actions proved. And how could anyone not know how glib Bush was? That's a man who mocked a fellow Christian on the eve of her execution. Can you get more glib?
So, officially, I'm no longer interested in hearing the confessions of guilt and complicity of those who wanted to invade Iraq. They don't do anything for me, because they all come from the same place: an awkward, self-effacing moment that does no one any good. Andy Sullivan may be struggling to forgive himself for following an amoral leader, but I doubt he's learned anything from the experience, because he hasn't figured out that willful ignorance was his real mistake.
Full text of Sullivan's column: How Did I Get Iraq Wrong? I seriously misjudged Bush's sense of morality
If only this worked in real life:
No, you didn't sleep through the end of the world last night. (Although poor Hillary is maybe starting to feel that way.) This is a recommendation for a TV show. It's odd for me to recommend any TV show, especially as I almost don't dare to watch TV shows I like. (Typically, the more I like a show the higher its odds of being canceled. See Futurama, Arrested Development, Firefly, Carnivale. Conversely, the more I hate a show, the likelier it will stay on the air for 9 seasons. See Everybody Loves Raymond. No, don't actually see it. Everybody does not love Raymond.)
At any rate, many of you know that I have a variety of elaborate post-Apocalyptic fantasies, so it should not surprise you that I was curious about Jericho on CBS. The basic premise is "what happens to a small town in Kansas after some unknown entity has nuked all the major cities in America, destroying the government." What is surprising is that I kept watching it. I watched all of the first season and when it returned last week, I started watching again.
I'll be honest: the acting isn't stellar and the script is over the top sometimes, a little purple, a lot melodramatic. It's TV, after all. There's no eye candy to keep me going the way I followed Lost, even after I'd lost a lot of my interest. (Skeet Ulrich is a bit weaselly, and it's like the director has instructed him not to bathe or shave since the shoot started, even though he's not stuck on a tropical island without soap.)
What keeps me watching is the surprisingly fearless way that the show has tackled all the frightening and dangerous things that have happened to America in the years since 9/11.
They've looked at the chilling issue of mercenaries on American soil. (Remember Blackwater in charge of New Orleans after Katrina? On the show, the company is called "Ravenwood" and there's also a Halliburton-type contractor company.)
They're delving into the malicious misuse of intelligence information to justify an attack on another nation. (Remember all those hints about Iraq being involved in 9/11? On the show, the interim government falsely blames North Korea and Iran for the nuclear attacks, and promptly retaliates.)
In that same vein, they're parsing the use of fear to manipulate the public. (Remember Condi Rice saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? On the show, the interim, unelected president uses the same logic.)
They've even considered the issues of suspended habeas corpus, illegal detention, torture, and intrusive surveillance in a rationale way.
Last night (episode 2 of the second season), the show considered two scary and real American problems: the use of "embedding" to appropriate the media for propaganda purposes, and the issue of a non-elected president working to suspend or re-write our Constitutional rights.
In short, if you've got an hour to spare on Tuesday nights, I recommend you take a look at Jericho. (Or the full first season is up on the CBS website.) It's not the best show I've ever watched, but it's certainly one of the bravest.
Here I am in my role as political saboteur and I don't quite know how to feel or what to do.
I've been registered as a Republican my entire life for two reasons: I was raised by Abraham Lincoln Republicans, and the Democratic Primary/Caucus in Kansas has historically been meaningless. (As discussed here.) I am still registered as a Republican, again for two reasons: The Democratic Caucus in Kansas is meaningless and I am a coward.
At any rate, I feel like a coward, because the reason I didn't switch parties in time to caucus with the Democrats is that I didn't want to have to choose. As I predicted earlier, the only Democratic candidates that I actively liked would already be out of the race by the time February 5th rolled around. Today confirms it. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich have long been out of the running--were in fact never really in it--but now John Edwards is bowing out. So, as I knew would happen, come next Tuesday, Democrats in Kansas will end up caucusing for the two front runners. I don't actively dislike Obama or Hillary (and isn't it interesting that she will always be Hillary, because when I type Clinton I can't think of anything but Bill?) I just don't have a great deal of confidence that either of them will a.) resoundingly win the general election* or b.) accomplish any meaningful change if they were to manage a win.
In short, I want what Bartcop calls a pony**. I want a dream candidate. I want the impossible. On the plus side, I know I'm not going to get it. So, as a pony-wanting coward, I will go to the polls in November, hold my nose, and vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Whoever. Even if a surprise Democratic Convention turns the nomination over to Hitler with Cobras for Arms.***
On February 9th, though, I've got another decision to make, when I caucus with my fellow Republicans. Which Republican candidate to vote for? The goal is to vote for the one with the least chance of winning against Hillary or Obama. So I clearly cannot choose the John McCain in front of me****. I'm leaning toward a vote for Mike Huckabee, because he's a fucking nutjob. He's like an Impressionist painting. He looks okay from a distance, but get too close and you can tell his shit is all fucked up. He has some crazy ideas that will appeal to that special segment of America that believes everything in the Bible is literally and historically true. To the rest of Americans, though, I suspect his wackiness will make him non-viable come November. I wish Fred Thompson were still in the race, because I'd vote for him knowing he would lose interest and wander away before the general election.
So, that's my dilemma? Who to vote for in the Republican caucus?
Appendix A
* Why don't I think Hillary or Obama have a good chance of winning in the general election? Because I have not seen much lately that reassures me the average American is honestly ready to vote for a woman or a black man. Is that pessimistic and negative of me? Yes, but I still feel that way. Am I going to vote for a woman or a black man? You bet your goddamn bippy I am, but I happen to be a radical liberal who really does believe in equality. I'm not convinced that the majority of America is with me. (And since we'll still be crippled by the Electoral College come November, it wouldn't really matter if the majority of America were with me.)
**Bartcop happens to believe that Obama is a pony. He thinks Obama is an impractical, pie-in-the-sky dreamer. I think Obama is just your basic politician, no less pragmatic or more pony-like than Hillary.
***Why am I so virulently opposed to voting Republican in November? Because Bush didn't fuck this country up by himself. He had the help of the Republican political machine, all its back pocket lobbyists, its ideologues, its little and mid-range politicos, its media dogs, its fundraisers, and its cronies. If another Republican president is elected, a goodly portion of that machine will remain in place, doing what it does best--fucking the average American over. It's like that old joke about Hell: I don't have a great deal of faith that a Democratic president (and the Democratic machine) can extricate us from the Pit of Shit we're standing in, but maybe we don't have to stand on our heads in the Pit of Shit for the next eight years.
****I've been asked a few times what I have against John McCain, who has frequently been cited by undecided or independent voters as someone they would vote for over Hillary. My answer is rather handily summed up in this photo:
If you're anything like me, you don't have the stomach to watch Bush's last State of the Union Address. I can't listen to that bastard lie and stutter any more. It gives me insight into why Elvis shot his TV.
After the State of the Union Address, though, I hope you'll tune in to watch or listen to the Democratic rebuttal, this time provided by none other than the Governor of Kansas: Kathleen Sebelius. She's the reason I'm excited about Hillary Clinton running for president this year. Because no matter what happens this election, I keep thinking about Sebelius running for president in 2016. You know she's tough--she has to be as a Democratic governor in a Republican state.
Plus, she's still pretty hot for being almost 60. She's going to be featured in the February issue of Vogue. Holy Shite!
Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in a Christopher Buckley novel. The sort of story where the most serious topics can be twisted into comedy by taking every political or social posture to its most absurd extremes. The books are funny, but living in one is a little depressing. Or like living in Soviet Russia, according to one of the Slavic Languages professors, where the real was ridiculous and the ridiculous was real. In Soviet Russia, the lie tells the politician.
For years, US neo-cons and US intelligence agencies have claimed that Iran was less than 10 years from developing a nuclear weapon. It seemed like a safe thing to say. Scary enough for elections, but not so scary that we need to talk about it more often. As it rarely does, though, something like the truth and rational analysis has just reared its ugly head in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate. According to the report, Iran isn't nearly as dangerous or as close to having a nuclear weapon as Dick Cheney* would like you to think. The NIE report says that while Iran continues to enrich uranium, they no longer have an active weapons program. Huh.
Cue the Christopher Buckley scenario.
Bush has just gone on record as saying that this report is a "warning sign." To clarify: Iran is dangerous because they're pursuing nuclear weapons, but if it turns out that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons, well, they're still dangerous. Think about that from the perspective of international relations. Iran is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Bush wants to put a hurt on them no matter which is true. If you were Iran, wouldn't you rather be damned for a goat as damned for a sheep?
There we are. Our government is becoming parody-proof. In the beginning, it was easy to mock Bush, but these days you can't make up anything crazier or funnier than Bush's actual reactions and policies.
*And hey, if Dick is so hot to attack Iran, why doesn't he parachute in with a shotgun? He's a heckuva shot.
Kzinti forwarded me a piece from The New York Times about a volunteer medical organization that has brought basic third world medical care to the first world. They set up tents at fairgrounds in rural areas in America, offering free medical, dental, and vision care to people who otherwise wouldn't get care. I'm not sure if the article and the basic concept is supposed to give me a warm feeling, but it doesn't. That old saw, "charity begins at home," seems to apply here, and that's hardly heart-warming to someone like me who feels like health care shouldn't be charity. It just should be.
When I went to read the article, though, the one next to it caught my eye: Denial Makes the World Go Round. Don't it? It's an interesting read and references some books on the topic that might be worth checking out. As I read, I couldn't help but recast the health care debate in terms of denial.
According to the article, "recent studies from fields as diverse as psychology and anthropology suggest that the ability to look the other way, while potentially destructive, is also critically important to forming and nourishing close relationships. The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness."
So it's a mixed bag. Denial makes it possible to get through our daily lives, but it also has the capacity to blind us to harmful problems. When it comes to politics and people in America it's a double-sided issue. Many politicians are in denial about just how bad things are for people without access to health care. They talk about fixes to the system, denying that the system is the problem. They talk about subsidies for employers and covering catastrophic illness above $50,000, all the while denying that for most of the people on the lower rungs of society--like me--a subsidy to my employer doesn't help if I lose my job and a catastrophic illness that costs me only $49,000 would break me. Glorious, glorious denial. It lets the politicians get up on their rally stages and gladhand and god-bless-America and pay a seemingly heart-felt homage to all those salt of the earth farmers and blue collar workers, who don't have health care.
On the other side, that same shimmering coating of denial lets the farmers and the blue collar workers vote for the politicians who are going to stab them in the back, repeatedly. Denial lets them ignore all the myriad ways in which politicians are sticking it to the little people, while living the high life and creating a cushy retirement for themselves in lobbying and consulting.
The article also observes that "Nowhere do people use denial skills to greater effect than with a spouse or partner....people often idealize their partners, overestimating their strengths and playing down their flaws."
Politicians are giving spouses a run for their money. Consider the fact that over 25% of polled Americans still think George Bush is doing a heckuva job. Denial makes that work. Denial makes it possible for people to gush glowingly about people like Bush and Delay and Gingrich. (Sorry, Dick, there's not enough denial to spruce you up.) A lot of poor Republicans I know tell themselves that Republican politicians are "good Christian men," and "honest," and "family-oriented," and "working to keep America safe." Do I have to go on?
Thinking in those terms, I found this bit particularly interesting: "Faced with the high odor of real perfidy, people unwilling to risk a break skew their perception of reality much more purposefully. One common way to do this is to recast clear moral breaches as foul-ups, stumbles or lapses in competence — because those are more tolerable" according to Dr. Peter H. Kim. "[People] reframe the ethical violation as a competence violation.” That's the new denial for former Bush supporters--he's not evil, he's just stupid. Or he's getting bad advice. Or he made some mistakes. (Bartcop opines that if "mistakes" put money in the pockets of your friends and family, most people will go on cheerfully making the same mistakes. That certainly seems to describe Bush's situation.)
As with an extramarital affair or a failing marriage, the denial also squeezes the topic from open conversation. To talk about it is to weaken the denial, so we don't talk about it. As someone who regularly talks about the health care situation in the US, I often have the feeling that I'm the one making uncomfortable remarks at a dinner party where other people wish I would just shut up and stop embarrassing the guest of honor.
It's too late for that. As the article observes, "It takes an outside crisis to break the denial, and no one needs a psychological study to know how that ends." That crisis is coming and it's coming on so many fronts--not just health care. People are angry about the economy, about the environment, about the war, about greed and corruption. Their denial is wearing thin.
