June 06, 2004
Rubber Room at the White House
There is a serious case of election year stress at the White House. The article by Doug Thompson is just one of the sources for that contention. Simply watching George Tenet resign his office and listening to the absolutely false sounding explanations given by Administrative spoke persons regarding this and other matters lately gives one a feeling of Déjà vu if one lived through the last days of Nixon.
The wheels are coming off of the Republican Wagon of unification, and it is about time. Of course there should be some unity in all political parties. But here in this nation the degree of unity shown by Republicans since Bush II took office has been unhealthy for us all. Nothing like this has been seen before in my lifetime, a party so united that no voice of reason calls out when they go too far. From: the fantasy that we can continue to run up deficits into the tens of trillions of dollars without any serious consequences, to the idea that the Coal Industry should write their own environmental regulations, to the theory that Drug companies should not face bargaining with government agents when the government is paying them for their product, this has been one great run of party unity at the expense of the taxpayer.
Not today’s taxpayer of course, unless you account for the trillion dollars in Social Security payroll taxes taken from our poorest workers that have been used to make up for our tax relief for the richest people in our nation. Not for the future taxpayers still in diapers and training pants who will inherit over one hundred thousand dollars each in Federal debt alone when they reach the age of twenty one. It has been an amazing run of that unity wagon but the wheels are falling off now with the break in the Administration’s control over events starting with Iraq.
Of course the problem is that with the advent of 9/11 politics there was no real opposition. The President’s approval ratings appeared to guarantee him a second term. Now his mistakes on: Iraq, the tax bills, the environment and the economy have started to drain the helium out of his balloon. Left with a broken gas bag as President, Republicans are being forced to think for themselves once again. It will be difficult but we may actually have a government that works at the end of this campaign.
A government that actually has the competent use of checks and balances as its basis once again would be a vast improvement over this one. Meanwhile the mean spirited Neanderthals in the White House are circling the wagons. Everyone on the outside is suspect, if not an enemy, because they disagree with anything said by the President or his little coterie of “advisors”. Breathing the same air that you exhaled long enough will lead to oxygen deprivation and eventually brain death. Someone should warn these Apostles of leak-less government that their air supply has gone bad.
Good luck if these People should somehow manipulate circumstances so that they manage to win reelection. Ashcroft unleashed and Bush as the Lords terrible swift sword will be the least we can expect if our nation falls asleep once again before the election. I hope many of you are interested in this effort at democracy, or it might just be our last. Caligula found great pleasure in punishing his real and imagined enemies, would a President reelected by our people under the delusional belief that God has chosen him to lead us do any less harm? We all live in interesting times. Let us hope that the War on Terror has taken us as down the road of unhealthy unity as far as it can. Let us work on this election so that after it we once again live in a world of divided patriotic love of a nation that has no need to call on God to approve our President’s actions.
©Henri Reynard/GoldenBrush Investments, Ltd
I saw that, ‘though I do worry about the credibility of the article’s sources. I know there aren’t usually named sources in an article with those kinds of direct, critical comments (as no one wants to lose their jobs)… but I’m left wanting names.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 6, 2004 07:34 PMI saw that Capitol Hill Blue article, and I can’t say I put much faith in it. Just like I don’t buy the frequent “Kerry’s Campaign is Imploding!” mantra, this seems like it might be a bit of a stretch. I mean, with the 41% approval (and the Enron recordings from last week), I’m sure there are concerns about job security, but I don’t think it is the “OH MY GOD! BREAK STUFF!!!” looting mentality that the article hints at.
It is, however, as a rational Bush Hater, extremely entertaining to read.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at June 6, 2004 08:40 PMA couple of things about Capitol Hill Blue and its founder/publisher Doug Thompson.
He’s no partisan Democratic tool. He gives it to both sides, as evidenced by the fact that his articles often show up on the Free Republic site. This one, for example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944219/posts?page=23
He’s also a product of mainstream journalism (for what it’s worth). Here’s a link to his bio:
http://politicslive.com/dtbio.asp
So he’s not an Internet commentator without some level of qualifications. Though he’s found himself in trouble on a few occasions for overhyping stories and using unreliable sources.
It’s intriguing and it will be interesting to see if this story emerges again elsewhere at some point.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at June 6, 2004 10:17 PMOne wonders how the Freepers would handle this story from a source they’ve already praised to high heaven. Heh.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 7, 2004 12:28 AM“Would a President reelected by our people under the delusional belief that God has chosen him to lead us do any less harm?”
Hwre we go again. What evidence is there that Bush thinks God has chosen him to lead us? The underhanded Mcarthyism f such a statement, the attempt to smear someone based on no facts whatsoever, is truly amazing. Why don’t you just say that Bush believes Satan has chosen him to lead us? It would be just as logical, and more in line with your opinion of him.
Bush prays. He’s a religious man. All of our presidents have been—they routinely mention god in their speeches. I can’t remember a State of the Union Address by any president that didn’t in some way invoke the Christian god. Jimmy Carter went farther in this vein than Bush ever did.
Also, any cracks in Bush’s base are nothing compared to what’s happening to Kerry because of Nader. As the summer wears on, the anti-war “END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ” contingent on the left is going to become more and more disillusioned with Kerry. If they don’t just stay home on election day, they’re likely to vote for Ralphy.
Posted by: Martin at June 7, 2004 01:18 AMMartin, you keep asking for the source. Here you go!
President is quoted as saying:
“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
From Haaretz and The Moscow Times. While the link to Haaretz is outdated and the Moscow Times article sits behind paid archives, you can google the first part of the first sentence to verify that this story had legs for quite awhile when it was fresh last year.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2004 05:47 AMWell, I googled it, and what I see is a perfect example of how a story takes on a life of its own as, using Bush-hatred as a catalyst, it filters second-hand through left-wing websites and the truth gets eroded away. Inconvenient facts are forgotten, more convenient facts are added, and then presto—a full blown lie worthy of Michael Moore. I notice that you’ve conveniently cut off the first part of that quote from Haaretz, which says that Bush is being quoted by the Palestinian Prime Minister.
So the quote is itself second hand. Not only that, its something the Palestinian Prime Minister reports that Bush said—is this a reliable source in your opinion? Every wonder why the major media didn’t run with this flimly story. Do you also believe, since the same Palestinian fellow said it, that Jews suck the blood of gentiles?
When Haaretz reported that the Prime Minister told someone that Bush said this, they made very clear that this was an unverifiable second-hand quote. In short, they attributed the quote to the Prime Minister, not Bush.
But then somebody in the Moscow Times picks up the story and reports that “Bush said this.”
Then the quote flies around leftist blogs and online media sources (why is it that anything with “Moscow” in the tile is still automatically believed by the left?).
The source of the quote is forgotten and buried, and it becomes the occasion for hundreds of articles and op-eds—many who have no idea where the quote even comes from or its context. But such is the nature of thinking over in the left’s alternate reality.
Posted by: Martin at June 7, 2004 11:22 AMJohnson & Bush 43 both controlled all branches of government. In this environment policy was driven by idealogical thinking instead of fact based analysis. The legacy of Bush 43 is flawed- flip-flop policy.
Posted by: bayviking at June 7, 2004 01:34 PMMartin, you talk about selectivity of the left, yet, you selectively ignore the Ph.D. evangelical minister who wrote about Bush from hours of interviews with the man, and whose book was championed by none less than Bush himself. What was debateable about Bush taking orders from God as reported by the Moscow Times and Haaretz, is backed by quotes from Bush himself in the book. Thus what was debateable is now quite probably true as reported by the Palestinian leader, since, very similar quotes from Bush are in the Minister’s book.
So, you asked where this stuff comes from. Your question has been answered by a couple of folks here. But, I have doubts it will make any difference in your point of view. But forcing folks to change their point of view is not what WatchBlog is about. WatchBlog is about informing. This information may alter a few points of view however for those who come here for information instead of confirmation or refutation.
There is certainly no harm in a politician being a person of religious conviction. There is also no harm in a political leader using the ideals of their religion as a guide in setting goals for their country and its people. I have severe reservations however, with any politician who professes to take their orders as to how and where to lead a nation from God itself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2004 01:46 PMDavid, if Watchblog is about informing then please do inform.
If I’ve ignored the book of this evangelical minister—who so far you refuse to name (along with the book’s title) it’s because I have no idea what it is or what’s in it. Other than that, you’re only offering quotes from Palestinian politicians and Moscow journalists. Anyone has a right to be supicious of any case cobbled together from sources as suspect as that. Especially a case related to the fundamental character of our president.
I do find curious that you know exactly what’s in this book, and even cite it to bolster your argument, though you can’t name either its author or title! Is this just another juicy tidbit skimmed from a left-wing website?
I apologize if you have actually read this book and do actually know what’s in it—as opposed to what you’ve been told is in it—though I must say I’m surprised that you’ve been reading books by fundamentalist evangelists.
Posted by: Martin at June 7, 2004 02:59 PMI watched the author interviewed on C-Span’s Washington Journal some weeks ago. I don’t recall his name or the title. I am relating what he said on the program. I am sure if you google Bush Biography by Ph.D. the title of the book and author’s name should pop up. Not too many biographies of Bush Jr. out yet.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2004 04:32 PMHmmm… I’m getting George W. Bush: Terrorist in the White House, an unauthorized biography. Somehow I don’t think that’s it…
Posted by: Martin at June 7, 2004 04:57 PMMartin wrote:
Also, any cracks in Bush’s base are nothing compared to what’s happening to Kerry because of Nader. As the summer wears on, the anti-war “END THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ” contingent on the left is going to become more and more disillusioned with Kerry. If they don’t just stay home on election day, they’re likely to vote for Ralphy.
I’ve seen a lot of Conservative pundits also pushing this bit of wishful thinking, and then you all turn around and slam us as a bunch of single-minded, rabid Bush-haters, who will continue to beat the drums and froth at the mouth til November!
Same goes for the despicable and abhorrent behavior of social Conservative groups like the American Family Council, stepping foot inside Black churches for the first time to prey upon intolerant and homophobic prejudices. Generating opposition to Gay Marriage has now turned to hopes of disillusion with Kerry on this issue, among older Black voters.
I’m guessing the specter of a united, energized Dem base, is just too damn scary for those of you on the Right to accept. But, take my word - it trumps all of the above.
Lastly, in hopes of pushing Martin over the edge, most reports on voter registration drives by George Soros’s group, unions/labor organizations, and private groups targeting young adults and minorities by prominent rock musicians and hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, for example, have been overwhelmingly successful. This includes key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Florida.
I wonder how this ground swell of political cause contrasts with support for a candidate with a 42% approval rating?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at June 8, 2004 05:00 AMHey David and Martin, the book might have been, “A Man Of Faith : The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush”, or “The Faith of George W. Bush”, or “George W. Bush: On God and Country”, or “God and George W. Bush : A Spiritual Life”.
Martin, I can’t believe you’re a Bush fan and you don’t know the little voice in his head that he’s assuming is God.
When alchoholics hear voices, they may assume it’s God, but we know better!
Posted by: bayviking at June 8, 2004 11:42 AMThank you American Pundit, the first title you reference appears correct. That should satisfy Martin - well, on second thought…! :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2004 07:58 PMMaybe Martin would also be interested in this article written by Martin Lawrence, on Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004 which appeared on the Globe and Mail website. The Globe and Mail is a Canadian newspaper.
”Though it wasn’t publicized at the time, Prime Minister Paul Martin got a sense of that sanctimony when he met with Mr. Bush in early January in Mexico. Mr. Bush let the Prime Minister know that he believed himself to be on the side of God and tending to God’s mission.
The Canadian side, while aware of the President’s penchant for religiosity, had been expecting to talk more about softwood lumber than the Ten Commandments. The Canadians didn’t expect the morality play. Nor did they expect that, almost in the same breath, Mr. Bush would be filling the air with the f-word and other saucy expletives of the type that would surely leave the Lord perturbed. Nor did they anticipate a pointed attack on French President “Jack Cheerack,” as Mr. Bush called him, for his views on the Middle East.
Mr. Martin was somewhat taken aback by what he heard. After the meeting, he was barely out the door before he was asking someone in his entourage what was to be made of all the God stuff. In meetings of presidents and prime ministers, religion has rarely been at the forefront. Business is conducted on the basis of knowledge and logic. With the Bush White House, the visitors must bear in mind that there is a third force.
It was a Martin question on the President’s world view that sent Mr. Bush off on his sermon. It wasn’t, Canadians officials say, a gratuitous rant. Whether or not he was presenting himself as God’s agent depends on whose version of the meeting one listens to.”
For the full story: http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040205.wmartin0205/BNStory/
International/?query=bush
