June 02, 2005
Does Bush Need Glasses or a Brain Transplant?
President Bush this last week states Social Security Privatization must come to pass. He also said he sees progress in the war on terrorism. And for all his criticism of activist judges, he pledges to Congress to consult with them on judicial nominees but litmus tests will remain in his selections. So, is he going blind or is it brain atrophy in need of a transplant?
Social Security:
Practically speaking, Pres. Bush has all but guaranteed by his refusal to take privatization of Social Security off the table, that Soc. Sec. reform will not happen on his watch. When all is said and done, that will likely be a good thing. As long as privatization remains on the table, Congress will lack sufficient votes to pass reform prior to next years Congressional elections. After the 2006 elections, the GOP must focus on keeping the Whitehouse 2 years later and the Soc. Sec. third rail will be electrified again; preventing any GOP sponsored reform, which includes privatization, from disenchanting the American voters.
The fact is, America has issues that are more pressing. These include the escalating military budget and its mismanagement, as well as the national debt and rising interest rates, which combined with spiraling Medicare/Medicaid health costs and the looming pension crisis, could create the fiscal 'Perfect Storm". Social Security privatization, as polls show, is not a winning ticket item with the American people, which begs the question of whether the President needs glasses to see that America does not stand with him on this issue. The AARP reports:
The AARP poll of 1,500 adults age 30 and older finds a majority of Americans-66 percent-favor keeping Social Security "as close to the present system as possible." That figure rises to 79 percent among people 60 and older. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center in Washington echoed that finding: 54 percent of respondents support the idea of private accounts. But only 29 percent think it's more important to allow workers to have private accounts than it is to preserve Social Security's guaranteed benefit.Perhaps it is just a lame brain for a lame duck, which would preclude this President having to don spectacles to see the American People don't want his SS privatizing plan.
War On Terrorism:
The War on Terror through the President's eyes, however, is a real quandary. Eyes or brain? One or the other is in a serious state of malfunction when the President says he sees real progress. LBJ and Nixon touted that warn threadbare phrase "we are making real progress" year in and year out as the death toll continued to mount and the costs of the Viet Nam War derailed the Great Society programs and underpinned the economic woes of the Nixon and Ford years.
In raw numbers of US losses, Iraq is no Viet Nam. CNN.com reports:
There have been 1,848 coalition troop deaths, 1,664 Americans, 89 Britons, 10 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 25 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of June 1, 2005.
When Bush gave his dramatic Mission Accomplished speech aboard the carrier in May of 2003, fewer than 150 Americans were killed in the Iraq war. Since then, American losses have increased one thousand one hundred percent and Pres. Bush calls this progress. The official military count on American wounded is now 12,762 and many agree this number is greatly under reported. If the number of American dead and maimed is the measure of success, then, yes, Bush is right, we are making progress.
Acts of terrorism and their death toll continue to increase around the globe. P. Parameswaran of the Middle East Times reports on US official figures released this year:
The US National Counterterrorism Center, an arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, said in a report there were 651 terrorist attacks across the globe last year with 1,907 people killed.
This compares with 208 attacks involving 625 fatalities in 2003, according to State Department figures released last year.
A total of 6,704 people were wounded in terrorist strikes last year, according to the center, compared to the 3,646 reported for 2003. Another 710 people were taken hostage in 2004, the new report said.
Just in the last week, a number of suicide bombing stories appeared and another article reports a resurgence of terrorism here in the US in this story entitled: Burning crosses signal return of Ku Klux Klan. Fox News reported on May 11 of a new study showing:
that the number of reported bias crimes and civil rights violations against Muslims in the United States soared to its highest level last year since the period immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.And the President sees real progress? Perhaps he just misspoke, again, and was referring to the terrorists making real progress.
Judicial Nominees:
The President announced he would consult with Congress on future judicial nominees. He didn't say which Congresspersons he would consult with. Nor did he say he would listen to anything they have to say regarding potential nominees. It may be that Pres. Bush defines consultation as a memo of announcement of his upcoming nominees 24 hours before the nomination. We don't know yet. However, it is clear from this ABC report that Pres. Bush will not relinquish his litmus test for nominees. The article states:
President Bush is promising to consult with senators on a Supreme Court nominee, although he says he'll also hold fast to his determination to "find people of a certain temperament" to serve on the bench.
What is so telling is Bush's odd use of the word 'temperament' which one online dictionary depicts as an interval used in tuning instruments, a person's usual mood, or "excessive emotionalism or irritability and excitability (especially when displayed openly)". Since it is obvious his use of the word in this context of judicial nominees is meaningless, its use was not meant to inform, but, to hide.
But why hide what was obvious? Isn't it obvious the President will continue to nominate ultra-conservative persons who will reflect the President's commitment to overturning Roe V. Wade, dismantling affirmative action, and safeguarding corporations and businesses from consumers and their advocacy group efforts? Perhaps this lame duck's lame brain just misspoke, yet again. Perhaps he has never understood what the word means and didn't know to ask the speechwriter if they knew what it meant. Or, perhaps, the President did know what that word would mean to millions of other Americans who don't know what the word means. Somehow, I think the latter explanation is the most likely. Glasses or brain transplant? Perhaps both.
Posted by David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 02:58 PM‘But why hide what was obvious? Isn’t it obvious the President will continue to nominate ultra-conservative persons… ‘
Because it allows him to tell a perfect lie - one that can’t be proved . He can appoint based on specific social issues and claim it was based on overall judicial skills and it cant be proved otherwise.
This is where I believe Kerry lost the election. In the debate, W said he would have no judicial litmus test and Kerry said he would only appoint judges that would uphold the current law. At that point Kerry lost millions of possible voters when he could have told an anprovable lie instead.
Posted by: Tom G at June 2, 2005 04:51 PMSocial Security :
Using the AARP as a public opinion barometer in any issue involving its membership will always be “pro” member, especially on the post retirement aged members. I am a member of AARP and have been for many years. Membership in this useful organization only requires that you be 50 years of age. Therefore any polls generated by the AARP on health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, costs of prescription medicine, etc. would have to be factored by the ages of the
people polled. Social Security needs reform in order to keep it the only source of retirement income for many Americans for as long as they live. It seems now that many huge corporations are defaulting (some legally) on their retirement funds leaving many people dependent only upon Social Security. These otherwise “pensionless” people will be joining the medicaid rolls in increasing numbers in the near future. IMO privatization of Social Security is not a viable option for the majority of the people and therefore should be discarded.
War on Terrorism :
I have no idea what barometer the President is using to assert that “we are making progress”. In my opinion the death toll is only one of the measurements that can be used to determine progress (or lack thereof). Using it as the only determining factor I think is unfair and inaccurate. Financial costs of the war are certainly escalating but since you cannot put a value on human life I don’t think we ever really know how much is too much or too little to spend. Wars cause military budgets to become an issue showing government inadequacy. While this may be true, the time to address it is after the conflict is ended. To make it an issue now IMHO creates yet another distraction.
“Burning crosses sinal returning of Ku Klux Klan”
This is being used as a way to sensationalize the
resurgance of terrorism in the US. The KKK never went anywhere. They are a radical hate group who need very little reason to get riled up. Now, the media hands them the worldwide terrorism issue and points them in the direction of the Muslims living in the US. They can now participate in the war without even leaving the US by launching a kind of ethnic cleansing campaign against Muslims here.
Judicial Nominees :
It seems what most people (mainly on the left side of the aisle) are convinced that President Bush is undertaking overturning Roe v Wade, doing away with affirmative action,a program that now works in reverse of its intended purpose and, protecting corporations and businesses from consumers and advocacy groups. Any political party in power will want to be surrounded on all fronts by people that they trust and by people with like thinking. I think we should give the Supreme Court more credit for using good judgement in its decisions. They are not going to make massive changes to laws that have been working in the best interests of the masses for the sake of change.
Steve~ I may just add you to my list of insightful people!:) I am sure you will take this as a great honor! HEEHEE
Posted by: Traci at June 2, 2005 05:10 PMZeek, read my archives here, or at my site linked to my name below.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 05:52 PMTraci,
It is indeed a great honor. Normally my posts bring down the wrath of everyone upon me. Of course it’s still early in the thread.
Posted by: steve smith at June 2, 2005 06:27 PMNope, TomG, sure appeared to be an astute observation to me, except for the singular reason for Kerry losing - there were many.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 06:32 PMsteve smith,
On SS we agree.
On the war, I differ a bit in that I see Iraq as elective and occuring at a time when the President and Congress saw the deficit and debt debacle writing on the wall.
On judicial nominees, it is true enough that some justices develop their own mind on what is best for the nation regardless of their personal convictions once seated to the S.C. On the other hand, there are some who saw things one way and never deviated once seated to the S.C. We will have to wait and see, but, I would prefer we did not have to rely on the luck of the draw.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 06:36 PMI don’t see much hope on the judicial front.
I don’t care about Roe v Wade. It was bad law, but I not change what is decided so long. But both sides have a litmus test on Roe v Wade. Can you imagine the Dems supporting someone who said he opposed Roe no matter what else he stood for? Our only chance would be someone who never spoke or wrote anything about the subject.
On affirmative action, I would prefer someone who would strike down racial and gender preferences. So would most conservatives. The Civil Rights establishment will oppose anyone like that.
I want someone who will support property rights, a strict constructionist, someone who will defer to the legislative branch on most issues. This one might get past some liberals, but not likely most of them.
So how will it be possible for the President to satisfy people like me, people who are more conservative and those who are liberal?
Bush is the President. The voters elected Republicans in the majority of the Senate. Consulting with the Senate would mean conservative nominees. I don’t see much room for maneuvering here, whether or not you have a brain or eyes.
Steve~
Been there, done that, and your right!!
I try to listen to everyone, it’s hard sometimes, but necessary! Take David here, I rarely agree with anything he says, but I respect him, and the way he carries himself!
Traci, thank you for the kind remarks. I hope I live up to that standard of respecting others, myself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 2, 2005 07:50 PMDavid Remer
There is little if any difference between you and I on these issues. Your article initiating this post was extremely well presented and made the ensuing comments easy to develop.
Traci,
I have only been participating in Watchblog for a few weeks. In that time I have learned how important it is to at least listen to what others have to say. After the initial period of posting only adversarial comments, I am gaining a good understanding of the fact that the discussion and respect for others opinions that is important not who is right or wrong. Also, a contributer has to understand that it is the intention of some people to render opinions that are “inspirational” and stir up controversy.
Posted by: steve smith at June 2, 2005 08:04 PMDavid,
It’s a matter of perception, and what we’re seeing is an administration whose perception of the country is not shared by its citizens.
Recently Cheney said the insurgency in Iraq is in its ‘last throes.’ Bush stated that the elections in January delivered a ‘serious blow’ to the insurgency.
Those statements are so out of kilter with the perceptions of the citizenry that they barely elicit comment. Everyone knows Bush & Cheney are pulling stuff like that out their… hats.
I just returned from a very sad trip to the deep south. My relatives there are Bible-thumping Southern Baptists. It’s Republican country, and they used to be Bush supporters.
Now they can’t stand Bush.
What on earth happened?
They don’t care about democracy in Iraq. As far as they are concerned, the Iraqis can fight for their own democracy. But that’s relatively minor.
I could go on, but it’s awful & it’s heartbreaking; to keep this general, & make a long story short, there is a great deal of resentment over health care, the financial disaster that accompanies illness, & for others, the job situation.
If the Bush administration is losing these people, it is in serious, serious trouble.
Posted by: phx8 at June 2, 2005 08:05 PMphx8,
“They don’t care about democracy in Iraq. As far as they are concerned, the Iraqis can fight for their own democracy.”
Whoever thought that you could “give” Democracy to anyone is a fool.
Sheesh… Iraq happened because of WMDs NOT Democracy. Spreading Democracy is just an excuse for those idiots who need to feel better after killing 100,000 Iraqis.
I can’t believe those BushCo Lunatics are attacking Amnesty International. What’s next? The International Committee of the Red Cross?
Posted by: Aldous at June 2, 2005 08:34 PMOf course you recall 100,000 is the very highest extrapolation (by lancet). Most consensus estimates are less then a quarter or a tenth that many. The same estimates had 50,000 children (didn’t estimate adults) dying each year under Saddam and sanctions.
Posted by: jack at June 2, 2005 09:45 PMthe argument that “the democrats are/were just as bad” as the (current) republicans is just meaningless, dumb, obfuscating rhetoric with no moral basis or justification … the entire political system has become so thoroughly corrupt that arguing one side against the other has become useless and counterproductive, which plays right into the hands of the BUSHCO agenda, which is power at ANY cost including the very freedom and democracy that THEY, bush/cheney/rove/rumsfeld (and not ALL republicans) claim to be protecting …
i am not pro-DEM and anti-REP - i am just completely appalled by the agenda and the actions of THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE who are tearing apart everything america has ever stood for and making a mockery out of democracy in the eyes of the world …
it’s not about democrats vs. republicans anymore folks - BUSHCO’s “war on terror” is a scam and a deceit whose real target is the terrorization of every american voter into fear-based submission, i.e., “you had better vote for us because god is on OUR side and if you don’t ‘the terrorists’ will get you” - the events of 9/11 were a horrific terrorist act which killed 3000 americans - using their deaths as political and psychological leverage is evil and immoral hogwash of the highest order …
Posted by: Khandara at June 3, 2005 05:12 AMAldous, did you notice the only part of your post Jack could refute was the casualty count?
David, I can’t believe you referenced the AARP. Don’t you realize that those Swift Boat guys are exposing the AARP as a vehicle for promoting gay marriage?
Posted by: American Pundit at June 3, 2005 08:59 AMKhandara wrote
it’s not about democrats vs. republicans anymore folks - BUSHCO’s “war on terror” is a scam and a deceit whose real target is the terrorization of every american voter into fear-based submission, i.e., “you had better vote for us because god is on OUR side and if you don’t ‘the terrorists’ will get you” - the events of 9/11 were a horrific terrorist act which killed 3000 americans - using their deaths as political and psychological leverage is evil and immoral hogwash of the highest order “…
The “real” reason for the war on terror has been stated as everything from Bush avenging the attempt on his father’s life, to our quest for oil, the eradication of terrorists, ousting of a mad-man dictator and, eliminating Iraq’s WMD and chemical warfare capability. NOW we see another opinion that the “real” reason is to terrorize American voters.
I wonder when the history of this period is being taught to future generations of students what will be the “official real reason” be. Certainly teaching it as we have discussed it in a classroom environment will create a room full of students with very diverse political positions which, can be either a good or bad thing.
Voting for us because GOD is on our side and failing to do so will bring the terrorists down on you is IMHO a dramatic and overstated way to reference the belief (which I think may have some degree of truth) that the Christian Right and/or the FREC is actually controlling executive office decisions. While it would be difficult to prove that they exert NO influence, I am not prepared that they are able to convince voters directly or, through the voice of the Republican party.
I believe that voters in this country are guided by many things and are made up of people with varying degrees/levels of education. HOWEVER, I do not think that enough voters would succumb to a threat promising their demise through terrorist intervention when casting their vote to make a difference in an election.
AP said: “David, I can’t believe you referenced the AARP. Don’t you realize that those Swift Boat guys are exposing the AARP as a vehicle for promoting gay marriage?”
Let them. They are hopelessly outnumbered by AARP members and hopelessly underfunded to have any impact on the AARP, the American Association of Responsible People.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 12:12 PMHi All:
In raw numbers of US losses, Iraq is no Viet Nam.
Not yet anyway
As Always,
Wayne
“Social Security privatization, as polls show, is not a winning ticket item with the American people, which begs the question of whether the President needs glasses to see that America does not stand with him on this issue”
Heard zogby polls were pretty popular.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050530-094706-3415r.htm
Maybe his eyes aren’t as bad as some would hope.
Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2005 02:07 PMkctim, you are going to have to do better than that.
From your link:
“The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform,” Mr. Zogby said.
Which means that unlike other polls which gave the facts, this poll which put a positive spin on the plan and ignored the costs and liabilities, showed, “Oh, my gosh, 52% support”.
Laughable. 5 to 10% of those polled could be moved to the opposition with a feather of the truth about the cost to taxpayers and the non-younger recipients.
Another poll shows the younger voters are too now opposed to Bush’s plan when they see no that no guarantees are attached.
A poll by the Cato institute designed to produce a specific result is useful for propaganda only. Google polls on SS and one quickly sees when pollees are told the facts, they are opposed by about 60%, and that is across a number of more objective polls.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 03:20 PMFirst of all David, I think all polls are bogus.
But I am curious as to why you think polls that show SS reform in a positive light are wrong and biased but polls that show SS reform in a negative light are spot on.
“5 to 10% of those polled could be moved to the opposition with a feather of the truth about the cost to taxpayers and the non-younger recipients”
You could be right about that.
Especially since zogby just proved he could move people opposing it by telling the truth to older people who somehow got the idea that reform would take away the SS money they get NOW.
Is telling seniors that if they support SS reform then they will lose ALL of their benefits NOW one of those facts you were refering to?
Can you honestly tell an 18 year old today that you GUARANTEE SS will be just fine and there for him when he retires in 2050 whatever?
No you can’t. Just as you can’t guarantee that a PSA would NOT make more money.
I’m not a big fan of the Bush SS reform plan either, but using scare tactics based solely on what MIGHT happen isn’t fair.
PS
Yes he does need a transplant, but I’m sure they would just use a politicians brain and THEN what would we do. :)
PS
Yes he does need a transplant, but I’m sure they would just use a politicians brain and THEN what would we do. :)
Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2005 04:16 PM
PS kctim:
I have a question where would you make the incision? Above his shoulders or below his waist?
As Always,
Wayne
With ALL the other politicians I guess…….
Below the waist.
LOL! Good call Wayne. Much needed on this Friday.
kctim, you misread what I said. Polls that include the facts of the cost of privatization show a negative result.
A more objective truthful poll produces more objective and trughtful results.
If you came in for a used car and I pointed out all its fine qualities but ignored telling you the oil pan leaked, the head gasket leaked, and AC works only intermittently, would you not have a more favorable view of the car?
We seem to have truth in advertising for so many things except politics. Well, almost, FactCheck.org and a few other organizations are doing a decent job of trying to impose truth into politics.
If I recall correctly, The Heritage Foundation did a poll including the costs and got similar negative results as the other polls that included the full picture.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 05:41 PMkctim, you can think what you want about polls. Having created a piece of research from scratch to analysis after taking the appropriate math courses, I speak from experience that polls are only as bogus as the prejudice, intent to bias the results, or sloppy design that goes into creating them.
I can assure you corporations which market products know that very rigid and highly predictive and valid results are the norm, for those willing to pay for an objective design rigorously tested for reliability and validity, not just overall, but for each and every poll question as well.
Political groups have rigorous internal polls which they publish only if the results back their play, and then they conduct their biased and unrigorous polls for marketing their play to the public.
It’s a good idea to find out who paid for a poll before accepting its results, as well as, if possible, obtaining the math data testing on the poll elements. When I see a number of news organizations conducting polls with similar results, I lend them more credence than polls conducted by Swiftboat Vets or NARAL.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 05:54 PMDavid
“Polls that include the facts of the cost of privatization show a negative result”
I have no problem with that whatsoever as long as the facts presented are understandable, unbiased and fair to BOTH sides of the issue.
From what I know, zogby is said to be a very popular and reputable polling company. They presented questions that were not totally negative and got some swing towards the other side.
“polls are only as bogus as the prejudice, intent to bias the results, or sloppy design that goes into creating them”
I totally agree. I just believe that ALL polls dealing with politics are done this way.
Posted by: kctim at June 4, 2005 12:17 PMDavid R. Remer wrote:
The fact is, America has issues that are more pressing. These include the escalating military budget and its mismanagement, as well as the national debt and rising interest rates, which combined with spiraling Medicare/Medicaid health costs and the looming pension crisis, could create the fiscal ‘Perfect Storm”.
I like that description: “Perfect Storm”
I agree 1000% !.
We are headed for total financial/fiscal meltdown, because of the following pressing problems, culminating now, all at the same time (i.e. as you call it: “The Perfect Storm”):
[01] spending $2 trillion per year
[02] $8 trillion National Debt
[03] $32 trillion in personal debt
[04] plundered pensions going bankrupt
[05] looming bankruptcy of the Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group;
[06] looming shortfalls in Social Security
[07] looming shortfalls in Medicare/Medicaid
[08] the race to the bottom, globalization & outsourcing, falling incomes, declined manufacturing (will we remember how to make anything?)
[09] rising cost and declining quality of health care
[10] rising cost and declining quality of public education
[11] corporate/investor fraud; cooking the books; stock fraud; failure of the SEC to regulate and prosecute violators
[12] rising cost of fuel and energy; energy vulnerability
[13] rising cost of the war on terror, war in Iraq ($money and lives)
[14] rising cost of illegal trespassers, burdening public schools, hospitals, health-care systems, crime prevention (unsecured borders; governments that will not enforce the laws and prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers)
[15] waste, pork-barrel, big $money in rotten elections and politics, limited access for 3rd parties on voting ballots, government growing & growing
[16] a ridiculously and increasingly stupid, costly, unfair, and abused tax system;
It’s starting to look a bit ominous. The U.S. seems to be in decline. Will the decline be slow and gradual? Or, will it be as sudden and devastating as the Great Depression? Will there be civil unrest? I hope not, but it seems government is asleep at the wheel, and I can’t remember when we’ve had so many serious problems, growing in severity and number, all at the same time. The sky isn’t falling yet, but it looks like it could at any time.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 6, 2005 12:34 AMWould it actually be termed an implant if the organ were put in to fill a currently unoccupied body cavity? Or is it still a transplant since someone would have to be the donor?
Posted by: Taylor at June 6, 2005 10:30 AM
