Politics (continued)

It would be nice to say that I wish Bush well in his second term.  But I don't. 

I don't like or trust the man and the people who work with him.  It's that simple.

When Bush makes an appeal for "unity" so that the country can move forward, I cringe because Bush and his team are never interested in compromise

And compromise is what's required for unity.

They don't want unity, they want capitulation.

For example, he just re-nominated ten nominees to the federal court who had already been deemed unfit to serve by the last Senate. That's not compromise.

That's an insult, a slap in the face, a taunt.

That's the way these guys work.

And so I on the day after his inaugural, I find myself hoping he fails to achieve his grand plans.

And I find myself resolved to do my part to help the opposition find the people, the money, and the message to fight back.

UPDATE:  It looks like half the country agrees with me that Bush is no "uniter".

Comments

[Tony Alva]

This is the second post that simply leaves me scratching my head, the other being your thoughts on SS reform. I didn't trust Bill Clinton as far as his penis length, but I NEVER wished or willed his proposals that had real merit to fail because of it. Nor did I "Hate" him. He was the president. I didn't voted for him the first time, but did the second. Willing failure on people who are ACTUALLY affected by our government's decisions and actions on account of your partisan rage just doesn't compute with me. With a firm position like you have, it is you and those who think likewise that are truly uncompromising. As wise and intelligent as you are, with all we've read on your blog over the past year or so, and what I know about you on a personal level this kind of thing has an almost bazaar bi-polar vibe...

Respectfully,

TA

[Scott]

I may be mistaken, but the Senate did not deem these guys unfit. The Democrats filibustered and prevented the Senate from voting on these nominees. So, Bush resubmitted the names probably with the expectation that this time the Senate will actually get to vote.

A technicality, maybe, but the situation is not quite what you imply.

[RFC]

I couldn't agree with the first post more. It seems so contradictory to other things you have written in this blog to will failure on Bush's policies. Frankly, it is this type of attitude which underscores what is wrong with the state of American politics. Like it or not, Bush won the election (whether or not 50% of Americans see him as a uniter or not). Admittedly, I voted for him (not happily) but if Kerry had won, I wouldn't be wishing ill upon his policies for the next four years.

[John Boeheim]

I have to agree with all previous comments, and add a few of my own. I am deeply disturbed and disappointed by this attitude that has been repeatedly expressed by you and many others of your political persuasion. Whether you like it or not, there are millions of Americans who are quite satisfied that Bush won a second term and they expect that many of the administration's promises and platforms will be implemented and/or adhered to. You are no better than any of the people who voted for Bush (although there is a disgusting air of superiority that seems to accompany these attitudes). Your behavior wreaks of poor sportsmanship and a childish inability to cope with not always getting your way.

It is painfully obvious that you and your fellow Democrats are unable to put your partisanship aside for the better of the country (even on matters like Social Security, which you have even acknowledged is in desperate need of reform). You demand that the President "reach across the aise" and compromise, yet it is you and your party who have engaged in constant partisan political attacks and have shown absolutely no willingness to compromise.

Again, if the Democrats want to remain in the minority for many years to come, they should follow your example and heed your advice. The American people can see which party is working to actually get things done and improve the state of domestic affairs, and which party is engaged in obstructionism and partisan gridlock.

That will enable the Republican party to continue control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships (which will eventually translate into a complete realignment of the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary system). And that would be fine with me.

[Hector]

Look everyone, Fred is a political gadfly stuck in the ointment of Michael Moorism. All of Bush's first term legislative achievements -NCLB, prescription drugs, Iraq war res - were done with BROAD bipartisan votes. Fred hates democracy, this country, and probably himself.

[Don]

Wow! That's a lot of vitriol for our president (who actually received a majority of votes, the first time in twelve years). While you may not agree with Bush, to wish ill on him and, by extenstion, the country, seems pretty strong. With regard to Bush voters, I do tend to weary of hearing how idiotic majority of people who live in the middle of the country are. If this is the democrats playbook for the next four years, they should get very comfortable in the minority.

[Clarke]

Wow, you Republicans sure know how to spin. You sound like junior Karl Roves. Fred never "willed his proposals that had real merit to fail," as TA states or "will failure on Bush's policies" as RFC states, who obviously was more concerned with TA's response than with Fred's original blog. Nor did Fred wish ill on Bush or the country by extension as Don says. As far as John Boeheim is concerned, there's a word for people like you (or at least there oughtta be). I'm not sure how to spell it, but I think it's solipsist? Is that the word for people who accuse others of having the faults that they themselves possess? Because his comment reaks of a "disgusting air of superiority." If you all are going to attack Fred for spewing vitriol, perhaps you should read his blog instead of snowballing on the comments of others who have already misrepresented him.

[OtherDoug]

What Fred calls for is the proper function of a loyal opposition. That is not hating democracy. That is actually expecting representative democracy to function properly.

We either have an opposition that is willing to stand against disasterous ideas like privatizing social security and allowing torture or we have a single party state.