posted April 12, 2006 07:02 PM              

The Disappearing President
Maybe good government could be good politics.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A16

CAN THIS PRESIDENCY be saved? President Bush's approval rating has plummeted to a dismal 38 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC News poll. Democrats will rejoice at their improving prospects of recovering a majority in Congress. But a damaged president governing for nearly three more years in a dangerous world is no cause for rejoicing. With that in mind, we offer Mr. Bush, at no charge, some advice on a fresh start.

The president's two largest handicaps aren't going away. He's spending most of his political capital, as he noted recently, on the war in Iraq. He's right to do so: As long as there remains a chance of achieving a political settlement in Iraq, that must be the president's first priority. He could be more engaged and more open to fresh thinking; he could, for example, embrace the new bipartisan commission on Iraq policy established at the urging of Congress -- especially of Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) -- and led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). But nothing he does on Iraq is likely to do him any good in the polls.

Nor will the poisonous partisanship in Washington, with Democrats united in their desire to see Mr. Bush fail while his erstwhile Republican allies scurry for cover. Mr. Bush wasn't interested in bipartisanship when he was flying high; he's certainly not going to find it now. So we propose no initiatives that, however needed, would require radical cooperation across the aisle -- no entitlement reform, no reshaping of the tax code.

Nonetheless, there are things Mr. Bush could do. He spent his first five years insisting that research on climate change is all the government need do. But the danger signs have steadily strengthened, the cost of inaction could be catastrophic, and there is ample space for creative policies that would begin to address the problem without harming the economy. Imagine if he embraced the evidence, and the opportunity.

He could seize hold of the immigration debate, where he has provided wavering leadership at best, to insist not only on comprehensive, generous reform but also on a deepened relationship with Mexico, including investment aid, that would offer the ultimate best hope for solving the border problem. Mr. Bush could renew his oft-stated commitment to ethical government by championing lobbying reform. He could give meaning to his statement of seven months ago, in an artfully staged speech from New Orleans: "We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action." That's the last we heard of it; what if he decided to show it wasn't just a sound bite to get him through hurricane season?

Or imagine the positive shock he could deliver by announcing that he would no longer tolerate the scandal of U.S. abuse of detainees, eight of whom have been tortured to death and at least 98 of whom have died in custody. Acknowledging the long-term damage done to the nation by the mistreatment, and by the refusal to punish any but the lowest-level servicemen, Mr. Bush could promise to reform the system, allow the Red Cross into his secret prisons, and work with Congress to provide a legal framework for detention, interrogation and trials.

Could good policy and good politics go together? When you've tried everything else, it's worth a shot.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

I have a couple more suggestions.

1. He might try honesty for a change and openness with the public

2. He might try to serve all of the American people instead of the 25% who own all the wealth in this country that he has served since first elected.

Truthfully though, I don't think anything can save him or his administration now. And they built their very own coffin.

On the side:

It seems even the military is now finally speaking out seeing the ship sinking. On CNN news tonight another General called for Rumsfeld resignation. After the report CNN took a poll asking, "Do you think Rumsfeld shoud resign?" The results: 58% of those voting said yes.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

- Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, former director of operations at the Pentagon's military joint staff, writing in Time magazine. Newbold resigned four months before the invasion of Iraq, but has only now gone public with his criticism of the war.

Took them long enough to speak out. A lot of people who died might have been saved if they had spoken their minds from the beginning.

posted April 12, 2006 07:22 PM              

quote:

---

Took them long enough to speak out. A lot of people who died might have been saved if they had spoken their minds from the beginning.

---

posted April 12, 2006 08:24 PM            

The last thing the country needs is advice from lying leftists...in Congress or from any other lying leftist quarter.

All the lying leftist initiatives have failed to bring the President down.

Their Bush AWOL initiative blew up in their faces.

Their initiative to hand the terrorists a victory in Iraq has failed.

Their global warming baloney has failed.

Their talking down the economy has failed.

Their outing of a top secret national security program has blown up in their faces.

Their Bush lied, people died initiative has failed.

Their get Rove initiative has failed.

Their Bush "leaked" a classified NIE has failed.

Their censure Bush initiative has failed.

Don't look for any reversals of that trend.

Do look for more leftist democrat Congressional members to get a one way ticket home in November.

posted April 12, 2006 08:30 PM            

What was the link of "real scientists" oh yeah...

http://www.physics911.net/

They sound incredibly reputable (sarcasm heavy here)

See, if the lying left can't get away with just a lie, they compile a consortium of fringe lunatics with a few degrees and call them "experts". We see them all the time, such as in the case of global warming. Proof doesn't readily exist and you their so called "experiments" cannot be reproduced, therefore invalidating their theories.

posted April 13, 2006 01:33 PM              

lying leftist Washington Post and their lying leftist writers

advice from lying leftists...in Congress or from any other lying leftist quarter.

lying leftist initiatives

leftist democrat Congressional members

the lying leftist press

You are starting to speak in sound bites, Jwhop.

Well, according to the poll results in both Bushs popularity results, and in the polls for the Nov. congressional race, the lying leftists are winning, Jwhop. In fact in some of the primaries (as in Calif.) the results were that the lying leftest did win. Just wanted to draw that to your attention.

posted April 13, 2006 05:53 PM            

It really is disgusting that people would so readily believe that our Bush and the CIA would or could kill innocent American's just to frame Muslims. Especially, when we have heard from the terrorists and supporting groups how much they hate us and celebrate the deaths of our people.

The other pertinent point that they need to remember when discussing a "conspiracy theory" of the magnitude that "is" 9-11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks, is just how complex that conspiracy has to be. Basically, ALL of these countries would have had to work together to "fool" the people, the media and experts. Then they would have to enslists hundreds of people to carry out such attacks (and yet NO ONE is talking other than so-called experts that have pseudo-credentials).

I said in the other thread, that how do we know that the person / people that wove the conspiracy theory are actually NOT part of another conspiracy theory LMAO.....

posted April 13, 2006 06:59 PM              

Francine Busby is the only Democrat candidate running while the field is split for the Republicans. Here is an article on it. But in a Republican district, Busby, had a very good showing and a very encouraging margin of the voters.

WASHINGTON, April 12 — The race to succeed former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican who pleaded guilty to corruption charges, took a complicated turn for both parties on Tuesday after a crowded primary in which a Democrat came in first, but did not win enough votes to escape a runoff.

Lenny Ignelzi/Associated Press

Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, reacts to early results Tuesday. She drew 44 percent of the vote.

The muddled outcome left Democrats and liberal activist groups cheered by the strong showing of the Democrat, Francine Busby, a school board member, but debating whether to pump significant resources into the June 6 primary. The district is strongly Republican — President Bush drew 55 percent of the vote there in 2004 — and Ms. Busby, in winning 44 percent of the vote, benefited from a splintered field that included 14 Republicans.

The race has been closely watched by both sides for a clue to the extent corruption investigations of Congressional Republicans could help Democrats in their drive to take back the House. Ms. Busby said Wednesday that she thought her strong showing suggested the power of the attack concerning the issue of ethics.

"This is a message that works," she said in a telephone news conference. "It is resonating with people across the country."

Steven P. Erie, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, said he was struck by how well Ms. Busby had done. She drew 36 percent of the vote when she ran against Mr. Cunningham in 2004.

"I think her chances are better than the conventional wisdom thinks," Mr. Erie said. "It's an uphill battle for Democrats given the registration figures, but it's not as steep as many people think. And I wouldn't have said that a while back."

According to preliminary returns posted by the California secretary of state's office, Ms. Busby's closest Republican competitor was Brian P. Bilbray, a former congressman, who drew 15 percent of the vote. He was followed by Eric Roach, a wealthy businessman, who drew 14 percent of the vote. Ms. Busby's Republican opponent in the special election will not be known until absentee ballots are counted.

Democratic officials said they remained wary of expending political capital or funds in a race that, on paper at least, appeared daunting. They have taken pains to keep some distance from it in an attempt to make it harder for Republicans to portray a Democratic loss there as a repudiation of corruption as a campaign issue.

Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, declined to say how aggressively Democrats would help Ms. Busby, but did note that his Republican counterparts had spent heavily in advertisements against her.

"I never play my strategy out in the papers," Mr. Emanuel said. "You can say this: They spent $400,000 in a safe Republican district, to hold her to 44 percent."

Eli Pariser, the executive director of the liberal group MoveOn.org, which ran a get-out-the-vote operation to help Ms. Busby, said he was uncertain if his organization would duplicate the effort in the runoff.

"We are trying to figure out the results and assess what worked or not," Mr. Pariser said. "There were overly high expectations that she could beat 50 in a race with 14 people. It certainly keeps her in the game."

But pressure on Democrats to engage in the race is certain to be intense. Aides to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee who campaigned for Ms. Busby and helped her raise money, said he would continue to work to help her in the months ahead. And liberal blogs like the Daily Kos, which have played an active role in House races this year, seized on the outcome as evidence that Democrats could take this seat.

"The race will remain a top focus" on the Daily Kos, Markos Moulitas, its founder, wrote in an e-mail message after posting a blog entry arguing that an aggressive Democratic turnout effort could win the race.

Washington Republicans said they were confident of holding on to the seat, saying the losing Republicans and their supporters would coalesce around the Republican winner.

"She underperformed John Kerry," said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, referring to the percentage of the vote Mr. Kerry drew in the district in the 2004 presidential race. "She's pretty much at her high-water mark."

Amy Walter, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said: "It's still a Republican district. There is nothing I saw from the results that suggest there is some sort of wave building behind Busby."

But other analysts said the road ahead for Republicans was hardly easy. There is a Democratic primary for governor on June 6, which is likely to draw Democrats to the polls, a benefit for Ms. Busby.

In addition, they said, after this highly contested primary, it is not certain that Republicans will rally around one candidate.

posted April 13, 2006 07:11 PM              

I don't believe conspiracy theories but I do think that 9/11 was an inside job to create a "Pearl Harbor" for Bush and the Republicans to attack Iraq. There has been published proof from meetings that Bush had with Tony Blair (see the Downing Street Memos) that clearly shows he had planned the Iraq war before the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Plus there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding 9/11. Please don't tell me what a trumped up, Bush organized committee said. If he hadn't selected the 9/11 commission himself I might give some credence to the report. He refused to have an independent investigation on 9/11 as he has done repeatedly on every issue that comes up. If he is so honest as you guys seem to think why does he consistently refuse to allow independent investigations? Who but fools would believe anything from an administration that investigates itself?

"Your" Bushie has been the cause of thousands of Americans lives to be lost in Iraq, Pidua. He was also at fault for those American lives that were lost in New Orleans due to his bungling. And while those Americans were shown dying on T.V. it didn't stop him from partying for one minute.

He bungled the Iraq war and he bungled again in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Incidently, Jwhop, when a hurricane of a magnitude 5 hits Florida you might start believing that Global Warming is not a conspiracy theory or "junk science" and when you are on the rooftop of your house we will see if you guy rescues you.

posted April 13, 2006 08:37 PM              

quote:

---

If he is so honest as you guys seem to think why does he consistently refuse to allow independent investigations?

---

Also consider that he has never allowed himself to be put under oath while testifying, and will only testify with Cheney there? Guess it's hard to keep so many lies straight. Wouldn't want to purjure ourselves now would we?