Interesting range of opinion here. I sort of take Rick's comments in the same way I take Susan Collins or Olympia Snow; waiting for something better that will never come. In this case the perfect is the enemy of the good. Resisters come in all flavors--the hysterical, like McConnell, to the wistful, like Collins and Snow. But at the end of the day the issue comes to simple resistance to change; Republicans, again, represent staying where we are no matter how bad as opposed to exploring alternatives no matter now promising. What is interesting to me, being from Vermont, is that the same political dynamic can occur on the left as progressives resist change in the name of protecting the environment and education with the result, not unlike the Republicans in DC, of rising costs, declining services, and an unattractive business environment--loss of jobs.Comment Posted By bboot On 25.12.2009 @ 05:39
Hmmm,let me see: health care reform is about to pass both House and Senate, an agreement seems to have emerged from Copenhagen, the stimulus bill appears to have had some positive effect, the US image in the world is much improved, we have an orderly policy in Iraq and Afghanistan; what's not to like about this? Rick's earlier comments are far more to the point--the Republicans have not policy and no program except miindless opposition demonstrated most recently by their willingness to abandon the 'all costs' defense on HCR to get home for Christmas. Their behavior has been shameless throughout the entire discussion: not a single useful idea, not a moment of quality debate, and hours of pointless drivel about freedom with nary a thought about those who need health care.
Shame, shame. This is not a political engagement it is a readguard action meant to preserve an ever narrowing section of the electorate which may well be lost forever.Comment Posted By bboot On 23.12.2009 @ 16:37
The only place 'exceptionalism' can lead is to a fatal case of hubris; witness Bush and Cheney who believed then led us into an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps it would be worth paying attention to the source of the comment--Cheney himself. What he really means is 'Cheney exceptionalism': that he is not limited or constrained by common decency or reality. He wants everyone else to do what he wants, but sees no requirement that he should take anyone else's opinion, office, or knowledge seriously. This is not 'exceptionalism' this is pride; a subtle and powerful sin that entwines the heart and mind of those affected convincing them they are right to denigrate those around them. For Cheney, and I think for Bush, there is no redemption from this sin. They will ride it down refusing to even see reality; they are far too comfortable in their chosen way. This is, by the way, a non-tragic version of pride--there is not sense in them that from this fatal flaw comes great suffering for others and themselves. They are blind to suffering. How terrible that America should create people like this, invest them with power, then listen to them blather after damaging the nation.Comment Posted By bboot On 16.12.2009 @ 06:46
Some many misjudgments, so little time! First, the big easy one, little experience for Obama--and are we proud of all the experience GWB brought? Governor of a 'weak governor' state controlled by his party and father, failed everything before that.
Rick's own comment that BO has no policy commitments or experience to compare with Johnson or Clinton, nor a taste for bureaucracy. First, I'm not sure the latter is a good thing anyway, and on the former I think the evidence from a long campaign is precisely the opposite. He has a taste and a talent for policy that may exceed the above mentioned as it is wrapped with a calm view of himself and the world. He does not fall into policy histrionics as Clinton did from time to time, nor propose to launch untested policy initiatives on good intentions alone as Johnson did.
I have some hope that the website that seems the good and deep history of the Republican party will recognize that we have turned a corner from the ugliness Gingrich and Rove brought us in their politics of division. GWB has left the political ground littered with small-interest groups focused only on their favorite sign, caring little or nothing for the commonweal, political well-being, or the success of the country.Comment Posted By bboot On 1.11.2008 @ 05:20
I occassionally read this blog because the host seems basically decent, though terribly misguided politically.
The rest of the audience, and Rick's misguided part, are just plain wrong. The past eight years of 'conservative' government have been a disaster. The previous six with Gingrich leading the House was nearly as much a disaster. And Reagan's time was filled with mistakes, errors, and generally lazy work. It seems to me that the Conservative/Republican movement/party has little to be proud of. We are deeper in debt, engaged in pointless war, at odds with the world, and home to a vastly over wealthy financial elite that appears to care little for trickling anything down to anyone. How is this American? Are we to stand on cold street corners watching out wealth go by in limosines as peasants used to watch the king? Too many want to cling to a wealth they likely do not have but dream of and too few remember that 'the poor are always with us'--no economy has figured out a way to bring the poor along. And this is not to their credit. Why claim that being unfair is the right thing to do? I am astounded at the fundamental heartlessness of the position.Comment Posted By bboot On 27.10.2008 @ 18:08
Ah, Rick, you are once again so wrong. 'Triumphalism' is not point at the NIE, as you seem to want, it is instead precisely the mentality that led us into the mismanaged confrontations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You appear not to recall that triumphalism is the religious attitude that all is right and justified in pursuit of the kingdom as perceived by the believer. Perhaps you can see the malignant core of this notion: right makes might and vice versa, might makes right. This is a self-justifying attitude, exactly what Bush brought to the White House, that ignores any other view and assumes that all will automatically recognize the validity of the chosen view. This way lies madness as we well know. Bush and Rumsfeld underresourced the Iraq adventure on the assumption, trumpeted by Cheney, that Iraqis would fall in line before American democracy--triumphalism at its worst. We are still harvesting the consequences of this failed idea: they cannot change their minds; they believe and belive wrongly. There is no solution here but for them to be shown the door and new, wiser, leaders chosen.Comment Posted By bboot On 24.09.2006 @ 06:33
Perhaps a quick read of the Times story on the mismanagement of the Iraqi police would be instructive for you. A brief summary: despite good and widespread advice to deploy substantial numbers of trainers and support the Bush team decided not to. Consequently an institution that could have fairly quickly contributed to order and security has devolved into a rabble that tolerates violence, runs from confrontation, and appears to harbor death squads and torturers. These reasons, not ideology, are the ones that will cause the Bush name to live in infamy in American history. We were once the 'can do' nation. Bush and his people have made us a laughingstock of incompetence and arrogance.Comment Posted By bboot On 21.05.2006 @ 04:13
I don't think I would call 'Bush bashing' calling attention to the obvious stupidity of the administration. I think everyone has shown admirable restraint in the face of the most egregious idiocy and poor governance. Bush seems determined to call himself a great president when the evidence is clear so far that he has been an unmitigated disaster for every issue he has touched. His political sense is bent to the obscure so far that he is unable to sense where Americans want to be. And his tendency to bristle and fulminate have made it impossible for him to listen to anyone other than his own sorely misguided gut.Comment Posted By BBoot On 2.01.2006 @ 06:49
I guess I have a hard time with the broadsides of hostility from this site and its denizens against any discussion of your precious president. Perhaps it would do you well to think that Bushy has been pretty much a failure as a leader, managing to achieve election by appealing to factions and partisans of small issues and by using to his own advantage language that implies he holds values suggesting he will act in certain ways when, in fact, he has not and has no intention of doing so.Comment Posted By BBoot On 27.12.2005 @ 12:20
Bush's misconception of the 'War on Terror' is disasterous. There is no war to have as there is no territory at issue nor any victory to measure. There are terrorists and those who sponsor them. But War? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the times and their consequences done for the simple reason that Bush is incapable of understanding anything more complex and his primary goal is not achieving any global situation but affecting the American political situaiton to his own benefit.
Humorless twit! How dignifying! Considering the source I suspect that may be a compliment and recognition of superior insight. Most of your comments seem to have the same pointless, innane anger to them. Rest as easily as you can on your bed of nails this season and may your desire for a Bush destruction of our economy and values be denied you for your own good.Comment Posted By BBoot On 23.12.2005 @ 10:33
May you in this season have some brief respite from the terrible fear that seems to motivate your fulminations against decent people and actions. You have sadly misunderstood the purposes of life and of governments and confused one for the other in your hierarchy of values.
Take the time to think more carefully about the implications of your threats: consider if you are the target not the beneficiary. And think back to the poison loosed on America by the last play of unchecked government intrustion under JEHoover. And the misery of broadly cast aspersions by Joe McCarthy.
Have you, sir, at long last no decency?