"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." ~ Sun-tzu
Well, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat again is making news today.
According to the AP, a news organization that seems to take a great deal of delight in any story, (or even non-story) that makes the Republicans and George W. Bush specifically, look bad, Michael Dowd, a "top Democratic strategist", is disappointed in Bush's leadership.
Dowd, (no relation to Maureen or even Elwood P?) labeled by the fawning AP as "a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal" has come out with the statement that his faith in President Bush was "misplaced".
So, he never really switched parties in the first place. He just thought Bush was more Democrat than Republican. Or did he?
According to the Liberally biased AP, "He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides."
Who is he kidding?
Let's take these allegations one at a time.
President Bush failed to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war?
Bush has never ceased to call for a shared sense of sacrifice. From the very beginning of this conflict in Iraq, he has constantly referred to the struggle as a long road that we must travel to assure freedom throughout the world, and that it would take tremendous sacrifices for all Americans.
I guess the the Defeatocrats and the RINO appeasers in Congress who have constantly opposed and undermined his efforts don't consider themselves part of that America.
He failed to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq?
If President Bush has failed to build consensus, it hasn't been his fault. One need only to look at the Democrats in both Houses of Congress to see who has failed in that particular endeavor.
If anything, Bush has tried too hard to reach consensus with the Democrats, with his concessionary attitude toward those who would seek surrender in the war on Terror. You know, like Murtha and Kerry et al.
He ignores the will of the people? What people? Democrats? "Jihad" Jane Fonda? "Peace through surrender" Cindy Sheehan?
Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. It's true many Americans have changed their minds about how this war should be fought, but winning the war is still the ultimate goal of most of us. And that is precisely what he is trying to do, in spite of whining bleeding heart liberal sob sisters like Joe Biden and Chucky Shumer.
He didn't hold those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib accountable?
On what planet? Was Lindy not convicted? Was her boyfriend's sentence commuted? If so, I didn't hear about it. Hasn't everyone involved in that scandal been punished?
What more does Mr. Dowd want?
Mr. Bush approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides"?
Well, most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership.
That said, really the only reason his circle of aides could be shrinking is the number of baseless allegations of scandal ensuing from the left side of the aisle, aimed at discrediting the integrity of Bush's aides. Rather than distract America from the truly important issues, they simply resign. It isn't because they no longer believe in Bush or his mission.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Mr. Dowd is a Democrat plant, placed in Bush's inner circle to discredit him, thereby destroying the administration from within. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't think that way.
I do think, however, that Mr. Dowd is a fair weather opportunist who jumps from one side to the other depending on which party appears to have the political advantage over the other.
They call those kind of people "mugwumps". They are the ones who sit with their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.
If Bush has made any mistake it was in the hiring of this guy. Obviously, he failed to properly screen those who work on his campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Literally anything is an excuse for a tax increase among populist activists, even within the GOP.
Democrats have a severe distrust of individuals, who they call the "sheeple" (i.e. you and me) who do not embrace their enlightened ways.
Instead of seeing the government like an umpire like conservatives, they see it like a nuturing parent caring for us benighted individuals, like a Big Brother. Hence, Democrats really believe things would be better off if the government taxed 50%, 75%, 90% of our income. That way, we can share wealth and decide how resources will be spent democratically by a vote.
Forget the fact that the government is a scatological Midas that turns everything it touches into #2. Even if democratic socialism could work economically, it has horrible effects upon diversity. I might like Brahms, while the majority may like Britney. Put the matter to a vote, then if I like Brahms, well, too bad, listening to Britney becomes compulsory. Since it is easy to think up examples like this in every realm of human life, it becomes obvious why everyone in the USSR drank themselves to death. Why people think these ideas will work in the United States is beyond me.
Excellent synopsis!! I have to agree that somewhere along the line of the screening process, this guy slipped through the cracks. Just another "fungus" but it can be wiped out and we don't even have to call Orkin!
It's too bad we don;t have a leader with a true "my way or the highway" attitude to provide some contrast for Democrats.
Maybe then perhaps they'd know how ridiculous these accusations against Bush are.
The President has bent over backwards to work with Democrats and all he's gotten for his efforts is an unrelenting six year campaign of hate and abuse.
He's never once answered back in the same personal and insulting language directed at him by the likes of Pelosi and Reid.
If anything WE conservatives should be complaining about a President who trys too hard to get along with idiots like the leadership of the Democrap Party.
Yep Mike, that's what I said. Sorta. Thanks for offering the clarification.
Good post. This Dowd is just another Monday morning quarterback who doesn't view thinks with a consideration for events as they happened. It's always easier to look back and criticize, leaving out pertinent details.
"most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership."
Now, HERE would be a major difference between I and thou. Or even my camp and yours. NO ONE I know considers a "my way or the highway" attitude a desirable quality of leadership.
It works well for dictators, not leaders of the free world in a representational gov't.
Well, Dan, When I was a marketing manager many years ago, I had a saying, "You can do things one of 4 different ways: The right way, the wrong way, the company way, or my way. Do things my way and you'll be alright."
Imagine, if you will, several people sitting around trying to decide where to eat lunch. One suggests Italian, one suggests Mexican, one suggests Chinese, and so on. The argument goes around and around until eventually someone says, "I don't care where you go but I'm going to Pizza Hut!" Whereupon all the others get off their duffs and follow the leader to Pizza Hut.
That's leadership.
Or as Churchill once defined Democracy...two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
*****
Also, I'm sure there was a better, more interesting place to eat and drink in the neighborhood, than pizza hut. Cheap skates. So much for the Mom & Pop places. So much for the small business restaurants that go out of their way to try and knock you out. So much for even a creative idea as to lunch.
*****
Anyway, by Sept. (and even the Administration itself is trying to prepare some of you lemmings for this) Bush's last remaining support from Republican Officials, and the GOP rank and file, will peal away like a banana skin. (Sorry 'bout the mixed metaphor.)
Yeah, that's right. Just watch. Fasten your seat belts, and remember, you heard it here first, on Pearls Before Swine.
"It's too bad we don;t have a leader with a true "my way or the highway" attitude to provide some contrast for Democrats. M'sA
We've just concluded a brief look at Andrew Jackson's term's in the Whitehouse at school. He had that true "my way or the highway" attitude and is remembered as one of the great presidents.
So Daddy - Bushie doesn't rate as a strong Daddy for you?
Well said Mark, I would have little to add. I am still a Romneyite, economic thing. I know plenty of moral conservatives that can't balance a checkbook but would bash Mitt because he is a Mormom, an American born sect of Christianity that rcognizes our founding documents in its tenets, no other Christian sect, yes they are different sects of the same faith, goes as far to appreciate what those documents have sealed into law as America. I have very serious theological disagreements with all Christian faiths as a Christian that looks to Matt.6 and the Torah for guidance through life.
I ain't electing a Pastor, I am electing a POTUS, A General to lead America not preach to it.
As a witness to my theological arguments, Mark, WSY.
The Dems will Never allow the truth to get in the way of their agenda.
By the way Mark,
Could I interest you to go to the following web page and check out my petition calling for a full investigation of the Sandy Berger theft of documents from the National Archives:
http://petitionspot.com/petitions/
theftofdocuments/
If you agree with it, you can sign it and see if you can get others to sign it also.
From all reports there seems to be a government cover-up of the whole thing.
You can also get to the petition by going to my Blog site and clicking on the petition link at the top of the Right-hand column.
Thanks,
So, would all of you who so desire a strong leader like a Stalin to take charge? He was a "MY way or the highway" kind of a guy, if ever there was one.
"My way or the highway" is fine as long as you can sheepishly fall in line behind your leader.
Not me, thank you.
You are comparing apples and oranges, Dan.
Stalin was a ruthless dictator who murdered millions of people who he merely suspected of being dissidents.
If Bush were that kind of leader, you and most of your friends would already be dead or serving life in a gulag in Siberia, or Kentucky. (much the same)
Seriously though, if you don't recognize the difference in a strong leader and a ruthless dictator, you need to seriously re-evaluate your thought processes.
I'm not comparing Bush to Stalin. I'm comparing those who'd blindly follow a strong leader to those who would reject the leadership of someone with whose policies they strongly disagree.
Dan, the following certainly looks like a comparison between two leaders with a my way or the highway kind of mentality:
"So, would all of you who so desire a strong leader like a Stalin to take charge? He was a "MY way or the highway" kind of a guy, if ever there was one."
We elect a leader on the basis of his campaign promises, his political philosophy, his plans for the country. Once elected, it behooves those beneath him to work toward HIS vision, as he was the one the people elected. It behooves the leader we elected to follow through on those promises and plans presented to the electorate before he came into power. Thus, he in fact, has a duty to proceed in a "my way or the highway" manner as regards his subordinates. Such a leadership style does not mean he takes no advice, but only that once a decision is made, it is based on HIS vision and how the advice does or does not further that vision. Those who insist the leader follow their advice at the expense of the leader's vision, the vision for which he was elected, know where the door is. They are out of line and undermining the leader.
There's a difference between a leader and totalitarian dictator.
A problem is when people can't recognize the difference.
"There's a difference between a leader and totalitarian dictator.
A problem is when people can't recognize the difference."
Anytime you're confused, Mud, let us know. We'll be happy to sort it out for ya.
Oh, okay then, Mudkitty, which do YOU think President Bush is?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Oh, and one other thing...
Everyone who reads this Blog, Republican, Democrat or Other, should immediately go to that link and sign the petition on the Sandy Berger thing.
It's the biggest Scandal our Government has ever covered up, and BOTH sides are dirty.
The Truth MUST be made public.
As one with a strong Russian Heritage, I resemble your remark comparing Siberia to Kentucky!!
Sorry about that, Rick. Dan lives in Kentucky. I thought it was funny. Besides that, I used to live in Evansville, Indiana, and Kentuckian jokes are very popular there.
To quote GW Bush - "Things would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, heh heh, as I am dictator." Quote unquote. (Shall I provide the video?)
I think W is the dupe of aspiring totalitarians, and as such is a failed, but aspiring authoritarian and servant of plutocrats.
However, our 3 branches of government have served us well since the founding, and thus, we will not be submitting to a dictator anytime soon.
Actually President Bush has been saying it will be a long war since Afghanistan.
When he addressed the American people on 9-18-2001 he said it was going to be a long war, we will have to make sacrifices, and you are either with us, or with the Terrorists. Among many other things I have forgotten but can probably be googled or found on the White House Website.
Dowd is a Moron.
Bush said it "could" be a long war, while his bosses were saying it would be a cakewalk. No one expected it would go on longer than WW2.
Don't pretend. These matters are serious.
Bush has bosses?
Like I said Mark, don't pretend...
You know what a plutocracy is,right?
"Bush said it "could" be a long war, while his bosses were saying it would be a cakewalk."
"Experts" have been making cocky predictions at the outset of wars since forever. The British thought they could scatter the American rebels within a couple of weeks, while the Americans had similar notions about the Brits. Old story. Meaningless.
Are you suggesting we ignore the opinion of "experts," Marshall? More of the go it alone mentality. My way or the highway?
Believe it or not, sometimes "experts" are right.
Proverbs tells us "For by wise counsel you will wage your own war, and in a multitude of counselors there is safety."
In a multitude of counselors, not a pack of yes-men. Wisdom demands prudence. Fools rush headlong after their own folly.
"If Bush made a bad hire..."
Duh! What other hires does he make?
Katrina anyone? They're used to be a drink in NOLA called the Hurricane...
"A pack of yesmen"? Spoken like a true fool rushing headlong after his own folly.
Tell me if this is a true or false statement, Dan:
A "yes man" is anyone who counsels the president along a path Dan doesn't like.
And for your info, the prez has "experts" on both sides of an issue advising him.
Oh really? Marshall, the insider? "The prez has people on the other side who advise him...?"
Daz right, they're called the Democratic Congress. Both Houses.
But will he listen? No. So Marshall, what's your point? Sheer blind allegiance to Republicans?
Marshall stated:
"And for your info, the prez has "experts" on both sides of an issue advising him."
Mudkitty responded:
"they're called the Democratic Congress. Both Houses."
Actually mudkitty, I think Marshall is talking about something different. When he says the president has peopole from both sides of an issue, he means BOTH from the traditional conservative point of view as well as the neo-conservative point of view...
That way, he gets to hear BOTH what Big Oil is thinking and also what the Military Establishment is thinking, throwing in a bit of what the Pharmaceutical and Agribusiness industries has to say.
Marshall, have you seen the Bush cabinet? It reads like a Who's Who of the Oil and Military Machine industries. They come to the Bush Whitehouse from these industries and, when they're done (or about to be indicted?), they leave and return back to those industries.
Some sources, if you're interested can be found here and here, for starters.
So let me get this straight: Clinton had people from "Big Oil", "big Pharma" and all those other categories mentioned, as well as those of the more liberal persuasion, but Bush has only "yes men". Is that what Dan and Mudkitty are trying to say? What a couple of yahoos. Every prez pads his cabinet with those HE feels will counsel and advise him best.
Amd Mudkitty. I'm an "insider" of the Bush admin like YOU were a insider sailing with John Kerry in Cambodia during Christmas vacation. This is in reference to your "knowledgable" remarks about the Swift Boat vets on the next post.
Marshall...you are the insiders insider (LOL)...what's your point?
And as for big pharma, etc... you have it ass backwards.
Let me ask this question: Do you think it wise to have people from the Coal companies overseeing coal safety and cleanliness?
Do you think it wise to have people from the Oil companies write our energy policies?
Do you think it wise to have the fox guarding the chickencoop?
I'm no fan of Clinton, he may well have had a bunch of Yes men and women talking to him, too. It wouldn't make it right.
I'm saying we ought to demand that our leaders not merely pad their cabinets with a bunch of good ol' boys who helped get them elected, who have deep pockets, who have industry connections that will help us get rich later on when they rotate out of gov't and into private corporations.
It would be wrong for Clinton to do it if he did and it IS wrong for Bush to have done so. At least from the perspective of We, the People. We ought not put up with such foolishness.
I find it interesting that those on the Right who say they distrust Big Gov't (all the while growing it larger with each Republican administration) apparently have no problems with Big Industry.
I just don't get it.
Here's what I don't get: that someone who relishes the opportunity to get all holy in defending their arguments would dare to judge people they don't know. How can you assume that those who populate Bush's cabinet are less than concerned for their country? What evidence do you have that they are not, or that they accept their appointments for the sole reason of enriching themselves?
More questions for you: Who better to oversee an industry than someone who knows the industry? What evidence do you have that would prove they have no concerns about how their decisions affect the nation? Isn't the fox guarding the chicken coop a stupid analogy considering the first two examples have the chickens overseeing and writing policy?
Muddy,
My point is that neither of us knows for certain without actually being there, but your assumptions are based on bias, while mine are based on logic and probability until real facts are available. You assume nothing but yes men, I assume Bush has qualified advisors that give him as many angles as possible for him to consider. That is, until there's credible evidence to the contrary.
We are supposed to have a transparent sunshine government. No secrets, outside of military/CIA stuff.
Fairy Tales are true - as in Foxes Guarding Hen Houses.
Dig it.
"I assume Bush has qualified advisors that give him as many angles as possible for him to consider. That is, until there's credible evidence to the contrary."
Funny.
mudkitty said...
Bush said it "could" be a long war, while his bosses were saying it would be a cakewalk. No one expected it would go on longer than WW2.
Don't pretend. These matters are serious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NO!!! Mudcat Bush said it "Will" be a long war, possibly longer than THIS generation, there will be no signing of a Treaty, there will be no enemy in Uniform.
Dont pretend you know a damn thing about anything. You cant even put a coherent sentence together.
You have such evidence, Dan? What makes you think Bush hasn't the type of advice I describe besides the fact that you don't like his moves? I think you suffer from BDS like most libs.
"I assume..."
"...therefor you are."
Post a Comment