WP: Stop the Campaigning (BushCo's "Disdain for Governing")

[Pirate Smile]

Stop the Campaigning
The Bush White House Is in Trouble Because of Its Disdain for Governing

By Lewis L. Gould

Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page B01

AUSTIN
There is an old theatrical adage that tragedy is easy, comedy is hard. For politicians, that could be reformulated as: Campaigning is easy, governing is hard. The Bush administration, long disdainful of governance as an exercise for wimps and Democrats, now finds its political and legal troubles mounting while its time-tested campaign mode falters. The divide between campaigning and governing has existed for all administrations, of course, and was particularly and painfully evident during the darker moments of Bill Clinton's second term. But under the rule of George W. Bush and his outriders -- Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Andrew Card -- the disconnect between the pleasures of campaigning and the imperatives of governing has become acute.

Continuous campaigning, dating back to Richard Nixon and perfected in succeeding decades, has evolved into the approach of choice. Stage-managed events, orchestrated by masters of spin, provide the appearance of a chief executive in charge of the nation's destiny. Some presidents -- Ronald Reagan, Clinton and the younger Bush -- were or are masters of the art. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were less adept on the hustings and more at home with policies, diplomacy and personnel choices. Their performances varied but their impulse was toward making the government run, not creating the illusion of an executive in perpetual motion.

The Bush team brought its campaign skills from the 2000 presidential contest into the White House and never stopped its reliance on these methods. Along with that style went the assumptions rooted in the Republican DNA of the president and those around him: The Democratic Party is not a worthy partner in the political process; repealing key elements of the New Deal is but a prelude to overturning the accomplishments of the Progressive Era; and negotiations with a partisan opponent are not opportunities to be embraced but traps to be avoided.

-snip-
Meanwhile, many in the administration -- and in the media -- simply turned their minds away from engaging a dissent from a Bush policy on its merits if the critic wasn't a Republican. That a critic might be a Democrat and correct -- or a Republican outsider offering a useful counterpoint -- seemed to be a contradiction in terms for people around Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801485.html

[ashling]

1. Nominated

is that how you get something in the greatest section?

Along with that style went the assumptions rooted in the Republican DNA of the president and those around him: The Democratic Party is not a worthy partner in the political process; repealing key elements of the New Deal is but a prelude to overturning the accomplishments of the Progressive Era; and negotiations with a partisan opponent are not opportunities to be embraced but traps to be avoided.

[Pirate Smile]

2. You have to click on the bottom of the original post where it says

"Recommend Topic for Greatest Page". :)

It is nice to finally see someone write about this insane aspect of BushCo. They don't govern. They don't want to - they hate government. It is a disaster for the Country!

edit to add - It was clearly on display during Katrina. FEMA and the WH were more worried about PR then actually saving people - i.e. the firefighters who were given training in PR and handing out leaflets instead of letting them help rescue people and aid the local firefighters.

PR and lining their buddies pockets with natual treasury $$$ seems to be the prime goal of this Administration, everything else is just an annoyance.

[Paradise]

18. and, who knows, if ALL OF US ON DU WOULD WRITE, WE might just

MAKE A DIFFERENCE...

[ashling]

30. Thanks

I may be dense, but I know someone else's good sense when I see it:crazy:

[Pirate Smile]

32. That would be "national treasury" - not natual.

whoops!:silly:

[KoKo]

4. This is so Good I wish it was on DU Front Page! Endless Campaigning!

It's one of the best articles about what's wrong with the Media and some of our Presidents I've read. The difference between Campaigning and Governing. And the Media's part in this.

So many of us here feel the constant Horse Race of the Media is hurting our Democracy. And, it's allowed the worst of the Dem and Repug Party to come out. It's at the root of the Lobbyists giving the money for the constant campaigning...It's at the root of the Bickering, Sniping and Dirty Tactics.

It's a fantastic read...

[KoKo]

34. Kick .....Please Read!

:kick:

[texpatriot2004]

5. Sen. Obama once said this administration is great w/ PR but

bad with governing.

[oxbow]

3. That's what you get when you put Rove and Bush together

It's unheard of for your political advisor to not only stay on after the campaign is over, but become the main policy-maker! The end result is the permanent campaign, where politics drives policy, not what's best for the country.

[cassiepriam]

19. Yes that was one of *'s biggest mistakes. Putting Rove in an official

WH position. He should have kept him in the background.

[NJCher]

20. the writer almost has it right

It's unheard of for your political advisor to not only stay on after the campaign is over, but become the main policy-maker! The end result is the permanent campaign, where politics drives policy, not what's best for the country.

bush not only moved in Karl Rove, he moved in every advertising and PR flack from corporate America.

My point of difference is that this is not so much a Republican adminsitration as it is a Corporatist administration. We here at DU have always known it and now Republicans are painfully acknowledging it. Many Republicans are already leaving bush's camp and if they're not out, they at least distancing themselves.

bush is not a Republican, he's a corporatist hijacker and the party he hijacked is that of the Republicans.

I also don't think it was a wise idea to lump Clinton into this trend. Bill Clinton didn't love governing? He often said it was the best job in the world and everyone could see he loved being president. He read policy-related material throughout his presidency and engaged in activities related to it. What was that once-a-year event he went to at the end of the year or for New Year's that was related to issues facing the world? Anyone remember?

In fact, it was the Republicans' love of a campaign--a most destructive one over a blue dress--that was the campaign.

Lumping Clinton into this trend doesn't hold up in the author's argument. Clinton did not carry his love of campaigning into pushing policies that weren't good for the nation as a whole--like bush does.

The Republicans, as The Corporatist Party, are using the tactics of corporations: marketing, advertising, and PR. Isn't that to be expected? That is the truth of the matter-- it is an ignominious trend and what one would expect out of a party that corporations rule.

All told, however, this is an excellent point that the author is making: campaigning instead of governance, and a nation full of suckers who like being fed pablum.




Cher

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

21. Clinton was good at both and actually cared about the country

He could handle the PR aspects as well as anyone and he loved policy work.

The biggest difference is that flawed as he was, Bill Clinton actually loved his country and cared about it.

Bushco is all about money and power.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Yes, I wonder why intelligent commentators feel the need to

throw bones to the right, when they criticise them. I cannot believe he is as naive as his words imply.

The other even more glaring error/misprepresentation was to claim that Bush won the second election even more clearly than the first! Which first election can he have in mind? It was a "selection" by the Supreme Court, and indeed what everyone apart from the writer, apparently, knew, has since been verified, namely that the votes, when finally tallied gave Gore the clear victory.

That the counting of the vote was proscribed by the Supreme Court, until it's verdict would be effectively an irrelevance, must stand as one of the most flagrant and partisan abuses of the law, in the annals of American history. As for his apparent ignorance of the scale of the fraud in this last election...., what can one say!

All in all, it is a shame, since his delineation of this WH's adoption of spin in place of substance was trenchantly expressly.

[Cookie wookie]

28. Good point.

I find much fault or at least much to question about the accuracy of this article. I'd like to know from the author the actual facts of when, where and how bill Clinton was supposedly "campaigning" during his second term in comparison to what little jr. has been doing during both his terms. Dates, data. I'm going to email the author to see if he can back that up or if he's just making it up to take some of the heat off * and the press's role in the crime against the public of spreading the * pr (rather bs).

Although the subject is vitally important to be addressed in the media, the way Gould frames the argument seems fraudulent throughout. He bends history to fit his argument, rather than building the article based of facts.

Does he even know the US history of which he writes? Another Washington Post writer proves the paper supports writing so weak that it would be rejected from a first year journalism class.

Yet we have to be grateful for crumbs -- we belong to a citizenry so pummeled by lies from the media that any hint of criticism of * brings on the popping of corks.

[politicaholic]

42. You're not going to change his mind or anything in the article...

so why rail on the guy? I don't get it. The historical aspect is not the message of the article.

Take the message and roll with it. The republicans have 16 hours of hate filled conservative radio a day spewing lies and propaganda and you're worried about this guy taking a bit of history out of context?!?!

You see, that's the problem. Democrats can't seem to agree on anything. Keep up the nitpicking and the disagreeing even when someone is right and the party will stagnate through intellectual red tape.

[bettyellen]

31. you hit the nail on the head cher- and it goes to why they weren't ever

interested in governing- they knew they were handing the reins over to corporations.
this is what they do, spin for the corporations benefit.

[oxbow]

36. They like to think of Rove as the Golden Boy

the guy who made Texas a red state and went on to orchestrate a sweep of all branches of government for the GOP. Sure the Republicans won the pot, but they've lost their soul as a party in the process. The big government, big spending, all-noise-and-fury GOP that we see today is a shadow and a shame to real conservatives. And this madness will turn a whole generation of Americans against the party for good. Now if we can just get through the next couple of years...

[pinto]

6. Great article...perpetual campaign as policy. Talking points as agenda.

And, of course, the August in Crawford or the mid Friday helicopter ride to Camp David...It's the public sell that seems to count with these guys.

Why are they even in the game?

I think it's evident. While Busboy may enjoy his brief encounter with the politicking and all, there is plenty of action off stage, as it were.

This is no simple disdain for "big government" from the GOP of yesterday. This is a wholesale repudiation of the role the federal government holds in American society and a dismantling of programs supported, literally, by a broad cross section of Americans.

Inherent in this agenda is the huge transfer of wealth from federal government programs to the private sector and a shift of the responsibility to fund remaining government programs from all Americans to the middle class and the working poor. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare, in the face of fear-fed deficit defense spending, coupled with the simple abrogation of social responsibility, are crippling the federal government at our expense.

It's frustrating...while Nero fiddles the Republican Congress whittles away at the kindling.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. This does not begin to attone for the LIES they published on 10/29:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5216379
thread title: WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

[tblue37]

8. Remember DiIullio's comment about the Mayberry

Machiavellis? This is exactly what he was talking about. He said there was no governing mode, no "policy." Everything was handled entirely in terms of campaigning and PR.

Of course, they got to him and made him retract. But the phrase stayed, and we probably should keep reminding people of it.

[Kurovski]

9. All the non-stop campaigning is also expensive for Americans.

Give a speech ostensibly about policy and taxpayers pick up the tab.

Take 6 trips to a disaster site for desperate photo-ops and we're thousands of dollars deeper in the hole that Bushco has already tossed us into.

[leftchick]

12. Here is just a minor example from this week....

How much gas is wasted in these SUVs for a scripted campaign style event that happens just about daily....



A row of black Secret Service vehicles form up outside the White House, ready to take President Bush to an economic speech in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2005. These have been some of the most turbulent days of the Bush presidency -- the U.S. death toll in Iraq hit 2,000 on Tuesday, Bush's pick for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, gave up her fight Thursday , and close White House aide, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby resigned after being indicted over the CIA-leak investigation Friday. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

[cornermouse]

10. I agree with a lot of what he says, but

I disagree with his attempt to include Clinton with the Reagan-Dubya grouping.

I didn't agree with everything he did, but the fact is that Clinton did work hard at running this country and considering the fact that he, Hillary, and even Chelsea were under the kind of vicious, non-stop attacks that would have been unthinkable a couple of years earlier, he did a pretty good job. In my opinion, Clinton was a better president that Bush Sr., who I notice the writer considers to be a good working president. It was common knowledge that Clinton spent long hours working during his time in office. It is also true he did more or less campaign throughout both of his terms. The "same people" who are now running this country into the ground made it necessary for Clinton to continue to "campaign" throughout both of his terms if he wanted to be a functioning, working president who had anything to show for his time if office.

And lest anyone has forgotten, should we succeed in getting another democrat into the White House, we should keep in mind that these same people will still be looking for ways to repeat their performance on Clinton.

[ClintonTyree]

13. I wholeheartedly agree.............

that was my one bone of contention with this otherwise damning article on the machinations of the bush maladministration. Clinton, despite his sexual peccadilloes and a few boneheaded policies (NAFTA comes to mind) dos not deserve to be lumped with these other complete disasters of presidencies.
I cannot stress enough how much the press deserves to be as severely chastised as bushco. "Whether this means more one-term presidencies, a more rigorous screening process for national candidates, a more involved citizenry and a more aggressive press -- or at least a press less influenced by artifice -- cannot be discerned at this moment of potential disaster for the Bush administration". The citizenry is only as informed as the media is active in their pursuit of the truth.
The Media has been more than content to play the stenographer to the bush administration's campaign orgy. Photo-op after photo-op, very few journalists ever bothered to question the bush administration about who was running the store while they were cavorting about the country "campaigning" for one issue or another.
We don't need more "one-term presidencies", however a "more rigorous screening process", "a more involved citizenry" and ABOVE ALL, "a more aggressive press" are certainly necessary if this country is ever to regain it's stature on the world stage and do what it is meant to do, serve the people of this country.
The bush administration has redefined the word, slothful. How many "vacations" has this president enjoyed while the mechanizations of government were falling apart? How many photo-ops and speeches to hand picked audiences chosen for their loyalty have been covered by the media and reported as "news" instead of their true purpose, campaigning?
This is a great article and should be read by all, especially the enablers of this most slothful and undeserving president.

[leftchick]

11. OMG this is GREAT! "Incense Swingers in the White House"??

A MA Zing....

<snip>

The other part of the recipe for Bush's success was an unstated but evident identification of the president himself with the nation at large. Accompanied by a willing array of incense swingers in the White House, Bush attained (particularly in the minds of his base) a status that embraced both the imperial and in some cases the quasi-deified. Why then become involved in the details of running a government from the Oval Office? Appoint the right Republicans to key posts, and the federal government would run itself while providing an unending source of patronage for supporters, contracts for friendly businesses and the sinews of perpetual political dominance. It seemed to cross no one's mind that the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- a post where dealing with extraordinary crises is all in a day's work -- might need to be super-competent rather than just a superintendent.

Holy shit I believe the chimperor is FINALLY seen as bare ass naked!!!

[blue neen]

14. It's been all about the adrenaline rush for Bushco.

They keep campaigning, but don't want to do any of the actual work involved in running our government.

I agree with other posters about Clinton. He does not belong in this group. He obviously governed very well. We sure were a whole lot better off with him as our POTUS. Isn't THAT what it's all about?

[newharper]

15. Win double

Indeed but we must not forget a parallel tendency, to run down federal gov't to the point whre it can be flogged off cheap to their supporters.

"Let's get something straight right now. Few government programs are "unsustainable." A program is sustainable if government chooses to sustain it. Governments keep programs afloat by giving them money.

So when Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says his state's Medicaid program is "unsustainable," what he really means is that he doesn't want to come up with the money to cover its growing costs."

"So what happens when unemployment rises or a dozen big employers decide to stop providing health benefits? Government could simply plead poverty, squeeze the per-person limit for coverage and let the insurers deliver the bad news to patients. The Florida plan, in effect, helps government wash its hands of the very sickest Medicaid patients."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002585631_harrop27.html

Win double.

[Kindigger]

16. Article sums it up

It made me realize I'd come to see never-ending photo-ops as normal. While Clinton was occasionally shown jogging, * is seen doing everything but taking a crap(and he probably can't do that without falling off the stool). Paparazzi chasing a star, hoping to snap them doing something
"normal".

"Their performances varied but their impulse was toward making the government run, not creating the illusion of an executive in perpetual motion."

[annabanana]

17. the two "functioning" departments of the B*sh administration:

the PR Department, and the one that shovels our money out to their friends....

[Lasher]

22. "I am a uniter, not a divider"

That particular lie kept running through my mind as I read this article.

"...negotiations with a partisan opponent are not opportunities to be embraced but traps to be avoided."

[DemoTex]

23. Bu$h's "whole-hog" presidency is nothing but the squeal.

It's hard to fill your belly on squeal.

[hippiegranny]

24. It would seem the only reason to include Clinton

in the all flash and no substance category is to make the appearance of non-partisan criticism. While I agree he was a photo op president, he also actually spent time shaping policy. He was always on the job, took few vacations and governed in a way that proved that what was good for the least of us helped us all to prosper.

[NJCher]

26. Lewis Gould has Read this Thread

I wrote this to Lewis Gould:

Your piece in the Washington Post is being discussed at democraticunderground, a forum with over 79,000 users:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x169073

My response to your argument is post 20, NJCher

He responded:

I went over and was much impressed with all the comments. I couldn't find a way to thank everyone for what they had to say. Could I ask you to post a word of thanks from me for everyone's interest in the article. Thanks for your help. Lewis L. Gould





Cher

[leftchick]

33. That is very cool NJCher!

Great work! :)

[Cookie wookie]

37. My comments to Gould:

Re: "Stop the Campaigning", October 30, 2005, Washington Post.

Although the subject of the endless campaigning of George Bush, Jr. is vitally important to be addressed by major media, and those of us who love democracy and freedom are happy that someone in the media would deign to do so, we still hope that all the premises postulated throughout such an article would be based on facts. It's an old fashioned idea, of course, but nevertheless still attractive to many of us who try to live in the real-not-spin world.

To get to the point -- how was it Fitzgerald put it in his briefing Friday, "true facts"? -- well, some of us like to think that a prestigious newspaper like the Washington Post once was would hold its writers to a high editorial level, one where conclusions presented are based entirely on facts. So, just to prove me wrong when I draw the conclusion that your comparison of the "campaigning" of Bush with that of other presidencies and in particular the Clinton presidency, of which you state, "The divide between campaigning and governing has existed for all administrations, of course, and was particularly and painfully evident during the darker moments of Bill Clinton's second term," is based on supposition or maybe a flight of fancy, can you offer some evidence to back it up?

Where Clinton's inaugural photo in front of the Lincoln memorial makes Lincoln the star and Clinton more down to our -- as in "we the little people" -- size, how can those of us with functioning intellects forget the Third Reich-ishly styled sets over the past five-plus years with Bush standing before great flags, flanked by great shadows, great monuments, or with fireworks blazing, with a camera that looks up at him like a meek child standing submissively beneath their monolithic daddy god, a phase of Bush's propagandistic marketing that eerily resembled German expressionist film -- "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" coming to mind. Then there were those photo opportunities for which our hard (and I do mean hard!) earned tax money was used, of Bush flying onto the aircraft carrier or buzzing NASCAR fans in Air Force One.

We have Bush neverendingly standing in front of our poor mal-used and abused troops, pushing his war, holding a plastic turkey in Iraq, standing in front of the ignorant willing, pushing his plans to steal our social security funds, just nonstop selling, promoting, and propagandizing before pre-selected, carefully scripted "public" audiences, to sell policies that if Americans really knew what they meant to the average Joes, they would rise up and throw him out of office. These policies had nothing to do with what is good for the country and all the people, or for the good of the world, for that matter, which is why the Republicans and Bush have had to do all the Madison Avenue marketing. Just please show me the facts that support that Bill Clinton did anything even remotely approaching such "campaigning" to justify your comparison.

Then you make the statement about the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in which you wonder if Libby and company gave enough thought to whether that behavior was "wise and prudent governance." Actually, since such behavior is on the level of espionage -- better known as treason -- your gentle phrasing seems, shall we say, a bit understated.

Other than the implication about Clinton (and other presidents back to Nixon for which I just don't know what facts you used to draw your comparison), and the one postulating that Bush actually won the elections in 2000 (he did not, evidence shows, but was appointed by the supreme court), and in 2004 (Bush actually winning is not a fact, even though mainstream media hasn't thought it was important enough to investigate, there are outstanding questions about malfeasance in that election that bring into doubt who actually won. John Conyer's book, "What Went Wrong in Ohio," and the recent GAO report would be a good place to start to get up to speed on that controversy); nevertheless, there are some gems in your article that should be commended: the paragraph about Bush being "quasi-deified" is priceless.

Although the article seems confused about whether the "continual campaigning" caused the "deficiencies" in response to real-life crises or whether that outcome was the manifestation of an intentional policy of neglect, "repealing key elements of the New Deal is but a prelude to overturning the accomplishments of the Progressive Era" at least you mention the latter, which is appreciated.

Anyway, thanks for throwing the little people a big tasty crumb, and if the comparison of Bush and Clinton "campaigning," is actually based on facts, let me know, and I'll gladly eat crow.

[Pirate Smile]

38. That is great. Thanks for e-mailing him. He has a book coming out.

"Lewis Gould is the author of books on the presidency, politics and Congress. His latest, "The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate" (Basic Books), will be published next week."

I hope he takes on how Congress, the Senate in particular since that is what his book is on, has abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities during the Bush Administration.

Party above Country seems to be the the current GOP governing philosophy.

Democratic Congresses have held Democratic Administrations accountable - Truman during FDR's Administration is the one that immediately springs to mind - especially since it was during a War but they still investigated. Now, they would charge it would be aiding the enemy for Congress and the public to require their tax dollars be spent wisely instead of being given unquestioningly to Bush/Cheney buddies and donors. Just trust them, right? When have they ever gotten anything wrong? Well, pretty much every time.

We will see if that will change now that Bush is a drag on their numbers and they are running for reelection while he is a lame duck.

[DemoVet]

27. Once again:This administration doesn't want to govern, they want to rule.

Governance implies that you deal with the views of all of the governed, not just a chosen portion. If you use the last two presidential elections as a poll, at least half (or more than half, in the case of 2000) of this countrys' voters' views are represented by Democrats. Democrats in the Senate represent more citizens than Republicans, and in the House the republicans enjoy a narrow majority of represented Americans.

As long as we remain a democracy you can't run a government while essentially disenfranchising half of the population and it's reflected in polls that give bush 40% or lower aproval ratings, with little or no prospect of any improvement. Bush is screwed because his radical right-wing base will be satisfied with nothing less than the utter overthrow of every piece of progressive legislation enacted over the past 100 years, and the vast majority of Americans don't support that. It's up to his opposition to grab the attention of that majority and communicate clearly to them what they'll lose if republicans stay in power.

Democrats have a long tradition of legislation that favors and benefits real people and that's something to be proud of, unlike the present trend of running from past accomplishments in order not to be tarred with the dreaded "L" word.

[Cookie wookie]

39. How much will the book be worth

if it the author isn't any more rigorous about using facts to draw conclusions then he was in this article.

Sure, we're thrilled to have something written that's critical of the * administration and republicans' rulership being maintained by theater with the press as accomplices.

But if the book has been written with the same lack of scholarship, if his conclusions are based on false premises, what will make it worth the time to read, other that the fact that the man can turn a phrase, and we're hungry for crumbs?

After all, the "one term" business in this article is so off the mark as to be absurd, and the author is confused about whether the problems the administration is having are the result of endless campaigning or the outcome of deliberate policy choices but doesn't seem to realize how that conflict makes it look like he's trying to peacefully coexist intellectually in two universes at the same time, world and bizarro world. Which is it? And if the bad outcomes are due to deliberate policy choices, then what would that have to do with endless campaigning?

NOTE: This was intended as a reply to post #38. Sorry about the posting error.

[TheMadMonk]

40. Was he smarter/more cunning than we are giving him credit for?

That "management" at the Post allowed this to be published at all is a very telling point. Espescially when one refers back to the list of WP sins referenced in #26.

Now that the fecal matter has hit the rotary oscilator $crubbie is done for. And they know this. They also know that voter backlash is almost certain to unseat the Republicans in Congress. Hell they're going to be turffed out on their ears.

The question is, is this a setting of the stage for a "Keep the Bastards Honest" President in '08? After all if they're all tarred with the same brush anyway, best to maintain at least a semblance of a balance of power at the top.

And if so, is this gentleman playing that point just to his bosses, in order to get something (anything) critical of the Admin. into print? Or is it more Macheavelian? Shtican $crubbie by all means. However, set the stage at the same time, for a "reasonable" Republican candidate in '08.


With luck, the book might tell us which?


Hell, except for the fact that they're obviously too stupid to poor piss from a boot with instructions printed on the heel, I could almost imagine a degree of hyper-Macheavelianism.

Since there is almost no hope in hell of holding onto Congress, they absolutely need a sympathetic Presaident, in order to minimise the "damage" potential and excesses of a "screaming liberal government".

That fiscal hole that the next Congress is going to inherrit, is going to get one hell of a lot deeper before things get any better, and putting all the axed programs back into place is only going to exacerbate the problem.

A president with the collusion of a friendly media might manage to play the "fiscal irresponsibility card" well enough to blunt some of the necessary reforms, or at least spin a Republican Congress back into power soon enough for them to be able to claim responsibility for the result of those reforms if they're smart enough to realise that they are neccessary.

They might even be smart enough to leave them in place the next time round.

They have discovered that 'circuses' can only keep the sheeple entertained for so long with out some 'bread' to fill their bellies.

How much more damage might it be possible to do, if next time, they're smart enough to keep the people contented while they loot the treasury.

[norml]

29. Like the Nazis & the Soviets, for the Cons it's all about the propaganda.

Corruption and incompetence is inherent in their ideologies because they are not reality based.

Because they built propaganda machines that (they thought) could cover for any corruption or incompetence on their part, their corruption and incompetence could only grow worse, as long as their propaganda machines were intact.

Their propaganda machines are their greatest strength, and their greatest weakness.

They are not part of the reality based community.

They squash feedback.

They walk off a ledge, thinking it's the most brilliant move they could make.

In their make believe world everything that happens is a brilliant victory for them, and a tragic blunder for their opponents.

In their make believe world they have all positive personal characteristics, and their opponents have all negative personal characteristics.

In their make believe world they can get away with lying about anything, and never get caught in a lie.

This is how propaganda works.

Ideas themselves mean nothing.

The behavioral conditioning of "us all positive/them all negative" is everything.

It works on the emotions, and on the subconscious.

Example: If a rude noise is sounded whenever a friend's name is mentioned, eventually you will wince whenever you hear that friend's name.

If the behavioral conditioning is strong enough, you will reject that friend, without really knowing why.

They lie and say "We just do what they do", but there is no main stream equivalent to the extremity of lies, insults, and misrepresentations that make up the whole of their propaganda.

On our websites we expose actual lies told by them.

On their websites all they can do is say we don't cover their talking points enough.

Don't let them trip you out.

Their propaganda has no reality.

Their propaganda will be their undoing.

[glitch]

35. Propaganda is all they've got - because nobody wants what they are really

selling.

[JAbuchan08]

41. It sort of lets Bush off the hook here:

"But it's important to realize that the underlying issues are systemic, not to be cured by different incumbents of either party."

As if Bush didn't institute the system :sarcasm: