Democrats will convene at least 12 committees to investigate the Bush administration.
Everything from Iraq to Rumsfeld to Halliburton to Medicare Part D will be examined.
Bush won't be a lame duck, he will be a dead duck and spend his remaining time in office isolated and alone.
Posted by Christopher at November 27, 2006 03:59 AMI think the main thing here is that the GOP is looking to blame Bush for the split, working to make the meme "we didn't leave him, he left us". They don't care about the issues, but are setting the stage for when the White House grouses about Republican legislators working with Democrats and overriding his (newfound ability to) veto.
They now see that Bush is a millstone around their necks, and they don't want to get dragged down. By spreading the myth that he's making cosy with the Democrats, they are trying to turn the base against him.
Posted by Saint Fnordius at November 27, 2006 05:45 AMGOPers see two things: If Bush has his way, Iraq in 08 will look like Iraq in 06, and the public will vote them out. And the GOPers realize that Bush will stab any of them in the back to get what he wants, even if it runs counter to the public will. Those are not two facts that would make a GOP politician seeking re-election want to align themselves with Bush. Now that they are in the minority, both publically and congressionally, each one will be lots more concerned with keeping their job than getting a pat on the back from a dishonored failure like Bush. Face it, there is one more month in the Bush presidency as we have known it. After the year ends, it will be every-man-for-himself if you are a GOPer.
Posted by T2 at November 27, 2006 06:25 AMOh yipee, with an international crisis on every global corner we not only have a lame duck president but one to be disgraced through the investigations of his own actions thus guaranteeing his lack of credibility amongst world leaders will ensure global conflict will be on the rise. As for Bush's legacy, well two things come to mind. Today, it's Mr. Bush has taught us that you have to be careful what you wish for; and from yesterday, Mr. Bush we tell our kids that 'just because you can do it doesn't mean you should' Barbara & George Sr. don't get a passing grade on parenting.
Posted by mainsailset at November 27, 2006 06:49 AMTwo words: war criminal.
Anybody want to line up with the guy? The repubs are very slow to realize the guy is trouble. They must have believed their own hype about mandates and ignored the evidence of gerrymandering and stolen elections.
Oh, where is Tom DeLay today? Read the handwriting on the wall. The repubs set a congressional landspeed record at going from "reformers" to being the most corrupt, unethical majority party of my lifetime.
Is there any principle other than capitalism, profit, greed that moves them?
Posted by angel at November 27, 2006 07:04 AMAnd our crackerjack A-Team print press can't make the same basic skeptical observations about Nero's supposed "bipartisanship" triangulation (Bolton, same old radical judges) as are immediately made on a rationally thinking blog?
Could they be any more brain-dead and worthless? Literally writing whatever spin the powerful "newsmakers" dangle before them. God, what turds.
I'd be interested in knowing what Bushco triangulation will look like, as "conservatism" is a rigid, unthinking, bankrupt ideology with no practical application to the enormous public policy issues confronting the country.
Is Bush going to triangulate on reversing the absurd tax cuts for the wealthy while Republicans go down with the ship, protecting their wealthy base? Doubt it.
Is Bush going to sign legislation reducing CO2 emissions while GOOPers vote against it? Hard to imagine.
Is Team Nero going to make the sensible adjustments required to the existing Social Security structure while "conservatives" keep clamoring for private accounts? That would give new meaning to flip-flopping!
Is Bush going to start nominating judges who aren't white males at the most extreme radical right-wing fringe of legal lunacy? Ha-Ha, you're killin' me!
I also love the whole premise here---that building a legacy for history's sake would obviously require Nero jr to abandon his failed, disastrous "conservatism" and begin passing lib'rul DEMOCRATIC legislation! That is what history would indeed demand, but Bushco is already far, far beyond any historical redemption, and our mildly retarded Presidente and his psychopathic Veep ain't never getting on board that vessel.
There is no pragmatism whatever in these guys---just vicious "conservative" partisanship. They are our version of Iraqi Dead-enders.
Mission Accomplished: Worst President Ever! Tattoo it on his ass.
Posted by euzoius at November 27, 2006 07:05 AMActually, I think Bush once had three pillars of support within his own party: religious fundies, conservatives, and neocons. Kuo's recent book explains how Bush betrayed the fundies. Though there is much more, budget deficit alone is enough to explain how Bush failed conservatives. And the failure in Iraq is seen by neocon's as a failure to execute their agenda.
Two of three constituencies feel betrayed. The third, angry. In a party where disagreement is not tolerated, betrayal is profoundly worse. So it seems likely that there will, in fact, be some Republicans in Congress who will be disinclined to work for/with Bush. And nobody will be following in lock-step for the purpose of party unity.
It is a rare opportunity for Democrats. They can choose to reach across the aisle sometimes. This has a lot of merit in terms of building working relationships. It would be a mistake to play to Bush's agenda just to get things done. Nobody expects much except higher minimum wage and ending the war in Iraq. And if Dems can build a veto-proof majority on these two issues, they will be judged by most voters as having been successful.
Posted by steve at November 27, 2006 07:24 AMSteve, I have a great deal of respect for your commentary and writing style. But 'sensical'? Gaahhh!
Posted by tempus at November 27, 2006 07:30 AM"Barbara & George Sr. don't get a passing grade on parenting."
LOL. Four sons and all four are crooks. What did you expect from a crime family.
Maybe George wants to play nice now that he knows the Congress can hand him his ass. If I were Bush, I would be more concerned about my future than my legacy. His legacy is already cast in stone, whether he knows it or not.
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2006 07:31 AMIs there any principle other than capitalism, profit, greed that moves them?
Boy Pages.
The Mad King, idiot son of George, slowly circles the drain of history. The single worst president and congress in American history. Now that's saying something! The only thing left is planning the the pretzledential lie-berry in Tex-ass. They can store his accomplishments in one empty manilla folder. The hall of fuck-ups will be quite huge.
Ah Judith, I wish I had your way with words. I'm not so much worried about Bush's legacy as I am about the pres of the US's ability to negotiate our survival. Bush was handed a vibrant presidential office where his role was held in esteem internationally. By destroying the credibility of his office he has negated America's ability to engage global markets etc etc. I know this is a duh statement, but with Bush at helm for next 2 years we are a country worse than rudderless.
Posted by mainsailset at November 27, 2006 07:55 AMI've been thinking it over, and I'm totally willing to just write down whatever bullshit people tell me if it will get me a prestigious job at the NY Times.
Posted by dj moonbat at November 27, 2006 08:52 AMI'm with dj, 'cept forget the NYT! Where's my far left sugar daddy? I'll be happy to shill for withdrawl from Iraq and address global warming and oppose private accounts in place of Social Security to anyone who'll listen for a buck...
Crap, who's gonna buy the cow at this late date!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 27, 2006 09:13 AMPunchline contest:
What's the difference between a lawyer a reporter for The Times?
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 27, 2006 09:16 AMdamn! 'lawyer & a reporter'
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 27, 2006 09:17 AMWhat's the difference between a lawyer [and] a reporter for The Times?
Easy: the lawyer has a confidential privilege. (Judy Miller can tell you more...)
Posted by dj moonbat at November 27, 2006 09:23 AMWhat's the difference between a lawyer a reporter for The Times?
The lawyer will bill you for the knee pads.
Posted by snark at November 27, 2006 09:33 AMThe corporate media has been infected by the same kind of postmodernist wishful thinking that afflicts the neocons in Bushworld. In other words, they're going to continue to try to create their own dreamwolrd reality. For example, the new Democrats elected this year aren't populists, they're pro corporate advocates of culture war issues. Iraq isn't really in the civil war most of us have been predicting, no, all we need is to keep handing out no bid contracts to Halliburton and the other cronies and somehow it's all going to work out.
Don't look for the truth in the corporate media. The changes made by the Reagan administraion to allow the centralization of media power in a few hands is working as it was intended to work. When nothing the establishment says makes any sense, remember the Powell manifesto it's the Bible of the corporate state. And they follow it closely.
Posted by herbal tee at November 27, 2006 09:34 AMWhat's the difference between a lawyer [and] a reporter for The Times?
Relatively speaking, the lawyer has shitloads of integrity! (well, ours does, at least!)
Posted by iamcoyote at November 27, 2006 10:51 AMI wonder if Bill "War on Christmas" O'Reilly is conflicted about this story?
Is it proof of the War on Christmas?
Is it a War on Peace?
Or is it an example of the forces of goodness reaching out and delivering a deserved smiting to those who would use a symbol of 'Peace on Earth' to make a statement promoting....'Peace on Earth'?
We report...you decide.
Posted by snark at November 27, 2006 12:42 PM