| "Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast" -Oscar Wilde |
![]() |
"The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself." -- Proverbs 11:25 |
THE White House was in no mood this week to discuss President Bush’s psychological state after an election defeat that he himself had described as “a thumping”.
Tony Snow, Mr Bush’s press secretary, said: “The President is not a guy who — he doesn’t get on the couch — what he does is [say], ‘What it is, is what it is’ ”.
But if the President ever did lie down on a therapist’s couch, any psychoanalyst worth the name would begin by asking about his relationship with his father, George H. W. Bush. The 41st US President is a figure that his son, George W. Bush, the 43rd President, has variously ignored, clung to, sought the approval of and competed with. Some commentators have long since taken to describing an oedipal struggle between them.
“You want to go mano a mano right here?” Bush Jr demanded after being told off by his father for drink-driving in the Seventies, after an incident when he had dragged a neighbour’s rubbish down the street behind his car.
His brother, Jeb (always regarded by his parents as the brighter one and more likely to succeed in politics) tried to defuse the row, telling his father that George had got into Harvard Business School. “Oh, I’m not going,” said the wayward son, “I just wanted to let you know I could get into it [he did go].”
When he first ran for Congress (unsuccessfully) he would pull out his birth certificate at campaign appearances to prove his full name was not the same as his dad’s.
But Bush Sr has always been there when times are bad. And the father’s inner circle from his White House years now appears to be riding to the rescue of the son. The appointment this week of Robert Gates as Defence Secretary, together with the looming report from James Baker’s commission, are together supposed to be signalling a new direction for the Iraq war.
It was ever thus. When the attempts of Bush Jr to follow his father into the oil business were floundering, it was the friends of Bush Sr who bailed him out. In 1986 Harken Oil & Gas bought out Bush Jr’s holding in Spectrum oil in an over-the-odds deal, an apparent favour to the son of the Vice-President’s son. “His name was George Bush,” said Phil Kendrick, Harken’s founder, and “that was worth the money they paid him.”
Such kindly interventions must inevitably include a stab of humiliation for his son, not least because Bush Jr, whose fiery impetuosity is thought to come from his mother rather than his father, has tried so hard to beat his father, in politics and in war.
[snip]
As he approaches the final two years of his presidency, it may be time to reflect how Bush Jr has more in common with his father in failure than he did when it was all going so well. Both men have a rigid belief that they are right, even when those around them tell them they are not.
Democrats should be careful about interpreting their sweeping victory Tuesday both nationally and in Michigan as a mandate from the voters.
The principal beneficiary of the election may be Nancy Pelosi, but this election was no mandate for an ultraliberal feminist who spent much of the campaign in protective custody so America would not see what they would be getting when they dumped Denny Hastert.
Election was No Mandate for More Government
Message to Democrats on winning the U.S. House: this was no mandate. Republican ineptitude handed House control to Democrats, not Democratic superiority.
So the lawyers didn't decide this election after all. The voters did--including millions of conservative first-timers whom the exit polls and media missed--emerging from the pews and exurban driveways to give President Bush what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term.
Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it.
N]obody has done it since 1988. The president wins reelection with a majority of the vote. It is a mandate.
He [Bush] has, I would argue, a mandate now.
The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won't like it, of course, but we're nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate.
Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.
The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.
Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."
After the Republicans have admitted to a thumping, why is it that the only one complaining on the Democratic side is James Carville, who today in addition to trashing Howard Dean, praised the RNC, the outfit that brought us the racist ad that defeated Harold Ford, James' supposed candidate for Chair?
Perhaps he's not aware that under Dean in this midterm election the DNC has raised record cash --- all hard dollars -- including three times as much from major donors, eight times as much online and made a $30 million investment in the '06 cycle, three times as much as the DNC put into the last midterm. Not to mention we made an $8m overhaul of our voter file which was successfully used in 47 states and through the 50 state strategy invested in states like Pennsylvania, Kansas, Indiana and Montana where we had critical victories on Tuesday.
Can a company under investigation by the Justice Department raise hundreds of millions of dollars in an initial public offering? What if there are two separate investigations? Or three?
Next week, we will get an answer to an even more daunting question. Can KBR Inc., as Kellogg Brown & Root is now known, raise half a billion dollars from investors even though four Justice Department investigations are pending, as well as an inquiry by the British government?
KBR is now a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil services giant. In recent years, it has lost money on most of its operations, but has made that up with profit from its work for the American and British governments in the Middle East, mostly in Iraq.
One of the criminal investigations stems from KBR’s Iraq contracts, with a grand jury looking into issues of fraud in purchasing supplies for the government. Another inquiry is investigating possible overcharges for work that KBR did for the United States in the Balkans from 1996 to 2000.
If this deal were being sold by a real estate agent, the ad might read “motivated seller.” Rarely has any major company been clearer about its desire to be free of a subsidiary. Whether or not the offering finds buyers, Halliburton plans to distribute its remaining shares in KBR to Halliburton shareholders.
Why the desire to get out? David Lesar, Halliburton’s chief executive, called KBR a drag on the parent company’s profits. But reading the prospectus raises at least two other possible explanations. One is liability concerns. The other is more psychological. The legal problems that could be most important serve as a reminder of a deal gone awry.
That deal was Halliburton’s $7.7 billion 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries. Engineered by Dick Cheney, then Halliburton’s chief executive, the merger accomplished a major strategic goal, making Halliburton the world’s largest provider of oil field services.
But Halliburton’s due diligence failed to either uncover or appreciate the importance of some significant issues. There were asbestos liabilities, which ended up forcing some Halliburton units into bankruptcy and cost the parent company billions.
Halliburton also failed to notice what it now says may have been illegal behavior overseas at Kellogg, a Dresser subsidiary that is now part of KBR. It says that there appears to have been bribery of Nigerian officials for years in connection with contracts there and that similar behavior may have occurred elsewhere. The Justice Department is investigating possible violations of the foreign corrupt practices act, and Britain has a similar inquiry.
While looking into those charges itself, Halliburton found evidence that Kellogg “may have engaged in coordinated bidding with one or more competitors on certain foreign construction projects, and that such coordination possibly began as early as the mid-1980’s,” KBR says in its prospectus. That is the subject of the final federal investigation, and of some foreign inquiries as well.

Despite all the complaints and demands directed at him over the past 18 months, Dean stuck to his principles. He and his supporters in the netroots movement believed that their party needed to rebuild from the ground up in every state, including many where the party existed in name only. These Democrats prefer to think of their party as one of inclusion and unity. They openly disdain the divisive strategies of the Republicans who have so often used racial, regional and cultural differences to polarize voters.
And they believe that relying on opportunistic attempts to grab a few selected states or districts as usual -- rather than establishing a real presence across the country -- conceded a permanent structural advantage to the Republicans that would only grow more durable with each election cycle.
Breaking that advantage would be costly and difficult, as Dean well realized, but it had to be done someday, or the Democrats would fulfill Karl Rove's dream of becoming a permanent minority party -- or fading away altogether. Against the counsel of party professionals, whose long losing streak has done little to diminish their influence, the new chairman began the process of re-creating the Democratic Party in 2005. And contrary to the gossip and subsequent press reports, he succeeded in raising $51 million last year, about 20 percent more than in 2003 and a party record for an off year.
Much of that money was spent in ways that obviously paid off on Tuesday, including the 2005 election of Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia -- where Jim Webb's upset victory over incumbent Sen. George Allen overturned Republican control of the Senate. Several million dollars was spent on rebuilding the party's national voter files, yet another essential sector in which the Republicans have enormous technological superiority.
Less obvious but equally significant was the spending on hundreds of organizers and communications specialists -- and their training -- in every state. In some places this meant taking the chains off locked, dusty offices that had seen no real activity in years; in others, it meant bailing the state party out of literal bankruptcy and convening meetings in counties where party activists had given up.
In Indiana, among the reddest states north of the Mason-Dixon line, the Democratic National Committee placed two field organizers and a new party communications director on the ground a year before the midterm elections. While that doesn't sound like a very impressive assault on a Republican stronghold, those few organizers created a party presence and started preparing for battle in vulnerable congressional districts. Suddenly the Republicans had to deal with ground opposition where traditionally they had faced no field operation at all -- not only in Indiana but in deep-red Idaho, Wyoming, Kentucky and Nebraska, too.
The Democrats didn't win in all those districts, of course, although they did enjoy several unexpected victories. What Dean and his organizers created, however, was an environment that allowed insurgents and outliers as well as the party's chosen challengers to ride the national wave of revulsion against conservative rule. That enterprise, in turn, surprised and overwhelmed the Republican capacity to respond. Faced with many more viable challenges than anticipated, the Republicans made mistakes in allocating resources -- and were forced to defend candidates in districts that are usually safe.
For now, Dean has reached a peaceful accommodation with his internal critics and enemies, many of whom were motivated by his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq and his support from the unruly netroots. Debate will continue over the wisest national strategy for 2008. Should Democrats continue to pursue the 50-state strategy, even in the difficult terrain of the deep South? Or should they seek to consolidate and expand the gains made this year in the mountain states and the Midwest?
Ultimately, the party's presidential nominee will make that decision. In the meantime, the party chairman has won the argument he started last year. Rebuilding the Democratic Party in every state is as much a matter of pragmatism as principle. There would have been much less for the Democrats to celebrate on Election Night if Howard Dean hadn't been so "crazy" -- and so persistent.
Robert Gates made Osama Bin Laden what he is today. This is not exaggeration. By funding Osama Bin Laden's operations, training camps, weaponry and political influence from 1979 (even before Russia invaded Afghanistan), Robert Gates personally gave us our principal enemy in the "War on Terror".
More frighteningly, all of Robert Gates' support to Osama Bin Laden ran through Pakistan's ISI. ISI has been linked to training and funding the 9/11 bombers, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, the Bali bombers and the Delhi bombers but is strangely immune from official Washington scrutiny.
I really wonder which side Robert Gates thinks he's on. With a 30 year history of pomoting and financing state and non-state terrorism, I doubt it is the side of the peace and prosperity of the American people and bringing our troops home safe.
[snip]
The cynicism with which Gates and others backed Al Qaeda is revealed in this Zbigniew Brzezinski interview:Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
The cultural crackup of conservatism preceded the final political result. For weeks before Election Day, prominent figures on the right threw themselves into their culture war only to be left in the trenches battered, scorned and disoriented. They were unable to shield themselves through their usual practices. Their prevarications were easily penetrated; derision hurled at their targets backfired; hypocrisy was fully exposed. These self-destructive performances were hardly peripheral to the campaign but instead at the heart of it.
The Bush administration and the Republican Congress could not defend themselves on their public record and urgently needed to change the subject. They required new fields of combat -- not the Iraq war, certainly not convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, convicted Rep. Duke Cunningham, investigated Rep. Mark Foley or indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. So they launched offensives on Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease, Jim Webb's novels and gay marriage. Yet battle-hardened cultural warriors -- Rush Limbaugh, Lynne Cheney and the Rev. Ted Haggard, among others -- did not find themselves triumphant as in the 2004 campaign, but unexpectedly wounded at their own hands.
The president, vice president and secretary of defense, meanwhile, marched to their Maginot line to defend the fortifications of the "war president" and his war paradigm ("alternative interrogation techniques" ... "terrorist surveillance program" ... "terrorists win, America loses"). Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld behaved as though they were the latest in a straight line of descent from heroes past, inheritors of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill. Mythologizing themselves as they struggled to gain support for "victory," they sought to distract from catastrophe by casting deepening failure as inevitable success. Envious of the "Greatest Generation," they claimed its mantle. But elevating themselves into the latter-day versions of the leaders from World War II was delusional imitation as the highest form of self-flattery.
And now the first of the Bush "warrior-heroes" has fallen. Although President Bush had said he would keep Rumsfeld in his job until the end of his term, on Wednesday Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation, naming former CIA director (under the elder Bush) Robert Gates as his replacement. Currently serving on the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker, secretary of state under the elder Bush, Gates remains close to the realist foreign policy circle that has been excluded and dismissed for six years. With Gates' appointment, it appears that the father is at last being acknowledged by his son.
The cultural style of the Bush warriors is the latest wrinkle in one of the most enduring modes of antimodern aesthetic expression. "Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas," wrote art critic Clement Greenberg in his seminal essay, "Avant-Garde and Kitsch," in 1939. "Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times."
Kitsch is imitative, cheap, sentimental, mawkish and incoherent, and derives its appeal by demeaning and degrading genuine standards and values, especially those of modernity. While the proponents of the faux retro style claim to uphold tradition, they are inherently reactive and parasitic, their words and products a tawdry patchwork, hastily assembled as declarations against authentic complexity and ambiguity, which they stigmatize as threats to the sanctity of an imaginary harmonious order of the past that they insist they and their works represent. Kitsch presumes to be based on old rules, but constantly traduces them.
The Bush kitsch warriors have created a cultural iconography that attempts to inspire deference to the radical making of an authoritarian presidency. These warriors pose as populists, fighting a condescending liberal elite. Wealthy, celebrated and influential, their faux populism demands that they be seen however as victims.
Having risen solely by association with sheer political power and economic force (News Corp., etc.), the cultural charlatans become the arbiters of social standing (especially in a capital lacking a secure and enduring establishment). In Washington, the more status-conscious elements of the press corps, aspiring to the shabby fringes of the talk-show media (the low end of the entertainment state), often serve as publicity agents in the guise of political experts, and it is from this platform that they then derive greater status. Indeed, the conservative kitsch cultural industry is centered in Washington, where Republican political power has protected philistinism from the ravages of cosmopolitanism, unlike in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago.
Under Ronald Reagan, conservative kitsch was the last nostalgic evocation for a glowing small-town America before the New Deal, with its raucous city dwellers, brain-trusters and an aristocratic president gleefully swatting "economic royalists." Reagan drew his raw material for "morning again in America" from an idealized view of his boyhood in Dixon, Ill., where his father was the town Catholic drunk, rescued at last only by a federal government job. Reagan also had a well of experience acting in movies romanticizing small-town life, produced by the Jewish immigrant moguls of Hollywood for whom these gauzy pictures enabled them to assimilate into a country that had richly rewarded them but in which they remained outsiders.
Bush's America contains no nostalgic evocation of small-town life. The scion of the political dynasty, raised in the oil-patch outpost of Midland, Texas, where the streets are named for Ivy League universities, and whose family retained its summer home in its New England base of Kennebunkport, Maine, attended all the right schools as a legacy, one of the last of his kind before more meritocratic standards were imposed and religious and racial quotas abolished. George W. Bush's inchoate resentment at the alteration of the world of his fathers impelled the son of privilege to align with the cultural warriors of faux populism.
The pathology of Bush's kitsch is the endless reproduction of vicarious hatred of the "other," who is the threat to the sanctity of what kitsch represents. The "other" lies beyond the image of the lurking terrorist to the lurking Democrat -- "America loses." "You're either with us or with the terrorists," Bush said famously. You either have a "pre-9/11" mind-set or a "post-9/11" one, according to his strategist Karl Rove, who carefully set the terms of demonization. In the great act of kitsch, Bush et al. apotheosized their fiasco in Iraq into a battle against Hitler -- "appeasers" ... "Islamofascism." By impersonating a historical context, they projected themselves into it.
Unlike the kitsch before and during the Reagan era, the Bush warriors' kitsch lies beyond unintentional camp. Their kitsch lacks more than irony or self-consciousness. It is deliberately sarcastic, mean-spirited, fearsome and fearful. Their unbridled bullying reveals their deep fears within. Their personal disintegrations expose what they fear most about themselves. Whether it is accused sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly (the biggest right-wing TV star), thrice-divorced drug addict Rush Limbaugh (the biggest radio star) or closeted gay drug abuser Ted Haggard, their self-destructive patterns invariably emerge.
In the annals of presidential truth-telling (a thin volume), there is no obvious precedent for Bush's startling admission that he lied to reporters when he offered Don Rumsfeld a strong presidential vote of confidence just before the election. As Bush tried to explain Wednesday, "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question ... was to give you that answer." Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution whose knowledge of the White House dates back to his days as a young Eisenhower speechwriter, called it "the honesty of the honest lie. Bush was telling the truth when he said he lied."
This was a gambit of a rogue politician, not a president whose stock in trade is that he is a straight-talking conservative. The shiv in Rumsfeld's back, belated though it may have been, was also at odds with Bush's image as a don't-rock-the-boat leader who prizes loyalty. Displaying a rarely seen Machiavellian side, Bush all but said that he had been in serious negotiations with former CIA director Robert Gates about taking the Pentagon job even before Rumsfeld was told that it was time to write his memoirs.
At the core of Bob Woodward's latest book, "State of Denial," was the mystery of Rumfeld's job security when even Laura Bush was privately raising questions about his fitness to continue. Woodward's implicit answer was the hidden hand of Dick Cheney. But what does it say about the new power realities in the White House when suddenly Rumsfeld -- an inflexible ideologue wedded to victory on the cheap in Iraq -- is axed to make way for Gates, an establishmentarian whose pragmatism seems at odds with the history-will-absolve-us certainty of the Bush inner circle?
The Gates selection is just the latest example of an unheralded retooling of the Bush administration that began, earlier this year, when Josh Bolton, the budget czar, was selected to replace the overmatched Andrew Card as White House chief of staff. This was a talent upgrade akin to the sooth-Wall-Street selection of Henry Paulson to replace John Snow at Treasury, or the choice of ready-for-prime-time Tony Snow as the new White House press secretary. This is not the stuff of TV specials and news-magazine covers, but it does suggest that the president is slowly learning the virtue of opting for competence rather than sticking with smug complacency.
[snip]
One of Johnson's trademark phrases was "I'm the only president you've got." As rancorous as the current divisions are in American politics, Bush has now entered that twilight zone in which he has moved beyond the will of the voters, yet he has a long 26 months still to go in office. So in a patriotic sense, rather than in a narrow political sense, the question must be asked: Can this presidency be saved?
There are parallels for a successful late-term adjustment in course, most notably Reagan bringing in Howard Baker as White House chief of staff in 1987 after the Iran-Contra scandal. But Reagan was the Gipper -- the conservative ideologue whom many liberals found difficult to hate. "Remember Reagan carried 49 states in 1984," said Stephen Knott, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs. "And to be blunt about it, people weren't dying over Iran-Contra the way they are in Iraq."
Bush's determination to govern as if he had a sweeping mandate even when he owed his presidency to hanging chads, and the Republican get-out-the-vote juggernaut in Ohio, has created wounds that will still be festering years after Bush has returned to the life of a semi-retired rancher in Crawford, Texas. The arrogance demonstrated by this administration when everything was breaking right for Bush does not leave the president with a reservoir of goodwill now that everything is broken.
Yet something is changing in this White House -- and it may be time to redraw those one-dimensional portraits of Bush as president. As Fred Greenstein, a professor and expert on the presidency at Princeton, said, referring to the press conference, "I think Bush is after a niche in the Guinness Book of Records -- for trying to reconfigure his whole style of governing when he should be a lame-duck president."
"we'll need to move America forward as soon
as those votes are cast."

Why am I weirdly happy? I’m a conservative. Many people I know and admire lost tonight. And yet somehow this strikes me as a good night for the country.
First, there would be something wrong for the country if the Republicans got to act this way in the House and then keep their majority. That would be a sign we’d become a one-party state.
But more than that, the voters have voted for change, but they haven’t gone overboard. They did not choose the Ned Lamont wing of the Democratic Party. Many moderate Republicans survived, despite my pessimistic expectations – Chris Shays, Deborah Pryce.
Ned Lamont made Joe Lieberman talk about the Iraq war. He made Joe play on his turf. Lamont made Lieberman not only explain his "stay the course" talk on the Iraq war, but actually move his rhetoric, his image and even his stance, if only in talking points, towards the majority position in the Democratic Party and in America. Lamont made Joe openly admit that it was long past time to change the course.
Now everyone was talking about the war. The referendum on Bush and the rubber stamp Republicans' stay the course Congress was real now. Lamont and the primary voters of Connecticut made that happen.
Before Ned Lamont came along, Joe Lieberman was just another Bush parroting Congressional rubber stamper. He had breakfast with Donald Rumsfeld. He was touted as being the next secretary of defense, which could still happen if Rumsfeld is forced to resign after the midterms. Joe chanted "stay the course" right along with all the other Republicans.
Then Ned Lamont came along and blew Joe Lieberman's comfortable, anti-opposition stance, stay the course incumbency out of the water and his political resume for a loop. Now Joe Lieberman's bio will always read that a revolutionary candidate named Ned Lamont beat Joe in a primary fight and Joe had to buck the voters of his own state in order to keep his political life alive, while remaking his talking points to match his challenger on a war that he'd supported from the start
I'm very surprised that Jim Ryun (Kansas-02) was kicked to the curb (regardless of his shady real estate deal), but not so surprised that all the women-beaters (Fine - MN , Sherwood - PA, Sweeney - NY) found out that Smack My Bitch Up doesn't work well as a campaign slogan.
I haven't met the man, but when he paid a visit to a field event for Damian Fracasso, the candidate for Warren County Freeholder, he did not even introduce himself to anyone. Never mind speaking, Damian had to drag him around to each person at the event and when he met the people I talked to, he didn't say much.
