TheAgitator.com
Keeping My Promise
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004I promised I would abide by a self-imposed one-week hiatus from Bush-bashing. That’s why I will not link to this Indianapolis Star piece, which details a conversation then-OMB Director and Hoosier Mitch Daniels had with the president over steel tariffs, in which Daniels asked Bush, “if you can’t do the right thing when you’re at 85% approval, then when can you do the right thing?”
Also, I will not point out that at the time, I wrote pretty much the same thing. Sensible folk, we Hoosiers.
And I’m nothing without my word.
What do you do, when:
1> The people who decide whether or not you stay in office want you to do the wrong thing?
2> Doing the right thing means that those who want to do EVEN MORE of the wrong thing replace you and get the power to do so?
There comes a point where one must stand on principle, regardless of the consequences — but one must consider the collateral damage to what’s good before doing so, for compromise may very well be the lesser of two evils.
Wrong target, Radley — it is the greed of the American people that is driving this train. Until that changes, it doesn’t matter who is in the Big Chair — you’ll still get the same result.
Rich, Rich, Rich….Either he can’t stand up for his principles or his ideology has changed. Either way, why should I vote for him again?
The only link I saw was to the Hoosier Times, which is a satirical publication. No Indy Star link.
Frank — there is a third potential reason for Bush’s actions — picking his battles, based upon the priorities of the problems.
The reason I’d vote for him again is simple … in this era of Mutually Assured Dumbness, the likely alternative to Bush will be worse for us, in several areas — especially when they have historically favored universal impotence in the name of “diplomacy”, over common sense.
When we attack Bush, we are attacking the symptom — not the problem — and attempting to cure the problem by replacing Bush will result in making it worse.
“We the people” are the problem — for we demand the very kinds of problem-solving by rent-a-government that Bush is promoting in some areas. Until a majority of us stop demanding rent-a-government, we’ll keep getting it … from either party.
Pick his battles?
He is in the driver seat to privatize social security, he did not.
But he found time for a prescription plan.
Picking battles and triagulation are hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, and things that I was sure that Bush didn’t care for…
Rich, I was just sitting here wondering how in the hell can Kerrry,Edwards, Clarke and Dean continue to rail against special interests and lobbiest in such a holier that thou manner now that its been so publicly revealed that they all have been recieving contributions from these same groups but after reading your post I realized that you had answered my question. Mutually Assured Dumbness is the answer, this is exactly what they are counting on for cover. Thanks again.
Radley:
Thank you for insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads your site with the tired “I could point out X, but I won’t because I’m not that kind of guy.” schtick. Next time just post the links.
Frank:
Is he really in the driver’s seat on Social Security?
Between the Leftist/moderate components of Congress, the social activists (when amplified by the media), and the distrust of the stock market that is fed by the wealthism of “we the people”, the Social Security “third rail” is highly charged when privatization comes up.
This of course cuts both ways — thank God the mirror image of the above stopped Hillarycare in the 1990′s.
Joe:
The problem with a more “principled” (doctrinaire) approach to governance in this nation is that the people might not keep you — and your ideas — around long enough for events to prove you right. This is rife for abuse, as you note regarding the last President — but it is also a reality that a President who is truly seeking the best outcome for the nation must recognize, and prioritize his efforts to maximimze the good he can do.
We’re the problem — Bush’s “triangulation” is just the symptom.
Manuel … thanks for the comments.
The parallels between today’s Mutually Assured Dumbness and the Cold War’s Mutually Assured Destruction are striking — two parties, of approximately equal strength, that are so dominant that they crowd out alternative viewpoints from the public debate.
Radley’s post back in 2002 is good, but that other link is full of unfounded and unproven baloney.
Didn’t Bush repeal the steel tariff?
Oh that’s right, he did.
The privatization of social security will come when we all invest early in life to take care of ourselves and the “Viagra Welfare” is over.
He also IMPOSED the steel tariff.
Also, the link was to Hoosier Review, which did refer to the Indianapolis Star article a little lower on the page.
Why does the phrase, “term limits” keep coming to mind when debating topics like this?
True, it has it’s problems, but I believe we need term limits very badly. All we have to do now is convince all of these oh-so-reasonable career politicians to willingly go back to the private sector, if even for the first time…