The party pooper
How George W. Bush wrecked the Republican party
The party pooper
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
As President Bush neared the end of his tumultuous tenure, I was asked to assess his record and legacy in my Sunday newspaper column. I chose to focus on his political legacy – specifically, the serious damage he has inflicted on his own party. Even Republicans and conservative scholars acknowledge this damage; to argue my point, I needed only to quote their words. Here’s a vastly expanded and updated version of the print column:
We already know that George W. Bush will walk away from his wreckage seven days hence, having bequeathed us record budget deficits, a tanking economy, a needless war costing half a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, a sullied global image, and so much more.
But one other facet of his legacy is widely overlooked: He wrecked his own Republican Party.
Don't take my word for it. Various Republicans rendered their verdicts on Bush long before the November election. For instance, Peggy Noonan, the commentator and former Reagan speechwriter, argued a year ago that “Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart.”
If that sounds too harsh, perhaps Tom Davis, a former House GOP leader, will strike you as more diplomatic. Referring to Bush last spring, Davis said: “He's just killed the Republican brand. . . . The Republican brand is in the trash can. . . . If we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.”
Well, OK, that too sounds a tad hostile. But given the precipitous decline of the GOP since 2004, these sentiments are no surprise. Bush doesn't deserve all the blame; a scandal-marred Republican Congress, featuring Tom DeLay, sexual predator Mark Foley, and convicted felon Ted Stevens, played a crucial role in alienating the electorate. But clearly the buck stops with the guy who dubbed himself the Decider.
Thanks primarily to Bush's leadership, the Republicans have plummeted to minority status, dashing Karl Rove’s dream of crafting a permanent governing majority. They lost the '08 presidential race (at last count) by 9.5 million votes, the party's widest losing margin in 44 years. Since 2004, they have lost 54 House seats and 13 Senate seats - probably 14, since Democrat Al Franken will likely weather the last-ditch GOP court challenges to his apparent victory in Minnesota.
And the Senate situation threatens to get worse. It now appears that at least four current Republican senators will forego the opportunity to run for re-election in 2010; after all, it’s no fun to be stuck in the minority, with no foreseeable prospects for recovery. Worse yet for the GOP, three of those open seats will be located in states where Democrats are now strongly competitive: Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. This new Republican headache is yet another symptom of the ills inflicted on the party by its leader.
Basically, Bush damaged his party in two fundamental ways: He turned off a lot of conservatives within the party's base; and, more importantly, he turned off the moderate and independent voters who typically swing elections to one side or the other.
Small-government conservatives lost their enthusiasm for Bush because he wound up spending like a liberal Democrat. While partnering with the GOP-led Congress, Bush never vetoed a spending bill. Indeed, as early as 2005, some of the small-government conservatives were already seething; that year, former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett authored a book entitled Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, and wrote that Bush’s governance “runs totally contrary to the restrains and limits to power inherent in the very nature of traditional conservatism.”
And, just last week, conservative activist and Reagan biographer Craig Shirley said he and his brethren were “disgusted" with Bush's “betrayal of Reaganism.” He noted that 20 percent of all self-identified conservatives voted for Barack Obama, and he warned that "it will take some time - possibly as long as it took the GOP to throw off the millstone of Herbert Hoover - before the GOP can right itself."
But Bush's worst political legacy for the GOP is his alienation of swing voters. The exit polls tell the tale. In the 2004 election, Bush essentially split the independents with John Kerry; in 2008, John McCain (dogged by the Bush track record) lost independents by eight percentage points - and the election itself by seven. By a different measure, Bush lost self-identified moderate voters by nine points in 2004; four years later, McCain lost them by 21.
Why Bush lost the center is no mystery. The reasons include his mendacious salesmanship and poor execution of the Iraq war; the erosion of America's image abroad; his inept response to Katrina; the aforementioned budget deficits; his elevation of incompetent party hacks to crucial government posts; his opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research; his notorious attempt, in cahoots with the Republican Congress and the religious right, to keep Terri Schiavo alive in defiance of state court rulings and the wishes of her family.
Republicans are particularly cognizant of the political damage they have suffered thanks to Bush’s misadventure in Iraq. (At his final press conference yesterday, Bush said he was “disappointed” to learn that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs.) As former Bush speechwriter David Frum writes in his latest book, “Iraq is the great wreck and failure of this presidency, the great enduring shadow on our party…Under George Bush, Republicans have lost their historical advantage as the party of national security.”
Things have gotten so bad on that the candidates for the GOP national chairmanship apparently consider it advantageous to publicly rebuke Bush on Iraq. At a debate last week, current Republican chairman Mike Duncan (who’s seeking a new term) cited Bush’s failed “prosecution” of the war. Candidate Michael Steele faulted Bush’s “failure to communicate on the war,” and tossed in Katrina as well.
Beyond Iraq, Bush's damage to the party is reflected in the fact that fewer Americans embrace the GOP “brand.” According to 2004 exit polls, equal shares of voters in that election saw themselves as Democratic or Republican; in 2008, by contrast, Democratic voters had a seven-point edge. Meanwhile, a new survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center puts the party-identification gap at 10 points - driven largely by the young voters who came of age watching Bush's serial failures.
A new analysis by the conservative Hoover Institution deftly frames the GOP quandary: “The decline of Republican strength occurs when strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans become independents, and independents lean more Democratic or [are] even becoming Democrats. . . . The problem for Republicans is that their base is slowly shrinking, and they cannot win without the support of moderates” - all of which suggests “an emerging party realignment” to the GOP's detriment, perhaps “a long dry run.”
The Hoover analysis barely touched on another Republican woe: the hemorrhaging of support among Hispanics, the fastest-growing ethnicity in the electorate. Bush, however, is not to blame for that. From day one, he intended to champion path-to-citizenship immigration reform - not just because his stance would draw Hispanics to the GOP, but because he sincerely believed in it. He ultimately was foiled by the border-security activists and politicians on his right flank.
Long after Bush is gone, the party will be stuck trying to figure out how to attract Hispanics while somehow appeasing the conservatives who vociferously oppose immigration reform. Bush did try to address this dilemma at the press conference yesterday, noting that the GOP now seems saddled with an image of exclusion and intolerance:
“I am concerned that, in the wake of the (’08 Republican) defeat, the temptation will be to look inward… Take, for example, the immigration debate. That's obviously a highly contentious issue. And the problem with the outcome of the initial round of the debate was that some people said, ‘well, Republicans don't like immigrants.’ Now, that may be fair or unfair, but that's what - that's the image that came out. And, you know, if the image is that we don't like immigrants, then there's probably somebody else out there saying, ‘well, if they don't like the immigrants, they probably don't like me, as well.’ And so my point…is that our party has got to be compassionate and broad-minded.”
But, overall, Bush deserves the brunt of the party's ire. His arrogance, coupled with his certitudes, did the most to trash the brand. I doubt that Republicans are angry to the point of throwing shoes, but many probably were not amused at Bush's huffy answer to a question during an ABC News interview that was part of his legacy tour. When it was pointed out that the Saddam Hussein had not conspired with al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda had not been a presence in Iraq until we invaded, Bush fired back: “So what?” That’s the ‘tude we all know.
And when he was reminded, during the press conference yesterday, of his notorious foot-dragging on Katrina (the crisis that permanently wrecked his poll standing), he replied in familiar fashion: by denying factual reality. Here was Bush yesterday: “You know, people said that the federal response was slow. Don’t tell me the federal response was slow.” Yet a government report in 2006 concluded that a “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision-making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror,” and stated that “earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response.” Care to guess who authored that report? The House Republicans wrote that report…shortly before the voters booted them out of power.
All told, Bush is staying in character to the bitter end. And, in political terms, his party is stuck with clearing the debris and struggling to map a road to recovery.
I know it's standard to wait 25 years to evaluate an event as historical, but W has vaulted to worst president ever in a hurry. Carter owes him a thank you note. Full disclosure: unlike hard-right folks, I don't think Carter was a bad president. I think he was ineffective and was dealt a really crappy hand (first ever case of "stagflation"), but Carter left office knowing he didn't deliberately mislead the US public. Call him weak or misguided, but he was NOT dishonest. I think W believes all his lies, so he may also think he was honest with the people, but the facts coming out are suggesting otherwise.— Phrossty- 7 days and counting.
- I'm with you Phrosty and I'll take it one step further. It doesn't matter if Iraq ends up being some form of Democracy. The bottom line is, he lied about the reasons for going to war. He gambled the lives of our soldiers, the financial savings of a generarion of Americans and the US' place in the world. he gambled all of the above on HIS vision of the world and the impact of a democracy in the middle east. Worthy battle? maybe! But, if GW Bush believed in this idea so strongly and it was such a righteous concept, why didn't he have the guts to stand up in front of Congress and the American people and sell it. Stand in front of us and say - we are going to war to create a democracy in the middle east. It is my belief that in order to finally achieve some level of stability in the region we need to establish a democratic foothold. And we are going to start with a viscous dictator. Period. No nonsense about Al Quaeda, WMDs, nukes, Sadam's an imminent threat to our security, iran, etc.— gee1971
- GWB is an honorable man and believed in what he was doing to protect the country! He changed his beliefs about 'not nation building' and such after 9/11. Every intelligence service in the world and congressional dems believed Saddam had WMD and he even used them on his own people. A 2003 NIE said Saddam could cooperate w/Al Qaeda. Saddam violated 19 UN resolutions! Lets not rewrite history now. Everyone can pile on, but I thank him for trying his best and serving his country to the best of his abilities. If there were no 9/11 there would have been no wars and no guantanomo! Whether he was wrong or not time will tell, but to call him a lier or a war criminal is not right! He made decisions after 9/11 that he probably would not have made with out that fact and the Dems in congress and the country went right along with him. He stood in front of us and the congress and laid out his beliefs. He did not go to war without the okay of congress and the American people!— NEPhilly
"I chose to focus on his political legacy." Why not foreign policy? I guess things didn't turn out there like you had hoped, huh? I mean, with victory in Iraq, Al Qaeda in shambles, and GWB preventing a repeat of 9/11 and all that. Come on, you don't have a half-decade old talking point you can run out there just for laughs? Actually gee1971 is so entrenched in the old stuff, that now only his talking points matter to him. Democracy in Iraq? Who cares. Only the debunked notion that Bush willfully lied about Iraq really matters. If only I could aspire to such open-mindedness. Fortunately for Iraq, they have already moved on, and those who openly wished for another outcome have only their keyboards and high blood pressure medication to get them through the day.— jmc- I can't imagine what they're going to stuff in his library.— SteveMG
- Answer: "My Pet Goat."— Palestra Jon
- RICHARD, THIS IS LIKE THE 9TH TIME SINCE NOVEMBER THAT YOUR WROTE THIS BLOG. DO YOU HAVE ANY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS? YOU HAVE A SEVERE BUSH ADDICTION AND OBSESSION. GET A LIFE.— CD75
some real kool-aid drinkers here— potus
Comment removed.- Regarding Iraq: the fact is that the factions there are still in contention with each other, and will be until we leave, whether we leave in one year or 100. Shortly after we leave, they will explode against each other and Iraq will come apart, and the result will be equally devastating no matter when it occurs. In the meantime, for the long term or short term, the US will be there spending our treasure and our blood. If that's what you choose to call Victory, jmc, well, that's a pretty sad definition of victory IMO. For my money, we should have departed and let the inevitable happen years ago. Better would have been to never gone in the first place; but once we "accomplished" the "mission", the earlier we'd have left, the better. Iraq would have suffered equally no matter when we'd left, and we'd have suffered proportionately less the sooner we'd gotten out. Our collapsed economy and 4000+ dead Americans is the immediate legacy of Dubya's misadventure. So, you're welcome to your "victory". I just wish you hadn't dragged the rest of us along for the ride.— marty
- PLEA TO OBAMA: CANCEL RISKY, RECKLESS 'SITTING DUCK' TRAIN STUNT • What happened to Homeland Security warnings of "heightened risk" during Presidential transition? • How about the late November FBI warning about possible Northeast train station attacks? • "Amtrak Joe" Biden's longstanding warnings about security flaws along the Amtrak Northeast corridor -- why isn't he waving this whistle stop tour to a halt? Dick: If the warnings are so dire, why are security officials allowing this unnecessary risky excursion? Since Philly is the embarcation point, perhaps you can comment on this: http://my.nowpublic.com/world/plea-obama-cancel-risky-reckless-sitting-duck-train-stunt OR http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener— aviben
- Really NEP and JMC, you have no problem with your leader lying to you? As long as it is done under the guise of keeping you safe? Who in the "intelligence world" knew there were WMD's? No one, obviously because if they knew it, they would have been there. Also, there is a big difference between "could" and reality. I mean, I could choose to think that Bush is an honorable man...That does not make it true.— Master Dreamz
- NEPhilly, They know there was WMD's in Iraq because we had the reciepts bonehead. regan admin sold them to him. But since we to this day never found them it means that is was all BS to get us to war. Its been 8 long and devistating years, when are you morons on the right going to wake up and realize this was the worst prez ever. For one thing he was definately the dumbest. And here is JMc still posting his garbage of victory and Al Qaeda in shambles, and GWB preventing a repeat of 9/11. Reality check here folks. The war is not over and thus there is no victory! Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. And GWB has not prevented anything. He allowed the 9/11 to happen. that is a factual accomplishment. Way to go. yippee. In case you too live in a cave, Al Qaeda does not strike year after year, they wait until are guards are down. They are not as dumd as you and W, JMC. Talk about old stuff. Name one thing Bush has done other than strengthen AQ,and create a even crazier middle east?— Zues
- Also, CD75, read the first sentence of the article -- Polman was asked to write this. Duh...— Master Dreamz
- Comment removed.
- jmc: can we at least get troop levels significantly below pre-surge levels, a functioning democracy, resolution on oil revenues, etc. in Iraq before we declare victory? Again, we went eight years under the "do nothing" Clinton years between attacks. Let's at least wait that long before deciding that the "decider" did any better. Al Qaeda in shambles? even NEP wouldn't claim that.— still_independent
- Zues, GWB didn't lie to us. He was taking the advice of his intelligence community. The Brits had come to the same conclusion and so did the Dems in Congress, including our new Setry of State. When you call people names it just lessons your credibility! Did Saddam have them or not? If we sold them to him, then he had them, right! The war is over in Iraq and we have negotiated leaving in victory, not declaring defeat and going home! They have had elections and will have more shortly. Al Qaeda no longer runs Afghanistan, as it has a democratically elected govt. and is now hiding in caves in Pakistan. Millons of muslim women in both country's have greater freedoms. A NIE from 2007 says the war on terror has lessened the threat to our homeland. GWB has protected the homeland for the past 7 years, no matter how many names you call me, jmc or him! GWB passed No Child Left Behind, Medicare drug benefits, freed 50 million muslims from dictatorship, donated billions to AIDS relief in Africa, tried to reform our immigration policy, took millions of poor people off the tax rolls with his tax cuts. Shall i go on? If you hate him, that is one thing, but stick to the facts, leave out the name calling and hope Obama doesn't let our guard down:)— NEPhilly
- There's no doubt Bush and his incompetent team have caused damage we all can see around us. But to render an historic argument before he has even left office is simply foolish. We can look at the past to extrapolate what may occur as a result of Bush's action(or more accurately his inaction), but we are only guessing the future.— Logathis
- Zues, one last thing, don't call someone dumb/moron and then misspell every other word in your post! It makes you look silly:)— NEPhilly
- The weapons we sold to Hussein back in the late '80's are no longer viable. The yellowcake that was found is useless. In a way I'm not happy about Bush ruining the Republican party. We need at least two viable parties in our political process that can keep track of one another. Bush is the worst president EVER. His repeated lies and mis-adventures will haunt us for decades to come. Perhaps the worst thing Bush did was to downgrade our forces in Afganistan which is now (re) becoming a hot bed for the same terrorists that attacked us 7 and a half years ago. I don't know which is worse Bush/Cheney and their lies and out and out criminal behavior or the delusional idiots that voted for these people--TWICE! I'd pick the latter. Despite what some people say I believe that Bush/Cheney (especially Cheney)knew exactly what they were doing all along. Those of you that voted for them, go to the nearest mirror. What you will see is the root of the problem.— James TL
- getting back to Polman's blog, whether the brand is destroyed is dependent upon how the R's react to their election losses. If they go the way many of the posters here want them to, they will shift to the right (McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough). This is a complete, IMHO, a complete misinterpretation of this election. McCain lost because he lost moderates and independents (and the Bush factor), not because he lost some of the fringe base. ... R's, you need to be intellectually honest. It's far easier to think "our candidate needs to be more conservative" than it is to accept the fact some of your core beliefs are anathema to a majority of Americans (as are some liberal core beliefs) and realize that politics is compromise. Obama won because (besides Bush) he ran as a moderate. If he had run hardcore lefty, it would have been closer.— still_independent
- JMC, I'm so entrenched in old stuff. Are we only evaluating Bush on how he performed today? Well, I Guess he had a pretty good day. There doesn't seem to be any major blunders coming form the White house on this January morning, days before the moving vans pull up. He' must be the greatest President ever. Well Done W!!! America is a mess. He has been the President for the last 8 years. His policies and HIS war in Iraq have placed us at this point in history. There is no debating that fact. Is Congress complicit in the war in Iraq? Ofcourse they are. They were weak. Both Parties. They allowed their desire, their greed, their egotistic need to hold office and the insecurities of the American people to prevent them from doing their jobs. The bottom line is this was Bush's Agenda, he drove the plan, he sold it to the world. He owns it. He is the leader of this nation, the most powerful man in the world, so sorry, he takes most of the blame. And I say he lied, you say he was wrong, so he's either a liar or incompetent. Call it what you want. Democracy in Iraq, what makes you think a people that wouldn't stand up to Sadam will stand up to whatever leader or opposition emerges in the wake of our military's exit. Has a foreign military ever invaded and successfully imposed a democratic government on a nation?— gee1971
- JTL, in 2004 62 million delusional idiots voted for Bush/Cheney!— NEPhilly
- gee1971, The United States in WWII in Japan and Germany come to mind in as an answer to your last question:)— NEPhilly
- gee1971 - Maybe the USA on Japan. Possibly the Marshall plan on Germany. I'm 'speaking' off the cuff though.— Phrossty
- Ok ok... that claim was a bit over zealous. I know many of the people that voted for Bush in 2004 did so because they didn't want to change course during a time of way. I can accept that but you have to acceptt hat it wasn't long after that that the American people rejected what was being done in Iraq— James TL
- Aw, man... There I go agreeing with NEPhilly again! I guess that's what keeps this registered Dem in the center. (Never mind the "evangelical Christian" status. No one on the far-left will brook my postings if I'm found out.)— Phrossty
- We don’t need to wait for history to affirm what is so painfully known to the entire world: GWB = Worst. President. Ever. No amount of baseless defense of him, his administration, his policies, his crimes, his “legacy” can change that. None. Get over it. Until you do, your party will be Bush’s party and American voters will not allow the GOP to get the White House and Congress again. They’ve proven that they are incompetent and criminal.— mjp_Pratt
- NEPHILLY: I admit that was an over zealous statement on my part. Many of the people who voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004 did so because they didn't want to change course in a time of war. But you have to admit that soon after that election the American people rejected what was being done in Iraq and they still reject it today. If the Republican party continues to cowtow to the religious right it will continue to be considered marginalized. I, for one hope they don't do that.— James TL
- In my book, any right-wing president is a failure because I think the right-wing theory of governance is just plain wrong. Bush looks worse than most because the damage from right-wing governance is cumulative, and we've had mostly right-wing governments for almost thirty years. The weak-government, investor-favoring, low-wage, militarily belligerent, constitution-disrespecting stuff weakens the country gradually and culminates in the fiascos of the Bush administration. By the way, we're not the first country to be weakened significantly by right-wing rule. Look at most European democracies in the 1930s. The most memorable slogan of that period was that of the French right-wing: "Better Hitler than Blum (the social democratic president at the time)."— liberal
- JTL, I admit it about the Iraq war:) Phrossty, don't worry it is not contagious:) Unlike the nasty cold my kids brought home from school this week, now i'm sick:( Where is that universal health care?:) lib, a bird needs two wings to fly, a right and a left, we can't go too far either way or we go crash and burn, together:)— NEPhilly
- Richard, just because you say it 1000 times does not mean more people are going to believe your b.s.— CD75
- Comment removed.
- We don’t need to wait for history to affirm what is so painfully known to the entire world: GWB = Worst. President. Ever. No amount of baseless defense of him, his administration, his policies, his crimes, his “legacy” can change that. None. Get over it. Until you do, your party will be Bush’s party and American voters will not allow the GOP to get the White House and Congress again. They’ve proven that they are incompetent and criminal.— mjp_Pratt
- Comment removed.
- I disagree with Polman 75% of the time, but how can you disagree that Bush destroyed the Republican party? Read the quotes again. Look around you. What is a Republican?— doorspj24
- If Obama screws up like Bush you better believe I will critize him for it. I can't frankly think that he could possibly do as badly as Bush but we'll see.....— James TL
- A republican is defined by what he or she believes in. Generally they are conservatives which means they generally believe in unobtrusive small government, fiscal responsibility and a strong military and generally to the right on social issues. The question is: What woudl you call the current administration? With their high defecits and willingness to allow religious fanatics to run our personal lives they don't see like conservatives to me. I'm glad this current group is being kicked to the curb where it belongs. With a future in the garbage!— James TL
- JamesTL - that's the thing.. Bush isn't a Republican by definition.. he's some kind of 3rd party that hasn't been invented yet.— doorspj24
- cd75 & the other repub defenders are funny...that you really believe the garbage you say is a testament to how that nitwit bush got elected twice.you guys live in a fantasy world,lmao— FedupDem
- HARRY ERNEY: You forgot the BEST part of THE CHANEY MANUEVER. Ergo, shove a vague proposal w/ certain BS assurances down their throats on the last day just B4 the election recess, and use their vote against them now and in the future. If it fails it's their fault, if not you take ALL the credit. .............. A more recent example: that $700B bailout plan is given on Friday B4 election recess w/ no strings, because the following Monday is doomsday. Chaney strikes again after sitting on it for 6 months in order to circumvent Congress AGAIN!!— Talvenada
- Polman is just a laugh a minute. Still stuck on a cat 5 Hurricane that struck the City of New Orleans. No outrage for the Democratic Govenor who rebuked Fema two times or the democratic mayor who let the school buses city unused instead of using them to evacuate the citizens. Do you know what Polman told me when I pointed this out? He said that Ray Nagin was a former Republican! That is all you need to know about Polman
- Say what you will, but that "loser" won at least one election for president. We should have known better by then. By that standard, we're all losers. Remember that when another loser wants to be our leader.— tiredoftheBS
- SW MIKE: Don't forget that Barbara Bush pointed out how those relocated to The Astrodome had it better after Katrina! ...... Also, don't forget how The 'Pub Gov. of Miss. rebuilt, while The Dems in Lou. DID NOT STILL!!! That 'Pub Gov. got more money, but there is NO WAY it was a party affiliation issue!! He's a 'Pub, and would not waste the additional money, like the tax and spend Dems in the state next door.— Talvenada
- HARRY THE 'PUB BTW: By anonymous negative, you mean those non-'Pubs who knock Saints like Bush, no?— Talvenada
- Talvenada- Too many liberal democrats in the path of a CAT 5 Hurricane is bad news especially when the local leadership is comprised of liberal democrats as well . They lack the self reliancy to get out of the way despite 5 days advanced warning.
- SW MIKE: Let's not forget that FEMA jobs by both Bushes were reward jobs, unlike The Clinton years of FAILURE!!— Talvenada
- Tavenada- Fema did a fine job when 4 major hurricanes hit Florida the year before. Katrina is a the democrats fault! 100%
- SW MIKE: 100% Dems' fault is on everything, is it not?— Talvenada
- Talvenada- Yes dems are the root of all evil. LMAO. take it light. The chosen one will be in office in a week.
- Harry Truman, in February 1952, had an approval rating of 22% according to the Gallup polls of the day. He is the only president to actually use atomic weapons, something that today would probably be deemed unproportional, cruel and criminal...since so many civilians died. He supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and opposed the two state solution. He got us involved in IndoChina (Vietnam) and also Korea. Yet he is today viewed as one of our better presidents and an icon in the Democrat party. FDR is, I believe, the only president to incarcerate citizens of this country with no legal counsel, no charges and no trials for years. His "stimulus" plans during the 1930's did little to ease the depression being felt across the nation, and he sold Eastern Europe down the river at Yalta. Yet he is revered in the Democrat party and Obama is being compared to him. If Bush is a war criminal for Guantanamo, why is FDR not a war criminal for his internment camps. Please do not give me "it was deemed wrong and reparations were made" stuff. FDR is on our currency, yet in judging him to the standards held to Bush he is a war criminal. Oh, and we tortured people during WWII also, so I guess FDR is also responsible for that, right? Asking Polman to write this piece is like asking me to write about my prospects for Obama. It is ridiculous and pre-determined.— tom - wilmington, de
- SW MIKE: If I took it any lighter, gravity would no longer apply!— Talvenada
- TOM WILM: George Washington--and 14 other Presidents--allowed slavery, what does that mean for Obama? 2 wrongs make a right, no? Truman nuked Japan, and that means Bush or his brother down the road can use THE BUSH DOCTRINE w/ nukes, no?— Talvenada
- Tom, I couldn't have put it better. Tom: "Asking Polman to write this piece IS LIKE ASKING ME TO WRITE ABOUT MY PROSPECTS FOR OBAMA. IT IS REDICULOUS AND PRE-DETERMINED." Yes, Tom, you've been doing it.— Djoko Pritza
- Tom, I couldn't have put it better. Tom: "Asking Polman to write this piece IS LIKE ASKING ME TO WRITE ABOUT MY PROSPECTS FOR OBAMA. IT IS REDICULOUS AND PRE-DETERMINED." Yet, Tom, you've been doing it.— Djoko Pritza
- tom: no, FDR was not the only president to incarcerate citizens of this country with no legal counsel, no charges and no trials for years. Jose Padilla ring a bell? As far as torture, did Truman's legal counsel and administration issue legal opinions supporting torture? Did he direct the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Did we even have laws against it at the time?— still_independent
- The good news is -- if we survive the current crises – the country can’t lose any further in the self-destruction of the Repubs. If they circle the wagons (looks like the short-term strategy), they'll continue to be crushed at the polls. If they get smart (it could happen) and move to the center, we'll have a vibrant 2-party system again. We need that, and I hope it happens. But if the party depends on the likes of NEPhilly (one of the more obsequious Bush apologists I've run across), CD, jmc, Xi Jah, HarryErney and CB, it will be a long time in the wilderness for the party (I could live with it). Bush and the Repubs did us all a favor: They pretty much permanently discredited the destructive orthodoxy of the radical right wing. Sometimes you have to break a few (million) eggs to …— Djoko Pritza
- Hey Tom, someday Bush will be on currency --- Chuck E Cheese is trying to fit his portrait on their Free Pizza Chuck E Buck!— yobill626
- DJOKO: Don't you understand The Conse Language? You demonize the other side by claiming what you claim not to do, while you're doing it: just before, just during, or just after. Why? The other side isn't smart enough to catch on, or articulate enough to expose your BS. Tom is an RTA--a RIGHT thinking American, a great American, a patriot--not a Commie, a Lib, a Pinko, etc.— Talvenada
- I agree with DP --- I hope the 'Pubs get their act together & get rid of the extremists in their party. Our political system needs the balance of a Center-Left Democratic Party & a Center-Right Republican Party to work best. When this is out of balance, creeps like Tom DeLay emerge. Unfortunately, my bet is that with more 'Pub Senators & Congressmen jumping ship (& the economy in bad shape), Sarah Palin will emerge as one of the few 'Pub golden gooses (fundraisers), which will generate her support & put her in the position Hillary was in with the Dem candidates in 2007. Whether or not the 'Pubs have their own emerging Obama-type to knock her off has yet to be seen.— yobill626
- The point of my last post (which I made poorly), is that the 'Pubs are sunk in 2012 if they nominate someone like Sarah Palin. Heck, they stand a better chance with Jeb Bush (a good public servant who's now carrying around a terrible last name).— yobill626
- STILL: Water-boarders were held to The--now obsolete, according to NEO-CONS--Geneva Convention for torturing American Military Men, and convicted. Obama will be held accountable if he thinks the world will accept deviation from these universal rules!— Talvenada
- Dick, regardless of how many times you write an article blaming President Bush for something... or regardless of how many times you find some political tool in the GOP to say something bad about him, these facts remain. All presidents legacies change over time... this is primarily because only through the perspective of time can you 'judge' whether a decision was correct or wrong. As I've told liberal friends of mine, President Reagan was viciously attacked during his 8 years in office. Reagan's 'approval' ratings were higher than 'W's', but the country was not as skeptical as it is now. If you read or see something about the Reagan presidency now, you wouldn't know people like Dick Polman wrote article after article blasting the man and his policies... however history is viewing President Reagan VERY differently. President Bush's legacy will be the same... he kept us safe, liberated 50 million people and stabalized the economy during a major credit crisis. Bush did make a lot of mistakes... he'll be questioned for his basis for the Iraq War for one... but, viewed through time, will also show that a democratic Iraq will be significantly more helpful to Mideast peace than a military dictatorship. Good luck to Obama... after secret service has pulled Dick Polman's lips off his a&&, Obama will realize the difference between TALKING about being president and actually doing the job... critics to the left, critics to the right... sounds like a new Jimmy Buffet song!!!— JGD84
- Djoko, I am honored you mentioned me separately! I had to look up, obsequious:) (it seems the dems in congress did the same) Just trying to keep it real when I see nonsense posted here. I have criticized Bush domestically, just not internationally when all he was doing was trying to protect America and Americans. Did he make mistakes, yes. Everyone does. I can't wait for the next president to start making decisions on 20Jan and he/you will see how hard it is to lead this country and not just lob bombs from the campaign trail. In 2004 there were 62 million obsequious Americans that voted for GWB. Did conservatives lose their way since 9/11, yes! Will the dems overreach and start a Repub renewal these next 4 years, you betcha:)— NEPhilly
- If bailouts and unfettered government spending can bring about an economic receovery we would be in nirvana by about now. Obviously it does not work. We need to go through a tough period and we'll be better off for it. I am convinced now that government intervention does not help.
- Maybe Today Polman can do another hit piece on Sarah Palin. As if this woman has not gone though enough villification on behalf of the left. The left went so far with Sarah Palin that her church in Alaska was damaged by an arsonist.
- The name of the source escapes me, but the quote is "contempt is the last response of an opponent who can no longer refute your argument". Lots of contempt on this site from liberals, but never any points. Still_independent...Padilla was held for three years, then tried and convicted. How many of the Japanese-Americans held during WWII were ever charged, tried and convicted? Talvenada, slavery was legal at the time of the Constitution being drafted. It may have been an abomination, but at the time it was an acceptable practice. I do not fault those involved for allowing it's being barred to stay out of the Constitution since, at the time, they had a new nation to help grow. That would have led to another war immediately after the Revolutionary War and may have scuttled the whole thing....and we would still be singing "God Save The Queen". My point was that it is difficult to judge a president immediately upon his leaving office, especially when you are as partisan as Polman. Sure, he quotes a lot of Republicans, but there are also Republicans who disagree with those statements. An professional journalist would have sought opinions from both sides of the spectrum to present a fair piece. But Polman is not in that league. As for me, Pritza, I am not paid for my writing, so I am doing so based on freedom of speech. Had I been approached and paid to do a column on Obama, I would look at all sides and not through the prism of my beliefs. Example, I dislike Clinton, but would admit there were bright spots in his presidency (Welfare Reform for one). I like Reagan, but also disagree with some of his policies. I like Bush, but have written here several times about my distaste for his spending and some of his policies. Polman is paid for his writing when printed in the Inqy, he should at least present both sides of the issue.— tom - wilmington, de
- For example, where Polman quotes Bush saying "Don't tell me the Federal response was slow", he neglects the next line, which was "We pulled 30,000 people off of rooftops immediately after the storm. Tell those helicopter drivers the federal response was slow." A fair piece would have included at least a part of those sentences, but that is not to be found in the writings of Polman.— tom - wilmington, de
- Swede...today Polman will write about the AP piece showing Hillary intervened at least six times on behalf of people/businesses who either right before or right after gave money to the Clinton Global Initiative. He will also write about how Tim Geithner failed to pay income taxes for several years, paying them only right before being nominated for Treasury. He will also write about Geithner's failure to get a W-9 form signed by a Domestic employee (something many on this site chided Romney for - using illegals - when his landscaping company was found to be using illegals -sorry - undocumented workers). He will also write about how Pravda ran a piece about an upcoming global ice age based on weather patterns in Siberia and the Arctic, or how the polar bear is no longer endangered since sea ice is at 1979 levels (reported by University of Illinois). Maybe it will be on Linda Solis and her being on the commission of a group called Socialism International, which wants to spread the virtues of socialism around the globe. Nah, that would make sense. Better he do as you suggested and write again about Palin or the demise of Republicans unless they become Democrat lite.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: Padilla, a US citizen, was held for three years as an enemy combatant. The administration eventually removed that designation so as to not have the whole enemy combatant process come under judicial review. The Japanese internment was reprehensible (and illegal). I was merely pointing out that FDR was not the only president to hold US citizens with no legal counsel, no charges and no trials for years as you asserted... As for Katrina, if you think that OVERALL the federal response was anything other than slow and incompetent (with the notable exception of the USCG), then you are truly deluded.— still_independent
- tom: as usual, you omit salient facts. Yes, sea ice is basically back to 1979 levels due to slightly lower temperatures and weaker winds (which inhibit ice forming) in parts of the Artic. HOWEVER, the ice is much thinner than it was in 1979, and has much less snow on it to insulate it from the warmer weather, so it is expected to melt much faster than normal in the spring. As usual, the deniers will seize upon a meaningless statistic and ignore the long term trend. ... Finally, Pravda? Really? The best you can do is Pravda?— still_independent
- tom: nevermind, I think I like Pravda. This is their TOP story right now: "Now George it is over. Your Faustian deal gave you eight years of illegal and undeserved power. And did you make the most of it! You stole elections without hesitation, you lied without compunction, you started illegal wars without any consideration for international law, you shredded the Constitution without any respect for the check-and-balance system, you opened up concentration camps without any concern for the rule of law, and you maimed, tortured, and murdered without any regard for fundamental human rights"— still_independent
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&ex=1353474000&en=7020dce4c0eac31b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The two organizations Thomson help found are merging and ending work ESCs in favor of more promising and more ethical alternatives. "...his notorious attempt, in cahoots with the Republican Congress and the religious right, to keep Terri Schiavo alive in defiance of state court rulings and the wishes of her family." Good grief! That is COMPLETE revisionist history. Terri Schiavo's family wanted her to live. Her father, her mother, her brother: they all wanted her to continue to receive food and water. It was only her "husband" -- a man who was already planning to start a family with another woman -- who wanted her to die, and presented nothing but hearsay "evidence" on that point. You also conveniently leave out that disability-rights groups were also outside protesting the planned ending of her life, but I suppose it's not as much fun for you to go after them than it is the right-to-lifers, eh?— bmmg39
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
