home

No Honeymoon

by TChris

The President’s second term doesn’t officially commence until January 20, but there’s little reason to suspect that he’ll experience the kind of “hundred day honeymoon” that presidents often enjoy, even if he believes his narrow victory constitutes a mandate. Since the election:

● He’s offered a miserly (although steadily increasing in the face of ridicule) amount of money to tsunami victims while proposing to spend $40 million on “an inauguration extravaganza”;

● He’s nominated Bernard Kerik to run Homeland Security, who withdrew in the face of mounting scandals;

● He’s nominated Alberto Gonzalez for AG, despite the central role Gonzalez played in support of torturing detainees; and

● He’s insisted on privatizing social security without suggesting a way to pay for such a potentially disastrous plan.

Not an auspicious beginning.

(Feel free to add to the list. It’s fun for the whole family!)

< Catching Up and Thanks | Crossfire and Tucker Carlson Get the Axe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimcee on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:33:00 PM EST
    Actually it is a very auspicious begining for Bush. The Left is going to accuse a Latin-American man of giving the go ahead to torture terrorists at Abu Ghraib on rather specious documentation to deny him the highest Law-enforcement job in the country. Where are the positives in any part of that sentence for the Democrats? Kerik? I guess we'll never know if he would of been good at protecting the "Homeland" (I hate that term) but many leaders in the past had peccaddiloes that were odd and sometimes bordering on corrupt or beyond but they were, in the end good at what they did. There are too many to name thoughout history but sufffice it to say that no one is perfect. As far as the innugeration is concerned, I have a hard time believing the if John Kerry was elected president that he would of cancelled his coming out party because of a disaster in S. Asia. Perhaps his wife would have footed the bill. As far as Social Security goes Bush is going to put a plan on the table and the Democrats need to have another idea to counter it with instead of just attacking his plan with no solutions. All in all, Positive sells. Come up with a better idea, not just a slogan and sell it to the American people. Negative doesn't sell, period. The Left needs to find some real leaders and find them fast because what they are selling now is not achieving anything to advance their cause. Auspicious beginning for Bush? Yes, indeed.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    Well, he booked Kid Rock for the Young Folks' Inaugural Ball. Way to promote brutality and women as hos. He also is proposing $10B in fairly drastic defense cuts. Not that some fat couldn't be trimmed, but aren't we in a War on Terra?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#3)
    by Linkmeister on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:39:08 PM EST
    He's gone after the trial lawyers again, despite evidence from CBO that malpractice suits only account for 2% of health care's rising cost in this country. Rather than capping damages, he should cap insurance premium costs.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:43:47 PM EST
    "Negative doesn't sell, period." seemed to work for Rove and his goons on election day.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#5)
    by dead dancer on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes. Obviously negative does sell! Alberto Gonzalez at least has the guns to hang in there (so far anyway), which says something about Kerik. On the positive side: asked Bill Clinton and G.H.Bush to head a nationwide charitable fund-raising effort.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#6)
    by john horse on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    Lets not forget about the continuing casualties arising from Bush's misadventure in Iraq. Cutting financial aid for students (Pell Grant). Doing nothing to stop the genocide in Sudan.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    Asked for another $100 billion to fight his war in Iraq.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#8)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 06:55:33 PM EST
    “malpractice suits only account for 2% of health care's rising cost in this country.” Perhaps RISING costs. My wife practices medicine; she tells me that around 20% of what she does in the medical wards is simply to cover her ass in case of lawsuits, around 50% in the ICU and emergency medicine. It seems odd that traditional victim advocacy groups are silent or have simply been drowned out in the din; the clamoring din of lawyers, the lawyers who stand to loose their share of the malpractice and drug suit booty, bemoaning the impact this will have on their clients. It doesn’t sound sincere, it can’t be altruistic.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#9)
    by james on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    Brought peace and prosperity to Fallujah.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:15:15 PM EST
    Yes, 2% is correct, plus maplractice lawsuits have decreased overall. And the states that have instituted caps all have higher insurance rates. Fancy that!

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    The 100 day honeymoon usually applies to a president's first term. No second term president gets a honeymoon.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 07:41:47 PM EST
    And he kicked T Chris's dog....

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:02 PM EST
    Oh, hahahaha, please, it hurts to laugh that hard after situps and a big dinner! Keep on denying reality with a break for insulting the average voter and you'll keep on losing seats. Bwahahaha. Later, -C

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    Well Moe and Larry have chimed in Curly can't be far behind

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:56:09 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - You prove again that the Left has no sense of humor. But, I must admit that if I was getting my butt kicked at the polls every two years, I probably wouldn't be laughing. Let's look at some of the complaints. He didn't react as fast as you would like in the aid. So, what's the point? Do you think the average American voter is gonna say: Hey, the Left and the UN hates us, we need to get rid of Bush? No. Instead, the average American is saying: Ungrateful UN pukes. Let's get rid of them. He nominated someone who had to withdraw. Now that is something that the public will just quiver over. Not. He's nominated an AG that the Left hates. Again, who cares beyond the Left? There is no issue here that will flip a vote in 2006. And he wants to improve SS. Who doesn't? Oh, I know. AARP and the Left. Again this won't flip a vote. People know that it has to change, and they hope it is changed fast enough for them to get some of their money back. And gee. He booked Kid Rock. Wow. You know. Maybe that kicking of T's dog will cost him some votes. Americans can't stand cruelty to animals.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    "And he wants to improve SS." Ah, a Faith-based delusional.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    And the Reserves are in serious trouble due to Bush's policies, according to their chief.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:41:01 PM EST
    "And he kicked T Chris's dog...." Typical bs from the right wing trolls. When faced with a truth they don't like they resort to dodging the topic, and making smart a** comments designed to negate the issue at hand. Nothing better to do with your time, guy? Get a life.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    Dont forget Pres Bush accepted the "I quit, I cannot win, you are better than me phone call" from Senator Kerry.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 09:44:15 PM EST
    Let's see...won the election, affirming that there are more smart, forward looking, self-reliant Americans than...the other kind.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    There's Curly! Or are you Shemp?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:04:29 PM EST
    Oh I got it...Shemp chimed in just ahead of you.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#23)
    by ras on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 10:18:34 PM EST
    Some of the commenters really seem to betray a lack of practical experience at building and running large organizations. That's fine; it's not as much fun as it's made out to be and I don't blame people for not wanting to do it, but it would do them well to deeply consider how different any situation looks when you're the one in charge. Bush nominated, then had to withdraw a candidate cuz of penny-ante stuff and cuz the guy screwed around on his wife, as well? Happens all the time and the guy never did get to hold the office in q. Big deal. Anyone out there ever been disappointed by a friend's actions, even someone you admire? Don't like his SS reforms? Suggest workable alternatives. Hint: dump the Krugman denial, admit the problem, and cost it out. I repeat: cost.it.out. Cuz that's what you have to do when you're in charge. [btw, for what it's worth, I do not think privatization solves the funding problem backlog, but I do think it can help going fw; doing nothing will leave pensioners with zero cents on the dollar, and anything is better than that, right?] Did Bush commit a lesser amount of aid on first reports of the tsunamai? He should have - he sent enough money for immediate needs while he learned what was truly needed based on better in formation to come. This is basic common sense. [I've given three times myself; does that make me a bad person since 2/3 of my donations were not immediate?] Honestly guys, life looks a lot different when you run things yourself, because the responsibility ... well, you feel it. Just think it over, eh? Bonus points: reply without using any veiled insults or disparagements of others, nor allusions of same. Presume principled and intelligent motives of both yourself and your political opponents, then show us what you know.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:12:38 PM EST
    Privatization of Social Security is not necessary and is only being forced on the table by the same interests that are paying for Bush's inauguration. And I wish I was making that up. Now ask yourself how amazing it is that we can pull half a trillion dollars out of thin air for Iraq, but we have to sell off Social Security to Wall Street firms in order to save it.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    Bush nominated, then had to withdraw a candidate cuz of penny-ante stuff and cuz the guy screwed around on his wife, as well? Happens all the time and the guy never did get to hold the office in q. Big deal. Anyone out there ever been disappointed by a friend's actions, even someone you admire? Yeah it's not like he did anything impeachable, did he? Poor Bernie. All those millions. (sniff)

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#26)
    by ras on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 12:01:18 AM EST
    C'mon guys, I said:
    Bonus points: reply without using any veiled insults or disparagements of others, nor allusions of same. Presume principled and intelligent motives of both yourself and your political opponents, then show us what you know.
    You're 0 for 2 so far, but I was serious. No disparagements or attitudes of superiority: Can you do it? And yes, you may consider this a test, so pass it already. Show us what you know; i.e. your best arguments, please. What are they?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#27)
    by bad Jim on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 01:57:04 AM EST
    Hey, boys and girls, we've got a president even less competent than Reagan:
    There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear "bad news."
    a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 05:12:12 AM EST
    "cuz the guy screwed around on his wife, as well? Happens all the time and the guy never did get to hold the office in q. Big deal. Anyone out there ever been disappointed by a friend's actions, even someone you admire?" Please, where was this kind of forgivness when ole Bill was being hound by the dogs? There is no way I will respond to your "quiz". Go hide under a bridge, troll.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimcee on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 06:41:26 AM EST
    Obviously it is impossibble for some respondents on this site not use vitriol instead of reasoned arguements. As I said negative doen not sell but don't listen to me because I'm just a troll.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 07:05:46 AM EST
    Jeralyn! I'm surprised you forgot that the Torturer in Chief has re-nominated all of the insane right wingnuts he couldn't get rubber-stamped last time he divined that they should be on the judiciary! Bonus points: reply without using any veiled insults or disparagements of others, nor allusions of same. Presume principled and intelligent motives of both yourself and your political opponents, then show us what you know. I wouldn't presume that. In fact, based upon the last twenty years of Repugnicant dissemblement, hypocrisy, and outright fraud, I can only presume the opposite of Repugnicant operatives such as yourself. When you let the theives write the code of ethical behavior, you get Karl Rove and the BFEE.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#31)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:01:17 AM EST
    Iraq is now a neocon free-trade paradise.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:08:17 AM EST
    Presume principled and intelligent motives of ..... your political opponents medicine has not invented the drug to make me that delusional.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:14:14 AM EST
    Bush has been on a "honeymoon" of sorts his whole life, why should his presidency be any different.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    Theotoks- Just read the study that purports that malpractice accounts for only 2% of the rise in healthcare. It is garbage, complete garbage. The first indication is the carefully chosen dates. I’m a mathematician; if you want a real analysis get them to cough up their raw data and I’ll get you truly representative results. Citizens for Insurance reform? Ridiculous! More like, Lobbying Lawyers Against Malpractice Caps.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#35)
    by nolo on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:16:17 AM EST
    pigwiggle, if you think that consumer protection groups have been silent on the issue of "tort reform," you haven't been paying attention. Check here and here, just to start. Oh, and you may want to check here for a fairly cogent analysis of why "tort reform," regardless of how you feel about it, isn't a proper subject for the federal government to be dealing with in any event. Be that as it may. If you want to get a decent, nonbiased handle on the real issues, I'd recommend this article to start (warning-- .pdf). Then maybe you should read some of the referenced resources and studies.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#36)
    by nolo on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:19:19 AM EST
    Oh, and btw, pigwiggle, why don't you ask the proponents of "tort reform" to cough up their numbers?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:21:19 AM EST
    The first indication is the carefully chosen dates This implies that you have knowledge that supports the contention that this is biased. What is it? I’m a mathematician; if you want a real analysis get them to cough up their raw data and I’ll get you truly representative results. This implies you know what they did wrong. What was it? Glad to hear you are a math guy because your discussion of physics the other day was really poor.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    you know what bush's biggest accomplishment is? he has created a nation where 51% of the country HATES the other 49%. plus, both sides are so busy cheerleading for their team, that they often refuse to look at what their 'team leaders' are actually doing. think about it; the entire nation is embroiled in this red state/blue state horsecrap (which has been thoroughly debunked - we are all purple staters) and our politicians pretty much get a free ride to do whatever they wish. right now, according to their core supporters, the republicans can do no wrong. every decision they make is defendable. and to the core democratic supporters, the republicans can do no right - every decision they make is indefensible. meanwhile, back at the ranch, what the heck are the democrats even doing? and what are the republicans getting away with? every time a democrat offers up some reasoned criticism of the current administration, the republicans blame it on sour grapes (pointing to the tin hat wearing liberal whackos as evidence that we are not to be listened to) and then point out the 'approval' of the people who voted them in (with legions of rabid conservative flunkies ready to nod and agree with practically anything). doesn't this bother ayone else?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:32:29 AM EST
    There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no WMDs and no mushroom clouds over Manhattan. They're lying to us, and I'm tired of it. This is the AARP congressional contact line for "Social Insecurity," as they aptly put it. It's the war of wealth against work. Take some action - say NO to this destruction of Social Security: 1-800-307-8525 You can get through to your own representatives on that line and give them a piece of your mind. We pay for THEIR retirements; they'd better preserve our safety net.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    Privatize SS by allowing people to invest 4% of their SS tax and pay 20% in fees! WOW! This really makes sense! Instead they need to raise the $ cut off for paying SS taxes; and/or means test SS. My addition to the list is this--he always looks like he just woke up when he appears on TV. Did the campaign wear him out that much? It looks like he's still trying to catch up on his sleep--or is he sleep-walking?

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    Looks like he's going to have to endure a debate on the Ohio vote. It takes a woman!

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    For a very good overview of the important points in the SS debate I recommend Brad DeLong's post

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#43)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    SD- The sugested fixes are poor. For example, raising the SS tax cap to $90,000 will push insolvency back by only a couple of years. Removing it altogether will push insolvency back six years. Raising retirement, perhaps if you are talking about by five or ten years, not simple life expectancy projections. And the line about having other big problems; it’s like the smoker who refuses to quit because they are morbidly obese as well.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:30:15 AM EST
    pig simply not true, but keep pushing the party line and that of the wall street types who stand to make millions. And the line about having other big problems; it’s like the smoker who refuses to quit because they are morbidly obese as well. Illogical comparison or simply disengenuous. A more apt comparison is a patient whoi has a gun shot wood to the abdomen and high cholesterol and the doctor threat the high cholesterol. The only people backing this SS priviatization is wall street types, think tanks like CATO who have a neo-liberal economic bent, and all the government hating right wingers.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    god what happened to my typing "gunshot wound"

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    Josh Marshall is discussing a leaked white house memo that tells the real motivation behind the SS plan. From the memo "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#47)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:46:55 AM EST
    “simply not true, but keep pushing the party line and that of the wall street types who stand to make millions.” It is a simple matter to look at the projected tax revenues and the shortfalls in the SS payouts and savings. These are available numbers you can scrutinize for yourself, if I remember correctly you should be more than capable of doing this as an engineer? . But I see it is much more simple to accusing me of being a party stooge. “The only people backing this SS priviatization is wall street types, think tanks like CATO who have a neo-liberal economic bent” The folks backing this are fiscal conservatives. This is one of the very few times you will see an organization like CATO backing a Bush policy. If you disagree perhaps you should look at their view of the deficit or the $87 million dollars in corporate welfare they advocate cutting to fund a bailout of SS. You present a hand waving argument; these folks have a suspect ideology so I can ignore everything they say. Get back to me when you have looked at the numbers yourself and have something substantial to say, or risk being a shrill partisan stooge yourself.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    There are plenty of analyses that show the SS problem as being overstated and is not a crisis. I have been through the numbers and the analyses and agree with them. They have also showed how the rethugs are framing the question to make it look like a crisis. CATO is a well known libertairian type think tank. They take a neoliberal view of economics, i.e. everything should be privatized and hooray for unfettered capitalism. CATO is the one pushing the "ownership society" BS so they are far from an anti-bush crowd. You accuse anyone of not agreeing with you as being partisan.Yet you say you ignore the other analyses because you call their ideology "suspect" Partisan hack - case closed.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#49)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    SD- "Yet you say you ignore the other analyses because you call their ideology "suspect"” I think you misread my post, please point it out. “There are plenty of analyses that show the SS problem as being overstated and is not a crisis.” Then you can provide one or two.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    SD- “BS so they are far from an anti-bush crowd.” You have evidently never visited the CATO site. Three of their seven main topics, ‘getting out of Iraq’, ‘runaway GOP spending’, ‘Liberty in wartime’. They have blasted the president over an unnecessary war, a huge deficit, and wanton disregard for liberty. Many of the things you have put to paper on this very site. Perhaps they can save you a place in the ‘far from anti-Bush club’.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    I think you misread my post, please point it out. you said these folks have a suspect ideology so I can ignore everything they say. you can go to Delong's site or that of the Angry Bear and follow the links and references.

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    SD- I see the problem, what I said was, “You present a hand waving argument; these folks have a suspect ideology so I can ignore everything they say.” Meaning, you (SD) present a hand waving argument, i.e. these folks have a suspect ideology…

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    ras sez... Show us what you know; i.e. your best arguments, please. What are they? Here ya go... "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country." Looks like that blows your premise all to hell... "Presume principled...motives of...your political opponents"

    Re: No Honeymoon (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jan 06, 2005 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    Christine Todd Whitman outs Bush for the environmental terrorist that he is in her new book: Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who was President Bush's first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is violating the omerta of Bush alumni with a memoir that touts the importance of moderates to the future of the Republican Party and flays Bush and his team for ignoring the country's middle.