Why isn't every single Republican who helped George Bush get his position--especially Not-a-Precedent Nino and Ballot-Security Bill--going from place to place in this country of ours, publicly offering their deep and sincere apologies?
Matthew Yglesias watches the current act of the clown show:
Posted by DeLong at August 27, 2004 11:34 AM | TrackBackTAPPED: OUR ENGAGED PRESIDENT. It's always comforting to learn that the president has no idea what his administration's policies are:
On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.
The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."
Fantastic. Chris Mooney naturally enough, has much more (and even more) on this odd climate science flip-flop. You can see the report in question here (via federal judge/blogger Richard Posner, not exactly a left-wing regulatory enthusiast, who sees that this is a real problem).
This is also the week where he keeps saying that he thought he'd outlawed independent ads when he signed McCain Feingold, which makes him about the only person in the world who thought that. Have they just given up briefing him?
Posted by: P O'Neill at August 27, 2004 12:42 PMDamn projector keeps jamming...
Posted by: Wizard of Oz at August 27, 2004 01:17 PMM-F did ban third parties running ads saying "Vote for Bush", or "Bush, yeay!". It is logical, especially for someone operating in a two-party environment, to assume that that also includes banning ads saying "Vote against Kerry", or "Kerry, bah!". That was part of the point of the "I endorsed this ad" idiocy. Whatever Bush is, he's not a lawyer. (M-F was sold as banning third party ads for candidates, but allowing third party "issue advocacy ads". A lot of the 527 ads are really pushing the line of what "issue advocacy" is, but I don't think they've crossed it, yet.)
Posted by: rvman at August 27, 2004 01:17 PMI have two thoughts regarding this.
The first is that it's likely that both moderate and traditional Republicans are getting fed up with his presidency - not just because of the inability to make a decision that doesn't involve politics, but because of the apparent disengagement from and indifference to actual policy making. They want him to win because they think he'd be much better than Kerry, but their enthusiasm stops there. I sometimes get that feeling with certain senators in regards to their trade policies, or at least their rhetoric.
The second is that some probably want Bush to lose because he's dug us into such a mess that it would be hard for anyone to dig us out of it. And if he cannot dig us out of it, he will lose in 2008, allowing a Republican to win in 2008, making the neocon revolution come alive once again. Should such a situation occur, I hope that some moderate Republican senators will break from the party - in a "fuck this shit" fashion - and help the Democrats get the country back on track.
Posted by: Brian at August 27, 2004 01:20 PMThe "he" in my third paragraph is Kerry, by the way.
Posted by: Brian at August 27, 2004 01:27 PMThe "he" in my third paragraph is Kerry, by the way.
Posted by: Brian at August 27, 2004 01:27 PMThe links to Chris Mooney seem to indicate that the government report is not that different from previous reports. I am not suprised that Bush didn't know about any changes. This apparently is an attempt by the NYT to get Bush "boxed in" and agree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Even if Bush accepts the scientific consensus (as he should), there are still counterveiling economic reasons why we may not want to go ahead with something like the Kyoto treaty.
Posted by: Joe O at August 27, 2004 03:55 PMI wonder if the Kerry strategy is not to peel off enough sane republicans to keep Bush from winning. Trying to win swing voters looks like a fool's game, but if we all work at it, we may be able to persuade enough of our sane republican friends not to vote, even if they cannot make themselves vote for Kerry.
Posted by: masaccio at August 27, 2004 06:24 PM"Ah, we did? I don't think so."
This may be yet another instance -- though obviously a poorly-executed one -- of a long-standing practice in this administration: when asked about the reasons for a policy change, deny that the policy changed in the first place.
Posted by: Thorstein at August 27, 2004 08:18 PM