Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

I detect irony in "Back to School Night," but I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyone?

Maybe after floating that initiative months ago to put a man on the moon (again), Bush couldn't find any more "new" visions in his rear-view mirror. It's really hard to see when your vision is backwards and through a keyhole.

I watched the speech, and I gotta admit that all-in-all it would have been a great speech if he had talked about the 'war on terra' some, but maybe I got distracted by all the rhetoric of how he was gonna make America all new and shiny with those social programs he was expanding, and fixin Social Security, while cutting the deficit down to a size that if it had legs it could easily stumble and drown in the bathtub...

I particularly liked the Kerry response of Bush being 'all hat and no cattle.' Unless, of course, you count the Bush supporters.

Bush's "ownership society" speech, besmearching last remnants of America's Great Society safety net as "old world", and lauding his vision of US workers in multiple careers, pay-in benefits, no pensions, two-worker families, the Republican's
"(brave) new world", reminds me just after the Civil War, when Northern carpet-baggers traveled throughout the South, patiently explaining to the assembled slaves that they were now "free".
"Free" as disenfrachised unorganized work units, free to drift off to the North and the West, and take whatever work they could for room and board.

This was a speech for owners, all right. Owners, investors, profiteers, and anyone else sitting on a fortune, or a double-dipped double-pension, or a board-room chair and multi-million options.
Bush is used to speaking to owners. He is one.

America Inc. The annual shareholder's meeting.
Heck, I'm surprised he didn't read his memoirs!

A few things.

1. The "ownership society" is a great idea. It's also highly unrealistic. Among other things, we are saddled with quite a bit of debt.

2. As Judy Woodruff, among others, pointed out: he proposed many new programs and these all cost money, so where is this money coming from? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, Judy. Kerry may propose spending, too, but at least he doesn't insult our intelligent by pretending that we don't need any additional revenue to pay for it all. Hell, Bush's Social Security plans alone would cost $1 trillion.

3. He didn't mention outsourcing, but for good reason. On the other hand, Kerry has to stop using protectionist rhetoric, particularly because he's NOT A PROTECTIONIST. He's a free trader. It would be much more effective if he talked about his failed fiscal policy and how that didn't create any jobs and then combined it with his tax cut rhetoric.

4. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. September 11th. 9/11.... Did you hear that Bush did something good on 9/11? They have almost made this an obssession. Just because Bush was president during this tragic time and showed some decent leadership on the day that it happened doesn't entitle him and his cronies to exploit it for all its worth.

Condi must be fuming!

Dickie killed them last night, opening for Bush, with an incredible "scream" stand-up by Miller, then tonight Bushie stumbles out, over-tranqued, over-rock'n-ryed, and screws the pooch.

Sometimes you can't win for losing....

I thought he looked awful like he had the flu.
There were one or more disruptions and someone was arrested.
His attacks on Kerry were petty and seemed out of place. Bush really had to stretch the truth about Kerry not supporting the military.
Cheney walks onto the podium and does not even touch his wife. His wife walks 3 steps behind and hugs Laura while Dick joins W.
Nothing about the deficit.
Nothing about Iraq plans.
Osama bin forgotten.
A new "jobs training comm College program (Why was this not done in 2001 when the recession hit?)
Tax cuts bin permanent.
I feel the pain of the families of dead soldiers.
Didn't quite say Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq. Actually said Kerry voted to use force. Bush finally got this one right.

Word is that Kerry is ready to come out swinging after Wednesday night. "I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."

Kerry needs to be careful and make some of his attacks humorous not angry. For instance, "Bush not only needs Arnold to correct his English, he needs an economist who can correct his math."

He did mention his father ... as someone who "stood by Ronald Reagan's side for 8 years." Way to go george, dis the old man in front of the world.

How could anybody think this was a good performance? It was his standard stump speech, with some "opportunity society" junk thrown in and then an attempt for a rousing ending.

In fact, I got the distinct impression he was on some kind of tranquilizer or anti-depressant. (Hey, I've got some Xanax myself just in case Bush wins again.) And he didn't seem very confident. Plus his hair seems to be dyed or different somehow.

I didn't get annoyed by his speech as I usually do because I think he's going to lose.

The only thing that bothered me was commentators who can never bring themselves to say the emperor has no clothes. Even after Zell Miller Night? They don't have enough courage to try to save our country?

An added bonus: The few honest conservatives in the Republican Party will be ticked off by the laundry list of Great Society stuff.

Sixteen years ago, the Economist observed that Bush pere seemed to have no idea why he wanted to be president other than a sense he deserved it. (They managed to endorse him anyway). Seems that after a month of Republicans touting the second term policies that were to be the focus of this speech, we're back to the same place again.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. (Someone had best translate that into a pithy Texas-ism.

Dan, I can't translate that into Texas-ism, but in Yogi-ism: "It's deja-vu all over again."

Dan Ryan: "Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. (Someone had best translate that into a pithy Texas-ism."

Douglas Hofstadter has suggested 'The more it changes, the samer it gets.'

"...his second term foreign policy..."

I expect more wars--Iran next. Wesley Clarke said that six war were planned; I don't see any reason they'd change the plan. Remember, these are fanatics; they don't change their minds.

The Bush Sr. comparison is quite apt, I think. Shrub seems to have lost interest, some time back, in actually *doing* anything further with the Presidency. I hate to be the armchair analyst, but I think it's because the two things he *was* genuinely interested in - playing the macho war president, and helping the rich and the corporations loot the country - have been taken as far as politics and circumstance will allow.

No matter how much he'd like another war, we'd be completely alone if we decided to go to war on Iran or Syria; the rest of the world's supported Bush's military agenda as far as it will, and even that's further than many of them are particularly happy with. And we don't have any soldiers to spare, either. So even though, in BushWorld, words speak louder than facts, we've hit the wall here where facts finally have the upper hand.

And with respect to cutting taxes and deregulating, I think he's realized that politically, he's getting to the point of diminishing returns: he's done all the big tax cuts, and on Social Security privatization, somebody might insist on his actually presenting a plan whose numbers can be critiqued. He will continue to campaign to make his tax cuts permanent, of course, but he seems to be losing faith that he can get that done, and as a result, he's losing the energy to try.

But that's OK - he really just wants to BE President for another term, to one-up the old man, and to be able to say the American people approve of what he's done. Which is BS, of course, since his record is so poor he's got to turn Kerry into the boogeyman in order to stand a chance. But as long as he wins he'll be able to SAY it, and nobody in the room will be able to contradict him.

Brian: Bush hid on 9/11. As you know, he is not very good at confronting danger. However, I agree with you that it is strange that he brags about that disaster. Perhaps he believes he prevented it.

RT- I agree. Bush wants to BE president. He wants the applause and adulation. He wants the power to do favors for friends. He has no interest in actually governing.

Over-tranquilized was a great description someone offered up-thread. I couldn't get over how sleepy the speech felt.

Regarding what he actually said, he didn't start with "I'm sorry I lied to you these past four years" so it didn't matter what he said after that.

Did you notice how the two conventions were reversed this year?

The Democratic convention seemed like the convention of a sitting President.

The Republican convention seemed like the convention of a challenger.

"Did you notice how the two conventions were reversed this year?"

Interesting observation. Possibly because the Republicans are the revolutionaries; fighting the world, fighting against late 20th century America, fighting the direction the rest of Western Civilization is taking. Probably not because Democrats won the last presidential election.

When an analyst uses the expression "something tells me" more than once in an essay I begin to wonder if God is whispering in his ear, or what.

I did not see the performance, so thank you bakho for providing some of the stage details. The mention of someone being thrown out of the audience made me wonder about the scene outside (and in NYC in general, hope everyone's happy).
I must say that RT gives Bush more credit than I do:
"... he's realized that politically, he's getting to the point of diminishing returns:" Megalomania usually doesn't suffer these 'realizations'. I hope you're right of course, but I found Vicki's take on it more persuasive --an off or 'bad-hair' day. Maybe a tad drained after the Miller/Cheney foreplay? The consensus is clear: the climax was disappointing.

Notice also last night that Bush never repeated his oft-made claim that Iraqis are better off now without Saddam.

Note that under Saddam, Iraqis could take out financial loans interest-free.

That's gone.

Note that under Saddam, Iraqis had universal education, including school clothes, books and school lunch. Free.

That's gone.

Note that under Saddam, Iraqis had universal healthcare. Free.

That's gone.

Note that under Saddam, Iraqis had nearly full employment (though women and minorities did not)

Today there is nearly universal *un-employment*.

And for those who claim Saddam was unfair to Iraqi women and minorities, well, Bush has abandoned them to the PUK and KDP too:
http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobserver/news.html

And for those who claim Saddam tortured and killed his people, well, Bush tortured and killed more innocent Iraqi civilians in the one year of the US invasion than Saddam did in his entire 30-year reign.

No wonder Bush kept to his script:

"Terror"

"Terror"

"Uhh ... Terror"

"War"

"Terror"

"Commander in Chief"

"Thank you, and God Bless America"

Mr. Spidle,

Stop posting your nonsense on this site.

As someone has pointed out, Bush would have to buy off statisticians to pull off re-election:

WWII - FDR began it, Truman finished it.

Korean War - Truman began it, Eisenhower finished it.

Viet Nam War - Johnson began it, Nixon finished it.

Iraq War I - Bush Sr started it, Clinton finished it.

Iraq War II - Bush Jr started it, and Kerry will finish it.

Historically, statistically, GWBush doesn't have a prayer in a party hat of being re-elected. Then again, it doesn't matter if GWBush gets re-elected, either way the screws run the prison.

A Yaley is a Yaley is a Yaley Skull'nBones!

The "ownership society" is a great idea. It's also highly unrealistic. Among other things, we are saddled with quite a bit of debt.

I don't think the "ownership society" is necessarily unrealistic so much as it is not likely to be produced by the policies embraced to bring it about.

Now, if you encouraged broader distribution of ownership by, say, giving strong tax and public contracting preferences to firms organized as democratic, equal-ownership, worker-owned cooperatives, and adopted a kind of universal pass-through taxation of other corporations so that wider distribution of ownership would be a competitive advantage (lowering costs imposed by taxation), then maybe, you could make meaningful progress toward an ownership society.

Once you've gotten the ball really rolling through means like that on changing the distribution of capital, you could do things like some of the policies that are currently being proposed as "ownership society", which really seem to be more rational as ways of addressing certain social concerns in an established ownership society rather than bringing one about.

The specific proposals would still need tweaks, in many cases, but then they would at least make sense in outline.

Where Zell Miller found a script or the roots of fascism:

“It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.”

Author
Father Denis Edward O’Brien USM

cm:

You're not gonna get libertarian ideals out of this Administration. Their "ownership society" isn't about egalitarianism, so much as it's pushing the responsibilities of government down onto the backs of workers as a "pay-as-you-go".

Like the rich bank owner handing his shoes to the hotel clerk and demanding, "here, take care of this" ... that kind of "ownership society."

Kind of like Department of Defense, isn't.
Kind of like War on Poverty, isn't.
Kind of like Homeland Security, isn't.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=901

I know an American, married to a citizen of a predominantly Islamic country no longer our ally, being harassed by INS to leave the US.

But, hey, it's nice to dream! In the 1970's, everyone lived in worker communes and shared everything equally, work and shared expenses.

Do a little research and find out how most of those communes turned out, or were sold out.

This is very appropriate.

Daily Show Video

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/dsbush.html

"...what he thinks his second term foreign policy would be like...."

Pre-emptive war against Iran. 100% confidence.

"ownership society"? i'm running, screaming in fear. why do you think we have social security? because people who have very little money (like me) don't have the means to put together a nice little nest egg for retirement. And by means, I am speaking about knowledge of investing. and has anyone who thinks this is a great idea talked to any of the thousands who lost everything in their retirement fund when enron went tits up?

as far as bush's speech last night, i got the impression thta he had never seen it before, much less read it through -- he was able to get the syntax on the parts he's been repeating ad nauseum for the past two months but i know five-year-olds who could have done a better job.

vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote

I'm glad I'm not the only person who gets this "wooden" interpretation of Mr. Bush's oratory skills.

Tante Aime: First of all, note I'm not cmdicely.

You say: "But, hey, it's nice to dream!"

To which I respond, paraphrasing a Dilbert cartoon: "You only have the right to _pursue_ happiness, not the right to _be_ happy."