don't bother hoping for compromise

[jrtom]

red_frog pointed me at this Washington Post article, which laid out some of Bush's priorities and attitudes for his new term.

Her comments focused on Social Security. But what I find personally more chilling is the idea that Bush is making it pretty clear that he thinks he doesn't have to care what anyone thinks any more:

Bush made no effort to hide his high spirits, teasing reporters and calling on them by last name only, in the fashion of a football coach. He has always chafed at reporters' tendency to ask follow-ups and to string multiple questions into one, and yesterday he announced that he will no longer permit it. "Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule," he said.

...one key adviser said the White House has calculated there is little to be gained from courting Democrats, since the expected fights over Supreme Court nominations would just undo the goodwill.

"This isn't a guy who pivots," said a presidential adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity so White House officials will continue to talk candidly to him. "There's no point in a lot of outreach in the next 90 days that would be rendered moot by the first retirement from the court, and he's not going to do it."

There it is, folks. He thinks he's got a crown and scepter.

You know where our hopes are now? The moderate Republicans. They're basically the only ones that have the ability to derail the more egregious initiatives that he wants to put through Congress. Fortunately, some of them have already--in a presidential election year!--indicated just how much they think that Bush's policies are misguided. (Perhaps, if we're lucky, we'll actually see a definable split in the Republican Party, although I don't really expect it to result in the formation of a new party.)

Comments

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Picking out the SS was more along the lines of showing the continuity. Note everyone remembers that the man has never changed his mind about ANYTHING. It's like the tax cuts: he was going to do them one way or another, and his justiications just changed. I take all those idiocies from the 2000 campaign very seriously.

But yes, I think you're dead right about his attitude. Healing, my ass. You can be united if you get in lockstep, but not otherwise.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I didn't intend to imply that you thought that only the SS issue was significant, just that your focus (and example) were different. You pointed out that his agenda was still the same; I was drawing attention to the removal of the velvet glove.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Velvet glove?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. (Sorry, there's just no other way to react. :D)

I think we already saw the iron fist. We may now get spikes on it.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Actually, I still think the metaphor is apt. Up to this point, Bush has felt it necessary--or at least politically expedient--to veil, at least somewhat, his complete disinterest in compromise. He's not veiling it any more.

One can only imagine the tone of his remarks if he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[(Anonymous)]

he has already made it clear to everyone who does not agree with him that he has no intention of representing them. now he is making it clear to his own misguided followers the he is the leader of his party... not of his country... and that his party should have unchecked rule. he has no respect for the minority, even if the minority is 49.9% of the country.

i think that our dangerous madman now has proof that god has blessed his holy war against everyone. i include us in everyone.

t.

Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

Both parties must be destroyed. The Democrats have failed in a one on one contest, and the Republicans have been driven insane by power.

In a two party system, politics is a zero sum game. We are about to enter two years of unabashed brutality, during which the republicans will push this country so far to the right that I will be 60 years old before we set it back to a moderate middle ground.

I'm working towards any effort which will break the two party monopoly. Right now I see open primaries and instant runoff elections. What else have we got in the bag?

Re: Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

More comprehensive campaign finance reform: we need to think about how to decrease the effect of money on campaigns.
Voting and registration reform, in conjunction with national standards. Aggressive prosecution of violation of election law, or dissemination of false information relating to voting/registration rights.
My modest proposal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jrtom/1007.html) on how to make ballot tabulation honest.

So, to summarize: try to reduce the money involved, make sure people can vote, and make sure their votes get counted properly.

Open primaries are a bit tricky: I voted against the California ballot measure which would have sent only two candidates on to the general election. You can see my arguments in my LJ discussion on the California elections (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jrtom/7861.html), but the crux is that putting too much emphasis on the outcome of the primaries is a bad idea. I'd be willing to consider open primaries that let anyone with, say, >= 5-10% of the primary vote participate in the main election. (This obviously gets more complicated with IRV or approval voting or Condorcet voting, but you get the idea.)

Re: Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

Money will find a way in. There's no way in a society with the "rule of law" rather than the "rule of man" to write laws which will never be abused. The best we can do is to use shame and outrage against the most egregious abuses. I agree that we should continue to tighten the noose, but these "oh no we're certainly not affiliated with any campaign, that would be wrong!" groups will continue.

I think that the top 6 candidates from the primaries would make a reasonable place to cut it off. I can meaningfully understand a choice among six. I completely agree with requiring more than two. Two candidates equals a zero sum game. I think that primaries should be by approval voting. It best matches the goal: "Who should be allowed to continue to play."

Re: Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Money: I'm not yet convinced that there isn't some clever way to address this problem. But you may be right that continuing to tighten the noose is that all we can realistically do...although I do feel that there were some pretty egregious abuses of the intent of the "527" law this election cycle, which at least suggests that we should revisit how that's all defined.

Top 6: maybe a "top 6 that each got >= 5%" clause, or something analogous for approval voting? I don't want to force the system to accept 6 candidates, two of which got only their own write-in on the ballot. Anyway, these are details.

Re: Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

The "at least 5%" clause bugs me on principle, though I agree with your extreme case. Basically, I'm sick of laws and procedures that act to reduce the number of choices we get as voters. Agreed, they're there as choices at the primaries, but what harm does it do to simply push the maximum number of choices forward? They'll lose anyway, right? Where's the harm in letting it happen on election day?

I was frustrated to see the number of people running unopposed in my district, that's what's really driving this.

Re: Destroy the parties, and remake america from their ashes.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying. However...

* Arguably, the primaries' *purpose* is to reduce the number of choices to a manageable level. If you don't need to do this for a position (because there chronically are only one or two candidates) then don't hold primaries for that position. (And in fact this happens for a lot of local-level positions.)

* Especially for local-level elections, it is often the case that people run unopposed because no one else wants the job enough to go through the motions. This is not a problem that can be fixed by noodling around with the primaries.