november won't wait

in bush country, when it rains, it pours and pours and pours and pours and pours ...

if the republicans think that they can simply batten down the hatches and ride out the cruel storm season that's settled permanently on bush's second term, they're slowly but surely finding out how utterly futile that strategy is. it's a strategy predicated on the hope that the storm doesn't get worse and ends quickly.

cia director porter goss' abrupt resignation was only the latest of a repetitive series of heavily publicized blows to bush's keeling ship of state. before this last thunderbolt, republicans were just getting themselves comfortable with the grim thought of only losing control of the house, like a bunch of convicts settling into electric chairs:

bill kristol: as of right now, republicans will lose the house. (march 5)

mclaughlin group: tony blankley: i think most republican operatives believe, if the election were held today, that they'd lose the house and it would be close in the senate. pat buchanan: the democrats would take the house and they'd have a good chance of taking the senate. eleanor clift: i think a democratic takeover of the house, yes. (april 7)

pundit david brooks even goes so far as to suggest not only that losing would be a good tonic for republicans, but that democrats would actually behave themselves!

there's really a torpor in the administration. they're not doing anything right now. i think it's now likely to move the house — that they will lose the house. and i think house republicans, privately, most of them admit that. for like a year they were saying, "well, we've got it so sewed up with redistricting. we'll lose, but we won't lose the whole house." i'd say about two weeks ago the conventional wisdom shifted and people said, "we're in such trouble. we are going to lose the house." personally, i think it would be good for the republican party because it would make them a little more responsive. it would be good for the democratic party; they'd be a little more responsible. but i think now it's likely they will lose the house. if the democrats can't win now, when are they ever going to win? (april 2)

by now it must be painfully obvious to republicans that their lowered expectations are never going to be low enough. they've wanted to believe that public support would eventually bounce back, from iraq, katrina, the cheney shooting, dubai, gas prices — but they've been proven wrong every time. that's because the lord nelson they put at the helm of their navy turned out to be an ahab who's firmly lashed himself to the wheel and threatens to drag them all the way down to the bottom with him. they made their deal with the devil; they traded their principles for power; now they'll be left with neither.

very soon, if it is not already too late, republicans, as a group, are going to have to throw up their hands and say "enough! we can't take this shit any more! this is killing us!" they are going to have to make a stand. they can no longer afford their meager expectations or their dwindling hopes.

they are going to have to take some kind of proactive and substantive role — one far more meaningful to the electorate than a photo op or a $100 gas bribe — if they hope to stanch this massive hemorrhaging of their electoral prospects. only by enacting real legislation and real reforms that tangibly benefit the electorate will republicans be able to stave off their banishment to the political backwaters. legislation calling for a withdrawal from iraq; for campaign and lobbying reform; for reducing the deficit; for reducing gas prices; for creating jobs and raising the minimum wage; for expanding healthcare.

such an effort necessarily involves taking on their dear leader, head-on, mano-a-mano, just for their own survival. for five years republicans have obsequiously accommodated his every whim, but bush's leprous administration has mutated into a ten-ton albatross, a nosferatu sucking the life-force from the party and dragging it into hell. writing on bush's efforts in iraq and iran, columnist thomas friedman likens the white house to a bunch of drunken drivers:

as someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting iraq right, the level of incompetence that the bush team has displayed in iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against iran. i look at the bush national security officials much the way i look at drunken drivers. i just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. dial 1-800-nato-charge-a-ride. you will not be driving alone. not with my car. (april 19)

yes, it is well past time to revoke junior's license. so how do republicans strip him of that privilege? the answer lies in challenging bush on his abuse of signing statements.

the boston globe reported how bush has used the signing statements in hundreds of instances to exempt himself from being bound from any law passed by congress:

bush is also the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, an act that gives public notice that he is rejecting a law and can be overridden by congress. instead, bush has used signing statements to declare that he can bypass numerous provisions in new laws. (may 3)

in their challenge to bush, republicans must flatly refuse to recognize any signing statement he attempts to append to any bill. henchforth they must allow bush only to sign or veto a bill, in accordance with orthodox senate tradition. democrats will have no problem joining republicans in such a challenge, especially in defense of strong legislation. already forces are gathering for just such a showdown:

boston globe: the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, accusing the white House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into president bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years. ''there is some need for some oversight by congress to assert its authority here," arlen specter, republican of pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''what's the point of having a statute if ... the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?" (may 3)

but will republicans recognize the true magnitude of the opportunity materializing before them?

bush will no doubt put up a fight to preserve his enlarged domain. if republicans have any hope of restraining ahab, and honestly wish to rehabilitate themselves in eyes of their constituents, they will make their stand here, take their case loudly before the public and force bush to respect all aspects of the laws they pass in their entirety. would bush veto a bill calling for a withdrawal from iraq? or one for reducing the deficit? especially if such bills were backed by a veto-proof majority from both parties? if congress chooses to ignore him in exactly the manner he's ignored them, who will give a fuck?

it's time for congress to show bush what it's like to be powerless. i can find no other means of redemption for republicans other than an act of defiance and integrity. it very well may be too late for them in the eyes of the electorate. it may not win them back any voters that already have been lost. at this stage of the game, it may be simply a matter of keeping the voters they still have, but what other options lay open to them?

washington post: "this administration may be over," lance tarrance, a chief architect of the republicans' 1960s and '70s southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. "by and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over." (may 7)

but the fate of the republicans is insignificant compared to the fate of the country. as long as bush is allowed to hang onto his license and remain petulantly unchallenged, as long as he threatens nuclear armageddon, pisses away the treasury and reduces every agency to a fema, the entire crew, republican, democrat and independent, remain on course to go down in flames with him. dear leader is tearing the country down around his thick granite skull. with a guaranteed new fiasco every week for the next six months, november can't wait.

in truth, i don't expect the republicans to take the high road. that would require a unity they no longer exercise. had they been on the high road, had they placed country before party, they would not now be writing their own obituary. i expect them to fracture and take their chances locally running on their individual merits. they will take what looks like the easy way out. so divided they will fall, hunkered in their cabins, hoping to wait out the storm. but the electorate won't wait with them.

so if november comes to find the republicans reduced to irrelevancy, they will have only their own cowardice to blame. they will not be missed.

al gore: we simply cannot afford to wait 1,000 days to put the brakes on the bush agenda ... the level of cynicism and crass political calculation ... is truly breathtaking. (may 7)

for whom the bills toll

"in truth i tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times." — matthew 26:34

november 1967: in response to the growing demonstrations that culminated in the october peace march on the pentagon, president lyndon johnson launched a press blitz aimed at shoring up flagging support for the vietnam war. johnson relit "the light at the tunnel" and flew general william westmoreland, commander of u.s. forces in vietnam, to washington to personally assure the national press club that "we have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view." johnson received a nearly 10-point bounce in the polls for his efforts, from 40% to 48%.

however, johnson's bounce in the polls was quickly turned into a dive by the startling tet offensive, launched by the north vietnamese at the start of february 1968, which demonstrated that they were far from their last throes. during the offensive american audiences were also treated to a brutal street execution and were introduced to the now-famous phrase "we had to destroy the village in order to save it", attributed by many to the destruction of the city of ben tre.

by february's end a turning point in the war of domestic public opinion had arrived, made explicit when cbs evening news anchor walter cronkite, considered by viewers, "the most trusted man in america" — even as late as 1995 — concluded that "it seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of vietnam is to end in a stalemate." in turn, johnson reportedly concluded that "if i've lost walter cronkite, i've lost middle america." the "light at the end of the tunnel" had been rudely snuffed out in homes across america.

johnson's approval sank back down to 38% and approval for his handling of the war hit 26%. comprehending the hole he was in, on the last day of march he withdrew his bid for reelection.

♠
38 years later
♥

november 2005: nearly three years into the war, with support for the occupation and the president at its lowest ebb — a familiar 38% — george w. bush launched his public relations blitz, dubbed the "national strategy for victory in iraq". while the speeches may have earned him a modest bounce of 5 points, one could argue instead that it was the december 15 iraqi elections that gave america a glimpse of hope. but bush could not escape johnson's fate and his bounce too came crashing down in late february when the golden mosque in samarra was destroyed, dashing any hope that civil war could be averted.

by that time venerable walter cronkite, long retired but still active at the ripe age of 89, had already made his case for withdrawal in january:

"it's my belief that we should get out now," cronkite said in a meeting with reporters. ... the best time to have made a similar statement about iraq came after hurricane katrina, he said. "we had an opportunity to say to the world and iraqis after the hurricane disaster that mother nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the united states," he said. "therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home."

but his pronouncement was no "cronkite moment": in fact the journalist had come out against the war at least as far back as december 2003:

kurtz: let's talk a little bit about your views. you were opposed, no question about it, to the war in iraq. why? cronkite: well, not so much the war in iraq, as the way we entered the war in iraq. without any support from our previous allies, or the united nations as a whole. it seemed to me that this was — this unilateralism is a very serious breach of diplomacy, of strategy.

having remained largely out of the public eye for twenty years, cronkite no longer holds the nation in the thrall he once enjoyed as television's preeminent newsman, despite the continued respect of the public and the absense of any clear heir. furthermore, his advanced age, his having "outed" himself as a "social liberal" and his having endorsed 2004 democratic presidential hopeful dennis "moonbeam" kucinich's proposal for a federal "department of peace" gave ruthless war boosters fodder that they could use to dismiss the news legend as a doddering "leftie" loon.

---

but there can be little doubt that america had reached a "cronkite moment", even if the man himself was unable to deliver it personally. no, today's proliferation of network and cable news options no longer affords a single voice that kind of power over the national conscience. but three noteworthy voices did chime that week in february when the golden mosque was destroyed — noteworthy because they all were vocal supporters of the invasion.

bill o'reilly, fox news host and the most watched personality on cable news, could certainly lay claim to an audience the size of cronkite's, but no one save o'reilly himself would lay claim to any of cronkite's gravitas. quite the opposite: o'reilly is a sanctimonious screeching cartoon. nevertheless, on february 21, the day before the bombing of the golden mosque, a flummoxed o'reilly proclaimed:

here is the essential problem in iraq. there are so many nuts in the country — so many crazies — that we can't control them. and i don't — we're never gonna be able to control them. so the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the iraqis as fast as humanly possible. because we just can't control these crazy people. this is all over the place. and that was the big mistake about america: they didn't — it was the crazy-people underestimation. we did not know how to deal with them — still don't. but they're just all over the place.

bill buckley, jr., called "the father of contemporary conservatism", founder of the national review, is known to the layperson as the longtime host of firing line, his public policy arena. buckley's real audience however is the washington beltway; the professional narcissists in the nation's capitol want to know what buckley thinks of them. two days after the bombing a morose buckley concluded:

one can't doubt that the american objective in iraq has failed. ... our mission has failed because iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 americans. ... different plans have to be made. and the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

bill kristol, scion of a founder of neoconservatism and the founder of the weekly standard, is familiar to viewers as a regular commentator on the fox news circuit. as a founder and chairman of the project for the new american century (whose members had included neo-apostate francis fukuyama), the think tank behind much of bush's suicidal foreign policy, kristol is the rightful father of the iraq adventure. speaking on the weekend following the bombing, as would a step-parent to a brood of half-wits, a testy kristol complained:

kristol: there would not be civil war if zarqawi had not spent the last 2 1/2 years — had ex-saddamists with him, very skillfully going on the offensive slaughtering shia in karbala, now blowing up the mosque. wallace: they’re there. there are going to be more mosques to blow up. what do you do about the terrorists? kristol: kill them. defeat them. wallace: we’ve been trying. kristol: we’ve been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out. connelly: i think that really begs the question then: what have we been doing over there for three-plus years? you say there hasn’t been a serious effort to rid that region of the terrorists. i just wonder what secretary rumsfeld would say in response to that or all the u.s. soldiers who have been over there all this time. kristol: secretary rumsfeld’s plan was to draw down to 30,000 troops at the end of major activities.

in less than a week, after civil war could no longer be denied, a popular champion of the war and a respected opinion leader publicly abandoned the mission and one of its key architects publicly disparaged its execution. the bills have tolled. the cock has crowed. despite his claims to disregard polls and pundits, there can be no doubt that george bush has heard the knell and the caw. sadly for those still destined to suffer the gravest mistake of his presidency, bush has yet to exhibit any of johnson's powers of comprehension and appears intent only on abandoning any reckoning or resolution to his ill-starred successors.