George W. Bush Superstar

George and Laura - the new Spencer and Heidi.

One of the sure signs that I am a bleeding-heart liberal is my pure fascination with movies directed by Oliver Stone. I have always thought of Stone as someone who just did not care what people thought of his movies. He wasn't going to try to please you. If you like his movies, that is just incidental. Stone just makes movies about stuff that is interesting to him.

But I was a little blown away to hear that Stone is making a movie about George W. Bush, called simply W. And isn't it ballsy that he cast the stepson of Barbra Streisand, Josh Brolin, as Dubya? Yes it is. At the time this post was published, I could not confirm nor deny rumors that Stone was casting Gollum in the role of Vice-President Dick Cheney. ("My precious, precious waterboarding techniques.") I will keep checking with my sources in Hollywood though.

Next spring will allow us to revisit Bush versus Gore when W. tries to pick up more Academy Awards than that Al Gore movie on global warming.

Sweet Little Nothings About Tom DeLay

When I was a little kid, I noticed that my mom was really into politics. She read both of Houston's local papers. (Back then we still had The Houston Post. Give me a second to compose myself, okay? I loved The Houston Post.) She watched the local news and the national news. Sometimes she would bring a small television into our den and place it by our big television so she could watched Dan Rather alongside Peter Jennings. ("That Peter Jennings...so handsome," she would say from time to time.) She read National Geographic and Reader's Digest. I didn't know the term at the time but she is what we would now call a "political junkie."

My mom died in 1993. A year or so later, we got our first internet connection at our house. One of those mostly text-based things. I remember loading a single picture overnight and thinking, "Man, that's awesome!" The internet connection at our house became faster and faster and eventually we got high-speed. After I became interested in following politics and other current events around 2000, I saw that there was just so much stuff out there. I don't think my mom would have ever got off the computer.

In the early days of my politics addiction, I would be on the computer constantly. I knew there was always just a little bit more to read about the George W. Bush-Al Gore election. I would be reading stuff during my off-periods from teaching high school history. And during lunch. And during the detentions I held after school. ("You know what real detention is? Four years of a President George W. Bush, that's what!") The Gore v. Bush decision made me realize that if yahoos like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas could graduate from law school then it couldn't be that difficult. Thus I was off to law school.

The Bush-John Kerry election in 2004 was a replay for me. I really got into that election too. That was when I started blogging. (I think my anti-Bush blogging helped explain why John Kerry lost Texas by a smaller margin than one would expect.) I loved those little delegate maps that you would find on the websites of The Washington Post or The New York Times. I was also all about NPR and The New Yorker as well. Did my law school grades suffer a bit? Probably. But I considered myself a student of life. And I had the best teacher anyone could hope for. Myself.

After the disappointment of the 2004 election, I dropped out of following politics for awhile. Oh sure, I took secret joy in President Bush's incredibly shrinking approval ratings. (I had a t-shirt that said, "I don't like to tell people 'I told you so.' I'd rather just imply it.") Another thing that made me lose interest in the news was the departure from the scene of some of my favorite enemies: Tom DeLay, George Allen, Bill Frist, and Karl Rove. I saw that most of my interest in politics was in seeing the personal destruction of people I detested. Did I want to be that person? I can't say that I didn't like who I was because I did. But to think about people I hated all the time did get to be a bit much. I mean I talked about Tom DeLay on dates. Whispering sweet little nothings about Tom DeLay into a potential paramour's ear definitely does not work. I would not recommend you trying this at home, aight?

What drew me back to politics was the purchase of an iPod I made last year. There were a lot of political podcasts that I listened to occasionally through my computer. But I didn't really like listening to stuff while I was doing stuff on my computer. I found I liked listening to political podcast when I was going for a walk or going to the gym or driving around in my car. I got addicted to the Slate Political Gabfest podcast and the Bloggingheads.tv podcast in particular. I guess I can thank Steve Jobs for restoring my interest in politics.

The upshot of all this is I can get overwhelmed with all the sources of political news out there. I sample a lot of sites. I go through phases where I am all into The New Republic then I don't read it for months. I wonder sometimes how other political junkies get their news. If you are reading this modest blog, you likely are a fellow political junkie. Where do you get your political news hits, yo?

Darfur/Iraq

Something I do not really understand is why us liberals are so willing to support Darfur and so not willing to support Iraq. My opinion is that both places are in dire needs of help. I do not really see the difference between the two situations. But allow me to posit a guess or two as to what is going on here.

My guess is that liberals so equate Iraq with President Bush. That is almost a fair statement. He has made a royal mess of the place. And I think they think being in support of American intervention in Iraq means being in support of President Bush. I can mean this but it doesn't have to. There are ways to get around this big liberal hangup.

Obviously President Bush and his followers do not know how to handle the situation in Iraq. They never did. They did not have a plan for what to do after Saddam's government fell. I always thought that that part would be easy, especially since we have the most powerful military machine ever. What was to come after would require more nuance. A nuance that is still lacking all these years later.

But the choices available should not be limited to either "we stay in Iraq and follow President Bush's plan" or "we leave." Life is way more complicated than that. What about "staying in Iraq but not following President Bush's plan"? What about "coming up with a whole new plan"? This is also a choice. A choice that I don't ever hear people mentioning.

As to what this plan should be, I have no idea. But what about getting Iraqi experts and Iraqis themselves in a room together and not letting them leave until they have something that we can work with? Seriously, it can't be worse than the incompetents we currently have running the show.

The upshot here? Darfur definitely needs our help. But so does Iraq. We are Americans. Let us think big again.

Suppose You Started a War and Screwed Everything Up

One of the things that gets me about the Iraq war is that the reason justifying us being over there is ever changing. The one reason that bothers me the most is this one: "If we leave now, then all the soldiers who have died would have died in vain." Following this line of reasoning, we can never leave Iraq. Because unless things are "just so," then soldiers would have died in vain. Following this line of reasoning, Napoleon should still be invading Russia. Because, otherwise, his soldiers have died in vain.

If you are down to using this excuse, that says to me, "Hey, all our other excuses aren't working. Let's trot out ol' reliable." President Lyndon B. Johnson, aka my least favorite president ever, used this excuse during Vietnam. The thing with this excuse is that it does not make sense. It don't work. That dog don't hunt, my friends. If we are down to using this excuse, we are all but admitting that our soldiers are dying in vain. If this is our reason for fighting in Iraq, why did we start fighting in the first place? There was a time when not one soldier had died.

The subtext of all this is that President George W. Bush wants to push this war until January 2009. Whatever happens after that can be blamed on the next guy. Or gal. He thinks this whole "kicking the can down the road" routine will salvage his legacy. Wrong, friendo. We all know this is President Bush's War. It is no one else's.

You're so vain, Mr. President. If you think this post is about you, you'd be right.

There They Go Again

I am a big fan of the Atlantic Monthly magazine. I just feel so damn cultured after I get done reading each month's issue. (You should have seen how upset I got when my sister lost last month's copy before I had the chance to read it. Darn her!) I am also a big fan of the Atlantic's cadre of bloggers - Marc Ambinder, Matthew Yglesias, Megan McArdle, and Ross Douthat. These are the bloggers I read first most mornings. They all have unique points of view which makes me think about ideas that I normally wouldn't think about on my own. Which is always a good thing.

Today Marc Ambinder reported that an iPetition appeared on a website called "No Mitt VP." My first question - an iPetition, what's that? The website was created by people who don't want John McCain to pick Mitt Romney as his vice-president choice because Mitt is insufficiently dedicated to social issues such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage and YouTube. Nothing new here as one of the reasons that Mitt Romney cratered as a candidate was because his conservative credentials were always suspect. Reading through the comments of Marc Ambinder's post seemed to favor Romney 3 to 1 however. The message of most of these commenters - if you don't like Mitt Romney, you are a religious bigot.

I think Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate. Many times before the primaries even started, I would tell my friends, "Mitt would be a worse candidate than George W. Bush." Seriously. I said that. George W. Bush was enough of his own man to go against generally accepted conservative beliefs. For example, George W. Bush has been rather welcoming of immigrants to this country. For that, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh raked him over the coals. Could you imagine President Mitt Romney ever going against Rush Limbaugh? I can't. George W. Bush believes he is a conservative which allows him to pick and choose battles with the conservative base. His comfort with them (because he is one of them) means he can try to push them into the direction he wants. Family squabbling is okay. We all do it.

Mitt Romney is the equivalent of someone marrying into the family. Most of us guys would not argue with the mother of our fiancée right before the wedding. We would probably go along with whatever our future mother-in-law wanted. This would be the prudent course. Why make waves? Mitt is this person. He knows he is not a conservative but he wants all the benefits that he thinks being a conservative would get him. Heck, he is pretending he is a conservative already so he might as well go all the way into Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly Land. The ironic thing is that 2008 just wasn't the year to be a conservative. Romney gambled and lost. Yet his followers can't see that.

Romney's supporters can't accept the real reason he lost (the reason stated above) so they come up with the "religious prejudice" excuse. There are always going to be people who don't like Mormons. But then there are people who don't like blacks or Catholics or Jews. Barack Obama seems to be doing fine. Joseph Lieberman was seen as a decent vice-presidential candidate in 2000. And John F. Kennedy is still regarded by many as a good president. People sometimes can't admit that the candidate they picked was seen by many people as insincere and wooden and politically clumsy. To see things this way impugns the judgment of Romney supporters. To impugn the judgment of phantom religious bigots means that Romney supporters won't have to go to sleep at night wondering how they picked such a weak candidate.

The One Example of a George W. Bush Profile in Courage

In an admission that will surprise no one, I admit that I have a lot of liberal friends. And not just since I moved to Seattle. When I lived in Houston, most of my friends were liberals. Most of them were so liberal that I came off looking like Rush Limbaugh in comparison. To be compared to Rush, man, them fighting words to me. I mean, my worse enemies can't accuse me of being a rich dilettante with a recreational drug habit, what with the thousands of dollars I owe in student loans.

Let me preface what I am about to say by saying I have been against George W. Bush since at least 1997. (I will also admit I voted for him in 1994, when he first ran for governor. Fool me once, that whole spiel.) There have been times when I have defended things George W. Bush has done. I like that he tries to treat immigrants fairly. He has gotten a lot of static from his own party because of "his support for the wetbacks." But what do I get for pointing out that, in this single instance, President Bush was a profile in courage? My liberal friends say that there must be this hidden agenda. They don't know what it is but it is there. Being a native Texan, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse of how people in Texas regard immigrants. Especially those from Mexico.

Our policy in Texas? We live right by each other. The white community and the Hispanic community are so intertwined that to begrudge one group means you are begrudging yourself. The two groups are intertwined by marriage, work, school, church and just plain friendship. The stories I have heard of George W. Bush being raised among Hispanics reminds me of myself. My elementary school had three white kids. Me. My brother. And my sister. Did I ever feel like a minority? No, because the friendships I had there never allowed that thought to form in my head.

When Republicans demonize Hispanics, I become a bit discombobulated. Hispanic people have been a big part of my social and professional life. My years as a teacher in a mostly Hispanic high school in inner-city Houston are very precious to me. I suspect George W. Bush knows what I am talking about here. I bet he wonders just like me how Republicans can be so hateful. And so politically stupid.

The "Cool Kids" Election

Imagine you are at a party. You are a single guy. You look around and see a lot of single ladies. Making a good impression on a few of them is in your own self-interest. You go up to a group of them and start chatting. Eventually the topic of politics come up. People start talking about who they like for president. And you chime in to say you like Mitt Romney because he represents "real change in Washington." You know what happens next? You are not only standing there by yourself but you may also find yourself being asked to leave this party.

Let's talk about all this talk about "change" going on. Coming from a Republican, this is just plain silly talk. Mitt Romney supports George W. Bush and his policies. Where does Romney disagree with Bush? I am not sure. If anything, Romney wants to out-Bush Bush. You may remember him saying he wants to "double Guantanamo." Heck, even Bush said he wants to close Guantanamo down. Romney just picked up on the "change" message when cool kid Barack Obama used it in spectacular fashion in Iowa and in South Carolina.

I just have trouble believing that this particular rich white guy named Mitt Romney can represent change. What in his past shows that he has been fighting for change? I mean, beyond three weeks ago, what? What in Mitt Romney's past shows he has been interested in anything besides making money?

This is going to be a "cool kids" election. Barack Obama is an historic candidate. Hillary Clinton is an historic candidate. Either of them becoming president would move us past the little narrow paradigm we have chosen to live in for far too long. (I myself am aiming to be the first half-Asian, half-Jewish president. I am turning 35 this year. We shall see.) Now I am not saying that being a white guy should disqualify you from being president. But white guys running for president are going to have to bring their "A" game from now on.

What is Mitt Romney's "A" game? Well, he doesn't have one. Ronald Reagan had one. Bill Clinton had one. Even George W. Bush had one. All of these candidates could create a kind of unity with wide swaths of people. Their communication skills allowed this. Mitt Romney, not so much.

Give Me Some of That Old-Time Division

I just read Josh's first post on this blog. He knows of my intense dislike for Mitt Romney. Yet Josh was excited about Romney winning the Republican nomination because he would easily be the weakest candidate to face Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. You know what, Josh? I think you may be on to something. And would I enjoy having Mitt to kick around for another ten months? Hell ya!

Much is made of Mitt Romney being a viable candidate because he can self-fund his candidacy. The man is worth $250,000,000. Or he was when the race was started. If Josh gets what he wants, Romney will get the Republican nomination but lose big in November and perhaps be $100,000,000 poorer. Those would be results I could live with too.

Being a bit of a contrarian by nature, I think the fact that Romney is spending his own money proves just how weak a candidate he is. He is spending his own money out of necessity, not by choice because nobody likes him. (I am betting that Mitt's wife Ann wishes he would just quit already.) If there was a wave of "Mitt-o-mania" sweeping the land, Mitt wouldn't have to rely on his own "bling-bling." But no one is donating to his campaign except a few of his rich buddies. His campaign is not built on support from people in the heartland or from the South, the supposed Republican base. You know what these people are seeing? A flip-flopper from Massachusetts, that is what.

There are bigger problems for the Republican Party out there in the ether as well. Mike Huckabee is running a quixotic and endearing campaign for president. He is representing himself as a "Christian leader." I personally like the guy. But Huckabee is hated by the Republican establishment because he talks about the government's role in making the lives better for the average person and not for the average corporation. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh talk about Mike Huckabee, you would think that Huckabee was Bill Clinton's long-lost cousin from Arkansas. I wonder what social conservatives will think when they reflect on the drubbing a true social conservative candidate (the dude is a Baptist preacher) received from the supposed party of "family values."

On election night 2004, I watched the results with my friend Leona and her husband Ian. They were both very distressed. I was distressed too but only about 75% or so. 25% of me was happy because I didn't think President Bush wouldn't be any great shakes in his second term. Turns out he hasn't even been any mediocre shakes. If John Kerry had won the presidency, everything in Iraq would have been blamed on him. President Bush would have become a martyr. The Republican Party would be able to label themselves victims of liberal elites again.

But today, we are able to call a spade a spade.