George Bush has had a mixed Presidency with many very good things (strong economy, nukes out of Libya & now North Korea possibly, Saddam gone, Taliban gone, Wall Street confidence restored; hundreds of solid judicial nominees) but an awful lot of very bad things (mismanagement of the war has led to many unnecessary American and Iraqi deaths; lack of vetos has left us with deficits even this booming economy couldn't overcome; very poor reaction to Katrina; bad judgment on Social Security reform attempt, one wacky Supreme court nomination, etc.)

But he has a golden opportunity to finish strong.  Now that the Democrats hold power in both the House and the Senate, he can run against them. 

• He can veto what will be a budget full of massive waste and handouts to favored groups (it is Congress after all and Democratic voters expect some pay back for bringing them back to power). 
• He can win in Iraq - Democrats will be left looking like they not only can't win a war but don't really want to.
• He can put forward (given the opportunity) solidly conservative nominees for the Supreme Court to demonstrate to those newly Democrat-represented districts just what the liberal leadership of Congress thinks of their values.
• He can veto bill after bill that violate his and his parties' principles.

By doing these things, and he should do them because they're the right things to do, he will put forward an image of Democrats as out of touch and failing - while positioning himself as one-man against the machine.  America loves underdogs.

Clinton was surely thought to be dead and failing during his second term only to wind up viewed as a highly successful President.  Bush can too.

If a month is an eternity in politics, then Bush has 22 eternities left to finish strong. 

sharp

I've been thinking (insert own joke here).

I have two teenaged sons.  They remind me of myself at that age.  We all go through the stages.  The selfishness and the lack of a broad perspective are worked out of you by life.  That is, if someone cares enough to teach you.

• Teenagers think they know everything and anyone who disagrees with them is a fool or is evil.
• Teenagers believe that failed ideas only failed because the right people haven't tried them yet.
• Teenagers believe that the world owes them a living.
• Teenagers believe that they will wake up one day and be a movie star, a star athlete, a great singer, a brilliant scientist, etc.
• Teenagers believe in fierce punishment for people who make mistakes.
• Teenagers romaticize rebels and are quick to follow "fanatical" leaders.
• Teenagers believe that being in Hollywood means being brilliant, beautiful and having a perfect life.  And also means having gravitas in the political arena.
• Teenagers believe what they see and hear in the media.
• Teenagers believe there are easy answers that don't require sacrifice.
• Teenagers believe and follow their emotions.
• They become Democrats.

Which brings me to the trouble part.  Once you get to be about thirty years old with a mortgage, aging parents, mortality, and children, you see things very differently.  

• You aren't so quick to judge, except that you realize there are truly bad people in the world and most of them are dictators or extremists who pose as religious leaders (with mass graves to their credit).
• You take much less at face value and you make people prove themselves.
• You react with horror that an athlete with six children from different women (some married to other men) is considered a role model for kids.
• You react with disgust that someone like Madonna who has bathed herself in moral filth calls herself "spiritual" to a fawning media.
• You realize that political leaders make their lives better by spending your money and promising you that they're getting it from someone else.
• You see the miracle of childbirth (or feel the baby inside you) and become horrified by elective abortion.
• You realize that people with strong opinions and loud voices are sometimes dead wrong.
• You realize that folks who live in fantasy worlds have little to teach us.
• You realize that people with extremely high IQ's are sometimes incapable of understanding simple truths.
• You realize that some things in life require difficult choices and may require sacrifice.
• You learn that emotions are temporary and unreliable and don't base decisions on them.
• You become a Republican

You know the famous saying, "if you're young and you're not a liberal you don't have a heart.  If you're old and you're not conservative you don't have a brain".

Well, from my point of view, liberals are the teenagers of our society.  And conservatives should continue to put up with them until they have more life experience and inevitably grow up (this last statement was intentionally Coulter-ish just in case I hadn't stirred the pot quite enough). 

Is it possible that anyone has a comment about this? 

sharp

Joe Lieberman is quoted as saying that if the Democrats choose to withhold funding from the Iraq war, that it could prompt him to switch parties to the GOP.

That would mean a Republican majority.  Actually 50-49 with the South Dakota Senator still unable to work.

That would switch the head of every committee from Democrat to Republican.  That would take the agenda out of the hands of Harry Reid and hand it to Republicans and it would nix any Congressional Democratic agenda.  It wouldn't mean a Republican agenda, it would just mean the end of the Democratic agenda.

These committees are astonishingly powerful and the Democrats now have to weigh the value of voting to end funding for the military after a certain point (say, this fall) against hanging on to the ability to get much of anything else done.

Wow.  How did I miss that?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2865.html

sharp

As I posted here a week or so ago, Hillary would test Obama. She's begun the game of politics by drawing him into an ugly fight. It's the kind of politics that Hillary knows best - bare knuckles, ravage the opponent, play mind games, etc. She's good at it and Obama clearly lost round one.

But just imagine what it will be like when we're less than 16 months from the conventions!

And my friend Blogito has noted that Newt Gingrich and Al Gore might be there to pick up the pieces after sitting out the early slugfests.  I'm starting to think he's on to something.

Who has fared better in the press (besides Obama pre-last week) than Al Gore.  And tonight, he'll surely win an Oscar.  Good for him.  He's completely wrong, but good for him. 

I think the only chance those two have (Gore and Gingrich) is if the rest of the field beats each other up so badly that no one wants anything to do with any of them.

Could happen.

Obama has never met the team that savaged the reputations of Bill's sexual victims.  That's who he's dealing with directly now.  Ruthless and unstoppably ambitious is how she's described.   It's going to be a long, tough ride for Obama.  Maybe 16 months long.

sharp

You need a scorecard to keep up with the shifting positions. It looks like Guiliani has figured out a way to pacify the social conservatives in the Republican party by saying he'll appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court (read: overturn Roe v. Wade).  How far is this from any position he's taken in the past?

But not to be outdone, McCain now says he's for overturning Roe v. Wade, even though he said some years ago that to do that would bring about untold back-alley abortions (my paraphrase).

Of course, there's my favorite (though already sullied) Mitt Romney.  He took such an extreme left position on gay rights and abortion to be Governor (and hopeful Senator) from Massachusetts that he would look quite hypocritical with any move to the right.  So why not move the whole way - and that he did.  From where I sit, this is probably far more in line with his Mormon beliefs (and as Governor he stopped gay marriage in the state - which had to really aggravate anyone who voted for him on the basis of his stated position, but I digress).

On the other side, they're elbowing for left-front status, with Hillary so far resisting the demand to sell the military down the road.  In fact, of the crowd running so far (I have to take a breath here because I hate what I'm about to say) she's been the most consistent.  In fact, she's been wholly consistent.  And in the face of intense opposition.  The question is, will surrendering to terrorists (aka negotiating with that good faith crowd) be the litmus test for the Democratic nomination.  If so, she's in a lot of trouble.

John Edwards has switched positions on the war, just as John Kerry did a few years back.  But John Edwards has little to worry about.  No one cares how he voted then or what he would do if elected.  Just keep smiling.

Obama hasn't swithced positions.  But that may be largely due to not having any.

The other dreamers running on both sides (but I never saw Bill Clinton or John Kerry winning the nomination) have little to say and little to offer.  Why are they running at all?

So, here we are.  Carefully taking stock of current polls and upcoming primaries to determine how we should feel or vote or promise.

And tomorrow, it will all change again.

sharp