05 June 2006
Latest Reality Show Pales Survivor's Challenges
Unrepentant conspiracy theorist that I am, I think that the staff changes in the White House and Treasury (bringing in Goldman Sachs acumen), the reassignment of Karl Rove to salvage the 2006 mid-term elections for the GOP and Bush's statement about mistakes represented a three-pronged strategy to rescue the GOP from political disaster. The chimeras used to obfuscate the problems facing incumbent Republicans and the Administration were Immigration Reform and a call for a constitutional prohibition of Gay Marriage.
There's a new reality game going on backstage at the GOP. Fierce competition among the heavyweights is going on for the ultimate prize of the "Soul of the GOP." Three primary factions are competing with each faction having a fourth complexion of being incumbent politicians wanting to keep their day jobs.
Tomorrow's election (June 6--D-Day could gain new meaning!) will fuel the internecine struggle rather then resolve it. The three factions are: 1) incumbent office holders, including the President and his Administration, following an evangelical, Christianist (Andrew Sullivan's word) agenda; 2) the historically conservative GOP who have Barry Goldwater for inspiration; and 3) Former Governor Christy Whitman of New Jersey trying to wrest back control of the GOP to the political center, the idealized, mythical GOP of Everett Dirkson and Warren Rudman.
Let's see, remember when all the front page articles were about the Bush Administration's ineptitude and his own plummeting approval ratings? What happened next? Karl Rove moved to the GOP campaign headquarters for formulating the GOP's platform in the mid-term elections: Put GOP fannies in the chairs of Congress, state government and elected judiciary. The White House replaced Scott McClellan and the Chief of Staff. Yet another Secretary of the Treasury departed to be replaced by a star of the investment world from Goldman Sachs. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay's departed from the House and Speaker Hassert took over the limelight for the GOP. Senate leadership did not change, so they must be viewed as part of the solution. In other words, there were significant realignments of White House staff focus and discipline. The scandal-ridden Congress muted its firebrand, evangelical approach for getting legislation through the House and Senate.
The real action nowadays has fallen to the GOP-dominated Conference Committee as it develops a single bill out of the bills passed by the House and the Senate. How many opponents of the original bills vote to pass a Conference Committee product, rather than voting against it? Our representatives tell us how they voted on the House or Senate bill, but I don't recall ever hearing from them how they voted on the final legislation derived from Conference Committee negotiations. It is the latter version that becomes law if signed by the President. Check it out. I've seen Senate bills that passed by less than five votes, after sincere statements of hyperbole by each senator, perhaps a vote of cloture had to be passed because the Democrats were beginning a filibuster to prevent a vote by the full Senate. When the Conference Committee bill was sent to each chamber for confirmation, some of these highly contested pieces of legislation passed by almost unanimous vote. A 51-50 GOP victory in the Senate's original bill becomes a 95-5 approval vote for the bill created by the Conference Committee. I keep meaning to write to Senators Feinstein and Boxer about some of their votes on the second and final version being sent to the President.
Isn't it odd that this Conference Committee's proceedings are not broadcast on C-SPAN or discussed by journalists in TV, radio and newspaper. Someone should review the fate of the legislation sent back to the House and Senate for voting from the Conference Committee. Further, it might be interesting to see how many of the bills were vetoed when offered to the Presidents despite almost unanimous approval by Congress. I suppose we also should illuminate the Signing Statements that Presidents have attached to bills they sign to see how Administrations intend to act on bills signed into law. Is the agenda of one faction of the Majority Party enabled or mitigated by Presidential Signing Statements, an agenda unable to get acceptance by either House of Congress? For however long this signing statement process has been going on, what caused them to rise to public consciousness in the current Bush Administration?
In March and April 2006, during the time of personnel changes, a major lightning rod--Immigration Reform--suddenly became the topic of Congressional and public debate. Only the Enron convictions could draw more journalistic and talk show interest than did the conjoining of The War on Terror (tie back to 9/11), Homeland Security and Illegal immigrants into a single thematic thrust. Immigration Reform took off the front pages of newspapers and magazines the ongoing revelations of illegal activities, corruption, inept disaster response and the dispensing of Constitutional checks and balances by the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney Administration. Only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to compete with immigration reform's hold on the public's attention. Since this weekend, the official GOP rallying cry has changed to Gay Marriage. No one is making news talking about immigration reform.
It seems like the Press and broadcast media consider Donald Rumsfeld gone from this Administration. Rumsfeld is blamed--as if fact, not partisan politics--for the failure to give the leadership and support our military requires in combat and as a "nation-building, occupying force." (My words.) The Press also seems to have concluded that US forces will be withdrawn from Iraq sooner rather than later. But--nothing really has changed in the Department of Defense or in the passive-aggressive combat roles Rumsfeld's leadership imposes on our military forces.
The second and third tactics used to distract the public from its scrutiny of the Bush Administration failures, corruption and ineptness are these: 1) a shamefully disingenuous acknowledging of mistakes in judgment prior to and during the Iraqi conflagration, and 2) Karl Rove bringing Gay Marriage back as a banner behind which the GOP might retain control of Congress.
The manner of his delivery and body language of George Bush's words, intended to mollify his critics domestic and foreign, revealed to me that he was forced to hold that press conference with Tony Blair to make what some would take as an apology or acknowledgement of mistakes in the Iraqi war. George really did not want to make that statement about mistakes the World sees but he doesn't. He took direction from the true core of the Republican Party who remain nameless and invisible. The group of people who brought the Evangelical Christian bias into control of the GOP after Newt Gingrich failed to prevent Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Someone made up the acronym to describe the people who are the ultimate source of authority and power of the GOP as the O.W.N.E.R.S.--Old, White, New England RepublicanS. I can't think of a different set of persons who could weild ultimate market and political power in these United States. The OWNERS control all the money nationally and, with like-minded foreign elites, internationally. This international group uses temporary themes to manipulate public opinion, to frame election issues or governing strategies, and to control the global financial markets that feed currency to intercontinental or global marketplaces.
So, does this blog make it easier for you to vote tomorrow? I made up my mind 23 months ago. I must have been psychic or at least prescient.
Don't Tread on Us or our Constitution!
There's a new reality game going on backstage at the GOP. Fierce competition among the heavyweights is going on for the ultimate prize of the "Soul of the GOP." Three primary factions are competing with each faction having a fourth complexion of being incumbent politicians wanting to keep their day jobs.
Tomorrow's election (June 6--D-Day could gain new meaning!) will fuel the internecine struggle rather then resolve it. The three factions are: 1) incumbent office holders, including the President and his Administration, following an evangelical, Christianist (Andrew Sullivan's word) agenda; 2) the historically conservative GOP who have Barry Goldwater for inspiration; and 3) Former Governor Christy Whitman of New Jersey trying to wrest back control of the GOP to the political center, the idealized, mythical GOP of Everett Dirkson and Warren Rudman.
Let's see, remember when all the front page articles were about the Bush Administration's ineptitude and his own plummeting approval ratings? What happened next? Karl Rove moved to the GOP campaign headquarters for formulating the GOP's platform in the mid-term elections: Put GOP fannies in the chairs of Congress, state government and elected judiciary. The White House replaced Scott McClellan and the Chief of Staff. Yet another Secretary of the Treasury departed to be replaced by a star of the investment world from Goldman Sachs. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay's departed from the House and Speaker Hassert took over the limelight for the GOP. Senate leadership did not change, so they must be viewed as part of the solution. In other words, there were significant realignments of White House staff focus and discipline. The scandal-ridden Congress muted its firebrand, evangelical approach for getting legislation through the House and Senate.
The real action nowadays has fallen to the GOP-dominated Conference Committee as it develops a single bill out of the bills passed by the House and the Senate. How many opponents of the original bills vote to pass a Conference Committee product, rather than voting against it? Our representatives tell us how they voted on the House or Senate bill, but I don't recall ever hearing from them how they voted on the final legislation derived from Conference Committee negotiations. It is the latter version that becomes law if signed by the President. Check it out. I've seen Senate bills that passed by less than five votes, after sincere statements of hyperbole by each senator, perhaps a vote of cloture had to be passed because the Democrats were beginning a filibuster to prevent a vote by the full Senate. When the Conference Committee bill was sent to each chamber for confirmation, some of these highly contested pieces of legislation passed by almost unanimous vote. A 51-50 GOP victory in the Senate's original bill becomes a 95-5 approval vote for the bill created by the Conference Committee. I keep meaning to write to Senators Feinstein and Boxer about some of their votes on the second and final version being sent to the President.
Isn't it odd that this Conference Committee's proceedings are not broadcast on C-SPAN or discussed by journalists in TV, radio and newspaper. Someone should review the fate of the legislation sent back to the House and Senate for voting from the Conference Committee. Further, it might be interesting to see how many of the bills were vetoed when offered to the Presidents despite almost unanimous approval by Congress. I suppose we also should illuminate the Signing Statements that Presidents have attached to bills they sign to see how Administrations intend to act on bills signed into law. Is the agenda of one faction of the Majority Party enabled or mitigated by Presidential Signing Statements, an agenda unable to get acceptance by either House of Congress? For however long this signing statement process has been going on, what caused them to rise to public consciousness in the current Bush Administration?
In March and April 2006, during the time of personnel changes, a major lightning rod--Immigration Reform--suddenly became the topic of Congressional and public debate. Only the Enron convictions could draw more journalistic and talk show interest than did the conjoining of The War on Terror (tie back to 9/11), Homeland Security and Illegal immigrants into a single thematic thrust. Immigration Reform took off the front pages of newspapers and magazines the ongoing revelations of illegal activities, corruption, inept disaster response and the dispensing of Constitutional checks and balances by the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney Administration. Only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to compete with immigration reform's hold on the public's attention. Since this weekend, the official GOP rallying cry has changed to Gay Marriage. No one is making news talking about immigration reform.
It seems like the Press and broadcast media consider Donald Rumsfeld gone from this Administration. Rumsfeld is blamed--as if fact, not partisan politics--for the failure to give the leadership and support our military requires in combat and as a "nation-building, occupying force." (My words.) The Press also seems to have concluded that US forces will be withdrawn from Iraq sooner rather than later. But--nothing really has changed in the Department of Defense or in the passive-aggressive combat roles Rumsfeld's leadership imposes on our military forces.
The second and third tactics used to distract the public from its scrutiny of the Bush Administration failures, corruption and ineptness are these: 1) a shamefully disingenuous acknowledging of mistakes in judgment prior to and during the Iraqi conflagration, and 2) Karl Rove bringing Gay Marriage back as a banner behind which the GOP might retain control of Congress.
The manner of his delivery and body language of George Bush's words, intended to mollify his critics domestic and foreign, revealed to me that he was forced to hold that press conference with Tony Blair to make what some would take as an apology or acknowledgement of mistakes in the Iraqi war. George really did not want to make that statement about mistakes the World sees but he doesn't. He took direction from the true core of the Republican Party who remain nameless and invisible. The group of people who brought the Evangelical Christian bias into control of the GOP after Newt Gingrich failed to prevent Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Someone made up the acronym to describe the people who are the ultimate source of authority and power of the GOP as the O.W.N.E.R.S.--Old, White, New England RepublicanS. I can't think of a different set of persons who could weild ultimate market and political power in these United States. The OWNERS control all the money nationally and, with like-minded foreign elites, internationally. This international group uses temporary themes to manipulate public opinion, to frame election issues or governing strategies, and to control the global financial markets that feed currency to intercontinental or global marketplaces.
So, does this blog make it easier for you to vote tomorrow? I made up my mind 23 months ago. I must have been psychic or at least prescient.
Don't Tread on Us or our Constitution!
<< Home
