NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been raining shit on the Republican Party for months now, and I suspect we don't need a recap of it.

My question is "Why now?" What managed to trigger the flood. I find it hard to believe that this much corruption and cronyism is limited to the very recent, or to the Republican party, yet I cannot remember a time where this much real controversy was occurring.

Well, a lot of this has been simmering for quite a while. The Plame Affair is what--3 years old now? But there was a big filing today where Libby fingered Bush via Cheney, so it's back in the news. Abramoff has been simmering for a year at least, if not more, and where Abramoff goes, DeLay goes as well.

And then realize that the press, which was largely kissing Republican ass for a while now, but especially since September 2001, has decided that the President really isn't popular and that the public won't hammer them simply for reporting the news, and they've been doing their jobs a little better.

What prompted the flood? A flood- Hurricane Katrina shook the faith a lot of people had in the Bush administration. Like 9/11, it was a situation in which the Bush administration knew something bad could happen and didn't act on it; only this time, because it wasn't a matter of politics and diplomacy, the news was able to get out anyway, and more people could say, "Dammit, we told them this could happen!" Everything since then has been a cascade effect- public distrust built upon itself, and people finally started looking critically at Iraq, the deficits, and unethical practices in the government without worrying about being called a terrorist lover.

It has been raining shit on the Republican Party for months now, and I suspect we don't need a recap of it.

My question is "Why now?" What managed to trigger the flood. I find it hard to believe that this much corruption and cronyism is limited to the very recent, or to the Republican party, yet I cannot remember a time where this much real controversy was occurring.
Katrina,
wiretapping,
and Abramoff.
The rest of the stuff had been there, and indeed more keeps coming, but these were the major turners as public opinion goes, IMO.

I think I know where you are going?

Well there is much more attention because it is the mid elections. There is a change for the demos (I am trying to keep a straight face) to make some headway in the house and senate.

But you have to admit the current goverment makes it sooo easy.

I recently heard Kevin Philips on the radio (talking up his new book). He mentioned that under the freedom of information act, people got a look at Cheneys secret energy plans and guess what they found? Maps of the oil deposits in Iraq.

If true then that puts the so called BS claims in a different light.

If they Repubs don't watch it, their great revolution will go down as one of the fluke changes.....

Does anyone think that, were the democrats in power right now, that they would be going through the same problems?

I mean do you think this is more a sign of the political times than corruption in the Republican party. Or is the Republican party just pretty corrupt?

I think that the republicans got caught up in their own game. Since the mid-90s, they have been using the media as a hype machine for their talking points. Have the democrats caught up to them, or did they bury themselves?

Katrina,
wiretapping,
and Abramoff.
The rest of the stuff had been there, and indeed more keeps coming, but these were the major turners as public opinion goes, IMO.

To tell the truth, I think that Katrina and Abramoff might have nailed anyone who was in power at the time.

As far as the wiretapping, I don't know if that really does anything to hurt Bush.

But you have to admit the current goverment makes it sooo easy.

Oh, that is a given. I am just wondering if it has always been this easy.

I think the republicans are more ambitious in their corruption, and far more coordinated in general. And that's their great success and failing. It's how they took power, but when they seek to do evil, they're all pulling in the same direction to that end too.

I think the republicans are more ambitious in their corruption, and far more coordinated in general. And that's their great success and failing. It's how they took power, but when they seek to do evil, they're all pulling in the same direction to that end too.

Maybe certain members, but I would be reluctant to say that the party is more corrupt.

....
I mean do you think this is more a sign of the political times than corruption in the Republican party.....

I would think that the 'political times' are made by the Republican party. So, both.

Does anyone think that, were the democrats in power right now, that they would be going through the same problems?

I mean do you think this is more a sign of the political times than corruption in the Republican party. Or is the Republican party just pretty corrupt?

I think that the republicans got caught up in their own game. Since the mid-90s, they have been using the media as a hype machine for their talking points. Have the democrats caught up to them, or did they bury themselves?

I tend to think it is a sign of the times in the english speaking world. Partly because of increased competition in the news media. In other words, scandal and corruption is harder to sweep under the rug.

But look at UK politics. The Labour party swept into power partly owing to a promise to be "pure than pure, whiter than white", and has, since, 1997 turned itself into a virtual kleptocracy.

Same thing here.

Maybe certain members, but I would be reluctant to say that the party is more corrupt.

Are there levels of corruption? ;)

I would think that the 'political times' are made by the Republican party. So, both.

What do you mean?

Does anyone think that, were the democrats in power right now, that they would be going through the same problems?

I mean do you think this is more a sign of the political times than corruption in the Republican party. Or is the Republican party just pretty corrupt?

I think that the republicans got caught up in their own game. Since the mid-90s, they have been using the media as a hype machine for their talking points. Have the democrats caught up to them, or did they bury themselves?

Actually, I think the problem is the opposite: reality intruded upon and overwhelmed their ability to spin the situation.

For four years, George Bush campaigned on the platform of "I will make you safe". When it came time to test Bush's commitment, however, the American people saw other Americans suffering, and they also saw the administration doing nothing. At that point, it wouldn't really matter if God himself addressed the nation and told people it wasn't George Bush's fault: he promised that he would help us if/when fecal matter hit the rotary impeller, and instead he seemed more preoccupied with clearing brush on his ranch and raising funds for the Republican party.

The effect was twofold: first, it put the lie to one of the central dogmas of Republicanism, namely that government is the problem rather than the solution to the problem. Here, we clearly saw that no amount of non-government assistance could replace the federal government for rebuilding and rescue. Second, it demonstrated that the problem rested far more not with government in general, but incompetant government, which Bush seemed the personification of. As such, Bush is in trouble not just because he had a bad PR day, but because Katrina relief, or lack thereof, undercut the entire operating procedure of his administration.

I tend to think it is a sign of the times in the english speaking world. Partly because of increased competition in the news media. In other words, scandal and corruption is harder to sweep under the rug.

But look at UK politics. The Labour party swept into power partly owing to a promise to be "pure than pure, whiter than white", and has, since, 1997 turned itself into a virtual kleptocracy.

Same thing here.

I would say that careerism (is that a word?) within party politics has been manipulating the US government since long before 1997. Legislation and politics in this country has become more of a thing of business survival than activism.

Actually, I think the problem is the opposite: reality intruded upon and overwhelmed their ability to spin the situation.

Concerning Katrina in particular, do you think that it is so much that Bush couldn't spin out of the situation, or that the rest of American politics has caught up on the spin and can compete?

In other words, does this administration no longer have a monopoly on bullshit?

Does anyone think that, were the democrats in power right now, that they would be going through the same problems?

I mean do you think this is more a sign of the political times than corruption in the Republican party. Or is the Republican party just pretty corrupt?

I think that the republicans got caught up in their own game. Since the mid-90s, they have been using the media as a hype machine for their talking points. Have the democrats caught up to them, or did they bury themselves?
Well, Katrina was a different animal, because it didn't involve corruption so much as it involved incompetence, and I think that was the big changer in perception. Americans are used to corruption in government--at times, I think we demand it--but we're willing to put up with it as long as the potholes are filled, i.e. as long as the government comes through when it's supposed to. Katrina showed that this government couldn't do that, and it came off looking especially badly when people remembered how well FEMA functioned under James Lee Witt, who was a crony of Clinton, but was a crony who knew his job.

Ever since then, the public has looked at the way things get fucked up (like Iraq) and instead of looking for a scapegoat outside the administration, they're looking right at the administration.

What do you mean?

I think that the political times, of which you wrote, are a creation of corporate interest lobby groups, focusing on narrow interests under the Friedman doctrine of 'the only social responsibility of a company is to increase its wealth'.

The proliferation of this doctrine, and others based on or closely related to it, has increased social tension, both locally and globally.

Given that corporate power is nowhere stronger than in the US, I jump to the conclusion, perhaps wrongly, that corporate power has lobbied for the government to think in short-term-interest business terms (more money now), and is now paying the prize.

Take Katrina for example. Money that should have been spent on prevention was spent elsewhere. Why?

Anyway, just a quick thought. I shouldn't have stumbled in, exam on monday...leave me alone!

Edit..my point.. If I am not mistaken, the Republican Party has a lot more corporate backing than the democrats. Is thus more dependant on corporate happiness.

Well, Katrina was a different animal, because it didn't involve corruption so much as it involved incompetence, and I think that was the big changer in perception. Americans are used to corruption in government--at times, I think we demand it--but we're willing to put up with it as long as the potholes are filled, i.e. as long as the government comes through when it's supposed to. Katrina showed that this government couldn't do that, and it came off looking especially badly when people remembered how well FEMA functioned under James Lee Witt, who was a crony of Clinton, but was a crony who knew his job.

Ever since then, the public has looked at the way things get fucked up (like Iraq) and instead of looking for a scapegoat outside the administration, they're looking right at the administration.

I agree with much of what you said, but I have a feeling that a LARGE majority of the American public don't have a clue who James Lee Witt is, or how he handled FEMA. The reason, he never dealt with Katrina; had he dealt with Katrina, I imagine he would have been overwhelmed as well.

I would say that careerism (is that a word?) within party politics has been manipulating the US government since long before 1997. Legislation and politics in this country has become more of a thing of business survival than activism.

Yah, I agree that this tendency predates 1997.

What I was more referring too is that in both cases (labour and Republican), the respective parties have gained a virtually monopoly on the powers of government. Labour through it's massive majorities in parliament, and the republicans with their control of all three branches.

Given that both are unchecked - pretty much - the natural tendency of career politicians to engage in these behaviors will be taken to it's logical conclusion. And I suspect, after a certain time in office wielding so much power, politicians begin to believe that they are, in fact, above the law.

Sorry if I wasn't clearer.

And like I said, I think the media has to be increasingly cut-throat in reporting these things, which makes us more aware of it.

I agree that Bush took a big hit after Katrina. He had been in charge for over 4 years with a Republican Congress. He was supposedly preparing for emergencies after 911. Then when we get an emergency, they can't handle it. I don't put all the blame on Bush. Nagin and that governor screwed up badly first, but the plain fact is, Katrina was bungled at all levels, including the Horse Expert that Bush put in charge of FEMA.

I don't know how many people were bothered by Bush's wiretapping, but I know I was bothered by it. I'd guess quite a few others were too.

Abramof was just business as usual. Quite a few Dems got bit by that as well.

I agree with much of what you said, but I have a feeling that a LARGE majority of the American public don't have a clue who James Lee Witt is, or how he handled FEMA. The reason, he never dealt with Katrina; had he dealt with Katrina, I imagine he would have been overwhelmed as well.
Not to the degree Brownie and Chertoff were, for this reason if for no other--Witt knew what he was doing, and had surrounded himself with professionals. Brownie was surrounded with political appointees and was one himself. I guarantee you that the reaction post-Katrina would have been swifter had there been a professional--even a Bush buddy, as long as he was a professional crisis manager--in charge.

Abramof was just business as usual. Quite a few Dems got bit by that as well.
Sorry, but you're mistaken on that one. Abramoff is a purely Republican scandal, and grew out of the desire driven by Tom Delay to shift K Street lobbyists exclusively to Republicans. Don't get me wrong--there are plenty of Dems who would have happily been on the gravy train, but there weren't any on this one.

Not to the degree Brownie and Chertoff were, for this reason if for no other--Witt knew what he was doing, and had surrounded himself with professionals. Brownie was surrounded with political appointees and was one himself. I guarantee you that the reaction post-Katrina would have been swifter had there been a professional--even a Bush buddy, as long as he was a professional crisis manager--in charge.

Quite possibly, but I can't speculate.

What prompted the flood? A flood- Hurricane Katrina shook the faith a lot of people had in the Bush administration. Like 9/11, it was a situation in which the Bush administration knew something bad could happen and didn't act on it; only this time, because it wasn't a matter of politics and diplomacy, the news was able to get out anyway, and more people could say, "Dammit, we told them this could happen!" Everything since then has been a cascade effect- public distrust built upon itself, and people finally started looking critically at Iraq, the deficits, and unethical practices in the government without worrying about being called a terrorist lover.
I agree except taht you also have to throw in Iraq. If things had been going well in the country I doubt any of this would make much of a splash, but the people are loding faith in the Republican establishment, mostly because of how stupid they are. I think what may have started it all, though, was, "She's as alive as you or I." I think people really felt that the Republicans shoudl have kept their noses out of this very personal affair and were thinking, "We have these huge problems that you can't seem to get together and solve yet you're willing to call a special session of Congress and the Supreme Court to keep a brain dead woman on life support."

When it came out that the head of FEMA's only qualifications were that he used to be an Arabian horse dealer, and then Bush tried to elect Miers as a Supreme Court judge with no prior experience working in courts, and then, because of the Plame affair a couple journalists went to jail for reasons kept 'confidential' when Bush was saying Karl Rove had broken no laws by saying "Wilson's wife" because 'He hadn't said Plame and Wilson could be anyone' and all of this came on top of Katrina and the Iraq War reaching its third year everything started sliding down hill.

Then there was wiretapping and Scooter Libby and Hamas getting elected as the Parliament of Palestine (I remember the newspaper headline was "Known Terrorist Organization Elected in the Middle East Fair And Square") when we give more funding to Israel each year than any other country, and everyone- including Republicans for the first time- started admitting 'maybe President Bush's judgement is more than a little off'-

and THEN there was Abramoff and DeLay and everything else.

It has been raining shit on the Republican Party for months now, and I suspect we don't need a recap of it.

My question is "Why now?" What managed to trigger the flood. I find it hard to believe that this much corruption and cronyism is limited to the very recent, or to the Republican party, yet I cannot remember a time where this much real controversy was occurring.
Maybe it's got something to do with all the officials getting busted for sex crimes against little kids.

Maybe it's got something to do with all the officials getting busted for sex crimes against little kids.
Up to 4 (http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/40341-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS) now.

Up to 4 (http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/40341-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS) now.
These are the people who are supposed to be protecting you and your children. Men who try to seduce little girls, who masturbate in front of kids at the mall, who like looking at pornographic images of children.

Gosh, why would that sort of thing cause people to lose confidence in this administration? I mean, we've been hearing for YEARS about how the Bush Empire is full of criminals. We've been hearing about the corruption, the lies, and the theft for years. Why would we choose NOW to get pissed?

Come on, GOoPers, use your brains. You are the ones who got American frantic over a blow job. You know, and exploit, American sex-phobia. You use it to win elections, by talking about the icky gays, the slutty feminists, the fornicating brown people.

Well, now it's about the sex. Happy?

It has been raining shit on the Republican Party for months now, and I suspect we don't need a recap of it.

My question is "Why now?" What managed to trigger the flood. I find it hard to believe that this much corruption and cronyism is limited to the very recent, or to the Republican party, yet I cannot remember a time where this much real controversy was occurring.

Where Brazil leads, the USA follows! :p

Now that I really think about it I think the ineptitude and corruption were always there and the only thing that kept it on the back burner was 9/11 and the Iraq war. People have now grown used to these two things now in the same way that you stop smelling garlic in the kitchen after a littel while and the Republican fart smell is no longer masked.

Now that I really think about it I think the ineptitude and corruption were always there and the only thing that kept it on the back burner was 9/11 and the Iraq war. People have now grown used to these two things now in the same way that you stop smelling garlic in the kitchen after a littel while and the Republican fart smell is no longer masked.

That is the most likely reason. This administration ran out of smoke screens.

Concerning Katrina in particular, do you think that it is so much that Bush couldn't spin out of the situation, or that the rest of American politics has caught up on the spin and can compete?

In other words, does this administration no longer have a monopoly on bullshit?

Well, I think that the administration no longer has a monopoly on bullshit, but they no longer have that monopoly because they've been hit by a series of circumstances, many self-inflicted, that overrode their ability to spin the situation. No amount of spinning could override what Americans were seeing on CNN with Hurricane Katrina. No amount of spinning could change the "What the hell is wrong with you people" sense Americans got from the Terry Schiavo debacle. No amount of spinning could could convince both Bush's base and the left that Harriet Miers was a qualified candidate.

As a result, there is an increasing inability of the administration to spin things that had been a strong suit, like Iraq, Social Security, or the War on Terror.

Its great and glorious to watch neocon traitors implode from there own BS

It is like a warship that has gone top-heavy from all the big guns. Keeps adding guns but ignores the ballast, because 'guns are what matters to a battleship, the market says so, the market is always right'.

Once seaworthiness is gone, the boat can't safely be rocked much

The Rep party has been running on pure emotion.-----Gay marriage, Abortion, partiotism, evolution, etc. People finally turned around and looked at what was really happening. Notice they ran on emotional issues but did zip about them after elected. The emotion simply cooled.

A president has the most power when he first enters office. He can claim that he is special because the people support him, and the Congress is usually less critical and confrontational exactly because the same people who voted them into office also voted the president into office. Plus, everyone is happy and hopeful over the exercise of democracy, etc. However, as time passes the people become more critical and the media naturally latch on to whatever "controversy" or "scandal" that happens to come around. Naturally, the Congress follows suit (because it's now safe to do so) and becomes more confrontational. Presidental power falls as a result. Especially for presidents in their second term, where they cannot be reelected even if they were popular.

According to the chart in my foreign policy textbook (The Politics of United States Foreign Policy, 3rd ed, Jerel A. Rosati), every president from Truman to Bush Sr. has left office at an approval rating lower than when they entered office. Clinton broke the trend, leaving office with more approval, and now Bush Jr. seems to be putting the trend well back on track.

While certain events may create localized spikes (Truman post WWII, Bush Sr. 1991 Gulf War, Bush Jr. September 11) or falls (Nixon Watergate) in a dramatic fashion, the general trend seems to remain the same. High entering office, low exiting office. (Edit: and, the general trend appears regardless of the party to which the president belongs. As such, it seems that, contrary to what others are suggesting, specific ideology or policy may not play a major role.)

In other words, it's just more of the same.


Does anyone think that, were the democrats in power right now, that they would be going through the same problems?


Noting the trend presented by the presidental approval data, perhaps/probably yes. Clinton represents only a single point of reference, so the approval data does not show whether his leaving office with more approval is because of him or party policy. The data do, however, suggest that different parties still follow the same trend, so a Democratic presidency would probably also have suffered lowered approval numbers.

It is like a warship that has gone top-heavy from all the big guns. Keeps adding guns but ignores the ballast, because 'guns are what matters to a battleship, the market says so, the market is always right'.

Once seaworthiness is gone, the boat can't safely be rocked much
they became victims of their own success which proves their agenda was bad for the people

That’s right even Jack Bauer has turned on the evil President! Damned them for fiction imitating life anyways.