George W. Bush is Still George W. Bush

Although most of the world and a very signficant portion of American, including Republicans (but not this one) consider George W. Bush to be one of the worst Presidents of all time, and certainly in the past 50 years, you have to admire the fact that the President is still comfortably with who he is, regardless of how the world sees him. From the Washington Post (who are finally magnanimous with the lame duck president):

Aides say privately that Bush long ago made peace with his low approval ratings, which have persisted despite significant improvements in Iraq, the original source of his polling woes. Some current and former aides argue that Bush's unpopularity has made it easier for him to push ahead with difficult decisions, such as a series of dramatic interventions into the financial markets that have angered conservatives over the past two months.

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."

There is little outward sign of irritation from Bush, who has maintained a sense of good cheer in many of his less-formal public appearances this year. During a celebration honoring Theodore Roosevelt's 150th birthday last week, Bush joked: "People ask me, 'Do you ever see any of the ghosts of your predecessors here in the White House?' I said, 'No, I quit drinking.' "

That enduring, frat-boy enthusiasm is exactly the sort of thing that riles his detractors, but supporters say Bush's optimism has been central to his political survival. "When you're inside, and the president is so optimistic, you're not paying as much attention to the noise outside," said Candida "Candi" Wolff, a former White House legislative affairs director. "It keeps everybody focused."

To a certain extent, Presidents have to be comfortable with who they are and what they believe. But I think it is the rare man who can maintain good cheer in public and semi-public despite the constant drumbeat of negative. It is difficult to imagine Bill Clinton like that.

Short term and immediate history will judge George W. Bush harshly, mostly because all we see are the immediate, the now. But I think that in 20, 30 or 50 years will be look back and see a President who did the right things and believed they were the right things at a time when everyone else was saying he was wrong.

FBI Not So Formidable

You would think that the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, within sight of the Capital and 1/2 a mile from the White House would be a pretty secure place, what with all those G-Men and women running around, a pretty well stocked armory somewhere with lots of people who know how to use a gun. Pretty secure right?

Well maybe not.

Justice Dept. Sued Over Political Bias

But the question is can they prove their claim?

This Would Have Been Entertaining

Dana Milbank describes the Congressional testimony of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

I am not sure that Addington didn't make things worse for himself, but I do appreciate the fact that he was being adversarial. Too often Congressional witnesses are a little to obsequious for my tates.

Another First In The Bush Adminstration

The first female Army Four Star General.

Can Bill Clinton claim that?

When Is a Financial Liability Not A Liability?

When you are a sitting Senator and you don't have disclose your mortgage as a liability on your financial and ethics disclosure report.

Given that a strong minority of Senators are actually millionaire's maybe they don't carry a mortgage. But in reality I doubt that since the mortgage interest deduction is the one solid deduction you are guaranteed to have. So why shouldn't it be disclosed, particularly in light of the sweetheart mortgage deals that the Subprime Six have received.

Kudos to Senator Cornyn for his move.

Alberto Gonzales "Politicized" Justice Department

That is an odd way of describing the Justice Department's operations under Gonzalez.

Can we just accept that no matter what Administration is in the White House, there is a certain amout of politicization of Cabinet Departments? The Justice Department is an executive agency--is is not the Courts, who are supposed to be neutral. An executive agency is tasked with carrying out the orders and policies of the White House.

Law enforcement is a political activity to a certain extent. The White House tells the Justice Department what is more important and what is less important in some respects. The Justice Department, just like every other agency, is given a priority list.

Did Gonzalez step over the line on some matters? Maybe and maybe not, but we cannot investigate him for politics.

Jeez, Does This Really Matter

ABC News is reporting the President Bush met Jack Abramoff six times rather than the previously reported twice.

Really, does this matter? Can there be anything less worthy of air time and electrons that this?

So what?

The USA breathless pants that President Bush's disapproval rating is highest ever. But history is a far different judge.

Michelle Malkin $1.4 Billion Stimulus Package--For Mexico

If you believe all teh doom and gloom about our economy (and I don't--at least not all of it), then Congress working on a stimulus package is to be expected, but why then is the White House pushing a $1.4 billion stimulus package for Mexico. Michelle Malkin gives us the news.

Bad Assumptions About Military History

In every generation and in every struggle since the founding of the United States, mistakes are made and opportunites go unexploited. Case in point, witness the Articles of Confederation and the failure of our Framers to eradicate slavery. The fact that such mistakes are made is not news nor should it be viewed as an overall failure, the greatest strength of the United States is that we learn (and usually quickly) from our mistakes. In no arena is the fact that mistakes will be made more prevalent than in war and the military. Michael Barone talks about Iraq and mistakes.

There are lessons to be learned from the dazzling success of the surge strategy in Iraq.

Lesson one is that just about no mission is impossible for the United States military. A year ago it was widely thought, not just by the new Democratic leaders in Congress but also in many parts of the Pentagon, that containing the violence in Iraq was impossible. Now we have seen it done.

snip

George W. Bush, like Lincoln, took his time finding the right generals. But it’s clear now that the forward-moving surge strategy devised by Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno has succeeded where the stand-aside strategy employed by their predecessors failed. American troops are surely the most capable military force in history. They just need to be given the right orders.

The fact that the American military is not only the greatest fighting force ever assembled was somehow lost. The military is capable of performing just about any mission handed to it and even some that the so-called "experts" believe to be impossible. The American soldier is a master of "adapt and overcome." The failings that happen in most military struggles come not from the grunt on the ground, but from the civilian leadership. That George W. Bush and his advisors made mistakes with regard to Iraq strategy cannot be denied (but can be debated in their specifics). But once handed orders, the generals and their men salute, say "Aye, Aye Sir" and move about their mission.

Now that their mission is showing success, it is almost natural to stop and think, "Why didn't we come up with that strategy before?" The answer lies in the basics of wartime (or any real time) decision-making. Decisions are made in the very absence of the "perfect" information we have in hindsight.

As the New Year dawns, perhaps now we can move on from the America will lose dialectic and take on the idea that mistakes happen. We must learn from those mistakes and allow for the knowledge that as certainly as the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow, we will make more mistakes. It is the ability of the military, and America, to own up to and correct those mistakes, that makes the United States great. America is not perfect, but it is great.

The Shirnking Budget Deficit

How's this for news, the budget deficit continues to shrink.

This despite efforts by both parties to spend more and more. Could it be that our prosperous economy responds to stupid spending by producing more?

Petraeus Report: If You Don't Like the Message, Shoot the Messenger

With the coming report on the progress in Iraq due next week, and rumors that the report will carry some significant positive news, Democrats are gearing up the smear machine on Gen. David Petraeus, a man they overwhelmingly confirmed into his position less than a year ago. Writes Ed Morrissey of the effort:

If anyone wants a lesson in how to lose a reputation for diligence, honor, and honesty, all they need to do is get confirmed by Congress for a vital role in American security. Eight months after the Senate confirmed David Petraeus as commander of American forces in Iraq, the same Senators who voted for his confirmation have now begun a character-assassination campaign to discredit him. (link in original)

Here is the lead paragraph of the Washington Times story Morrissey points to:

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted.

Three weeks ago, everyone in Washington was waiting and wondering what the Petraeus report would contain. Now, Congressional leaders are referring to the report as teh Bush report instead of the Petraeus report or the Petraeus/Crocker report.

Morrissey concludes:

Which is more likely -- that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?

The track record appears clear.

Bush Administration Poverty Levels Vs. Clinton Administration

Gateway Pundit makes a valuable comparison between poverty a decade ago and poverty today, on the heels of an announcement that poverty levels in America have dropped.

When looking at GP's numbers, remember, the Clinton economy was supposed to be stronger the the economy under Bush (at least so say some Democrats).

GP also points to a Heritage Foundation fact sheet: The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

While it is a shame that we have people living in poverty in this nation.

But GP's figures are suspect to start with. The economy in the Clinton years went from a high poverty rate of 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 in 2000 and showed a steady decline over the course of his administration. President G.W. Bush had a low of 11.7 in 2001 and a high of 12.7 in 2004. Yes the averages look better for Bush than Clinton, but averages are very, very misleading.

Now all this assumes that a President and their policies have any effect on the poverty rate, a suspect proposition in itself. Certainly teh booming economy in the late 1900's lowered teh proverty rate, just as the economic downturn immediately following 9/11 adversely impacted the rate.

The Departures of Democrats Favorite Targets

Let's take a look at the Democratic White House Personnel Hit List:

Scooter Libby--Resigned, Convicted
Karl Rove--Resigned
Alberto Gonzalez--Resigned
Dick Cheney--Still Going

White House and Bush Administration departures continued yesterday as Attorney General Gonzalez resigned. Gonzalez is just the latest in a long line of resignations from the White House--some of which were expected and others not so much.

But here is a dilemma for the Democrats--with all of their favorite punching bags leaving office--who are they going to have to kick around? President Bush has taken their abuse for six plus year and shows no sign of being beaten down? Vice President Cheney will stick around if only to make Demorcrats' lives miserable by his mere presence in the White House. In there efforts to embarass the Bush Administration, the Democratic hounding of senior Administration officials will actually work against Democrats.

If you want to tell a story of greed, corruption, bad faith and bad politics, you have to be able to point to someone immediately as a "villian" and the Demcorats can't. Not a good campaign strategy.

The Next Attorney General

Mark Levin has a few (not so good jokes) about the next attorney general:

Why not just formalize Patrick Fitzgerald's role as the roving attorney general? O.K., bad joke. Or maybe the president can appoint Arlen Specter and after he gets confirmed, fire him. O.K., another bad joke.

I like the Specter joke, though.

Gonzales Resigns

Rumored to be coming all weekend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is resigning.

Gonzales has been an anchor on the White House for political reasons, although it is still up in the air as to what really happened with the U.S. Attorney firings.

Democrats will cheer roundly, but they have not really achieved anything.

Democrats Lose 2008, Blame Rove

I can just see the headline (Insert GOP Candidate Here) Elected 44th President of United States, Democrats Blame Loss on Karl Rove!! John Hood explains my vision:

Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times speculates here about the possibility that as he heads for the exit door, Karl Rove is using reverse psychology to engineer the nomination of the weakest candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008: Hillary Clinton. Rove has in recent days notably questioned Clinton's electability and legislative record as the senator from New York. Clinton has responded to the bait by remarking on how much negative attention she's getting from Rove, trying to play it as evidence that the GOP is most worried about her — although in reality Rove really does think she's a weak candidate and hopes she gets the nomination.

Sound too intricate to be a real political strategy? (link in original)

Is such a headline comes true, I will be doubled over on the floor laughing for days!!

Barone on Rove

After the Washington Post hit piece over the weekend, it was nice to see a real political journalist look at Karl Rove's legacy and impact as Michael Barone does.

Rove brought to his work a wide and deep knowledge of U.S. history, political statistics, demography, and public policy. He worked hard and, for most of three years, under an unjustified threat of indictment. He does not seem to have weighed in much on foreign or military policy, and there is no reason to believe that George W. Bush sought his advice on whether to take military action in Iraq. But otherwise, he seems to have had his hand in everything from the details of the Medicare prescription drug bill to who should be the Republican nominee for the Senate in Minnesota. His effectiveness was grounded in the belief—accurate, it seems, to the end—that he had the full confidence of the president.

What is the verdict on his legacy? Rove is, as Bush put it, the "architect" of his political and policy strategy, and to many, that intertwined strategy seems to be in ruins. I take a longer view. For most of his career, Rove was a political consultant. In my own briefer career as a political consultant, I advised candidates running for executive office that they needed to come up with a small number of issue positions that would enable them to (a) get their party's nomination, (b) win the general election, and (c) govern effectively. I was surprised how few managed to carry this out. Bill Clinton, who drew on many consultants, did this quite well in 1992. Bush, with Rove at his side, did a pretty good job in 2000.

Rove is, and will remain, the Democratic boogeyman from 2000 until probably 2012 or even beyond. Everytime the Democrats looked prepared for a victory, something happened that led to a political defeat and each time the Democrats saw Karl Rove. I am not sure what the Demorats will do when the next political defeat comes--other than to blame Karl Rove.

Democrats Salivating at White House Departures

Now that the Bush Presidency is entering its final 16 months in office, a number of key White House staffers are probably going to be leaving. Karl Rove is but the latest and White House Spokesman Tony Snow has indicated that he may be leaving shortly, along with a couple of others. John Podesta gives some sensible advice for the Bush Administration, while at the same time touting the Clinton Administration and perhaps even Hillary Clinton.