Home › Blogs › Cahnman's blog ›

Legitimate Issues for Republican Mea Culpa

Submitted by Cahnman on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 21:34
in

On the main page, Jon Henke offers a template for Republican mea culpa that should allow us to move forward.  I agree with the assessment that we owe the American people an explanation of where we went wrong AND (let's not forget) where we went right over the past eight years.  That said, such a mea culpa has to concentrate on the issues where we actually WENT WRONG as opposed to the one major issue where George W. Bush sacrificed his personal popularity to lead the United States (and the entire world) to a better tomorrow.

On that note, these are the seven legitmate issues for a Republican Mea Culpa:

1) Terri Schivao

2) Harriet Miers

3) TARP and Bailout Nation.

4) 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills

5) Duke Cunningham, et. al.

6) 2005 Highway Bill

7) Continuing and expanding Carter/Clinton "affordable housing" policies.

Things that have NO PLACE on this list: IRAQ, Medicare Part D, Katrina, Missle Defense, or ANYTHING related to the War on Terror.

Agnostic: No Child Left Behind, Immigration.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Are you saying...

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 05:59.

...that the GOP had nothing to do with Medicare D? 

No

Submitted by Cahnman on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 13:08.

I'm saying that Medicare Part D was a domestic accomplishment of the Bush administration of which we should all be proud!  It's the model for all future entitlement reform.  Why do you think the Democrats hate it so much?

Disagreement on Medicare Part D

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 00:42.

Umm, I would disagree in part with Medicare Part D.  It's true that the same reform gave us greatly expanded Health Savings Accounts, which are good.  It's also true that Bush's proposal was far better than the Democrats' version, which was essentially price controls on drugs.  But it was also an example of Republicans attempting to play the entitlement game on the Democrats' turf, and guess what - Republicans earned no political points for doing so.

Give it Five Years

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 04:35.

When, in 2014, Social Security looks more like Medicare Part D than a liberal ponzi scheme you will thank George W. Bush personally.

social security

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:24.

In 2014, once the Democrats get done "reforming" it, Social Security will look like old-style AFDC, i.e., welfare.  And so will Medicare Part D.

Relationship is fractured

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 08:12.

Anyone who has been married understands that there are points in a relationship where the choice is, "Would you rather be right and unhappy, or wrong and happy?" For the wise man this is an easy choice.

The GOP has a relationship with the voting public. The results of the last two elections tell you clearly that relationship is fractured and in need of healing. All the items Cahnman listed are reasons that some segment of voters feel the GOP was wrong and they are pissed off about it. That goes for both his approved mea culpa list, and his bull headed "I'll be damned if I'll apologize" list, as well as many other items that were not listed on either.

Two things can be said about each item. First, apology or no apology, history can not be changed. What happened, has happened. Apologizing doesn't change the past, it only has a potential positive effect on the future of the GOP/voter relationship. Second, each item is now and will in the future cost the GOP votes unless a sincere change of perspective takes place.

You may think you did absolutely nothing wrong concerning Katrina (your old friend from college that you bumped into unexpectedly and decided on the spur of the moment to have lunch with, and catch up on news from old friends). But your wife/voter feels differently about what has already happened and can not be changed. If you sincerely apologize for your foolish lapse in judgement, and vow such a thing will not happen again in the future, you might have some hope, one day soon, of getting some again(votes I mean).

 

Fair nuff

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 04:28.

I understand the sentiment of your comment and (don't tell her) I actually gave my girlfriend a fake apology an hour ago.

That said, there's a gigantic difference between apologizing for not buying toilet paper or milk (even if your excuse is legit) and apologizing for liberating 25 million people from one of the worst tyrannies in human history.  The simple fact is that there were certain things George W. Bush did RIGHT that both history and correct public policy require we embrace instead of self-flaggelate.

I understand what George W. Bush sacrficed to keep this country safe; for that, I (and hopefully George W. Bush's political party) will never apologize.

P.S.

Submitted by Cahnman on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 21:19.

Sometimes, in a relationship, if you stick to your guns for a few days she caves (remember, women like sex too).  The dirty little secret is that if you wait her out until she caves, she'll respect you A LOT more over the long run.

That said, my list is a genuine admission of where we went wrong.  Noone respects bogus self-flaggelation.

And, for the record, no Republican (except Ron Paul) should ever apologize for liberating 25 million people from Saddam Hussien.

P.P.S.

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 04:51.

I generally hate talking about myself; that said, I'm VERY willing to sacrfice sex for the historical record.

Seriously! can't you just say that Bush governed badly???

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 10:42.

Katrina was FUBAR

medicare plan D was FUBAR

Iraq was FUBAR

this is not to say that you have to say "the ideas were bad"... just say the implementation sucked, and we got smarter people for the next go around.

Enjoy Your Haterade

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 04:24.

Over the long run, George W. Bush is going to be remembered with George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

That said, I understand that no one wil realize this until September 11th, 2026.

Not so cut and dried

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:52.

It's not so cut and dried though.

Katrina - the pre-hurricane response was horrid, but that was a state and city response.  The rescue after the hurricane hit, I would give a B- grade.  The Coast Guard, and others did a very good job with rescuing people out of the flooded areas. 

The feds could have been called in earlier, but they weren't.  The feds don't just superceded state/local authority on a whim, they have to be invited.  That was the LA governors responsibility.

The response since then has been mixed.  Mississippi did far better recovering the New Orleans.  Again, while the Feds provide money, they don't build any projects (except for federal buildings and the levees.)

Medicare Plan D - I didn't support it, nor should the Republican Party have supported it.  Haven't followed it at all.

Iraq - again mixed grades. 

Initial invasion - A-, the looting throughout Iraq should have been anticipated.  But, then the Iraqi army/police vanishing wasn't anticipated.  That's who the generals were planning on using to maintain some semblance of order.

Post-Invasion - Pre-Surge - D, I think Bush listened to closely to the wrong generals.

Surge - now - B+, there are certainly things that could have been better, but for the most part, the plan we have been using is working.

Overall, I'd give President Bush a C/C+, about average for a US President.

harumph. he certainly did about as good as Clinton in Somalia

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 14:28.

though that's hardly saying good things.

Genocide is never pretty, and we shouldn't be satisfied and happy with ourselves to see it ending and leaving a nation much much poorer. (not that I'm saying Americans did the genocide)

Bush was only human

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 14:31.

And so is Obama.  I expect each will have their failures noted in the history books.  Whether they have any successes noted will depend on what those successes are about.

And I'm not talking about the instant history we have, but in 10-20-50 years.

of course. my main question right now is

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 14:47.

is Obama the new FDR or the new Buchanan.

an argument can be made for both.

I would view

Submitted by In between on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 15:46.

I would view Bush as a total joke. If I say anymore people will get mad. I can only tell you the truth.

There was a teleconference with Bush and others talking about Katrina before it hit. And New Orleans was totally ignored. Granted the city and state has the first response, but then why have a teleconference before hand and then ignoring it and then saying some 3 days later "Brownie, your doing a heck of job" when people were screaming for help. FEMA was headed before by James Lee Witt and he would have responders in the area before, during, and after a crisis. FEMA was rolled into Homeland Security and many of the expert personnel was fired. Brown did not know about crisis management like James Lee Witt.

Rumsfeld dismissed the looting in Iraq and did not cover the weapons caches as there was not enough troops. The Iraqi army (in which we so needed) was disbanded by Paul Bremer.

Bush didn't listen to anyone except to his neocons and the generals did not go up against Bush and Rumsfeld as the feeling they could not speak to either of them. Many generals viewed that we needed more personnel. Of course Bush was in denial on the amount of troops needed and the costs involved. A lot of Generals were fired or left the job.

The other side of the story 

Time will tell

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 15:17.

I'm sure I've said that before on different subjects.

I think a month is to short a time to pronounce him either the best thing since sliced bread, or the worst President in history.

I also think you have to judge people not only on what they do, but the results of what they do.  And not just the short term results either.

I have a very perspicacious friend.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 15:20.

he says that bush won't be the worst president in history -- pierce, and harrison will be rated worse. But that's just because they were REALLY awful.

Course he also says that Harding got a bad rap...

Which Harrison?

Submitted by Cahnman on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 15:52.

William Henry died after a month and Benjamin might have been the second best Democrat president of all time.

William Henry Harrison.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 16:41.

and considering that his death was his own fault for giving such a long speech, without even a coat on -- he's in the running for being one very stupid president.

Harding at least realized he had been whupped, and had basically no power.

I was reading about that the other day

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:48.

Most historians think that he did not die due to a cold, but due to respiratory illness exacerbated by stress. Also, his physicians provided treatments that only caused him to get worse, and the fact that there weren't any antiseptic procedures back then probably didn't help any.

This link is a bit "conspiracy theory" but provides interesting accounts of cures doctors tried to use: http://www.fcnp.com/540/harrison.htm

Though, to be fair, that version of the story isn't nearly as funny.

 

Alright, let's see if you're serious.

Submitted by jesdynf on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 21:23.

Your belief that the ends justified the means doesn't appear to be falsifiable, so we're going to pass it by, and the same with the rest of your exclusions.

You phrased this a "mea culpa", however, and so I ask -- how many of these were you wrong on? Which of these seven items did you believe in and pressure your leaders to support, only to recant now?

This reads like a list of "things I was right about that I'm willing to take the courageous step of telling everyone how they were wrong", and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to expand on which of these you've changed your mind on, and how you'd approach them today.

Fine

Submitted by Cahnman on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 21:31.

I was 100 percent wrong on 2 and 7.  On three, I caved after the market went down 700 points after the first House vote failed; that said, the implementation (by both 43 and 44) has proven that TARP was a trillion dollar mistake.

Fair enough.

Submitted by jesdynf on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 00:07.

I don't have a reply -- I just didn't want to leave the impression I'd cut and run without acknowledging your response.

Good post

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:16.

It's nice to see actual discussion of things like this on here. Kudos Cahnman.

As I said in the post before, the main problem I had with Katrina is that the Army Engineers signed off on the levee being stable, which obviously it wasn't. That, and the fact that Bush was partying out with McCain a day or two after the storm looked pretty horrible.

I also think that supporting Alberto Gonzalez was a very bad move. He couldn't remember the details of what was going on in his department, which he was a head of. He was either incompetent, lying to protect someone, or didn't do his job correctly.

I also disagree with the removal of habeas corpus for SUSPECTED terrorists at GTMO. Many people will argue that every single detainee was apprehended on the 'battlefield' as it were, but this isn't true. As such, I feel that habeas corpus is absolutely vital and should only be restricted in cases of extreme emergency, and only temporarily.

There are also some bipartisan issues that I think both parties should respond to. One is the idea that only those who believe in God are fit to rule this country, but that's to be expected given the populace. Not enough rewards for pointing that out, though it was nice Obama threw in a word to non-believers in his inaugural speech. Additionally, there is no room in either party right now, it seems, for isolationism.

isolationism

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:27.

Additionally, there is no room in either party right now, it seems, for isolationism.

Are you kidding?  Both the far left and the far right are all about isolationism when they speak of rolling back NAFTA and generally opposing free trade (of course for different reasons).  So there's definitely room for isolationist views in either party, it's just that you'd have to put up with the tinfoil hat crowd.

I'm not a fan of tinfoil hats though...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:25.

I'm for mostly free trade, but I'd rather not try to support militarily every non-democracy that wants one. What's that party?

Ron Paul is the only one it seems that was willing to back up that sort of isolationism.

Sadly, many who follow him seem to enjoy tinfoil hats.

War on Terrorism is a huge failure

Submitted by superdestroyer on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:18.

When you consider that seven years after 9/11, people are stilll treated like criminals at the airport but that cargo containers are still not inspected and that over eight million illegal immigrants have entered the country since then, then the Bush Administration gets an F for the war on terrorism.   The Bush Administration ran the war on terrorism as a media event, look like your doing something, instead of actually trying to make America safer.  As long as the Mexican borders is wide open and as long as anyone who wants to overstay their visa can, the U.S. is not safe.

I guess there was more money for big business to keep the borders open rather than spending the money to secure the borders.   It is odd that the Bush Administration decided that keeping foreign tourist at Disney World is more important than actually securing America.

The biggest problem with airports

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 08:56.

Is that security really doesn't seem to be a built-in design, but an add-on one. If there's anything I've learned in my job, it's that you have to design something with security in mind.

Look at the long lines at security checkpoints. That'd be the ideal spot to blow up a bomb. Tons of passengers in one spot, plus if you're close enough you might take out the equipment itself.

You shouldn't have to wait in a line to check in baggage, then another for security. There should be multiple lines of security, and as you step up to the counter to give them your name, you drop off your baggage to one section of security and then immediately step through the metal detector section.

The restriction on bottles of water and things of that nature are pretty ridiculous. Instead of a one-size-fits-all restriction, they should take them on a case-by-case basis.

Also, airports should be rotating personnel who perform security screenings. People tend to get complacent when they do the same job for too long. They take shortcuts and skip steps.

And superdestroyer, there's no way you can get every terrorist. You could lock down security so tight that no one would want to fly, and you could still find a way to cause disruption.