All hail ...." The Dissident in Chief"!!!!

Twilight Zone music....Du du do du do du.....UN-BELIEV-A-FRICKIN-MAZING.

Mark come back....come baaaaaack.

Wow...the lower the polls go, the more I think you are losing it. I understand that you have a lot of time and emotion invested in this failed presidency, but get a grip man! Bush and Co.'s policies are not "working wonders for the world".

The only good news is that this lame duck show will be over in a few years. Get ahead of it like the rest of your friends on the right - distance yourself from the administration and declare that you have really just been a Reagan conservative all along!

There are other battles to fight besides this lost cause and nobody here wants to see you lose your mind in a few years, rocking back and forth mumbling "Bush was right, Bush was right,..."

Mark, let me see if i have this right, if a president wins an election, they no longer have to listen to the will of the people? seems like a strange concept to me...

Read "Rebel in Chief" and you'll understand completely why we don't ebb and flow our support with the polls, ala liberals. People that are fly by night supporters, changing their beliefs and feelings by what others say are not people I want in charge of even a dog cart race, moreless the country.

So where does the welcoming of Ilham Aliyev to the whitehouse this friday fit in with the agenda of spreading freedom and democracy?

"People that are fly by night supporters, changing their beliefs and feelings by what others say are not people I want in charge of even a dog cart race.."

You mean like when Bush dropped Social Security reform after poor poll results?

Barney,

Ah, but it hasn't been dropped...it is still being pushed by the White House; and it is a vital necessity...unfortunately, a combination of Democratic demagoguery and Congressional GOP spinelessness has resulted in deadlock...when SS goes bankrupt, people will look back at the Bush Administration and say "why didn't we listen to him?".

Mark, you are not alone, there are lots of Bush supporters out there. My President is a man who does what he says, and sadly, an oddity in today's world of politics.

kiwi,

An election is the only will of the people - the will of the people isn't a Gallup poll. President Bush scored a majority of the vote in 2004, and that carries him through until January 20th, 2009 as the choice of the majority for President of the United States no matter what polling says interim...the Congressional GOP scored its majority in 2004, and that carries it through until this November - at that time, we'll discover if a majority is still with the Congressional GOP.

As I read the article, I fully expected to come to the comments section to find some infantile snotty psuedo-reponse from the Usual Suspects. Because to a philosophy (if you can distinguish a sloppy collection of vague emotional spasms as a 'philosophy') based on relativity, character and consistency and---gasp!!--beliefs are anethema.

To these moral relativists, there are no absolutes. Everything is measured from Ground Zero, which to them is the individual doing the measuring. Therefore, to "Doctor" geo, the absolute center of Planet Geo, everything is determined based on HIM. And so on.

Fine. If some people choose to remain in the infantile state of basing everything on THEIR emotions and desires, that's OK. But the funny/sad thing is, they seem to realize, deep down, that grown-ups with character don't act that way, so they then feel the need to defend their indefensible position.

So they ridicule consistency. They declare that "moral failure" is a construct of small minds, and that true intellectual superiority can only be found in weighing all actions against personal goals. And here you have the birth of the Sneerers.

This is what allows the the left, and its junior element, the "cub left" such as muir and steve and the Big Weenie, to gyrate in anguish at the revelation of a well-known fact---Plame=CIA (which has never been proved to be classified in the first place)---and then call someone who leaks true classified informtaion a 'hero' and a 'whistle blower'. It's all relative. Relative to them, that is, and their totally selfish goals.

But we now have a real man in the White House, not a poll whore, and we know that he has a sound and stable moral core, a solid intellectual grasp of reality and the big picture, and the character and dedication to ignore the ankle-biters and do the right thing.

So we just ignore the peurile whining of the cubs, the lefties-in-training.

muirgeo,

You just don't understand what a dissident is...too bad, there's hope for you yet, but you've got a lot of learning to do.

To all the pollwatchers out there:

Sure, the President's approval rating is currently hovering around 33%. But what I've not heard anyone mention is the rest of the story. The approval rating for Congress is even lower - at 25%!! So, for all your reading of the tea leaves, a significant part of the picture has been ignored. And social security reform wasn't dropped by the White House - it was killed by the obstruct, obstruct, obstruct policies of the Demublicans. That, along with a few "spineless GOP Congressional Reps," as noted above by Mark, spelled the demise of this initiative. But I assure you I let my Congressional Rep (a Dem) know how mad I was about it right after they applauded themselves during the State of The Union Address - and I told him how despicable it was that they continue to pilfer OUR money for THEIR projects and tell us not to worry...

Polls mean diddly-squat, folks, except for once every two years. In today's age, the drive-by media comes up with an angle of attack, and then goes out to do a poll that will mirror whatever angle they've already come up with. It's a desperate attempt to make news into reality when they can't report the news about the reality that's staring them in the face.

Even then, they portray a few of the results as being the substance of the poll result, even while ignoring conflicting results in answering other questions within the polls. This latest FOX News poll is a great example. We've all heard it lauded far and wide how the President's approval rating (by the way, that was a FOX News poll!) is at an all-time low. How often have you heard the other ratings discussed? Me neither. You have to go to the website and get the poll for yourself and read it entirely (including the phrasing of the questions) to see the bigger picture. It often doesn't match the spin that the drive-by media has given it...

As for President Bush and his clinging to a firm set of beliefs: I really appreciate that. Given the Clinton Administration's perennial "finger-in-the-wind" policy formulation as an alternative, I'll go with someone who I know believes in something - anything, even if I don't necessarily share that belief. Why, you might ask? Because it shows that the person has some integrity and a set of moral values.

Mark, so you fully support a president remaining in power even when the people have lost complete faith in this leader? doesn't sound like a democratic system to me, of course i support a 100% democratic system so what would I know right?
p.s. I do not mean the american party, i mean the concept.

kiwi, as a kiwi you should understand the concept of representative government---that we elect a president but do not then demand that he refer back to us on every single issue. If we wanted that kind of government, we would have set one up where we all just voted on every single issue. I believe this is the system in New Zealand, as well. Unless you are not a kiwi at all, but a home-grown lefty, and therefore have no clue.

It is a posture of the left to pretend that if something is not both instantaneous and perfect, it is a failure. I don't know if it comes from grwoing up glued to the TV, where every problem is solved in thirty minutes or an hour, or if it is just another indication that the left exists to meet the needs of the short-attention-span limited-grasp element of our society. But Bush didn't "drop" Social Security, and the decision to table it for the time being was not made based on 'polls'.

But many thanks to the little libs for proving yet another point---in this case, the one about how to the left it's all relative. You groan and moan because Bush won't "talk" to countries like North Korea, you shriek in outrage because you claim he won't "engage in diplomacy", you carry on like hysterical banshees every time you can find a place to insert a complaint about him not doing enough talking with enough people----and then you write something like this:
"So where does the welcoming of Ilham Aliyev to the whitehouse this friday fit in with the agenda of spreading freedom and democracy?"

"....nobody here wants to see you lose your mind in a few years, rocking back and forth mumbling "Bush was right, Bush was right,..."

Extra-average, I think you are confusing us with the left, "...rocking back and forth, mumbling "It was all about sex, it was all about sex."

Mark, how do explain Harriet Meyers and Dubai Ports? His own party torpedoed both, and the Prez folded like a knee to the groin.

Mark, to start with i never said "welcoming of Ilham Aliyev to the whitehouse this friday fit in with the agenda of spreading freedom and democracy?"

Yes, I do understand the current concept of being elected and holding your post until the next election, but what I asked you was do you agree this is how it should be? I don't, i think the people should have the power to recall a government when they see fit and to vote for themselves on important issues. as for your comment on the left abandoning anything which doesnt work instantly, thats incorrect. Personally I look at both sides of every issue I care about and read as much as I possibly can. I'll give a perfect example, when I first heard about chavez (this is how i found your blog btw), I was certain he was an evil dictator who should be removed from power, but then i dug deeper, I spent days of my free time looking at main stream media articles, blogs, various other things like wikipedia, and amazingly my view changed completely, i discovered the truth that he was an elected offical who deserved to be in office.

So....Anybody catch 60 minutes last night....?

Looks like more proof that Bush's crusade is being conducted on false pretenses.

If the Prez is doing such a good job promoting democracy in the world, why have there been so many anti US socialist governments elected in our own backyard such as: Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile and soon to be added Ecuador and Bolivia?

Barneyg2000, while im not a bush supporter you seem to be mistaken, those countries are free, they are electing governments they want to run the country, instead of being told who to elect, find a better example :)

I think it was Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Democracy is messy at times, often inefficient, but it is also the only form of government of, by, and for the people. Thus it is both right and just to promote democracy in nations that aren't democratic. And to that end I applaud Pres. Bush for his emphasis on promoting democratic values in other areas of the world, and in particular the Middle East.

To those opponents of Bush's goal I ask... what's the alternative? And to those who, like me, support Bush's goal I ask... does acceptance of the goal necessarily imply that any and all means taken in pursuit of that goal are justified?

I don't think so. I think the means have to be justified as well. To the extent that they are not I think it is correct to claim them as at least potential instances of moral relativism. And that forms the basis of many of my personal quarrels with the Bush administration.

Ricorun,

Then why start in Iraq?

Why not start pushing Democracy in the Middle East by convincing our friends and allies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc) that it makes sense.
That would have saved countless lives, been much cheaper, and wouldn't give our enemies the excuse that we'll act militarily to control the oil in the Middle East.

Sure the war profiteers (who coincidently seem to have lots of ties to the Bush family) might not be big fans of the policy but they should already know our President doesn't rule through 'focus groups'.

He could have just gone after bin Laden and knocked off the Taliban and called it a day.

That would have been a good start, anyway, and many of my fellow New Yorkers would think so too.

So what you're saying is that Sharansky loves Big Brother.

During the 1972 Hanoi bombings, the B-52's came in the same route and altitude over and over again. We lost a squadron or so before they got permission to mix up the bombing runs and the loss rate went down.
Being consistent, steadfast, stalwart may also mean predictable, stubborn, and pig-headed. I'm sorry but these are not virtues in a changing world.
Our enemy can count on:
1. Continued presence of Americans in the Holy Land
2. Continued provocative statements and actions by our leaders
3. Continued support, or at least forbearance, by increasing numbers of organizations, people, and countries who feel run over by the US
Sounds like something you can base a long term strategy on, eh? And that's not a good thing for us.

"What appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure" is actually a refusal to admit mistakes, including moral failures (Abu Graib, ignoring FISA, detentions without charges, illegal foreign prisons, etc)

Sharansky gets one part right - with Bush its all about appearances but when you look behind the curtains you find the most morally corrupt bunch of scoundrels to occupy the White House in my lifetime. "Tricky Dick" would be proud.

The only leaks they care about are those that exposed their deceitful practices while Bush and Cheney leak whatever is politically expedient.

This is the ultimate of straw man arguments. If you disagree with the President's policy you are against freedom.

It is also just a bit too rich to cast the President (Mr. "We Just Had an Accountability Moment") as a lone wolf supporter of freedom.

Each day in support of this quest for democracy and freedom in the rest of the world, Americans are being told that they should accept further and further encroachments on their own liberties, because this fight is so hard.

Let's be clear. No one is against freedom.

But pre-emptive wars and freedom are incompatible. Freedom ultimately is the responsibility of those who crave it.

But then in this land of hero worhsip, it is so easy to mistake our elected official as a savior instead of a bumbling fool. Does that make me anti-freedom? I don't think so.

Please do not preach about moral relativism. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What is unforgivable about our current leader is that there was no plan for democracy, there was only the hubris and bravado of the bully who knew that they could supplant a weaker bully, but had know idea how to deal with the complexity of life in a heterogenous society, when it was only the former bully's iron fist that kept the peace. When your top military strategist responds to lawlessness with the glib, "Shit happens," then yes I will speak out loud and often at the moral bankruptcy of such a plan for freedom.

And please, in terms of relativism, can we stop all of the comparisons to WWII. This demeans the honor of those who fought in that war. We came to the defense of allies that had been attacked. End of story.

President Bush's faith is not in freedom or democracy or anything else except himself. He has neither the intelligence or maturity to listen to anyone outside of his little circle of sycophants.

The point is that there are lots of ways to promote freedom and democracy; committing our army to the invasion and occupation of a country is the most inefficient and most likely to fail method.

And since we're all human here, are you saying that like the pope, merely because he talks a good game of commitment to freedom, that the President is infallible and incapable of having made a mistake.

"Mark, how do explain Harriet Meyers and Dubai Ports? His own party torpedoed both, and the Prez folded like a knee to the groin."

But I thought all Conservatives were blindly following Bush? Good Lord, the intellectual vacancy of the left is truly stunning!

Natan Sharansky is definitely one person I'd like to meet someday. He knows the score.

we don't cite polls trying to discourage you. We cite polls so you will understand that when you bitch about everything "mainstream", you should be realizing that YOU aren't "mainstream".

put another way. 34% IS NOT MAINSTREAM!!!!!

66% is close!!

some call it dedication

some call it stubborness

Ah, but the best part of Noonan's hypocritical musings are his support for the "conservative" governance of GWB: record fiscal irresponsibility, growing national debt, huge government deficits, nation building, earmarks, pork barrel politics, wasting the republic's treasure by pouring it down a rathole in the desert, refusing to enforce the law (immigration and otherwise), stripping individual rights for the security of the state . . . sounds more like communism than conservatism, but that's okay with the Kool-Aid swilling Noonan! Or as Eric Hoffer called it: The True Believers.

"Dissident in Chief" Mark, I thought it was "Decider in Chief"?

Kiwi,

There is no way to acertain the President's support without an election - right now, you saying that he has lost the confidence of the American people is merely your opinion...that and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

Elections have consequences - in 2004, the consequence was majority support for the GOP as a whole and President Bush in particular - President Bush's majority carries him through until he leaves office, the GOP's majority until this November.

Robert,

Calm down, you're going to give yourself a heart attack if you keep up that level of absurd bitterness...

"President Bush is doing the right thing - get it?"

No I don't. No matter how you put it. Get it?
You support Bush STILL because you hate the left so much. Get it? The left hates Bush, and everything he does - even when it's good, because they hate you so much. Get it? People with the awareness to step outside their little bubbles and disagree with our president based on their principles are not traitors, Get it? People that toe the party line no matter what actually happens, or what facts emerge can be seen as courageous for their own party, OR looked at as foolishly and dangerously partisan to the other party. Get it? Your inability to see ANYTHING from another point of view expcept through a sycophantic partisan lens is not courageous. Get it?

Look, it's understandable that you support the President with his unwavering position on Iraq. It's a hard sell. We can't just quit when it gets hard. I agree with you. It's noble and brave to challenge the states that sponsored terrorism. I'm not even against the premise of invading Iraq on the grounds of freedom and democracy. It's the mistakes that didn't have to happen that pisses me off, and I presume they pissed you off too. It's the failure to secure Iraq - saying it's 'hard work' doesn't really cut it. It's the failure to respond to the dying people of New Orleans. It's the failure to keep a balance budget - which I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but to cut them in a time of war, when there's the biggest increase in federal spending? It's irresponsible. Borrow and spend is not a conservative ideal.

What I read on left wing and right wing posts suggests that your hatred for each other trumps everything else. 9/11? Exploited like everything else. Still being done.

I get sick of the left's characterization of Bush supporters. I think you really believe what Bush says and that you truly want the best for our country. I don't buy into the evil bit, I hope you are honest. But I also get sick of the right's characterization of all criticism of Bush. Can't it be legitimate to differ in opinion and criticize the actions and policies of this admin., without being called unpatriotic? If you think it's not legitimate to ever criticize the president, for whatever reason, than you're just as bad as the left that you so passionately hate.

The two parties only care anymore about serving their narrow idealistic constituencies. There's no place for practical people not rigidly beholden to a special interest group. It's depressing.

Dav

Just because Bush has approval ratings in the 30's and 40's does not mean other policies are not mainstream?

He's getting hit for Iraq and gas prices mostly.

There's a reason why it's been 31 years since a Democrat got more than 50% of the vote for the Presidency...it's because you guys are complete losers and scare the crap out of most people.

kiwi, this is not and never has been a 100% democratic country. The Constitution made that clear. It is a republic, which is a form of government in which the citizens elect leaders to make laws and lead the country. As I said, a 100% democratic form of government would require a nationwide vote on every law, every issue, every time.

As we have repeatedly said, only to be ignored by the true followers of Ranty and her gang, polls are no better than the questions asked. If you ask me if I am completely happy with the job Bush is doing in Iraq, I will answer with a NO. But my no will mean something completely different from your no. And I will continue to support Bush, and his presidency, and his goals, and to work and spend to elect more Republicans.

Also, you have to remember that the President is staying above the fray, staying to the higher moral ground, and concentrating on doing his job. His job is not to be distracted into losing focus and getting defensive. Clinton's view of his job was evidently to be loved, to get as much nooky as he could, to get as rich as possible, to hang out with celebrities, and to avoid responsibility for anything. It was a Mick Jagger kind of presidency. Now that we have a grown-up in the White House, the goals are a little loftier---safety for the country, stability around the world, a strong economy based on actual prinicples of economics, those kinds of grown-up things.

Remember, every time Bush does go to the public to explain things, those precious ratings go up. And in an election, things ARE explained, and that is what counts. When the attacks are met with the facts, at the appropriate time and place, the numbers will change, just as they did in 2004.

I would do exactly what the President is doing. I would keep my focus on the important things, and let the hysterics make their speeches and do their posturing and strutting and lying. And when the time is right, I would dig out all those lies, all those misrepresentations, all those flip-flops, and nail them on them, one after another. Till then, let them yip.

Mr. Noonan's last response is soooo typical of the right - rather than responding to the point with any kind of fact-based rebuttal they attack, smear, lampoon etc. Spend an hour or two, if you can stoamch it, listening to Rush and Sean et al. and you will hear it being done with incredible consistency.

Today's poll numbers from CNN, that mirror those of the administration's running dog lackeys - FOX News - show just how far Bush has fallen - and folks, HE CAN"T GET UP!

Unlike his hero, Ronald Reagan, he has neither the flexibility or the stomach to make the changes that might save this administration from going down as one of the worst ever. We always hear how strong he is, but apparently the only guts he has are those needed to send nameless and faceless soldiers to Iraq. When it comes to his friends he can't get it done - some CEO he would make...although I could write another long post about his ineptitude in the business world.

God Bless America! We need it more than ever.

Evidently this thread resulted in a call-out of rabid anti-Bushies, because I am seeing a litany of the old talking points that is pretty impressive. Not impressive becaue any of them are valid or have even a small kernel of truth to them, but impressive that there are still six or eight people in the world who buy into them.

We have "The Doctor" gargling, extra-average babbling, Barmy claiming Peru (among others) elected an anti-American socialist government, kiwi claiming that "the people have lost complete faith in this leader.." and swooning over Hugo Chavez (the Castro of the new millenium?), dav assuming that if only 33 % of Americans are completely in favor of the job Bush is doing, in its entirety, then 66% are AGAINST him, and newbie eddie dragging out his Dem-issue ctystal ball to explain what Bush did and didn't think and why he did or didn't do things, as if he has a a clue. And, of course, Rantin' Robers, choking on his own venom.

Well, Mark, you seem to have a good idea of what it takes to get the attention of Lib Lite, and it would seem to be a noted and respected historian and author making a cogent and coherent statement about why President Bush is a good guy.

Robert said (to me): "Then why start in Iraq?"

Did I say we should have started in Iraq? Of all the things you could have read into what I said (and they were many), that was not one of them. Yours is a relevant question, and one on which I have many thoughts. But none of them were implied by what I said.

For the record, on the issue of a general policy promoting democracy, I think the important questions involved are...

1. What provides the foundation for a viable democracy? The ability to vote in truly open elections is certainly one aspect, but is it enough? I don't think so. Many other things are important -- a free press; an informed electorate; a dedication to fundamental human rights, including the rights of the minority; a capitalist, free-market economy; equal opportunity to participate in that economy and in the government (which implies nothing about equal success - opportunity for both success and failure is important), and so forth.

2. When pursuing democracy in other nations, what is the best strategy? This is a huge can of worms, I think. But particularly in the case of Iraq I think it should be a central question, rather than whether one or more Democrats and/or Republicans in this country are idiot assholes on the basis of some putative association with someone (e.g., Bush or Clinton) or something (e.g., Republican or Democratic party affiliation) rather than on the basis of what they say which may be relevant to the issue at hand.

3. Are there any assumptions which we make about "democracy" as a form of government which may be in error? For example, are the concepts of democracy and capitalism inextricably bound? Many prominent fascist regimes of years past strongly suggest that there is at least some disconnect between the two concepts. China is another current example. Whether they can maintain that disconnect indefinitely remains to be seen.

Another popular assumption is that democracies, for the simple reason that they are democracies, are necessarily dedicated to waging peace with each other. That assumption is encapsulated in Bush's claim that "democracies don't attack each other".

So far that has been largely true. But there are instances when that truism has gotten a little strained. Examples are the US and Britain's role in installing Shah Pahlavi in Iran in 1953, and the role of the US in deposing José Figueres, the popularly elected president of Costa Rica (again, back in 1953). Perhaps one could argue that those examples are ancient history. But as Barney points out, new frictions have arisen in several South and Central American nations, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile and possibly Ecuador and Bolivia. That doesn't mean that we are prepared to take up arms against any of those countries, but it does argue against the notion that we should support any democracy 100% under all circumstances and without regard to our own national interests. Or theirs.

Another point is this: up until relatively recently (say, the past 20 - 30 years or so) democracies were relatively rare. And almost all of them arose in countries that were heavily influenced by Western thought -- either as a result of years of colonization or as a result of years of occupation. Is that condition essential? If not, why not? If so, what does that imply about our attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East?

I'm just asking. I don't know all the answers, but I'm prepared to discuss them. But I will say this: I like dbogdan's description of the two dominant parties as Demublicans and Republicrats. To me, that captures the fundamental duplicity, hypocrisy, and absurdity of it all as succinctly as could be expected in two little words. I don't agree with everything he says, but then again, I don't agree with everything ANYONE says. And I would hope others feel the same way about me. I would hope that the whole purpose of this blogging thing is to force us to think rather than merely seeking reassurance. Then again, maybe that's just me.

To My Esteemed Fellow Poster "Warriornation" - Does the fact that "W" recieved only 48.78% of the popular vote (which was LESS than Gore)in 2000 mean that you folks too are "losers and scare the crap out of most people"?

Also, you say "W" is getting failing marks for Iraq and gasoline prices - well, last time I checked he was the person that pushed for the war in Iraq and has had responsibilty for energy policy for more than 5 years. My guess is that you'll say it's all President Clinton's fault...

God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Ricorun stated - and rightfully so,

"..I would hope that the whole purpose of this blogging thing is to force us to think rather than merely seeking reassurance. Then again, maybe that's just me."

I'm with you, bro'!

I often find common points of agreement with much of what you say. On those points that I disagree with, I have from time to time asked for you to clarify or back up the point in question. So far, you've done so politely, with reason and intellect. For that, I laud you. Of course, we might still be in disagreement, but the point of the exercise is to analyze, criticize, and reassess our own positions in the process - not to demonize each other or call each other names.

Despite the plethora of small minds on this site (who shall remain nameless - you know who you are), unwilling or unable to engage in reasoned debate, I find that there are a number of genuinely interested souls who are responding to Matt or Mark's posts as the seed for debate with gusto and with good intent. Unfortunately, we all tend to react to individual criticism in sometimes less than stellar fashion, often resorting to name-calling or hardening of positions. It's a human thing, and speaking for myself, I honestly regret taking these occasions unto myself, because whatever the immediate satisfaction in "telling 'em off," I quickly realize that I was unsuccessful in living up to my objective of coming here to debate in a civil manner, the issues of our day.

Ricorun, you've clearly got a head on your shoulders, as does Almiranta. Just to buttress your caveat on "democracies don't go to war," theory, the Argentina-UK "Falklands War" is another more recent example where this is not necessarily the case.

Carry on!

DAV,

60 Minutes is still on the air? Weren't they pulled when the made up the ALAR scare about 20 years ago?

Paul,

Oh, that is just short hand...you see, every complaint about President Bush is either an outright lie, or a twisting of the truth...we've endlessly rebutted them, and it just gets boring repeating them over and over again...From time to time, we do put the effort into re-re-re-re-re-re-rebutting the absurd anti-Bush arguments, but mostly its just not worth the bother.

What's wrong with Bush's energy policy?

True, we are not drilling in ANWR---let's try blaming that on Bush.

More progress has been made in the development of alternative fuels in the past five years than in all 8 of Clinton's. What, exactly, did Clinton DO regarding energy?

(While not Clinton specifically, it was Dems in California who decided California was too SPECIAL to have any more of those nasty power plants, and they would just buy their electricity from some place else---leading to the famous California power crisis. Who did they buy from? Enron, for one.)

Tell us, Paul, what was done prior to Bush's taking office to promote the development of biodiesel? Ethanol? Methanol? Because they are all sure getting a lot of federal support now. Oh, and by the way, those three types of alternative fuels all contribute mightily to the agriculture industry, as well. But hey, those are just simple farmers in red flyover states---it's not like they contribute nearly as much as the self-styled "intellectuals" do.

What efforts did Clinton/Gore make to develop hydrogen power? Just curious. Because it's being encouraged now, with federal money for R&D.

I do remember Al railing against internal combustion engines, saying he wanted to get rid of them, and wanting $5.00 a gallon gas to help push them on their way. Now, THAT'S a plan!

As for the old "popular vote" whine---no one will ever know for sure just how much of the popular vote Gore did get, or Bush for that matter, because once each state got to the point where the uncounted absentee ballots---including military ballots---would not change the way the state went, they were simply not counted. As we all know the vast majority of military votes were for Bush, and there is no number for how many of those ballots were just thrown away, it is highly dishonest to continue claiaming absolute knowledge that Gore got the popular vote. He got more of the votes that were actually counted. Which only matters to those who see politics as a popularity contest.

I keep arguing for stringent election reform, which would include counting every legitimate vote cast. That was just a matter of fairness until the sore-loser Dems started claiming that the popular vote is the one that counts. Now it seems to be important on another level. So fine, let's make sure we know what the popular vote really is.

But thanks for the update on which president really pushed for he war in Iraq. Thanks also for mentioning (NOT!!) that the previous president thought there should be a regime change in Iraq---he just waited for a real man to come along and do the heavy lifting. Polls, you know....

Mr. Noonan - Are you for real? Every criticism leveled against "W" is either an "outright lie, or a twisting of the truth"?

I always thought that kind of infallibility was reserved for the Almighty and some believe, the Pope.

It is obvious you are incapable of any kind of intellectual arguement - as is the case with virtually every conservative I have ever read, listened to or spoken with...the exceptions being William F. Buckley who now is also calling "W's" Iraq folly a failure and Francis Fukuyama - a father of the neo-conservative movement - who is also highly critical of "W".

Instead of parroting Rush and Sean you should try reading Mr. Noonan - it will really make a difference!

dbogdan said: "I often find common points of agreement with much of what you say. On those points that I disagree with, I have from time to time asked for you to clarify or back up the point in question. So far, you've done so politely, with reason and intellect. For that, I laud you. Of course, we might still be in disagreement, but the point of the exercise is to analyze, criticize, and reassess our own positions in the process - not to demonize each other or call each other names."

That's all I ask. Thank you.

Almiranta - is that Mr., Mrs., Ms., or Miss?

You are truly another woefully uniformed conservative. I'll answer just your first two "points".

Regarding the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and why we are not drilling up there. First, I'm not blaming Bush - just all of you Republicans that control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Just pass the legislation and be done with it. The problem for you, however, is that there are enough sensible Republicans still hanging around that work with the Democrats to defeat this hare-brained scheme. Why do I call it a hare-brained? Because the U.S. Geological Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply. I don't know about you, but I have children and 1 year's supply isn't the answer to our energry problems in the long term.

Speaking of the long term, you should really take a minute to read some history. The first major efforts towards alternative fuels (outside of WWII - a war prosecuted and won by, yup, Democrats)were undertaken during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. The problem is when your hero Ronald Reagan took office along with lots of conservatives (they held a majority of the House of Representatives)they quickly dismantled, gutted, eviscerated (you pick the word) those programs in the name of the "free market" - so don't go bashing Clinton, yet again, for the problems of today.

Almiranta said: "What's wrong with Bush's energy policy?"

You tell me. I don't even know what his policy is. Do you? I thought it was secret. What do you know that the rest of us doesn't? Should we turn you in? lol!

Almiranta again: "(While not Clinton specifically, it was Dems in California who decided California was too SPECIAL to have any more of those nasty power plants, and they would just buy their electricity from some place else---leading to the famous California power crisis. Who did they buy from? Enron, for one.)"

California did make that decision. So what's your point? Are you implying that they (the state of California -- which was actually not the state per se, but the significant energy conglomerates operating within the state -- Pacific Gas and Electric, LA Dept of Energy, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric, among others) knew Enron was lying? Was Enron lying or just inaccurate? Before answering that question you might want to consider its ramifications on this question: Why are we in Iraq? Was Bush lying about the WMD threat or just inaccurate? It sounds like you're attributing culpability purely on political grounds. I may be wrong. In which case, correct me. In what sense should the state of California have known Enron was not accurate in their appraisal of their corporate solvency? Likewise, in what sense should Bush have known that the intelligence community was full of shit?

Almiranta again: "I do remember Al railing against internal combustion engines, saying he wanted to get rid of them, and wanting $5.00 a gallon gas to help push them on their way. Now, THAT'S a plan!"

Actually, from what I've heard, it probably is. Brazil is on the brink of declaring themselves energy independent, and that's about what the price of gas is there. Likewise, at that price point, gazzilions of acres (I'm estimating, lol!) of Canadian oil shale becomes cost-effective to mine. As I recall, (I'm speaking more realistically now) the Canadian reserves are estimated to be about 15 times the total amount of what is in ANWAR and the East Gulf (the Gulf of Mexico south of Alabama and west of Florida) combined.

DAV,

60 Minutes is still on the air? Weren't they pulled when the made up the ALAR scare about 20 years ago?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 24, 2006 08:11 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see you shakin' Marky! The snowball effect is only going to lead to more outings of this nature. Your boy Bush is going down in History as the worst of all time.

Paul in Austin:

Best not to get too frustrated. He's paid to think that way.

I do remember Al railing against internal combustion engines, saying he wanted to get rid of them, and wanting $5.00 a gallon gas to help push them on their way. Now, THAT'S a plan!

Right, alms. Is it not the supply and demand vestibule at the altar of capitalism which you worship?

What you think of as steadfastness is merely laziness, incompetence, and corruption.

Remember, Shrub has no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. Don't be fooled. Remember the PNAC, and the fourteen PERMENANT bases we're building there. Everything the Crime Family says and does is smoke and mirrors. They plan to keep us all distracted for another thousand days, and steal '06 and '08 like they did 2000 and '04, so they can keep troops there forever.

The last two elections were stolen. The evidence is indisputable.

"... when SS goes bankrupt, people will look back at the Bush Administration and say "why didn't we listen to him?". "
Posted by: Mark Noonan

You've almost got it right. If/when SS goes bankrupt people will indeed look back at the Bush Administration. But they won't be saying "why didn't we listen to him?" ... instead they'll point to the huge deficits racked up during the Bush administration and the trillions in tax cuts given to the wealthy and put the blame squarely where it belongs - on George Bush and a GOP Congress that put special interests ahead of the people they were supposed to be representing.

Rico,
Alimantra's point about California's energy is accurate,
You wrote, “…attributing culpability purely on political grounds”

The situation in California was entirely different from receiving bad intel, it was not a question of Enron lying, or being “(in)accurate in their appraisal of corporate solvency.” California’s governor, Grey Davis ignored the warning signs (Bill Richardson came to California to personally discuss it with Davis in the summer of 1999) and Davis and the democrats refused to allow permits for new power plants. Suppliers recognized this weakness in our system and began to exploit in the spring of 2000.

By the time Davis sent in a political operative (Loretta Lynch) to get contracts, it was far too late. Power contractors like PG&E knew that the $750.00 per kilowatt hour was outrageous, but the State had precluded long term contracts, and new energy sources. Clinton’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stepped in and, while prices from supplier were spiraling out of control, did little to relieve the problem.

OK, rico and paul....

I said: "What's wrong with Bush's energy policy?"

Response? "I don't even know what his policy is. Do you?"

Well, I gave several specific examples regarding biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen, for starters. I referred to ANWR.

I asked for information on the Clinton energy policy. No reaponse. No energy policy? I didn't "bash" Clinton. I just asked what he did. So tell me now. What about Clinton's energy policy was better than Bush's?

Rico says: "It sounds like you're attributing culpability purely on political grounds. I may be wrong. In which case, correct me."

Stand corrected. I just put Enron in to point out that it is possible to have a business relationship with a company without being involved in wrongdoings by that company. Rather, to let you point that out for me. Thank you. (I'm waiting for a chance to do that with the Carlyle Group.)

Now, whether by accident or by plan, the two responses to me did, sometimes, veer dangerously close to actual debate. Don't get me wrong----that is a good thing.

There might be an opening or two to actually discuss the MERITS of a couple of things---ANWR, or free markets, for example. Discuss, not lob grenades around.

I never said Jimmy Carter never had one good idea. I just said that he was ineffective. He didn't get much done. And his ideas ran into different ideas, which happened to be held by those in charge at that time. Not exactly headline news, when that heppens. So you can be glad that we now have someone with ideas more in line with yours, or we can go back and dwell in history about the couldashouldawouldas of yet another President you didn't like.

(BTW, yes, I did know that a Democrat won the war. He saw the big picture, and he did what was the right thing to do. Without polls. I just got back from my third visit to Los Alamos, and I have dozens of books on the war. But thanks for the update.)

And please, you on the oh so passionate left, please make up your minds----$5.00 a gallon gasoline is a good thing, or it is a terrible thing which you can use to bring down George Bush. Personally, I think it is a bad thing. And I think getting rid of internal combustion engines would be a bad thing---at least until we have something to replace them.

How did Brazil get to its current state of energy independence? Not arguing---genuinely curious. It can't just be the cost of gas---it's that high in Europe, and they are far from independence. Was it technology? More to the point, Brazilian technology? When did their movement start? Why didn't we pick up on it earlier, and start to learn from it earlier?

Because we are now, and have for the past five years, been moving quickly and creatively toward much more extensive use of alternative energy. Solar, wind, hydrogen, biodiesel, ethanol, and methanol, to name some. While the hybrid car fad may create as many problems as it solves, at least it gets people thinking, and acting, in different ways. The President, and the Administration, have been active in promoting and supporting R&D for those very technologies. It may be coincidence that this is happening under an industry-friendly administration, but industry is on the bandwagon, too, closing down auto plants to retool them to manufacture better engines and autos. Yeah, let's call it a coincidence.

I have a friend who is an executive in the oil business in Alberta. He says the cost of extracting oil from their shale is staggering. Not to say it can't be done, but there has to be a lot of work done to develop the technology. When and if it is developed, the amount of oil in Canada is staggering. No doubt about it.

In the meantime, some of us are watching the efforts of some companies to perfect a system to extract lightweight crude oil from a variety of materials. It can be done now on a limited level. If it is perfected, it will solve the petroleum problem and the landfill problem at the same time, as there is enough garbage generated in this country to create as much crude oil as we import every year. Pretty interesting stuff. Pretty new stuff.

BE upset that we are not where you think we should be. BE upset about whatever you are upset about---not enough respect for Carter, not enough oil in ANWR, whatever. I am just saying that it is foolish to blame it all on the energy policies of George W. Bush when his record on promoting alternative energy sources is solid, when he has been telling us that we need to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, when he has been telling us that there is no one answer but it will require a combination of technologies and changes in attitudes, and when you can't point to a single policy OF HIS that you don't like.

It's this free-form anger and knee-jerk blaming of Bush that is getting tiring.

First, I asked a quesiton about what, exactly, rico does not like about the Bush energy policy. No answer but a snide "what energy policy?"

Sorry---that last line was supposed to have been cut when I decided to take a more moderate approach. Because I do believe in moderate approaches...

This morning I wrote a heartfelt post to Ash, about the need for all of, of all political pursuasions, to set aside the R's and D's and just talk, passionately if necessary but respectfully and honestly, about the multitude of very real problems facing this country, and the world. And about ways to solve them.

I do not think George Bush is always right. I do not always agree with him. I voted for him, and support him, because he is so much closer to what I think is right than John Kerry, or Al Gore, could possibly have been.

I believe that there is an element that depends exclusively on creating divisiveness, because to divide truly is to conquer. It is in their best interest to keep us at each other's throats, and in pursuit of that goal they have agents like Air America, stirring up hatred instead of questions about how we can overcome our differences.

I believe that if more people could overcome the gut-level loathing of Bush that has been presented to them as an appropriate response to what are really invented 'sins' they would see that while they do not always agree with him, either, and might even prefer a different political phiolosophy in the White House, he is not a bad or evil or dishonest man.

I truly believe that if we can't set aside this irrational hatred that seems to dominate the other side of the aisle, we are going to be in even more trouble. Because both sides are letting us down, and if we can't agree on what we have to demand from our leaders, they will continue to do so. Our hysterical intolerance for simple mistakes, for example, has made our leaders almost afraid to do anything, knowing that if they are wrong they will not simply be seen as in error, they will be pilloried as corrupt, dishonest, or evil. Our current President's willingess to take those risks, in pursuit of the greater good, gets him pilloried as "arrogant, out of the loop, a dictator".

Nothing would make me happier than the ability to have sincere political discourse, and sincere discussions on what we need to do about our problems, with no concern about which party our solutions would be most likely to put in the White House.

Bane,
My point was that the California energy crisis had many causes, some of which were based on too many assumptions and thus could have been better planned, some of which were due to calculated guesses about how to best manage the transfer from a regulated market to a deregulated one which unfortunately were difficult to foresee (and which power broker companies like Enron took advantage of), and others which were just crappy luck (e.g., reduced hydroelectric generation capacity due to the drought in the Western States along with peaking natural gas prices). As is the case with most catastrophes, there wasn't a single cause -- and if any of them didn't happen it probably wouldn't have been a crisis. But they all did. The lack of excess in-state generation capacity was worsened by the fact that hydroelectric and natural gas installations were not producing up to capacity. And the distribution of those short-falls, coupled with the need for out-of-state sources caused bottlenecks in the existing power grid. Worse, the prices on out-of-state capacity were getting gamed by brokers like Enron, which was exacerbated by the effect of the step-wise transition to an unregulated market, which in retrospect, would have been bad enough. The confluence of all these events caused energy prices to spiral out of control, forcing many power companies to the brink of bankruptcy (and some to fall in), which then caused prices to increase even more because it didn't appear they could pay their debts. And that's when the feds stepped in.

My (long-winded) point is that hindsight is always better than foresight, regardless of which party is in power. Some things are just hard to foresee, and it doesn't necessarily imply anything nefarious. I don't buy the idea that the Democrats "caused" the California energy crisis any more than I buy the idea that Bush "lied" about WMD. Bad decisions were obviously involved in both, but I don't think they were intentional.

By the way, was it really the state that precluded long-term contracts? I thought the power companies simply didn't enter into them because they thought the prices were going to fall following deregulation, and thus decided to go with spot prices instead.

While we're on the subject, just out of curiosity, what do you think about the California energy situation now? My understanding is that there are some new natural gas plants ready to come on-line, and several others due in 2009. I understand they're all natural gas plants, too. In your opinion, will that be enough? And are natural gas plants reasonable? Would you prefer alternative sources? And if so, what?

Your understanding of the complexities of the energy crises in 2000-2001 is very good. One problem that didn’t get much play was the Public Utilities Commission vacillating on approval of long term contracts with outside sources; mostly because they thought the Feds would step in and give the State relief. That didn’t happen, and when Grey Davis left the negotiation in August 2000 to spend the rest of the fiscal year with the Al Gore campaign the deals all fell through. PG&E finally tried to sign into $50-$60/ megawatt hour contract with Duke Energy, but the PUC tied the deal up in red-tape until Duke went under. Ultimately, PG&E signed into some short term contracts without approval for $50-60/megawatt hour. Without PUC approval, PG&E had no ability to offer longer term contracts and the energy companies sought out others that were able to out bid PG&E for the power.

Once Davis realized that neither the Clinton nor the new Bush Administration would help, he negotiated the most expensive power contracts in the Nation, and we suddenly had more power than we knew what to do with.

Mind you, all this was happening as El Diablo and San Onofre were coming off line, (I lived in San Juan Capistrano near San Onofre at the time.) With the stoke of a pen Davis could have re-commissioned both power plants and our troubles would have been over.

California has multiple energy sources now, wind power, solar power and we’re also working on geothermal power. I was sorry to see the nuc-u-lar power go, it was safe efficient and cheap. San Onofre was built better than Dolly Parton and if you ever saw it you’d understand the imagery.

Almiranta,
It'll probably take the rest of my life to answer you point by point, lol! So allow me to be selective. First, I don't much care about Clinton, and less so about Carter. They aren't my boys, so to speak. I don't think they're total idiots, but I owe no allegiance to them. But in general I think it's safe to say that Clinton's emphasis was on the environment as far as energy policy goes. Furthermore, I think it may be fair to say that both Clinton and Carter attempted to stabilize the Middle East situation. In hindsight that might not appear to be the best course of action, but at the time it made sense. Carter engineered the Camp David accords, which were successful to the extent that it ended the state of war between Israel and Egypt. Unfortunately Sadat ended up getting a bullet through his brain, courtesy of an Egyptian zealot. Years later Clinton engineered the Oslo accords. They didn't turn out particularly successful, but one of the primary reasons for that was because Rabin ended up getting a bullet through HIS brain, courtesy of an Israeli zealot. If nothing else, I guess you could say that people in that area have a history of some very inflamed passions. That may be an understatement or an overstatement, but I'm getting a little tired of wondering, ya know? All my adult life (and then some) both I and people possessed of much greater intellect than I have been trying to make sense of the Middle East. Those efforts, while occasionally promising in the short term have proven to be failures in the long term.

Bush's attempt to stabilize Iraq is the latest example. Had things gone as well as the initial prognosis -- e.g., we would be welcome with open arms, and the incursion would essentially pay for itself in the matter of weeks or months -- then no problem. Had things happened that way Bush would have been seen as an unqualified hero. But they didn't. Rather, Bush has stirred up a hornet's nest in the Middle East. You may agree with his policies (in whole or in part), or you may not (in whole or in part), but the fact remains he has exacerbated tensions in the region.

In this country at least, energy issues were downplayed in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Whether or not you agreed with the necessity of invading Iraq, or what your views on the other issues involved were, I think everyone can agree that at that time the administration was aggressively pushing the idea that the Iraq invasion was most likely going to be a walk in the park, and gas prices were going to either go down, or at worst not go up appreciably. And anyone who had a different story was shown the door. That disconnect has come to haunt Bush politically, as rightly it should. But more important than the political reality is the economic reality -- gas prices are going through the roof. Even people who pay no attention whatsoever to politics feel that in their pocketbook. Those people don't give a shit what you or I think about what Carter's or Clinton's contribution to the problem might be, they want to know what Bush is going to do about it.

The issue of gas prices has come front and center, now more than ever before. Added to it is the fact that fossil fuel reserves are dwindling. They may hold out for another 30 years, or maybe another 50. After that we're all fucked. Thus, any attempt to compare the reality with which Bush is confronted now with any other that may have occurred in the past is largely specious. And even if it isn't, it doesn't inform us much with regard to what has to be done now. That's the issue people concentrate on politically. And I should add that they will be paying even more attention to it if we decide to move against Iran in any meaningful sort of way.

But apart from that it seems to me that the central question now is... how do we achieve energy independence -- if not complete independence, at least independence from Middle East sources? It stands to reason that it HAS TO eventually happen. The only remaining question is the time frame. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. But that's just me. And whatever decision one makes comes at some cost. The fact is that whatever one considers as an acceptable time frame will dictate the strategies and methods involved, as well as the economic and environmental impacts following therefrom. Those aren't issues easily dismissed.

I don't consider myself a member of "the passionate left", Almiranta, although I've been accused of that on more than one occasion on this site. Then again, I've been accused of being a member of both the passionate left AND the passionate right for the very same post! I take a certain amount of pride in that, lol! Weirdly enough though, I consider myself more or less a Reagan Republican. Perhaps I don't channel Ronnie faithfully at all times on every issue, but as far as pidgeonholing myself goes, that's as close as I've been able to come.

I'll tell you what I know about Brazil and their attempt at achieving energy independence. Their primary thrust was to develop biopetroleum alternatives, primarily in the form of ethanol derived from brush grass (I think that's what it's called). Their initiative started in the mid to late nineties. Brazil is similar to the US in many important respects. Their oil resources are similar (in terms of a percentage of their current needs, that is), and they, like us have a considerable amount of range land where brush grass can be grown. Additionally, they have spent years ensuring that the vehicles sold in their country are compatible with the ethanol mixture they are capable of distributing. It is not as efficient as gasoline (about 15% less), and it only makes sense once a certain price point is reached. And that price point is about (US$) 5 per gallon. Bush knows about this brush grass technology, because I've heard him talk about it in recent months. The fermentation process is more efficient than corn-based ethanol derivatives, but the octane isn't as high. Thus to burn it one needs the effective equivalent of a biodiesel engine. That's how I understand it anyway, at least within the constraints of my limited knowledge.

Almiranta said: "First, I asked a quesiton about what, exactly, rico does not like about the Bush energy policy. No answer but a snide "what energy policy?"

My "snarky" question was an allusion to the fact that Cheney's energy pow wow back in 2001 was never made public. Only recently has Bush made any attempt at fleshing out anything in the way of an energy policy. And what what little I have heard seems to me a bit disjointed. But it may be that I haven't been paying sufficient attention. Requirements of real life requires that I sometimes go for days without getting immersed in the minutiae of current events. Sometimes whole topics just pass me by. This may be one of them. But I remain unconvinced. Has Bush actually articulated a coherent energy policy? What did I miss and when?