When, little more than one year into its term, the stalwart Washington Post editorial board begins asking if the Presidency can be saved, you know something is desperately wrong. But it’s even worse when their recommendations involve: embracing the evidence of global warming, leadership on immigration reform, addressing poverty on the Gulf Coast, and putting an end to the practice of torturing detainees to death.
That’s a far cry from the advice they were giving Clinton: come clean on the blow job and do something about entitlement reform.
This administration is not going to do anything on global warming. Embrace the evidence? Why even waste your breath? They will not show any leadership on immigration reform. Their paymasters want an amnesty, their base wants a lynch mob. I can only laugh in wonder at their suggestion that Bush give “meaning to his statement of seven months ago [on Katrina]…”We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.” And I see no prospect of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld putting a stop to the practice of torturing people to death.
The Washington Post is not only being unrealistic, they are fiddling while D.C. burns. If Bush wants to save his Presidency he should do the following things.
impeachment
He should call in the leaders of the Democratic Party for a sit-down. He should make a deal. If he gives them what they want, the Dems will agree not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney if they gain a majority in the House this fall.
What is a reasonable price for the Democrats to ask, and what is a reasonable response by the President?
The Democrats should call for the resignations of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Karl Rove should also resign. Cheney’s replacement will be up to the Republican caucus, but there are a few people that the Dems should make clear are not acceptable. For example, Condi Rice is not acceptable.
Donald Rumsfeld’s replacement should be a Democrat. If Joe Lieberman would like the job, let him have it. Regardless, the position should be filled by someone that has the trust and confidence of not only the Democratic caucus, but the country at large.
The Democrats should also insist that the President dismantle Guantanamo Bay’s prison, as well as our other secret detention centers. All detainees should be given a hearing, have access to lawyers, and be accessible to the Red Cross.
The negotiations over Iraq will be complicated. However, the Dems should insist on a timetable for withdrawal, and that should include giving up any permanent bases in the country. A possible exception to this could be made for Kurdistan, if the Kurds and the national government are amenable to us having a base there to prevent an outbreak of civil war, and as a deterrent to Iran until Iraq can build up its own defenses.
The Dems should not swear off vigorous investigations of graft in the contracting of the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.
However, in return for vigorous lobbying reform and increased campaign finance reforms, the Dems can agree not to push for the fullest level of accountability that is warranted. If Bush signs the bill that will put an end to the racket on K Street, the Dems can look the other way on some of the abuses.
The Democrats should also offer to forego a public airing of the NSA scandal and other domestic surveillance, in return for full disclosure in closed session, along with an agreement to sign any resulting reforms that come out of the intelligence committees. And those intelligence committee bills should have unanimous support from the members.
In addition, the Dems should extract a promise to move forward with a greater sense of bipartisanship, which means no more questioning of our patriotism or comparing us to Usama bin-Laden.
Bush doesn’t deserve to be given such a break. But, for the greater good of the nation, if Bush were willing to make these rather large concessions, it would be wise for the Democrats to cut such a deal.
That is the only way to save this failed Presidency. If, instead, Bush launches preemptive strikes on Iran (without Congressional authorization), it will be up to the people to rise up and demand that Congress act to remove Bush from office. The grounds for removal are already abundant. Further aggression will only make the need to act that much more urgent and morally compelling.
The idea of the Democrats giving this President a pass on his abuse of power is repugnant to me. But, if the reward is to usher out Cheney and Rumsfeld, and put an end to domestic surveillance, torture and other human rights abuses, end our aspirations for permanent bases in Iraq, and to enact ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance reforms…I’d say that is worth the cost.
Now…anyone care to play a game? Let’s try to predict how many pardons Bush will dole out as he prepares to leave office.
this is also available in orange.
Don’t hold your breath hon…lol!
Saving the Presidency presumes it’s worth saving.
Meaning one is also prepared to accept continued lying wrapped by incompetence.
This presidency is not worth saving, .
Nor should it be saved.
Let’s focus on November, then articles of impeachment with a thorough cleanout in 2008.
Did you read the WP article? Because that is the DC consensus now. It’s not impeachment versus non-impeachment. It’s failure versus mucking their way thru. It is presumed that impeachment is mathematically impossible.
But, in reality, impeachment is almost inevitable if the Dems take control. Bush needs to deal, and he needs to deal now. And not by doing the penny-ante stuff suggested by the WP.
It is presumed that impeachment is mathematically impossible.
Certain mindsets will take that count.
That’s why my suggestion is we focus on November
Bush needs to deal, and he needs to deal now.
The three operate as a junta and won’t see the need to deal. In any other administration if 4 Generals, called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, the response wouldn’t extend beyond 48 hrs.
Rumsfeld’s resignation is to admit failure in Iraq. Iraq’s chaos suits the current agenda.
For the Democrats to deal; that requires unified, strong leadership speaking with one message on each issue, everytime on message.
But frankly Booman, I’m not hopeful Dems will have a good outcome in November, unless the immigration issue spins our way and we have a fair vote count.
We’ve not been gaining poll numbers as Bush spirals down. Big concern.
Btw, excellent post as usual. Sorry about my first reply, low communication skills. It was not intended as a smack against your proposals. Just think this gang of thugs are too rotten and not worth saving.
One love.
It was actually only thanks to previous mass extinctions that humans exist today. Compared to the period of millions of years before that big rock hit the Yucatan and killed off the dinosaurs, this planet is still a blighted, blasted place with far less biomass than it had back in the day (and also much colder, even with global warming). But it works for us: our ancestors adapted to the massive climate change of that period, and thus upset the old order. In fact, many evolutionists believe that without mass extinctions, what you get is evolutionary stagnation.
Of course, another climate change could be devastating to us this time–but I don’t really think so. The way I see it, there will be negative consequences in some places (coastal cities), and more benign ones in others (my former hometown of Duluth, Minnesota might become prime real estate). Overall, humans will adapt as they always have. Other species, as noted in the diary, may not be so fortunate, but over the long run the shakeup of ecological niches will cause evolutionary change to flourish.
Let me be clear: I am not on the side of Big Oil or polluters. I don’t have a car, and walk everywhere (as I write this, I just walked three miles home from teaching school). I use a flashlight (on a radio powered by a hand crank) to navigate through my apartment at night. I bundle up in winter and turn down the thermostat. I put a high priority on preserving green space with initiatives like Portland’s UGB, and I think there should be strict limits on what chemicals can be released into the environment. And I am religious about recycling and reusing things.
It’s just that global warming itself strikes me as more “hmm, this should be interesting” rather than “oh no, we’re doomed!”. I’m much more concerned about other environmental issues like mercury and arsenic contamination, childhood asthma epidemics caused by dirty air, waste runoff from huge factory farm operations, and the erosion of green space due to urban sprawl.
-Alan
I know I was reading the global warming diary when I replied. How’d it end up here? I never even looked at this story!
Well, I guess I’ll try cutting and pasting it to the right thread–would someone please delete it from here once I do? Thanks.
-Alan
This presidency cannot be saved. But it can do a lot more damage if the Democrats don’t win Congress, and despite the generic polls, interim races don’t show that it’s guaranteed.
So let’s keep our eye on the ball.
I see nothing to be gained by negotiating with Bush. You can’t negotiate with a crook. All the Dems would do is take Bush’s sins upon themselves and give the GOP a bogus veneer of legitimacy. This administration is incapable of honest dealing. Any agreements they made would be spun and violated while giving cover to the ongoing depredations of the Evil Emperor.
What’s this “saving the presidency” line supposed to mean? Save it from what? For what? Seems to me this is just another content-free DC cliche signifying nothing. What would the US gain by Bush “saving his presidency”? Nothing I can see. Let them reap what they sowed. Let Bush show that at least one of his dull truisms is correct: behavior has consequences.
We are way past the point of making minor adjustments to the damage level. Dump this administration or just concentrate on chasing the Reps out of Congress. Intelligent people don’t try to cure mad dogs by wrestling with them.
Well, since I am playing devil’s advocate anyway…
At least my proposal would accomplish two things…
It would destroy the Cheney/Rummy/Bush troika, and it would put someone of trust in the Pentagon.
Those items could not be reneged on.
And, the Dems would be able to renege fairly easily.
How do you negotiate with someone whose every word you are certain is a lie? How do you deal with them at all?
In fact, how could you stand in the same room with such a person?
Bush has totally demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of America and of the world, while at the same time repeatedly proving he has no honor and no integrity.
Josh Marshall has taken to discussing Bush’s grandiosity. Grandiosity is a major element in several severe mental illnesses and personality disorders, and Marshall is not wrong to discuss it. Bush demonstrates it repeatedly.
So I ask again. How do you negotiate with such a person?
Joe Lieberman?????????
Well it’s always worth a try to make lemonade out of lemons, but in this case the beverage would probably poison us all. In any case, I’m afraid we’ll just have to slog through the mess of impeachment, etc, if we want relief.
Sadly, making deals with either psychopaths or imbeciles is always an exercise in futility because those so afflicted are irrational, delusional and lacking in any ethical anchor that might provide them with the capacity to behave honorably with respect to any deals, committments, promises or treaties they may have agreed to.
Jail, exile, or straightjackets and padded cells are about the only remedies appropriate for these craven monsters. The sick and violent and dysfunctional ideology needs to be repudiated in it’s entirety.
All US military aggression in the Middle East needs to be halted ASAP. Even if the Dems achieve a majority in one house of congress, if they don’t stand for withdrawl of forces from the ME as soon as possible, things are guaranteed to get worse. And, with a Dem majority now, all that needs to happen is another major terrorist attack being facilitated somewhere for the rightwing to blame the Dems for it, (shouting that “If Bush still had control via a Repub majority such attacks would never have happened”).
We are at a point where if the Dems do get a majority and still sustain the military deployment in the ME, that could very well almost be worse than if the GOP retains it’s majorities in both houses. There are hundreds of millions of people all around the globe who are hoping that the Dems can take control of the US congress and that such a shift in congress will lead to an end of the disastrous war policy in the ME. But given the prominent players in the Dem party, and the fact that none of them really have come out and said unequivocally that the whole idea of this war was wrong), there is no evidence the Dems would shut down this war substantively.
So imagine the shock and disappointment in every corner of the globe when the Dems do achieve some measure of power and they continue the war in only slightly modified form.
At this point, I expect a Democratic majority would be worse. There’d be an immediate right-wing punditry assault, followed by a bunch of career politicians like Reid making stupid moves to try and prove that they’re “hard on terror”. If Reid took control of the Senate tomorrow, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if he started calling for Bush to use nukes on Iran.
It seems to me that if we seek the best interests of the country and the world we’re truly going to have to drive a stake through the heart of the neocon cabal and discredit their insane ideology once and for all. And to do that, they have to be in power when their entire war agenda crumbles under their own GOP controlled government.
I believe that process is already underway. Certainly it’s clear that what the neocons claim is their agenda in the Middle East is failing at an ever-increasing rate, but aside from those built in seeds of self-destruction inherent in their doctrine, even those who supported them with such enthusisam previously are jumping ship like hordes of rats.
So I hope the American public gets to fully and unequivocally perceive the totality of the Iraq debacle as completely owned by the GOP and the neocons.
The tragedy of course isthat the longer these creatures doinante all 3 branches of government the greater the damage they do both to us domestically and to the greater world at large.
Hence, they’ve screwed things up so much that there is no “good solution”. Like “Sophie’s Choice”, the reality is that anguish and tragedy await whichever way we go.
If the Dems win some power why do they need to negotiate some of this away, especially in advance?
As our fearless leader is fond of saying “all options are on the table”.
Politics is the one area where raw power wins.
Which brings us back to the question I asked above: What does “saving the presidency” mean, if anything, and why would we want to?
Leave office? What makes you think Bush will leave office? The constitution? Yeah, Bush has a deeeeep and abiiiiding respect for the constitution, as we’ve witnessed so often over the past five-plus years.
I fully expect a strike on Iran to be accompanied by the posting of armed soldiers in the Senate and Congress.
For “protection against terrorist action”.
Here is a better “deal”. GW could sit down with the Dems and reach a deal. After we retake the congress in Nov. Impeach him anyway!!
Love it! gwb has screwed over so many people, seems to me that congresscritters should be more than willing to screw him over in return!
I want to say that I appreciate your effort here and I think its worth thinking about. While I don’t think there’s much of a chance that Bush would even begin a process like this, its the kind of negotiating that’s often necessary and exactly the kind of thing we’d ask our leaders to do with Iran in order to avoid war.
Completely unnacceptable! Two words: Medicare D(isaster)
Everything you’ve proposed, with the exception of impeachment, is what the Democrats should be screaming about every day, all day.
Devils’ advocacy aside, if the power’s that be haven’t figured out that there’s no negotiating with these cretins, then it’s going be a dismal fall; because the ‘mainstream D’s’ are going to get their asses handed to them again.
Control the House, take back the Senate?
No opposition, No chance.
Peace
The entire rat-bastard lot of them should be frog-marched straight to Gitmo to send a clear message that serial liars and war profiteers will not be given safe haven in the White House.
That aside, there’s a gaping hole in your list. There have to be voting safeguards put in place immediately. I don’t think that whatever shreds of democracy are left in this country can survive another stolen election.
Just can’t get why we would want to save one of the most degraded, criminal, and cynically self-serving presidencies ever. Don’t want to sell out if there are any other alternatives to preserve the integrity of our nation and the world.
But not the President. Bush is drowning. Throw him a fuckin’ anchor.
As others have said here, you can’t make a deal with a psychopath.
If the neocon’s grip on power within the executive branch can be broken, then an aide with a tranquilizer dart always at the ready can take care of Bush the Imbecile at a moment’s notice with no problem. But it’s the neocons controlling him that need to be exorcized.
We let those scumbags get away by not launching a political firestorm over Poppy’s pardons, and the scumbags bounced right back, worse than ever. The Bush criminal cabal needs to be in the dock at the Hague, and anything that furthers that aim is what we should do. Anything not in the service of justcie will just make this a recurring nightmare.
may save the president, but it would lose the country…and the presidency.
What you are proposing is sweeping all the Bush crap under the rug, pretending it didn’t happen.
You actually think this will be good for the country??
Our greatest problem, in my opinion, is that we keep sweeping unpleasantness about ourselves and our government under the rug. Then, we get to repeat the mistakes over and over again, each time a little worse than before. The quagmire of Vietnam becomes the quagmire of Iraq. The presidential power abuse of Nixon becomes the Iran-Contra abuses of Reagan becomes the dictator-in-chief of Bush.
WE can’t afford to sweep this under the rug. This is a CANCER on our government. The only way to deal with a cancer is to cut it out. If you don’t destroy the cancer, it will destroy our country.
ACCOUNTABILITY. That is what will save the country, that is what will save “the presidency”.
sigh…
this piece is a bit of fantasy. It is intended to show the Washington Post was a serious set of proposals would look like if you wanted to save this Presidency. And to honestly answer your question, if Bush had the kind of epiphany that would be required for him to enter into such an agreement, yes, I would recommend cutting the deal.
But it is precisely the absurdity of the idea of Bush agreeing to such terms that is art of my essay. It makes, hopefully, the WP look appropriately absurd.
This fine point seems to have been lost on some people.
that MOST responders, both here and at Big Orange, took your proposals seriously, perhaps your “fine point” was a bit too fine.
And the fact that, even as you recognize the absurdity of Bush ever even considering such a deal, you would support it if, somehow, he would, is clear from your piece, and is what, precisely, I was objecting to.
the proposal is serious in the sense that it would be best for the country if we did not need to have to impeach this President, and rather could get him to cease aggression against the whole world, including Americans that disagree with him.
But there is no possibility of that short of an epiphany. And that epiphany would have to involve uprooting his whole legacy and apparatus by jettisoning his enablers, dropping his geopolitical goals, and essentially forming a unity government.
If he were willing to do that, we should leap at the chance. But it so stupid to think he will that the point of the diary is to make obvious how stupid the WP’s suggestions are…how inadequate they are.
if we actually impeached a president for high crimes and misdemeanors instead of blowjobs, we might actually deter some future president from trying to get away with the same things.
Maybe you should have made clear that you were simply making a Modest Proposal. Remember, not everyone is Swift.