Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Meyerson: Where's the outrage?

WaPo:

So where's the outrage? Why aren't demonstrators besieging the White House? Where are the "Welcome to Bushville" signs in those neighborhoods where abandoned homes outnumber the occupied ones?

The answer, I suspect, is that you can only irreversibly give up on a president once. Further catastrophic failures on the president's part elicit only diminishing returns. Buchanan did nothing while the South seceded: That was it for him. Hoover did nothing as farmers, workers and middle-class America got wiped out: With that, he was beyond rehabilitation. Nixon had Watergate: Enough said. One mega-strike and you're out.

Bush, however, has had three. He misled us into a nearly endless war of choice to disarm a threat that never really existed. He let a great American city drown. And now he stands by while the economic security of tens of millions of Americans is vanishing.

Yet in the hearts of his countrymen, Bush's place is already fixed. Even before the financial collapse, he was in the ninth circle of presidential hell, with Buchanan and Hoover. At his own party's national convention this summer, his was the name that no one dared speak. And so, though his mishandling of the economy is criminally inept, he is being spared one more outbreak of public rage by two countervailing public sentiments: Americans' relief that he soon will be gone and their kind reluctance to kick a corpse.

Ouch!

0
No votes yet

Comments

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

He was successful beyond his wildest dreams. He has managed to do what Grover Norquist could only wet dream about- reduce government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. What's not to like? There will be absolutely no money in the treasury when he leaves and most Americans will be teetering on the edge of solvency without a safety net. He's only the worst president in history if you're an average American who cares about peace and prosperity and the future and stuff like that. But if you're looking at the short term goal of vacuuming up every spare nickel of disposable income from hard working people while fantasizing of the long term goal opf making sure that New Deal stays dead, he has been a phenom. Gifted even.
The movement conservatives got absolutely everything they wanted including a Democratic party that has won everything but is too afraid to exercise its power. AND Obama to boot! When the economic $#$% hits the fan, he will be the biggest failure in 70 years. Bush is getting out while the gettin's good and leaving his successor holding the bag. It's brilliant!

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Don't have any numbers right up front, but I'm pretty sure he didn't shrink government, overall, in any meaningful way. Perhaps, it would be better to say that he maligned the parts of government needed for an overall healthy society, but he went totally nuts on the growth in "homeland security" and other areas. Really, is there anything to show that Bush was a small-government fiscal conservative? I don't think so.

Where is the outrage? We've been told to outsource it to the few that actually care. Because, in today's political climate, outrage is so passe, and, well..."divisive".