"You know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it." --- President George W. Bush, April 30, 2008.
DETROIT -- The sorcerer-in-chief is a failure for the ages. George W. Bush is now the most unpopular president in modern American history, an ignominious distinction he earned and richly merits. His magic touch wounds and scars the nation and world, and the suffering he wrought will last for decades.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows 71 percent of the American people disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Richard Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974, just before he was forced to resign, stood at 66 percent.
Nixon's crimes were insignificant, his evil cynicism petty, compared to Bush's serial felonies and assaults on the Constitution. History will judge Bush even more harshly, when his now-hidden crimes are revealed and people become more aware of his monstrous abuses of power and neglect of duty.
We will pay a terrible price for Bush's malfeasance, while he hides on a ranch in Paraguay, hoping to escape the long arm of international law he has thumbed his nose at and the justice that makes him tremble.
Yet the Democratic leaders in Congress refuse to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, or even offer a censure resolution to brand these despicable crooks and memorialize the legislative branch's disapproval of their egregious deeds.
History will also judge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with scorn for their failures to exercise their constitutional responsibilities and for their negligence in sitting back and doing nothing as war crimes were committed, sacred liberties shredded, the Treasury looted and the environment despoiled.
They -- and most other congressional Democrats, along with the party's highly paid consultants -- are content to play it safe and take the course with the fewest perceived political risks. In doing so, they've failed the party and the nation.
The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 on the promise they would end the war in Iraq. But they continue to give Bush a blank check, enabling his plan to coast to the end of his term and bequeath the mess to his successor.
When CNN's Larry King pressed Pelosi about the party's failure to end the war, she said, "It didn't happen, because we had hoped that the president would listen to the will of the people and at least be willing to compromise on ... how the war is conducted and some timetable for redeployment of our troops."
One conclusion is that Pelosi is stupid or naive for thinking Bush would ever "listen to the will of the people." That ranks right up there with Sen. Hillary Clinton's claim that she voted for the war because she "trusted" Bush to seek peaceful solutions before invading Iraq.
But we know both are bright and hardly gullible. These women took their positions because they are connivers who sought political cover rather than standing for principle. Pelosi doesn't want Democrats in the House labeled as "not supporting the troops," so she hopes to coast to victory in November publicly condemning Bush's war, while using her public office to support it.
Bush's "magic wand" references came at a news conference last week where he was asked about the faltering economy and rising gas prices. Blaming Congress for all the wrong reasons for all that ails the nation, Bush drifted into a pixilated mood while discussing Americans' pain at the pump.
"If there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course." In fact, Merlin Bush would probably keep his wand in the holster, knowing such a magic move would offend two of his vital constituents: oil companies and the Saudi royal family. The Bush family's growing fortune and that of Dubya's moneyed base are inextricably linked to those vile, greedy interests.
Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton, the pander twins of presidential politics, are offering what is truly the dumbest idea in this crazy election year as they grapple for the votes of gas price-battered Americans.
Showing the leadership skills of Chicago ward bosses doling out patronage jobs, McCain and Clinton want a summer moratorium on the 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal tax. Claiming they are providing "relief" for average people, the proposed gas-tax holiday is a cynical charade that defies basics learned in Economics 101. Perhaps that's why neither candidate can find a single reputable economist who supports their plan.
Taking the high road, Sen. Barack Obama opposes the gas-tax pander ploy.
"This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer; it's an idea designed to get them through an election," Obama says in a TV spot airing in North Carolina and Indiana, where primaries are held Tuesday.
Obama's courage may cost him votes, but it is an important statement from him that he chooses sound public policy over political expediency. McCain and Clinton are locked in the old politics of throwing bones to people and insulting their intelligence with cheap posturing that they helping "the little guy."
Eliminating the tax for the summer could, as Obama points out, "save about $25, $30, or half a tank of gas." Even if that minuscule savings is realized -- certainly not a sure thing -- the move would encourage gasoline consumption and deplete the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
Since refineries cannot magically increase their supply of gasoline for the summer, lower prices would increase demand and would most benefit oil companies, not the public.
Under the heading of "Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds an acorn," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman nailed it. He wrote, "The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: 'Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy from people who hate us most.' Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering."
Friedman continued, "If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy, then you would want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage -- gasoline consumption and gas guzzling cars -- and you would want to encourage new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite."
Bush and Cheney realize energy and economic policies are easy to grasp -- run up trillions of dollars of debt to cut the taxes of the wealthiest Americans, borrow money from the Chinese, and ship as much cash as we can to the Saudis to buy their gas.
In a lapse into frankness, McCain said last week that the war in Iraq really is about oil. He told a crowd in Denver, "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependency on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having to ever send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
Mr. "Straight Talk" quickly back-pedaled, saying his remarks were twisted and his use of the word "again" was "misconstrued." McCain said the record is clear: "I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction."
We are still in Iraq because of weapons that were not there, not because of oil that is there, or so goes McCain's rationale.
The Democrats can win in November by defining McCain just as he has sadly become: an extension of Bush's failed polices on Iraq, energy and the economy. They don't have to pander or say "Abracadabra!" to do that.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | May 6 2008 |