Some Words

As I was reading an article on Bush’s response to the subpoenaed aides and funding for the war, something struck me. It was the usual article, nothing special, but it ended with the idea that Bush taking a hardline stance might strengthen his base. What?

First off, his base can’t ever get elected again. Sure, higher approval means a stronger stance at the legislative table, but he’s taking hardline stances against things that are unpopular. Maybe there is a portion of the population that doesn’t care what a president endorses, as long as he makes a big macho show of being “presidential” about it, and here I mean presidential to read imperial.

That’s not what struck me though. Here is a president who is on what seems to be a historic run to the bottom of the well. He’s gone from seeming like an incomprehensible behemoth that the left could never seem to best, to one of the least popular presidents of the past 50 years. He’s got two years left, and as far as my, admittedly untrained, eyes can tell, he’s got a dinner fork in his back the size of his “home state.”

Yet every damn article I read about him seems compelled to latch on to some point, even if it’s just, “Mr. Bush seemed decisive about choosing ranch dressing over caesar” to claim his amazing power could come roaring back. Why all these silver linings? Is that balance? Bush is in a shitty shitty position right now. If I were on the right, I wouldn’t be looking for some silly palliative like, “He seemed strong today.”

Is this a continuation of the “Rove is unbeatable, so anything that looks like defeat must really be strategy” meme?

Why do people let Bush try to portray himself as standing up for the troops to get them more money? It’s more like, “I’m going to send your son to die in a pointless war, that I started out of an inflated sense of personal pride. You can send him to die with fancy equipment or cheap equipment. Do you support your son?” But instead of dealing with the underlying message, all I read the reporter surmising is that the tactic might work?

Not that I should really be surprised.

Edit: Quoting from this article:

Cheney called it a myth that “one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.”

Bullshit. The answer is clearly “don’t make them undertake a stupid mission in the first place.” They won’t need those funds if we take them out of Iraq. It’s been over six years and I still sometimes have trouble believing that such fatuous logic is allowed to take place in our governance.