Re: Escalation?
This sentence makes no sense.Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state.But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Here's Ohio.
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
Now it does. :wink:This sentence makes no sense.
As I have previously noted, FDR was the "veto" king of kings. Does this make our former "gray champion" a conservative? True leadership can be a bit tough at times. Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state. Here's Ohio.
But wishful thinking disregards history... even pro-liberal S&H-style history.
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading...At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
Sorry about that.Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading...At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Here's one:
Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of Impeachment
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
Here's another (earlier) one:Sorry about that. Here's one: Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of ImpeachmentWhere's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
- 1994: Starts year at 54% in January, but public sours on health care reform plan and job approval slips to 39% by September, with 54% not approving. Republicans sweep to power in Congress in November.
1995: Starts at 47% in January and stays in the 40s much of the year, but edges back to 53% in December after confrontation with Republicans over government shutdown.
1996: Approval at 58% to start year, moves to 62% by mid-January, stays in the high 50s and low 60s much of the year, though dipping to 52% in mid-August.
1997: Rating starts at 58% in January and stays in the high 50s and low 60s all year.
1998: Approval jumps to 69% after the first news of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. It stays in the 60s throughout the year and spikes to 73% in December after the House votes for impeachment.
If Clinton was truly "leading" the nation, as he was lying to a federal judge and grand jury in 1998, then I think Democrats certainly have a reason to loudly cheer his "Approval jumps" at that time (and would thus eagerly "wish" a return to the "stained blue dress" good old daze).
CNN Link: here
Re: Escalation?
This sentence makes no sense.
Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state.But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Here's Ohio.
Here's Texas:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...c-75de38f33048
The hurricanes did the trick.
Re: Escalation, eh?
Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him. For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.Clinton "wished that 9/11 happened on his watch"? Judging by his "nuanced" approach to the disaster in Mogadishu, the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the 1996 Khobar Tower attack, and the later bin Laden-led attacks on the U.S. Embassy (1998) and the U.S.S Cole (2000), I find this more than just a bit curious... not to mention sickly in a narcissistic way.
It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.
But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Re: Escalation, eh?
Invading Afghanastan certainly put pressure on Al Qaeda, probably disrupted their direct operations. The Taleban themselves were only an enabler, never a direct threat to the US. That said, international terrorists have rarely been able to pull off attacks on US soil before 9/11. I suspect that the current lull in such attacks arises more from US intelligence vigilance than from wholesale military action in Afghanastan. This would have occured after a 9/11-scale attack regardless of the administration. Some will maintain that Bush is uniquely successful in applying military solutions. The Bush-Cheney teams' level of competence does not convince me that they are currently doing a better job than others might have.Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him. For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.Clinton "wished that 9/11 happened on his watch"? Judging by his "nuanced" approach to the disaster in Mogadishu, the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the 1996 Khobar Tower attack, and the later bin Laden-led attacks on the U.S. Embassy (1998) and the U.S.S Cole (2000), I find this more than just a bit curious... not to mention sickly in a narcissistic way.
It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.
But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Clinton would not have been able to nab Bin Laden or Zawahiri (sp?) in Taleban-controlled territory. But Bush hasn't gotten him on somewhat friendlier terrain, either. Clinton would not have displayed the fierceness that Americans seemed to want on 9/12 but he would probably not be facing a public so disdainful of his leadership in 2005, either. Also, unfortunately for Bush, we have to take his GWOT as a whole and that means factoring in Iraq. The picture gets even murkier from that point on.
Are we safer because we had Bush on 9/11? Not a slam dunk.
Finally, Al Qaeda is not a problem you can just solve with a Marine Expeditionary Force or a few cruise missles. It is a long term challenge that will mean that we will not have reasonble security for a long time, if ever. The Cold War was fought by Presidents of many stripes and so will post-Cold War struggles.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.
Re: Historical escalation, eh?
The point is that Clinton stayed above 50% throughout his second term, even with the Lewinsky scandal.Here's another (earlier) one:Sorry about that. Here's one: Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of ImpeachmentWhere's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
- 1994: Starts year at 54% in January, but public sours on health care reform plan and job approval slips to 39% by September, with 54% not approving. Republicans sweep to power in Congress in November.
1995: Starts at 47% in January and stays in the 40s much of the year, but edges back to 53% in December after confrontation with Republicans over government shutdown.
1996: Approval at 58% to start year, moves to 62% by mid-January, stays in the high 50s and low 60s much of the year, though dipping to 52% in mid-August.
1997: Rating starts at 58% in January and stays in the high 50s and low 60s all year.
1998: Approval jumps to 69% after the first news of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. It stays in the 60s throughout the year and spikes to 73% in December after the House votes for impeachment.
If Clinton was truly "leading" the nation, as he was lying to a federal judge and grand jury in 1998, then I think Democrats certainly have a reason to loudly cheer his "Approval jumps" at that time (and would thus eagerly "wish" a return to the "stained blue dress" good old daze).
CNN Link: here
Bush's numbers in his second term, OTOH, are steadily declining. He's got his base, but moderates and independents are deserting him.
Re: Escalation, eh?
We don't know, and we'll never know how Clinton (or Gore) would have responded. However, I would venture to guess that they would not have invaded Iraq.
Which he promptly sidelined in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.
- -
False Regeneracy
When are we sure we are in a 4T? Where is the point of no return? Early on, the bulk of the effort goes into restoring the status quo. Later, one does what one has to do to make the problem go away. With 20 20 hindsight, one might spot a moment where commitment to a major effort to achieve new society is made. Lacking 20 20 hindsight, it is harder.
I've been speaking of a 'false regeneracy' after September 11th. Early in a spiral of violence leading to all out conflict, the solutions tend to be small, focused more on restoring the status quo than solving basic problems. While there seems to be a chance that the status quo might be restored, momentum towards a significant transformation might not develop. Small solutions are tried first. Major efforts are seriously considered only after all hope of the status quo is lost.
One might also distinguish between military and political escalation. Pearl Harbor, Lexington Green or September 11th might ramp up the level of violence, but a Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation or Atlantic Charter say more about the new society to be created from the struggle. In general, the violence comes first, but there is no firm pattern.
While there is considerable escalation in violence occurring, I'm not seeing transforming ideas. While flaws in the current society are fairly obvious, serious attempts at reform aren't yet present. I'd like to think the next set of ideas might seriously address major issues, but no politicians are ready to take radical stands yet, in good part because not many people are ready to listen to radical stands.
September 11th is such a obvious catalyst that it is apt to be remembered as the crisis boundary. This does not mean that the first set of ideas in response to September 11th will be the ideas that form the core of the transformation. Thus, false regeneracy and a phony fourth. Until serious attacks on the underlying causes are proposed -- crony capitalism, lack of leading sectors, intense division of wealth, all leading to ethnic and nationalist unrest -- we'll see more false regeneracy and a longer phony fourth.
My understanding of regeneracy was that it required a nadir of sorts to be reached first, and then the regeneracy pulls us through the second half of the 4t.
If anyone else thinks public mood is the strongest indicator of a turning, check out this post from Reynolds at Mighty Middle.
- -
This sounds more squarely 4Tish. Of course the time from catalyst to nadir is not instantaneous.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.
Re: Escalation, eh?
And let's not forget the wonderful Patriot Act and the color-coded fun of DHS! 8)We don't know, and we'll never know how Clinton (or Gore) would have responded. However, I would venture to guess that they would not have invaded Iraq.
Which he promptly sidelined in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.
Isn't it amazing. . .
. . . how much dear DA likes to talk (inaccurately, to be sure) about the Clinton presidency? Could it be that he has no good news to report today? Can't imagine why not. . .
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, one possible 4T trigger would be indictments of many major White House figures, followed by a blanket pardon. I would not rule this out. The Fox News talking points are out--this is, once again, the "criminalization of politics." (Of course, the Starr investigation was just "following the law wherever it leads"!!!!) I would not put it past our President to try this, even though it would totally shred his credibility for the next three years, which under our system would be a very serious matter.
David K '47
Re: Isn't it amazing. . .
Does anyone know when these indictments are set to happen (if they indeed do)? In the next couple weeks or so?
Re: Isn't it amazing. . .
On Fitzmas, of course.Does anyone know when these indictments are set to happen (if they indeed do)? In the next couple weeks or so?
The poster formerly known as Jake has left the building.
Re: Isn't it amazing. . .
I think even GWB sees the need to keep his powder dry for now. The blanket pardons come in the post-E2008 time frame. If Bush-Cheney leave early, the next Gerald Ford gets that job assignment.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Re: Escalation, eh?
I don't think the color code system has really been adequately explained to the American people. When a decision is made to raise the threat level, there are actually different policies that become law. It's a quick way to give DHS the ability to act without the normal bureaucratic holdup. As far as the American people are concerned, it just means "be more vigilant." I'm sure I'm going to get called a neocon for this, but the DHS system isn't as useless as people say it is. The PATRIOT Act is another story, but even that has been used far more judiciously than I initially thought it would be.
Re: Isn't it amazing. . .
Next couple of weeks is a pretty good guess. The grand jury expires on October 28th. At the end, he can either issue indictments, issue a report on what he found without indictments, or just walk away. Walking away after issuing so many subpoenas to so many high ranking officials seems highly unlikely. The phrase 'political firestorm' gets associated with that option. One of the few leaks coming out of the prosecutor's office is that there will be no final report. That leaves as the most likely option...
- -
