September 15, 2005
BIPARTISANSHIP MEANS YOU AGREEING WITH ME
End of the Bush Era (E.J. Dionne, 9/13/05, Washington Post)
The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.
The Bush Era did not begin when he took office, or even with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It began on Sept. 14, 2001, when Bush declared at the World Trade Center site: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." Bush was, indeed, skilled in identifying enemies and rallying a nation already disposed to action. [...]
If Bush had understood that his central task was to forge national unity, as he seemed to shortly after Sept. 11, the country would never have become so polarized. Instead, Bush put patriotism to the service of narrowly ideological policies and an extreme partisanship.
So Dionne is back to favoring the concept of national unity as a solution to the usual partisan ferment? I'm having real trouble keeping up with this guy -- it's like trying to break a particularly perplexing line of code.
Luckily, he provides us with a handy decoder ring a little later in his column:
The breaking of the Bush spell opens the way for leaders of both parties to declare their independence from the recent past.
He rejoices in the sort of bipartisanship that allows Democrats and Republicans to oppose Bush.
I should also note the hilarity in Dionne thinking the Bush presidency is "over" when nearly every American not suffering from a DSM-designated mental crackup realizes he shouldn't be blamed for this. The most recent poll showed 13% of the American public castigating Bush for Hurricane Katrina -- if all of them want to meet up somewhere I'll pay for the phone booth.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 15, 2005 3:51 AME.J. Dionne is a moron.
Bush's "central task was to forge national unity" ?
That was James Buchanan's central task, in 1857.
Dionne is about 150 years behind the times.
President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing [and] his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.
Well, I will certainly agree that Bush's way of politics has produced some (extremely) angry and dysfunctional people, but it's incredibly self-important and delusional of those nutjobs to refer to themselves as "the public square".
However, Dionne's advice to those tormented refugees from reality, "you dare not go on like this", rings true.
If Bush's policies are failing, then Dionne must know of some catagory BELOW failing, in which most Presidents' policies would fit.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 15, 2005 4:10 AM
Cut him some slack, fellas. He's smack in the middle of the echo chamber.
Buffeted incesantly with category 4 mega-murmurings, he can't hear anything else.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 15, 2005 5:41 AMEJ Dionne has all the logical coherence of Maureen Dowd, minus the hysteria.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 15, 2005 8:08 AMI couldn't read the whole article, but this popped out at me. Think of three of our nation's most important and effective presidents. Abraham Lincoln ... Franklin D. Roosevelt ... Ronald Reagan ...
Whoa! Who knew AJ was a Reagan supporter.
Wouldn't it be fun to go into the archives and see what he had to say about Reagan during the good old of the Iran-Contra hearings and other assorted Reagan-era atrocities.
To quote Rush, "This is more fun than a human being is supposed to have."
you guys seemed to have missed this howler:
..’ The glorious economy Bush kept touting turned out not to be glorious for many Americans.’
I had to Email EJ with this question?
In what era was the national economy ‘glorious’ for ALL Americans?
jeez, that is some dumb*ss writing !
What are these hacks (Dionne, Bill Press, Begala, etc.) going to say in November 2006, when the GOP adds to its majority in Congress?
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 15, 2005 9:51 AMI've said it before, but I'll say it again: E.J. Dionne, The Wrongest Man in Media [tm].
Posted by: H.D. Miller at September 15, 2005 9:57 AMHD-
When have committed, 1960's era Democratic/leftists been right about anything? ej seems like a pleasant fellow of reasonable intelleigence. On what basis do folks like him believe what they do? Pure emotionalism.
"In what era was the national economy "glorious" for ALL Americans?"
If "glorious" means havig a job then the closest we've come is 1944-45 when , with more than 12 million men in the military (in a nation of 140 million), the unemployment rate was at or just slighty under 2%.
Maybe EJ would enjoy life more if we had 25 million people under arms.
I am not sure if "The Wrongest Man in Media" is a title that E.J. Dionne can keep. I mean Krugman still has a column. And what about Frank Rich.
BTW is the title limited to XY type people? or can MoDo, be awarded it?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 15, 2005 6:19 PM