Another week in Bushville

Long time readers may recall that I sometimes like to put together Friday round-ups to take stock of what we’ve learned about the president over the last seven days. I haven’t done one since December, but this week lent itself well to just such a post.

Indeed, my friend Peter Daou, riffing off a post I did in June, noted today that this week has been unusually productive for those of us who chronicle the “over-abundance of stories that undermine the credibility and integrity of our current administration.” Borrowing from Peter, and using a few of my own, consider the week that was.

* In an unprecedented action, the Environmental Protection Agency’s own scientific panel challenged the agency’s proposed public health standards governing soot and dust. Scientists found that Bush appointees “twisted” or “misrepresented” their recommendations in an “egregious” fashion, and inserted language into EPA reports from trade associations’ lobbyists.

* The White House really did expose the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

* The White House unveiled one of the most irresponsible federal budgets anyone has ever seen and intentionally left out most funding for the war.

* State Department officials appointed by Bush have sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with less experienced political operatives who share the White House and Pentagon’s distrust of international negotiations and treaties.

* The warrantless-search program Bush uses to capture bad guys isn’t actually capturing bad guys.

* The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East accused the administration of “cherry-picking” intelligence and misusing intelligence “to justify decisions already made.”

* The administration knew far more, far earlier about Katrina than they’ve been willing to admit.

* Jack Abramoff had far more, far closer connections to the president than the White House has been willing to admit.

* Scooter Libby told a grand jury that he was authorized by his “superiors,” including the Vice President, to disclose classified information to reporters about Iraq’s weapons capability in June and July 2003.

* The president boasted about thwarting a terrorist attack in Los Angeles, but a series of experts and administration officials suggest that Bush seriously exaggerated this threat.

Remember, for some administrations, this might be several months’ worth of controversies. And yet, it’s just another typical week in Bush’s America.

Of course, it’s more than just making a list, depressing as it may be. Peter Daou sees a strategy.

This half-decade tsunami of scandals has had the intended effect: overload the senses, short circuit the outrage, dizzy the opposition. How many times have Bush’s opponents simply thrown their hands up in disgust, overwhelmed by the enormity of the administration’s over-reach? How many times have bloggers railed against reporters for going about the business of burying scandals and muddying waters? How many times have Americans watched in amazement as a missing girl in Aruba receives weeks of blanket coverage while lies that led to war and law-breaking at the highest levels of government get a yawn from the media?

From a purely sensory perspective, it’s natural to chase the flak. We’re conditioned to respond to incoming fire. It’s reflexive. But when the fire is coming from all sides, and coming relentlessly, the urge is to stop defending and curl up and give up. This is a process the Cheneys and Roves of this world understand all too well. It’s no accident that the scandals get more and more outrageous – after all, the whole point is to have the opposition frantically racing around, chasing stories, distracted and exhausted, wearing itself out like a kitten in a catnip-doused, mouse-filled room.

Peter’s advice? Dems should put on the blinders and “drive one scandal home.”

Brown Blames DHS for Poor Hurricane Katrina Response

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184446,00.html

  • Odd, it seems like the prefix “mis” comes up a lot in coverage of the Bush League: “misused,” “misinformation,” “misdeeds,” “mislead.”

    While I see Peter’s concerns about overload and the risk of becoming that crazed cat, I think it lets Dumbya off the hook to easy to focus on a single scandal. The real scandal is the sheer volume of scandals. I actually think the “Culture of Corruption” tag has been getting traction and remains a useful box in which to put all of the toys.

    The key is to remember to attach the “brand” to each discrete piece. Cheney authorized Scooter to leak for political purposes? Part of that Corrupt “do anything to cover your mistakes” Culture. Brownie called Bush in Crawford but because the levees weren’t bombed W didn’t care? A Corrupt Administration that doesn’t care about its people, just its costly war. Bush knows Jack? The Culture of Corruption in lobbying, dirty money and big business influence.

    Constantly tying it back to the endlessly repeated “Culture of Corruption” tag makes it look to the often-inattentive public like we have the tight focus Peter wants us to have, without requiring us to remove from our quivver all but one of these mind-blowing scandals.

    I know it is often frustrating for us who live and breathe this stuff that the “Culture of Corruption” label doesn’t stick faster or do more damage, but I honestly believe it is working and we really need to have the patience and stamina to stick with it.

  • Zeitgeist is right. Dems never know which scandal may connect with the public. If they pick one (NSA), but let another go that might be more effective (Abramoff), they miss an opportunity.

    I say, throw everything plus the kitchen sink.

  • and yet for a sizeable chunk of the public, the only thing that matters is gay marriage and the “murder” of innocent unborn children and that Bush is good because “he’s a Christian”. None of this other stuff appears on their radars.

  • Well, the general themes of incompetence, corruption and weakeing national security can be used instead, and the Dems just need to be ready to cite specifics.

  • How much of this do we need to see before the rest of the country wakes up and sees that there’s a pattern? I mean, it’s kind of ridiculous that these people are still in office, don’t you think? If we had a parliamentary system, I think we’d have had a no confidence vote and new elections a LONG LONG time ago. So how do we reach some middle ground between our system and that type, so that we can get some traction on this? Are we just stuck with shitty leadership for three more years? Can we afford even a few more weeks of this garbage, let alone a couple of hundred weeks???

  • The tv news media covers sensational murders, stupid stories like the “cartoon crisis”, etc. To get any real information, people have to dig for it. That is why the bastards are getting away with this terrible stuff. The same people who helped steal the election in 2000 and 2004 also control tv media.
    Unfortunately, newpaper subscriptions are down and tv viewing is up.
    The run of the mill newspapers in my area don’t address the horrors this government is enacting. The freedom of the press doesn’t exist. Therefore, the abuses will continue.
    The mindless populace could care less.

  • It was an exceptional week for Bush & Co. Former CIA manager of Mideast affairs Paul Pillar was interviewed on NPR this afternoon; he said that pre-war intelligence was “bent” to suit goals. Add on “Brownie’s” testimony and you have a exceptionally bad week for Bush & Co.

    LFB — Lying. Fucking. Bastards.

    They found a lampost for Mussolini;what will we find for George W.

  • I agree that the sheer number of scandals is actually a form of protection for Bush. For much of the public, the issues are too hard to understand, require basic knowledge and the inclination to learn facts, and, in many cases, aren’t important.

    I agree with Peter that the Democrats should pick one specific issue — domestic spying — and beat it to death. That particular scandal links to many others.

    If the American people, faced with the facts and consequences of granting the White House dictatorial powers, have no objection, then winning elections is irrelevant. The “great experiment” has failed.

  • Re: Peter Daou’s words–

    While I don’t think the conservatives make many big moves without careful thought (little moves are another matter entirely– they certainly serve up their share of patronizing phrasings and tellingly inappropriate grins during public speeches, to offer a couple examples) I don’t so much think there would be a “plan” of distraction. Maybe Daou’s just trying on some rhetorical flair?

    To me, it seems more that the Republicans would recoginze that since there’s no effective review of their actions right now, they can “push the envelope” by being bold, and this will roll back expectations of what government is allowed to “get away with.”

    For Republican activists/politicians who think a little less deeply about how to go about promoting their interests, being really bold right now is just the logical thing to do when the GOP has its turn at the trough: it’s been won for the taking, so why shouldn’t they hog what they can get?

    If these two aims- the first a little more conscious than the second- work synergistically together, then we get the result we’re getting. The “Let’s pull off a lot of scandals and outrages so it’ll confuse our political opponents” explanation seems a little too weird to me. If channels of information were flowing properly– if people had a good idea of the amount and quality of corruption– you’d tend to think the natural result of more and more corruption would always be more and more public outrage, which the Republicans of course don’t want. It’s just what the culture’s become / what it’s been made into, and the co-opting of the media, which have blunted the effect of scandal.

    That said, better organization/coordination and greater resources among the dems and grassroots, of course, would never hurt our ability to effectively communicate about greater amounts of scandal.

  • One of your points needs a further asterisk:

    — The White House really did expose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. In the same week, the director of the CIA writes an op-ed for the NYT titled “Loose Lips Sink Spies”. (See CB post from earlier today!)

  • I agree with Peter. When Clinton was president, the Republicans hammered on one scandal until the public started to fatigue, then and only did they invent a new crisis. Since the scandals (with one exception of a personal nature) were made up as their slime campaign required them, the Republicans controlled the game. Now, with their man up at bat, they still control the game by hurling scandals at us so fast that we can’t focus. If we just picked one scandal and had the bulk of our team hammering away at it, I believe that we would be more effective.

  • I think why the Republicans focused (or, maybe it’s that in retrospect they seem to have focused) on one thing at a time during Clinton’s administration was because they didn’t have much of merit to attack, since Dems really are cleaner.

    You’ll recall, though, that they had other things they complained about besides Monicagate- there was Whitewater and other things.

    Also, they had the power to do an impeachment, which is naturally going to draw a lot of focus. If we could impeach, maybe we would, and then naturally what we’re doing would seem more focus. So I don’t think these situations are really comparable.

  • “Peter’s advice? Dems should put on the blinders and “drive one scandal home.””

    It really doesn’t matter. Corporate America runs this game.
    Until the Dems understand that – and they’re doing a pretty
    good job of getting savvy by going Republican Lite – they
    don’t get to play.

    My nightmare scenario is the Dems taking control of Congress
    in 2006, and finding out they’ve become the same pigs that
    we worked so hard to kick out.

    This is not going to be easy, taking back our country. I
    don’t think it will happen. The Dems have to sell their
    souls to get back in power.

  • As long as elections can be rigged
    media coverage bought
    phones tapped
    opponents are smeared
    and news events staged for white house poltical gain
    the game is fixed.
    so you know that to win you gotta win BIG and Theatrical,
    like everyone wearing orange on election day who votes against Bushclones.
    We have to get past thinking about winning an honest election because we never will…but learn from our European friends about winning power when the system is rigged.

  • Peter’s advice? Dems should put on the blinders and “drive one scandal home.”

    Nah. Rise above it all. How about, “Mr. President, what is the truth?”

    Or, to paraphrase Clinton,

    It’s the truth, stupid.

  • Comments are closed.