Monday, July 09, 2007
The Lame Duck Phenomenon
One thing has become blazingly apparent. The Bush presidency hs entered its lame duck phase. The Executive and Legislative branches of government are locked in combat, unable to accomplish anything. Gridlocked, at least they seem unlikely to do any harm. The more interesting developments seem to be emerging from the Judicial branch, where there appears to be a conservative ascendancy in the making. And the military may - I say may - be making strides against certain Taliban elements in Pakistan (captures of senior aides to Mullah Omar in Quetta) and Al Qaeda elements in Iraq. But much of that isn't getting mainstream attention, and won't.
Lots of potential ugly ideas are being tossed around in Congress - from increased taxation to trade protectionism -- all of which would likely lead to economic contraction. This despite generally good economic news - jobs, stock market performance, earnings and so forth. Still, I am doubtful that much of any of that will get signed into law. Bush will almost certainly veto more in the last 18 months of office that he did in his first six and a half years.
I am reminded of the news as reported towards the end of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton presidencies. All of the reported news was bad or spun as bad. Iran Contra, Bush I tax increases and recession, Monica Lewinsky and Yugoslavia were the highlighted news of the day. Each president by then was a lame duck and was unable to acccomplish much of anything with the legislative branch. Gridlock is frustrating and bad for blogging, but if you aren't a believer in government's ability to do much good, then maybe it's a blessing.
8 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 09, 05:17:00 PM:
I love gridlock. That means they're not picking my pocket.
By 
, at
Mon Jul 09, 05:20:00 PM:
If Dubya vetoes more in the last 18 months than in the first 6.5 years, that would be a lame duck Congress.
By , at
Mon Jul 09, 05:46:00 PM:
Gridlock is fine, unless you are at war. Bush should take the high road and go on the attack. He should defend the war and explain why he thought the immigration legislation was required.
By , at
Mon Jul 09, 07:28:00 PM:
I was thinking earlier today that, as I am getting up in years, and have spent most of my life studying politics, for which I have a distinct distaste, and any number of other things, and thinking that my kids, as I watched them play innocently on this vacation, needed leaders who might actually help their futures, decided, reluctantly, that I should get involved in politics and do my civic duty.
If I were to do something so rash, which would certainly destroy any peace of mind I might hope to attain, then my platform would be to obstruct as many other politicians as possible.
In short, gridlock would be my political message. I wonder how that would sell. Why people are enamoured of politicians who promise to do something or change things is beyond me.
Sorry for the old wordy English a la Dickens. It just happened.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Jul 09, 08:41:00 PM:
"In short, gridlock would be my political message. I wonder how that would sell."
I'll vote for you, Anonymous.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 10, 11:23:00 AM:
That's essentially a platform of limited government, which used to be a foundation of life in America.
Now where I live, (central California, until this weekend) you aren't allowed to cut down a tree on your own property without special permission from the government.
I'm with DEC.
By , at
Tue Jul 10, 12:06:00 PM:
Princeton has a similar rule on tree-cutting (though, there is a tree diameter point to reach before the rule kicks in): it's a good way for my nosey neighbor to exercise control over my life. He loves it.
"Lame duck phase" hardly begins to describe what we're seeing. "Loss of Imperium" is more like it, with Patrick Leahy as Cicero. How long before some enterprising general crosses the Rubicon? This is going to get really ugly.
Andrew
By , at
Tue Jul 10, 01:26:00 PM:
You can blame the current situation in washington on a so-called lame duck presidency, but it is not officially a lame duck presidency until after the 2008 elections.
You want to blame? Try blaming congress and senate. The senate is so elitist/power-priviliged focussed that they cannot see beyond the end of the porked earmarks stapled to their noses. The congress is so awash in BDS, what with the likes of Rangel, Conyers, Shumer, Pelosi, Murtha, and others hunting scalps from the Bush admin that they have completely lost any sense of what they are supposed to be doing, i.e., what we pay them to constitutionally do (hint: make laws, not issue subpoenas on matters on which they have no jurisdiction or oversight).
Now, admittedly, the Bush administration has not been very adept at making its case on Iraq, immigration, and other matters. Part of that is from an leftist-terrorist-agenda-driven media that twists and blocks the message. There are a lot of things that Bush has done (or not done) with which I am unhappy.
But most of the blame should rightly belong with the legislatures.
I, too, am with DEC. The more they lock, they less they steal. It is patently traitorous behavior, that which congress and senate engage in, in the teeth of the ongoing wars and atrocities.
/rant
