Double Booby Trap: What's Really Going on in Bush v. Webb
By: Teddy
Published On: 12/5/2006 8:19:48 PM
Americans are always amused by pompous hypocrisy, so weGve had a field day with the conservative media explosion about the confrontation between President Bush and Senator-elect Webb recently at the White House... what could be funnier than George Will, a self-appointed Emily Post, calling Webb a boor and quite failing to recall the Vice-PresidentGs telling a Senator to **** himself, or the drunken shenanigans of the PresidentGs offspring in Argentina? The beat goes on, but there is a darker side to the manufactured hullabaloo, and it coordinates with a persistent effort to trivialize and downgrade both the Democratic electoral victory and the Democratic leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, Jim Webb, and others, and lay the groundwork for a Republican claim that Democrats are obstructionists who can only clean themselves of that charge by being bipartisan, i.e., working with President Bush. This is a double booby-trap being laid by Republicans.
Besides, I am shocked, shocked I say, that no one has mentioned the tin ear aspect of the PresidentGs remark GǣHowGs your boy.Gǥ I thought everyone understood that Gǣyour boyGǥ is a Southern localism used only in a tightly knit community among close family friends where everyone knows everyone else, and also knows the name of each otherGs offspring (which Bush apparently did not trouble himself to learn). In any other context, the use of Gǣyour boyGǥ is demeaning and intended to be so, establishing the dominance and superiority of the asker as opposed to the recipient of the question. Remember with whom we are dealing here: Bush, who is well (if not widely) known always to seek an underhanded personal advantage, slyly designed to humiliate another, and thus emphasize his personal powerG one example is the nice little neck massage he gave the German leader in public recently. When Bush re-used Gǣyour boyGǥ in attempting to put Webb into his subordinate position (GǣThatGs not what I askedGǥ) Webb clearly, if instinctively, knew exactly what was going on, and refused to play the game. If there was a boor in the room, it was not Webb.
What we have here is part of a pattern. One after another the punditocracy tells us the Democrats won because they moved to the center, and that voters are tired of the violent partisanship (which no one points out was solely the product of Republican leadership, where the Republican Speaker said his job was to please the majority of his majorityG the rest of Congress in other words, had no rights or input). We are being told repeatedly that it is now up to the Democrats to be bipartisan and work with the President, rather than the other way around. The implication is thus that failing to do so will make Democrats look obstructionist, and bad, deserving to be kicked out in the next election. We are told that the President is being generous and intends to work with the Democrats, so they should cooperate... even as he actually is no such thing, re-submitting previously disapproved right wingnuts for judgeships and appointing as head of family planning an extremist who disapproves of contraception.
When George W became Governor of Texas, he faced a Democratic legislature, and the story now given out is that he worked with them in a bipartisan fashion. Jim Hightower ("The Lowdown") and Molly Ivins have exposed that as a fairytale in their publications. The truth is, Bush talked a good fight, got Democrats to compromise, then backed off and claimed they were not meeting him halfway, got them to compromise again, then backed off again, and finally ended up with everything he wanted and nothing they wanted, and saw to it that they were replaced with Republicans thereafter. Bush cannot be trusted, and Nancy Pelosi would do well to remember that. Also, she should not forget that the Democrats who won were progressives and populists, not centrists.
This election was a rejection not merely of BushGs War in Iraq, but of the basic Big Business and YOYO (YouGre On Your Own) Republican philosophy of non-governance. The voters will not take kindly to being betrayed. The double booby trap is the demand for a one-sided bipartisanship combined with a sneak attack on every progressive Democrat while simultaneously muddying the true reason they won the election.
Comments
Brava! (LAS - 12/5/2006 8:41:34 PM)
Excellent, wonderful, terrific post, Teddy!
We all need to take the words of Webb's campaign song to heart: "We won't back down." Personally, I am proud of Webb for letting Bush know that we WILL NOT play that game. Let our other Democratic leaders take a lesson from him and, above all, do NOT trust that untrustworthy monster currently residing on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Bispartisanship defined (Teddy - 12/5/2006 9:21:15 PM)
The curious thing about the current clamour for bipartisanship is its rather one-sided character. I am all for bipartisanship if it is truly two-sided, but I am not sure the President's own party in Congress will allow it. Isn't Trent Lott restored? Are the new Republican House leadership giving any evidence they have compromise anywhere in their makeup? Is the conservative echo-chamber pointing out the splits and chasms within the Republican Party, rather than eviscerating Nancy Pelosi and developing in excruciating detail every Democratic internal disagreement?
I think it behooves the blogosphere and the Democratic rank and file to start responding to the Republican noise machine, as strongly as we did over George Will's silly attack on Webb. We should also provide aid and comfort to our friends, rather than piling on and picking on any Democrat who is not pure enough or who does not meet every single exacting standard we personally have. Get real, get adult, get helpful, folks.
Fantastic post, Teddy (Catzmaw - 12/5/2006 11:47:37 PM)
You've outdone yourself and make many wonderful points. I agree, too, that the Dems once again do not seem to recognize that they're always backing up every time the Repubs step up and poke them in the chest and then complain that the Dems are crowding them.
Strategy (Silver Fox - 12/6/2006 9:32:00 AM)
The surest way to lose an argument (or a battle) is to let your opponent define the terms you're arguing about or let your enemy pick the ground to fight on. Let's quit letting the Republicans define the issues. Let's make them fight on our ground for a change. Excellent diary, Teddy,
Marvelous Post Teddy (Ken C. - 12/6/2006 12:18:33 PM)
You nailed it. Also, kudos to Silver Fox for concisely cutting to the bare essence; the attempt to define us. It’s folks like Jim who instinctively recognize this crap (Bush’s attempt to out “mano” him and the inappropriate use of a “personal localism” when referring to Webb’s son) when directed at him. He reflexively re-acts as 99% of us would under similar circumstances. If “we” had another 50 Jim Webb’s in the Senate our troubles would soon be over. Let’s cut the crap and stand up to the BS of the “Bush-Rove GOP” and their sycophants in journalism. Some who have piled on Webb are mere “RNC assets”, others merely lazy. The "RNC operatives" are recognizable, e.g. Will and Tyrell. The journalists that jumped on board because they are too lazy to do their own research need to be educated. If enough us “educate” them maybe they will finally get it?
In the interim, we must fight everyday to avoid the GOP winning “the definition war”. The “Bush-Rove GOP” is not interested in governing, just winning the “endless campaign”. Since they never stop, we must make clear “we won’t back down” either. America finally had enough of their BS this year. Add up the combined House-Senate votes, and we beat them by 17.5 million votes (13.8%), a landslide in anyone’s book! The wind is at our back, but we can’t let up for a second; they won’t. Now is the time to fight them for the soul of America. The “Bush-Rove GOP” will only stop when cast into the dustbin of history. Let’s help em get there.
Fighting Back (Teddy - 12/6/2006 4:04:19 PM)
Ken is correct: now is the time to fight them. It does pay to keep writing LTEs and calling radio and television stations pointing out their errors and bias, nagging them to do better. Example: 6 Dec Washington Post columnist David Ignatius on the op ed page actually admitted as much when, at the end of his column he wrote:
"In a column last week I praised Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for his prescient early warnings about the risks of U.S. involvment in Iraq. Some readers complained that for all his prescience, Hagel still voted to support the war, and that I was ignoring the many Demorats who were similarly wary of Iraq--- and who voted against war funding. These readers are right. Hagel took political risks expressing his concerns back in 2003, but so did Democrats, who voted against the Iraq mission despite a vitriolic barrage from the administration."
Congratulations to "some people" who held Igantius' feet to the fire. Too bad Ignatius did not then follow up by naming the Democrats for true prescience and consistency, as he did the Republican Hagel for his half-right prescience.
That's good stuff Teddy (bladerunner - 12/6/2006 12:49:21 PM)
Wow so true. I especially like the part about the right wingers doing everything their way, and not working with the Dems, then expecting us to be bipartisian. If you ask me that shows that they really do believe they are superior, and they consisder anybody else second class citizens. It's that cockiness that led a lot of the GOPers to corruption--ie "we are so right, the laws don't apply to us". And because their actions are so outrageous, the public can't comprehend what's really going on. It's the same with Bush, the things he's done are so damn outrageous--people are just now starting to understand how crazy the man is.
I believe even Bush's father who broke down the other day in Florida with Jeb is so distrought at how his son has F'd up, that he just broke down--granted this is just an educated guess. The relationship between 41 and 43 is a psycologists dream. It now appears Daddy has come to rescue his son, ie Baker, Gates etc. Anyway how I get on to this subject?