Bush Legacy 2.0

Al Qaeda in Iraq? No Child Left Behind? Politicization of the Justice Dept? The current economic crisis?

If you thought you knew the Bush legacy by now, just wait. There's more coming, in the form of a late-term effort to deregulate just about everything. Literally from the ocean depths to the mountain tops, George W. Bush and his crew of liquidators are working feverishly for faster development, greater exploitation, and less oversight. The administration is putting the finishing touches "as many as 90" deregulatory efforts.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Meanwhile, it sounds like a veritable who's who list over at the OMB.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Makes perfect sense to deregulate our Homeland Security rules because they're inconvenient for shippers. Will this at least mean that I can finally quit taking off my shoes and belt at the airport? Because that's really inconvenient and not worth a damn, whereas inspecting shipping manifests is just inconvenient.

Anyone taking odds on whether Jack Abramoff gets a pardon, while we're at it?

The "Paper Thin" War

I find this amusing: "Barack Obama should focus on bolstering his paper thin resume as opposed to having surrogates level distorted attacks against Senator McCain.”

That should be "paper-thin," but who am I to argue?

That was RNC spokesman Danny Diaz, speaking on Obama and past presidential candidate John Kerry.

The RNC is willing to start a "paper thin" war? Okay, then. How deep was George W. Bush's resume when the RNC piled on board? This is current from the White House website:

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.

Talk to me when the RNC is serious, please.*

*What's missing from the Bush resume? Click here, for starters.

Why McCain Should Stand With Bush?

William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal has an interesting and salient take on how McCain could "find himself on defense through November": keep avoiding the president.

Allowing himself to look afraid of being in the president's company hurts him in two large ways. For one thing, it cuts against Mr. McCain's most attractive trait: his fearlessness. This is a man running as someone who stood up to his captors in Hanoi, who stood up to his own party, and who, as president, would be willing to stand up to America's enemies. For such a man to fear photo ops with the president broadcasts an insecurity that will only feed into the Obama campaign. And the press smells it.

. . . Mr. McCain's reticence will also hurt him with his own party. While the president's general approval ratings may be down in the 30s, among the GOP faithful the numbers are up in the 60s. These numbers, moreover, do not track intensity: The people who have stayed with Mr. Bush this far have been through the fire with him. They are not likely to be excited by a nominee who makes a habit of dissing fellow Republicans like Phil Gramm, whose crime was trying to support their nominee.

In other words, McCain dilutes his brand by avoiding GWB, and he also pisses off his base (they were never really his, though, were they?). The alternative? Get cozy with the least popular president (according to CNN) in American history.*

Sounds like a damned if he does situation if I ever heard one. What's a candidate to do? Well, distracting folks from this issues (on which his politics do bear a striking resemblance the those of the man he would replace) is a good start. Camp McCain wins the past week's tussle when it comes to dictating the terms of the campaign. As for all the rest? Folks like William McGurn and myself will be watching closely to see how this plays out.

*No comment as to the scientific integrity of that poll, nor any other conducted over the past 232 years.

Dead Certain

"Six years from now, you're not going to see me hanging out in the lobby of the U.N."

No, I suppose not. That and other gems from a new book on the Bush Presidency.

Unnamed Sources

Note: This post was meant to be prepared for yesterday, but wedding planning imposes its own deadlines, it seems.

In an article today on the geopolitical morass in which George W. Bush finds his presidency and his presidential doctrines, Washington Post reporter Peter Baker points to the following as evidence of the President's troubles:

At this point, though, democracy promotion has become so identified with an unpopular president that candidates running to succeed him are running away from it. At a recent debate, they rushed to disavow it. "I'm not a carbon copy of President Bush," one said. Another ventured that "maybe going to elections so quickly is a mistake." A third, asked if he agreed with Bush's vision, replied, "Absolutely not, because I don't think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government."

And those were the Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

Baker makes a couple of things clear in this passage. The first is that, undoubtedly, he refers to current presidential candidates, known here as "candidates running to succeed him [George W. Bush]." The next item made clear is that the venue where those comments were made, wherein the aforementioned candidates distanced themselves from the President, was nothing less than a "recent debate." What debate other than among hopefuls of the 2008 presidential field would serve as the source for three separate remarks from three different "candidates running to succeed" George W. Bush? The last point Baker makes certain is that these are Republican candidates: "And those were the Republicans."

I am left slack-jawed and confused by the obvious: Why doesn't Baker name the Republican presidential candidates who made these statements at a recent Republican debate? Does he take if for granted that we already know? Were the comments made by second- or third- tier candidates who, by his estimate, don't merit attribution? Is Baker or the WaPo trying not to give Ron Paul any more press attention? Worse yet, were these statements made by top contenders, and the newspaper is for some reason diverting attention away? What is going on?

While not exactly reading like "Sources close to the White House . . . " or "Sources inside the Republican party . . . ," this example turns a bright light on the recent trend in print media of not naming names. I think in this benign situation there must be a reasonable explanation, yet I am troubled by the ease with which Baker omits this information. Has the media become so used to not identifying sources who make unfavorable comments about the White House that this will go unnoticed?

In fairness, I've been out of the country all summer. Maybe there's some background I missed. Please, somebody--help me understand what's going on.

Neglecting the Blog

Blogging will be sporadic these next weeks, as I should have perhaps pointed out before leaving Oaxaca and neglecting the blog for over a week. Please keep checking in for more about Oaxaca, tidbits from US politics as I reacquaint myself with what's happened over the summer, like how Congress has actually extended the President's power to spy on US citizens on US soil, and possibly even a couple new photographs as I sift through the shots I took this summer.