The biggest NO DUH diary of the day

The George W. Bush administration has been very, very, very... very bad for America.  It has done many, many, many... many things that have harmed this country greatly.  

We must elect a Democrat President in 2008!!

Remember during Bush’s first term when we all used to joke comment very seriously that we would rather have a moldy piece of cheese, boxer’s spit bucket or even Joe Lieberman as President than George W. Bush?  Well.... I am reviving that position today.  (OK... maybe not the Lieberman part.  I mean that one was a bit over the top.)  Fortunately for us, we have much better choices than that.

What was the latest in an infinitely long list of Bush atrocities that drove this point home for me?  A report on NPR I heard driving home last night.  It was about the House’s hearing to discuss a report from the Inspector General of the Interior on the rampant politicalization of the Fish and Wildlife service.  This hearing came on the heels of the resignation of the deputy assistant secretary of Interior Julie MacDonald last week.  MacDonald was accused of sharing internal Interior Department documents with industry and bullying agency scientists.

One example of apparently many that caused concerns about MacDonald included this incident...

... Ms. MacDonald had heavily edited biologists' reports on sage grouse, a species that in the end was not placed on the threatened or endangered lists. Their habitat overlaps with vast parts of the Rocky Mountain West, where oil and gas drilling and cattle ranching are prevalent; listing the grouse as endangered or threatened could have curbed those industries' access to federal lands.

This was, of course, a pattern for Ms. MacDonald that angered scientists and led to the resignation of several career experts in the field of endangered species.

Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett did her best on behalf of Bush Co., taking her turn playing America’s favorite television game show Lying to Congress with a Straight Face.  

Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett disputed that, saying in sometimes contentious testimony that the administration is committed to protecting endangered species.

''Julie MacDonald strived to do what she thought was her duty,'' Scarlett said.

California rep George Miller had 4 words for that.  Um... followed by 1,2,3... 9 more words.

''Give me a break,'' Miller snapped back. ''If you believe that, we're in very serious trouble.''

I know this story shouldn’t be shocking to those of us who have witnessed the Bush administration politicize everything about the Executive branch, down to the candy in the White House candy dishes.  This story just reminds me forcefully that no matter which Democrat we choose in ’08, we must get him or her elected because they won’t do shit like this!!  I know I’m upset with much about Hillary Clinton from her handling of the Iraq war to the people she chooses to surround herself with in her campaign.  But I don’t think for a second that a Hillary Clinton administration would re-write the conclusions of government scientists and career professionals to fit a corporate-friendly frame.

I would love to have Hillary Clinton be President right now!

I would love to have Barack Obama be President right now!

I would love to have John Edwards be President right now!

(Um.... don't read anything into the order.  I'm still undecided.)

I would love to have Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry or George McGovern be President right now!

Things have gotten so rock-bottom bad with this administration, that we must turn things in the other direction immediately.  We can certainly have a vigorous primary and carefully consider our choices.  I love the Obama and Edwards' supporters who try to outdo one another by getting reports about their guy on the Rec list.  That is great for this site and for our democracy.  I love speculating whether our man Al will get into this race and really make things interesting.  I love the possibility that we could have a black man or white woman President - finally!  I really, truly believe that we are in great shape with our candidates despite their many flaws and imperfections.  They are all smart, committed and caring it appears.  They may display different degrees of political courage at different times, but damn what I wouldn't give for some good, old-fashioned competence in the White House again.  As someone much dumber than me once said, it is time for the adults to be back in charge again.

So, at the end of the day a Democrat must win in 2008 above all else.  My humble opinion offered here is that we not lose sight of that simple fact.

No duh, right?

•  A clarification

  This diary is in no way a specific criticism of anyone or anyone's supporters.  Its just a general reaction I had to this report last night.  I love the back and forth going on about the candidates here.  Its quite a position to be in not having settled on one yet.  By this time in '03 I had practically quit my job to work on Howard Dean's campaign.

  by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:49:15 AM PDT

•  Hmm..

  I love the possibility that we could have a black man or white woman President - finally!

  We should not elect an official because they would be the first of their respective race or gender, the post of President is far to important for that.

  I'm divided between McCain and Obama, ultimately my vote will be cast on the one who presents a better foreign policy case.

  Hilary just doesn't seem to be offering anything original for me to consider voting for her.

  by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:51:57 AM PDT

  •  By the way,

    as you go about touting the benefits of a McCain presidency, please be advised that Mrs. Clinton spells her first name with two, and not one, ls.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:53:42 AM PDT

    •  Your correct.

      I will modify my spelling, and thank you for pointing out my mistake. I also don't believe I'm touting anything, I'm still choosing between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.

      by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:56:02 AM PDT

      •  Then you're not welcome here.

        We simply do not encourage posts by people who could think of voting for a Republican candidate.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:56:58 AM PDT

        •  Hmm...

          I suppose everyone is entitled to their views, and I suspect that if enough people feel the way you do I will be.. what is the term ("troll rated?") off. I do suspect though that type of attitude wouldn't exactly ender the site to many moderates or independents.

          A vital voting bloc, each side needs to win.

          by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:00:10 AM PDT

          •  Let me understand please

            you are trying to decide between a prewar candidate and an anti war candidate?  

            Seriously?

            You really haven't made up your mind as to whether the war in Iraq is good or bad?  

            by jimraff on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:09:04 AM PDT

            •  It is an intriguing position, to say the least

              Those two seem like such polar opposites across the board.  I'd be curious to hear IM's thoughts on why he/she is deciding between these two in particular.  

              by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:11:54 AM PDT

              •  I hope to TheC

                I'm waiting the week before I can post a diary, I'm kind of shifting between explaining why I'm at the site, or why I'm struggling between McCain and Obama.

                by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:18:45 AM PDT

            •  he's a troll.

              It's possible he's the notorious rmg, the bestest troll of 'em all from four years back.  There are elements to his story that bring back the narratives rmg most favored in his various incarnations.

              by DCDemocrat on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:14:45 AM PDT

              •  Err..

                (Notorious rmg?)

                Why is he so notorious?

                I suppose I can say that I'm not the guy, I doubt it will change your mind. Anyway, I'm not and I hope my words will bear that out.

                by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:17:48 AM PDT

            •  Not a single issue with me.

              I've got various feelings about Iraq, honestly I should be there right now but due to a freak accident in basic, I'm stuck waiting to reenlist in the military.

              I'm looking for more then how they would handle Iraq, I'm also looking at how they perceive NATO, the UN, dealing with groups like Al-Qaeda.

              Iran, Russia, China, there is so much more then Iraq that I'm looking at.

              by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

              •  Usually the way that I decide

                is choose my biggest issue, and go with the candidate that I agree with the most.

                Since the Iraq war is THE biggest issue, I want it to end.  There is no question that a Dem is what I want.

                Iraq must not be that big an issue to you.

                by jimraff on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:59 AM PDT

                •  Jim

                  The last sentence was uncalled for, guy's I spent time training with are now in Iraq, and Afghanistan. I can understand if you disagree with me about my views, but I would please ask you not suggest something so baseless and insulting as that.

                  by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:38:24 AM PDT

                  •  I didn't mean it insulting

                    I am trying to figure out where you are coming from.  I get you want foreign policy, great.  

                    For me there is no bigger issue then stopping the war and bringing those guys home.  I have to many friends who also have been in Iraq, and have come home very different than when they went.  One guy can not even return to work becuase of Post traumatic stress.  

                    I want it to end - I want our guys home.  

                    This is not insulting to those guys, or to you.  I respectfully think bringing them home is more supportive then sending them back unready into a war zone we should not have been in to begin with.

                    Really, I am just trying to figure out what your biggest issue is.  From your statement above, the war isn't it.  

                    by jimraff on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:32 AM PDT

                    •  Right now

                      My biggest issue is where exactly will the president take our foreign policy when elected, will he focus on alliances, and containment? Or active intervention, that is my main issue.

                      Iraq, my feelings are mixed.

                      I realize the war was gone onto under false pretenses, still I didn't enlist for nothing. I'm still working out my feelings on that issue, so right now I will just hope for success.

                      I suppose I might have overreacted, and I apologize. If you would like a more detailed view on a specific issue, let me know.

                      by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:47:21 AM PDT

                      •  Ahem....

                        My biggest issue is where exactly will the president take our foreign policy when elected, will he focus on alliances, and containment? Or active intervention, that is my main issue

                        will he focus....?

                        or, will she focus...?

                        by nolalily on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:30:47 PM PDT

          •  I welcome you to DKos.

            And I invite you to read up on McCain.  There's a lot of commentary about him on this blog.

            The first thing you will notice is that you really can't believe a word he says.  I'm not sure that we need to know anything more than that.

            by I on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:21:00 AM PDT

            •  Thank you.

              I disagree with you about Senator McCain, but perhaps as my friend suggests I might change my views. Time will have to tell.

              by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:02 AM PDT

              •  I welcome you, also

                And also believe that you will ultimately see through McCain, as I have after fifteen years of living in Arizona.

                Meanwhile, there's lots to read here, so dive in and enjoy!

                It isn't easy being green.

                by emeraldmaiden on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:59:40 AM PDT

                •  Thanks.

                  Though if I read everything that looked interesting here, I would end up getting fired and failing college.

                  by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:03:27 AM PDT

              •  Well, you're welcome

                To speak on his behalf here.  Especially in regards to his recent trip to Iraq where he took a casual "stroll" in Baghdad accompanied by nothing more than 100 armed soldiers and 5 helicopters overhead.  And wearing a flak jacket.

                I'm especially interested in hearing your opinion of his credibility after that incident.

                by slippytoad on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:15:06 AM PDT

                •  Hmm..

                  I had to wince while watching the Senator doing that, honestly where were his political handlers? I think a meeting with the Sheiks in the Anbar province who are working with American Marines against Al-Qaeda might have been a better photo op.

                  Anyway I can't defend a stupid move, nor would I try.

                  by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:29:46 AM PDT

                  •  If he has to have political handlers

                    To tell him that this:

                    There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk today."

                    Could then credibly be followed by "walking" with such a heavily armed guard, he doesn't have a whole lot of a future as a politician.  The pure stupid of that moment is far above and beyond such Presidential-Aspriation-Strangling moments as Dean's Scream, or Dukakis' Tank Ride.

                    And that you can't see that is revealing of your ability to gauge someone's credibility.

                    by slippytoad on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:20:37 PM PDT

          •  This poster does not represent everyone here

            I personally welcome the participation of anyone who is respectful, open-minded, and cares about our country and our world. I certainly hope you will come to agree with the general orientation here, but that is up to you. Don't be discouraged. Sometimes individuals here can be pretty brutal in their responses, but don't take a comment made by one individual as the position of "Daily Kos" as a whole.

            by AceDeuceLady on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:44:13 AM PDT

        •  That's ridiculous. Everyone should be welcome.

          We need everyone involved in the discussion. We need to know what people are concerned about and what they think. And I'd sure rather see people getting their info here than almost anywhere else.

          by AceDeuceLady on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

        •  "...you're not welcome here."

          But posts by people who will vote for a third party candidate and help the Republican nominee get elected/selected are okay?

          And posts by Democrats who will stay home if the Democratic nominee is Hillary or Obama (or whomever they don't like) are okay?

          At least one of IndependentMachavellian's choices is a Democrat.

          by royce on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:13:39 AM PDT

  •  Sure

    I wouldn't ultimately make my decision based on that fact, but there is no ignoring it in my mind.  If one of these two do get elected, it would certainly be one of many reasons to celebrate.  

    I avoided the Republican candidates in this diary, but there is a small part of me that hopes that even if a Republican wins (strike me down for such thoughts....), that he will improve things tremendously as well.  This politicalization of every aspect of the Executive Branch has got to stop.  I would like to think McCain or Rudy would put an end to that.  I would like to think they'd restore Habeus Corpus.  I'd like to think they'd do a lot of things much better than this extremist group in power today.  But the only way to guarantee it, in my mind, is elect one of the Dems.

    by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:59:16 AM PDT

    •  TheC

      I believe that whoever is elected is going to have to at least give the appearance of less use of executive privilege.

      I'm a little skeptical though of any politician giving back an ounce of power.

      by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:02:31 AM PDT

      •  That's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it?

        You seem to be saying, "I want my President to at least pretend he's not a dictator."

        by I on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:23:06 AM PDT

        •  No.

          I'm simply saying what I believe will happen, what I hope will happen are two different things.

          by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:24:32 AM PDT

          •  Do you think a Democrat --

            ANY Democrat -- would abuse executive privilege as much as Bush has?

            by I on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:26:25 AM PDT

            •  Yes.

              I'm afraid that I believe in the direct inherent nature of humanity, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

              There isn't exactly a long history of just kings, and the allure of power is strong. I suppose we will just have to see.

              by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

              •  Aside from a hunch, though,

                you have no justification for this belief, unless I'm missing something.

                I get the feeling you're trying to sell us the "they're all the same" line.  To a certain extent -- on a local level, for example -- I believe that.  However, Bush's expansion of executive authority is completely unprecedented, and you have given absolutely NO defensible reason to believe ANYBODY else would be the same.

                I find it curious that you reference kings, as if the United States were a monarchy.  I recognize you're using a proverb, but the problem is, the US was designed precisely to circumvent the situation you describe: The fact that kings are frequently unjust.  For 200 years, our system worked well at keeping in check the authority of a unitary ruler.  Bush is the exception to our system that proves the rule: You can't leave power in one person's hand.

                Please prove me wrong.  Please tell me you're not suggesting that Bush is not exceptional in his lust for power.

                by I on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:43:50 AM PDT

                •  Hmm...

                  Please prove me wrong.  Please tell me you're not suggesting that Bush is not exceptional in his lust for power.

                  Defending the president would require... far more research, and a lot of... thinking. Right now the top of my head, presidents have traditionally used excessive  executive authority during a time of war.

                  Technically since were not in a state of war, Bush's use of power could be argued as unethical. I would have to look at the issue more closely.

                  I do believe though that politicians are first and foremost, self-serving in nature and look out for their own interests first, or at least the majority of today's politicians.

                  by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:51:48 AM PDT

                  •  That does it for me.

                    Technically ... Bush's use of power could be argued as unethical.

                    You are a troll.

                    By which I mean to say, you present yourself as an independent thinker, when you are actually a far-right authoritarian looking to draw people here into silly fights over technicalities.

                    I understand that we need to consider opposing viewpoints, and I appreciate sincere attempts at engaging in dialog with one's political opponents, but there is no way an independent who has given more than a few minutes' thought to the matter could say that Bush's use of power could "technically" be argued to be unethical.  That is an out-and-out 28-percenter position (i.e., the 28% of Americans who approve of the job Bush is doing).

                    I don't mind debating right-wingers, but (A) I only do so when they don't pretend they're something they're not and (B) I have no desire to argue over whether or not fascism is justifiable.

                    by I on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:57:24 AM PDT

                    •  Sorry.

                      By which I mean to say, you present yourself as an independent thinker, when you are actually a far-right authoritarian looking to draw people here into silly fights over technicalities.

                      Far right authoritarian? That is a little steep...

                      I understand that we need to consider opposing viewpoints, and I appreciate sincere attempts at engaging in dialog with one's political opponents, but there is no way an independent who has given more than a few minutes' thought to the matter could say that Bush's use of power could "technically" be argued to be unethical.  That is an out-and-out 28-percenter position (i.e., the 28% of Americans who approve of the job Bush is doing).

                      I wasn't saying either it was or not unethical, I was simply comparing how history might view it. FDR during a state of war actively censored the media, interned large swaths of the population and generally used executive power to the hilt.

                      I said that trying to defend the president would require lots of thinking, I disagree with several of his policies but that is not some sort of badge needed to ensure my "independent" credentials.

                      I'm sorry that you feel further dialog would be useless, and I honestly think your overreacting a bit.

                      Anyway I wish you well in your endeavors.

                      by IndepedentMachavellian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

                      •  You might consider

                        digging into this once and awhile.

                        by nolalily on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:18 PM PDT

            •  I agree with I

              Which is unusual, because I'm usually doubting myself all the time.  

              Sorry.

              Maybe its naive, but I believe none of the Dem candidates will maintain the strangle hold on executive privilege like Bush Co.  This is why I posted this diary.  At the end of the day, America improves exponentially with any of 'em.  

              by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:31:13 AM PDT

•  No duh?

  While I don't want a bloodletting, it's good to look at each of the Democratic Candidates to figure out what we think they actually do when they become president.  I think most of us would feel betrayed if one of the Dems got in as president and then kept the same policy in Iraq.  We would feel betrayed if we nuked Iraq.  There are any number of things we would feel betrayed by if they happened on the domestic front.

  So, no duh as far as wanting a Democratic candidate to win the presidency, but duh for looking at them to be sure we won't be shocked by what they do.

  by rjones2818 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:54:37 AM PDT

  •  No argument from me

    I'm not worried for a sec that there won't be a furiously intense debate about these candidates here.  I just get leary when I hear people say they'd never vote for Hillary.  Or knocking on Edwards for stupid things like haircuts.  As I posted above, I think things are probably so rotten to the core under Bush Co., that even a McCain presidency would be a vast improvement.  But I don't want to risk that.  I would take a Hillary presidency 10 times out of 10 over the current Republican crop.  I'm not trying to detract from the current primary race... but I am anxious for '08.

    by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:05:15 AM PDT

•  Oh no!

  Breaking!!!!:  Unqualified hacks and cronies holding down sinecures in the Fish and Wildlife Service! Unprecedented abuse of appointive office!

  This just in:  big campaign contributors receiving cushy ambassadorships.  Developing...

  by ActivistGuy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:03:56 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    I did use a No Duh title instead of a BREAKING title, so give me a little credit.

    by TheC on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:06:37 AM PDT

•  We don't?

  Of course we do.  Never perhaps so rampantly or on such a scale as the Republican party, but then again the Republicans had never reached that scale of corruption either before now.

  When President Clinton came in and announced that his was going to be the most ethical administration in history, I cringed.   Human beings are fallible, and the pretext of perfection is a powerful incentive to hide this fact.  I remember thinking, "I'll settle for ethical common sense and a bit of discretion."   Overall, the Clinton administration was very good, but he was skewered on his own ethical hubris.

  The problem is that the Republicans of the current day have bought into a theory that Government is the Devil.  The entire system in this world view is considered inherently corrupt.  In this lay the seeds of a terrible temptation, for if this is true, then there is no such thing as virtue in government, only varying degrees of corruption.  It is a justification for adopting moral relativism on an unprecedented scale.

  Ironically, the injection of the Religious Right's Manichean world view into the implicit moral relativism of conservative politics has resulted in their adopting a kind of travesty of liberal theology's situation ethics.  The prime example of this is the idea "starve the beast".  Here we burden future generations with rapacious taxation to pay for our present day excesses, but they will a least be "free" of the burden of government services.

  by grumpynerd on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:08:04 AM PDT

  •  They believed the theory,then they made it happen

    The problem is that the Republicans of the current day have bought into a theory that Government is the Devil.

    It's not just that they believe this theory, but this administration has done everything in their power to make it be correct.

    To be fair, and as a yellow-dog-Democrat I don't jump to the defense of Republicans often, but in response to:

    This story just reminds me forcefully that no matter which Democrat we choose in ’08, we must get him or her elected because they won’t do shit like this!!

    I feel obliged to point out that many Republican candidates wouldn't have pulled this nonsense either. (Though the group of current Repub. candidates does seem to include some who would happily continue on the current path.) I find this to be a particularly ruthless and brazen group of oil barons at the helm right now.

    by SB in GR on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:06:44 AM PDT