TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 10:48 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:31 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:10 AM

November 20, 2008 | 10:45 AM
November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM
November 19, 2008 | 9:29 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.01.2008
Waddling toward Lame Duckdom

One of the best moments of Bush’s presidential speeches was the touch of humor he showed about himself at the end of his 2004 GOP acceptance speech:

In the last four years -- in the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." Now and then I come across as a little too blunt, and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there. One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them; and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them.

You wish that he had showed some of this humility tonight; some acknowledgment of--or argument against--the low level of esteem in which his presidency is held. Instead, President Bush recycled old arguments, offered no surprises, and stayed on course: waddling toward lame duckdom.

--Andrei Cherny

Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:05 PM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Rhubarbs said:

"Wading"? The moment he was reelected with no vice president or leading cabinet member who could carry the mantle of a chosen successor, and therefore no threat of a "third term" to impose discipline over his own party in Congress, George W. Bush was a lame duck. Name three significant achievements of his second term. Name one. As a result of his staffing decisions, George W. Bush will be the first president to have spent _more_ than four years as a lame duck (Nov. 2004 - Jan. 2009).

January 28, 2008 10:26 PM

purcellneil said:

Lame Duck and the head of a lame party.  They are all waddling.  And they all are in great trouble.  They thought 2006 was bad - just wait till November.

Neil

January 28, 2008 10:39 PM

Brent said:

Rhubarbs:

As much as it pains me to say this, Pres. Bush had at least two "accomplishments" during his last term.  They're named Roberts and Alito.  And they will affect this country long after W is relegated to the dustbins of history.

That is also why, at the end of the day, we must all work together to elect the Democratic nominee, no matter who he or she is.  As long as Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court, no real justice will be found there.

January 28, 2008 11:10 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Sorry, Brent, but that's not good enough for me. The Supreme Court has a reliable reactionary majority now, and that's not likely to change in the next president's term. The winner of the 2004 election was likely to have a chance to cement a long-term SC majority for his party; that was why I was willing to campaign enthusiastically for Kerry despite my strong belief that he would have been a poor president. We lost the election, and with it the Court for the next decade. That's not gonna change in 2009, so I just can't muster the motivation to support a candidate I believe would be a bad president just so "my team" can pick Supreme Court justices on the margins. You go down that road, and you wind up with Carter or George W. Bush's first term -- failed presidents who drag your party down for years to come and make no mark on the court whatsoever.

Besides, if there's one Democrat who could screw up a Supreme Court appointment through hubris and cronyism, it's Hillary, who inflicted the Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood AG nominations on the Clinton presidency in 1993.

Anyway, filling Supreme Court vacancies hardly counts as a second-term "accomplishment" -- it's a bit like arguing that Bill Clinton wasn't a lame duck in January 2000 because he was still able to issue pardons.

January 28, 2008 11:45 PM

ChanRobt said:

Mr. Bush handled himself this evening the way any citizen would want the president to handle himself.  With confidence, good cheer, and dignity.  How else ought he to have acted?

Meanwhile, nobody holding the presidency of the United States a lame duck.  That is an out of date construct.  There is plenty he can do, and much he may have to do, in the remaining 12 months of his tenure.  

Not to mention, that in perilous times like these, we could easily be engaged in new and large hostilities, most likely with Iran.  If those speedboats had come a few yards closer a few weeks back, they would have been blown out of the water.  And no on knows where that might have led.

January 29, 2008 1:10 AM

ChanRobt said:

purcellneil, you speak of a lame party.  Yours hardly looks magnificent.  

The head of your party and a former president is race-baiting another Democrat who had the temerity to oppose this former president's return to the White House under his wife's dress.

The most revered senator in your party was forced to rebuke your party's head and former president by endorsing his rival.

The Democrat Speaker of the House and the Democrat majority leader in the Senate have both proven to be feckless and ineffectual.

Although one of your party's two leading candidates for the presidential nomination is an intelligent and attractive person, neither of thw two main contenders are shoe-ins for the presidency.  Each has very major liabilities.

No one knows for sure what the future will bring.  But you have no Eisenhower in the wings with no one more formidable than a Stevenson to defeat.

So don't start picking out the china yet.

January 29, 2008 1:17 AM

Brent said:

Rhubarbs:

I respectfully disagree.  If you think the Court has a reliable reactionary majority now, with Anthony Kennedy as the fifth vote, try what would happen with John Roberts as the fifth vote in most decisions.  At least Justice Kennedy is a bit of a moderating influence.

No matter how badly Sen. Clinton might botch a Supreme Court nomination, the result will still be vastly better than what would happen with a McCain or Romney or Huckabee choice.  And you can't think in such short terms about the Court.  If you replace Stevens and Ginsburg (as might well be necessary in the next four years) with reliable liberals, the opportunity for real change remains with a single retirement on the right.  Without that, the Court could be lost for a generation or more.

I have no great desire to see Hillary Clinton elected President.  But if she is the Democratic nominee, I will  do what I can to see her elected.  The stakes are far too high to do anything else.

January 29, 2008 9:57 AM