Maybe We Need a Recession

[Need help resolving a family dispute over politics? Looking for consolation after your favorite candidate has dropped out? Can't decide whether you want to be a moderate nonpartisan or a nonpartisan moderate? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

Dear Stumped:

Do you consider the list of accomplishments of "deeply unpopular" (at least with the WaPo) President Bush's "very successful predecessor" to include his impeachment for lying under oath?

Guess your definition of highly successful differs from mine, which is why I canceled my WaPo subscription.

Col. Alan Saunders
U.S. Army

---

Dear Stumped,

The problem with American politics and this administration in particular is that it has made politics an issue of "red" vs. "blue." Everyone forgot that we are all Americans and should be looking out for what is best for America and stop this nonsense of making a sport out of politics. Politics in general is now so dominated by special interests that even if you are elected, you are no longer able to lead but must follow the dictates of whoever paid for your campaign.

An observation: If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.

Timothy Zucal

Dear Col. Saunders and Mr. Zucal,

Your question and observation go hand in hand.

Colonel, I do think Bill Clinton was a successful president, as I wrote in a recent column that raised concerns about a possible Clinton dynasty. I think his impeachment -- the culmination of a drawn-out, absurd vendetta against him by partisan hacks -- over private behavior was far more embarrassing to the petty-minded Republican lynch mob that went after him than it was to Clinton. History, I suspect, will reaffirm the verdict of the American electorate in 1998, which punished the Republican Congress for its recklessness.

The entire sham of the Whitewater-turned-sex inquiry was a national disgrace, led by ostensible prudes whose hypocrisy has since been revealed. (I don't have the energy here to regurgitate the list of Clinton haters we now know were in no position to cast stones in regard to personal morality, from Newt Gingrich to Bob Livingston to Larry Craig.) There are plenty of respectable arguments to be made against my contention that Clinton was a successful president. But please: pointing to his impeachment as some objective measurement of failure is laughable.

As for your timely observation, Mr. Zucal, I couldn't agree more. I share your disdain for petty red-vs.blue hyperpartisanship.

The paradox, though, is that Washington is most tempted to engage in divisive sniping in good times, so maybe what we disdain is a symptom of general tranquility and prosperity. Yikes -- does that mean we should welcome what you rightly call "the nonsense"? Take the Clinton impeachment saga, which was the luxurious indulgence of a political (and let's be honest, a media) establishment that felt it had nothing weightier to tend to. The Cold War was over, the economy was booming, the federal deficit was plummeting, as were crime and poverty rates across the country. Happier days were here again, so why not engage in petty, partisan warfare about nothing substantive?

The answer, of course, is that when it comes to Congress and the presidency, there always are weighty matters to tend to, even when it doesn't seem that way to short-term-fixated political operatives. And even in the relatively tranquil late '90s, trying to impeach a president over a dalliance with an intern was still an unaffordable indulgence. Washington could have instead focused its energies on ameliorating some of the long-term problems affecting entitlement programs, or paid more attention to the ticking time bomb that was Afghanistan.

Throughout much of the Cold War, as in the days immediately following 9/11, the leadership of both parties tended to overcome partisan sniping when it came to foreign policy. The possibility of nuclear annihilation tends to put things in proper perspective. Only once it became clear that the 9/11 attacks were not the first of a series of escalating strikes against the American mainland did politicians in Washington feel like they could revert back to the petty sniping that has characterized the Clinton-Bush years.

It is a shame that it takes urgent crises to forge any statesmanship in Washington, so I am not sure whether to welcome or decry what many are predicting will be an outbreak of respectful, bipartisan governance as the Congress and White House cobble together an economic stimulus program. That must mean we are in for a severe recession!

Dear Stumped,

My brother and sister have concluded that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy to help Barack Obama secure the nomination for the Democratic Party, because they believe that he is unelectable in the general election. I, on the other hand, like to believe that America can change; and have the "audacity of hope" that the American people can reach down within their souls and vote for Obama, even if he may not be the same exact shade that they are. In your analysis, would you agree with my brother and sister, or do you have some other conclusion?

-- Courteous Farmers

Dear Courteous,

I agree with you. There are legitimate questions to be raised about the depth of Obama's experience and qualifications for the presidency, and I'd like to think that whatever headwind he faces from here on out in the campaign is because of that -- not because of his race. I'd like to believe voters are ready to elect an African-American president, but it's equally true that opponents should be able to challenge Obama's resume without being accused of racism. It was a welcome development last week to see Obama and Clinton try to scale back the increasingly bitter role played by race and gender in their campaign.

But the main reason I am going to disagree with your siblings is that my Republican friends do seem genuinely worried about the prospect of running against Obama.

By Andres Martinez |  January 22, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: The First Mormon-Jewish Ticket | Next: Get Rich With the Democrats

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed by the VATICAN and are looking for "GOD" or Jesus or someone to fall out of the sky and save us, when we have to save us. Look at "secret rulers", and you will see that the time has come when the citizens need to take the throne back.

Look at the housing mess. The gold and silver are gone, a $50
gold coin is 900 bucks. We have an out of control FED. Heck our politicians have to ask permission to get information from these crooks(no M3). FIAT CURRENCY and central banking is illegal "not money". It was invented by the Rothschild's.
It is time to shut the FED down and all of these Central Banks. We are nothing more that debt slaves!

We are heading into an organized depression that will consolidate our companies and give the bankers more control!

We have access to enough information to see who is to blame. The Rothschilds, Rothchilds, start looking them up and see that they have a bank in every city in the world and realize that they have basically bankruted America, stolen our gold, and put in places of government globalist that do not care about America.

Bill Gates is not the Richest Man in the world and most are agents for the Rothchild crooks!

We need to start speading this word, Ron Paul is just a messenger and if anything ever happens to him we know no who to go get and hang, this is not the past we have the tools and the knowledge and the support is growing Americans are waking up and realizing that the elections are rigged and we will have the same family in the WHITE HOUSE for 28 years if a Clinton is elected.

Turn of the TV! We are the last free people and once that is gone what wii the future of Amerca be?

We need to farm and educate our kids about the truth. About why Kennedy was killed and Lincoln, it as the same
Bankers! The same people that brought us Hitler, Stalin etc......The same people that pick our Presidents....Did you know that on his wedding night the elder Rothchild's stayed the night in the WHite House. Why would a Jewish Banker have access to the White HOuse like that?

Posted by: amen | February 3, 2008 4:20 AM

Dear Friends:
We need to keep out tax dollars at home and give them to American citizens and pay off out national debt. WE could have used the tax rebate for that.

What job suggestions has Romney made for today? I sent a few in to several places.
I am living on the street and a caucasian woman and citizen naturally born in the USA. Proud to be an American but there is more to the story than can be told here!

Dear Friends:

A mormon and Jewish ticket! Perhaps Romney should respect the fact this is just the primary election. Horse before the cart! Got a bible the Mormons will give you one! Truly!
Try and respect others religion ask!

Dear Friends:
Glory ! Old Glory!!!! Oh the Sweet fragrance of South Carolilna and her mountains so many rolling green hills. Protect your Glory! Your sons and daughters they are watching you my child! Protect them for there are those amoung the Senators that do not vote! What will their veto vote be misused the same? Oh Please my fellow citizens of the Great state of South Carolina!
The summer morn since and this election is not over until Novmeber 2008!
Come Forth who amoung you would want to see an unborn child in heaven and say I didn't vote election day as the Senators did not vote for you in the Senate!
Forgive me! Your trust, your savings your tax credit gone to the non citizen the foreign national that does not go to war for this nation, does not vote and is not a citizen of the USA, you see my child they commited a crime, yes criminals and our nation gave away your tax dollars from us, you, and me and grandma and grandpa to the ..........................others!
Lord forgive me this day we Americans should pray for we have allowed our congress and president to give away our tax dollars to non citizens. Supreme court Justices explain this to our children and theirs, It is in your mind and duty for you are paid from citizens of this great nation just as their sons and daughters have and are serving in the military for you. There are citizens like me living on the streets of the USA. Venezuela keeps their eggs and milk and China keeps their coal is it constitutional Supreme Court Justices for our congress and president to give away our tax dollars to other nations or nationals?
Citizens of the USA Asians and Russians of the USA your impact of your races and the Jewish and ARAB Americans of California, New York, Illinois, TEXAS, Arizona, WAshington, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana , Hawaii, Alaska your impact has not begun to be felt, register and vote all across the USA your are greater in number than all the Latinos and African Americans . vote caucasians your endiing up on the street like me more than all the rest! REGISTER AND VOTE!
This is not hollywood this is the real thing! Like Milk right farmers and ranchers!oil men. women! This is the election energised and demised by the bloggers and email and text mail. get the message out in all foreign languages! POWER!
AMEN!!!!!!!!! X is this how you sign your name, live in a bubble, quadrapalegic, need a ride, amputee? call your local voting registrar get a friend or call the veterans office or chapter, we the PEOPLE OF THE USA NEED YOU!
YOUR VOTE!!!!!!

Your donations make a difference! Who do you want protecting your homeland, your back yard, your wok! An experienced military for the Chief of Staff?

How do you see our enemy and us to other nations military?

John McCain could use your contributions brothers and sisters! Car wash, aluminum cans, pennies, dollars, nickles, five, ten, fifty!! This race is not over yet until November 2008.

if every person were to find one or ten citizens or one hundred that are not registered and or have not voted and called them and encouraged them or helped them to get to the voting booth would it be a greater turn out?

Do not forget the voter who signs his or her name with an X or the quadrapalegic and amputee and blind and deaf. Is there a list in congress, government and or state of these citizens, schools, they are voters. Reach out oh my fellow citizens you are are part of we the people of the USA.

Posted by: sharon walker | January 26, 2008 7:28 PM

The best argument for a Republican president in the coming election is one that neither party will advance, but which every moderate/independent voter is thinking about right now: namely, that neither party can govern itself by itself.

A president of the opposite party to that which controls Congress makes sense. California is a solidly Blue-majority state, yet did this here because we'd seen what the Demos do when they hold all the cards--i.e. the same as what the Repubs do when they hold all the cards, as 2000-2206 proved.

Especially since almost none of the policies advanced by the Republican nominees will happen as long as Congress has a Demo majority.

As for race & gender, I'm sure that at least 20% of the polity will vote against either Obama or Clinton based on race & gender. But I'm equally sure either can get a majority to vote for them as long as they show presidential qualities and stand up for the American people rather than the congeries of special interests to which both parties are beholden.

Unfortunately, that a big "as long as."

For example, both Clinton and Obama have sided unequivocally with illegal aliens--and tacitly against the American working-class whites and blacks (and Latinos if they thought about it) whose wages have dropped 15-25% as a direct result of America's wealthiest bosses using illegal alien labor to drive down wages and bust unions.

I predict that if Clinton or Obama are not elected, it won't be because of their gender or race, but because of their failure to promise that they'll veto Democratic pork-laden spending--and their betrayal of working-class Americans in favor of citizens of other countries.

Posted by: Ehkzu | January 22, 2008 7:22 PM

Jeff M. -

Yes and the conservative partisan hacks came up with a list of spurious attacks on the Clintons.

Do you think that conservative partisans were (and are) any less convinced that they were right.

You partisans are a joke. You all think that your side is 100% right and that the other side is 100% wrong. The truth is that you are all the same. Hence the point of my original post. Of course, hyper-partisan liberals have a pavlovian response to the name Bush and you had to respond with your partisan bumper-sticker response. Lame.

Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2008 6:46 PM

A dynasty was good for JR, but would not be good for the people of the United States.

Posted by: Robert Campbell | January 22, 2008 4:38 PM

Your observation regarding Obama can easiliy be rephrased to apply to his opponent. Namely, there are legitimate questions to be raised about the depth of Hillary's experience and qualifications for the presidency, and I'd like to think that whatever headwind she faces from here on out in the campaign is because of that -- not because of her gender.

Posted by: bwright110 | January 22, 2008 3:50 PM

"Gee, I wish liberal pundits would also recognize that Bush has also has been a victim of " a drawn-out, absurd vendetta against him by partisan hacks"."

Really - for what - lying to draw us into a war with Iraq, lying and trying to get us in a war with Iran, lying about finishing his National Guard duty while denigrating someone who volunteered to serve, lying about firing anyone involved in the Plame leak, doing absolutley nothing about Hurricane Katrina, and the list goes on and on...

Posted by: Jeff M. | January 22, 2008 3:37 PM

Let's get this straight.

1. Lieing about sex does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Lieing about pretexts for a war that has cost thousands of American lives is another story.

2. Although I am inclined toward Obama, I firmly believe my life was never better than under Bill Clinton's administration, and that, in all probability, so were a majority of Americans' lives better. My God, a budget surplus and the solution to Social Security shortfalls were in sight and within our grasp. What else do the critics need to know?

Posted by: Spectator | January 22, 2008 3:06 PM

You're either with America or you're against her.

Those who support Red Bushies and their anti-capitalist elitist policies that cripple our nation are against America. Especially those cowards who proclaim endless unending wars but none of them or their children serve.

Those who, like Sen Obama (and the other Dems) realize what America must face are with America.

You have a choice. Going back to the 18th Century won't work.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | January 22, 2008 1:54 PM

When I saw Barack Obama's speech after he won Iowa I was truly moved. I had been backing Hillary Clinton since last summer but suddenly found myself in the position of reconsidering. Who doesn't want to believe that things can get better? Who isn't sick of all the partisan bickering? Then I turned on the TV and saw the dirty tricks that GOP politicians were playing on EACH-OTHER in South Carolina, and that sent me scampering right back to good 'ole Hil who has what it takes to stand up to these guys. I think in the general election a "nice-guy" Barack campaign would be over before it started. Call me a defeatist if you will...I call myself a realist.

Posted by: Cal | January 22, 2008 1:50 PM

"The problem with American politics...[is e]veryone forgot we're all Americans.. stop this nonsense of playing politics like a sport."

But, but..for us who don't watch football, politics is a sport. Seriously, isn't our problem the opposite? Thank you Andres, for noting that division is related to our better times. Take the firing (please!) of U.S. attorneys for party disloyalty. It was hardly sporting, rather it was politics as serious business, so serious, good governance was set aside like a game to be resumed...or not. The campaign never ends when government is played like a sport instead of politics. No way did everybody forget we're Americans. Rove did forsee a United States of Republicanism, but don't blame politics for his making sport of all us Dems. Politics could have been a solution to our current problem of a public servant forgetting who he works for. We lost a chance in 2004 to remove him as a reminder. When was the last time Bush spoke to unvetted American voters?

Posted by: jhbyer | January 22, 2008 1:19 PM

A right-wing conspiracy Theory is ridiculous. Republicans are actually in disagreement over who they would like to face in the general election. I myself am torn. But certainly, for every conservative who would rather face Obama for his lack of experience, you can find one who would want to face Clinton for ability to bring the far right to the polls against her.

I think much would depend on the Republican Candidate.

If John McCain or Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, they match best against Clinton, as they would pull-in Moderates, and Clinton would ensure that conservatives come out and vote against here, even though they don't particularly like McCain for his immigration position or Giuliani for his social positions.

Likewise, McCain, Romney, or even Huckabee would match up well against, McCain and Romney would rely on their experience and Huckabee would try and match Obama with his message of change, while holding a lock on the religious right.

EJ Dionne Jr has an interesting article about McCain that touches on this, and how McCain is probably alone in being a decent matchup for either candidate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101865.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: Paul S. | January 22, 2008 11:51 AM

Does Col. Saunders understand what a non-sequitor is? Clinton was successful despite his stupid Oval Office tryst. He presided over welfare reform, a balance federal budget, and numerous other initiatives that required bipartisan coalitions. The current president has been unable to achieve anything productive other than lower taxes (not difficult with a Republican congress for most of his term).

But all this would be way over the good Colonel's head.

Posted by: CT | January 22, 2008 11:24 AM

"A Vote of Confidence Amendment.."

Is nonsense if you are not in a British style government. At best it is revenge on a person who you did not agree with. If you have the evidence trot out the impeachment machinery. Perhaps you can do as good as the "house managers." If not, then shut up. And I know that "failure to agree" or "taking on tough jobs" are not against the law.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | January 22, 2008 10:05 AM

Recessions come and go as the seasons. We can moderate them and the stimulus will be one good factor - but we should not fear them. I don't understand the political artist who drew the recession as a sinking ship. Better he see it as just one more wave on the ocean.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | January 22, 2008 10:00 AM

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss and hold over for criminal prosecution any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

Posted by: Terrorist | January 22, 2008 7:58 AM

Dear Col. Saunders:

What subscription did you cancel when Scooter Libby was pardoned by President Bush immediately after his conviction for lying under oath? Scooter certainly was highly successful in avoiding any time for his crime!

Posted by: Tom Austin | January 22, 2008 7:55 AM

Svarzman -

The "miracle cure" for the economy was WW2, not FDR. FDR's plans prior to the war were having very limited effect.

FDR was a great President, but to give him credit for turning around the economy is not accurate.

Posted by: ecolloin | January 22, 2008 7:41 AM

Gee, I wish liberal pundits would also recognize that Bush has also has been a victim of " a drawn-out, absurd vendetta against him by partisan hacks".

Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2008 7:25 AM

Thanks, Andres for defending the record of former president Bill. His surviving impeachment actually is viewed as no small accomplishment by quite a few Republicans, who contrast his grace under fire with Nixon's quitting.

Posted by: jhbyer | January 22, 2008 6:53 AM

Dear Sr. Martinez
Do we need a recesion? Ask thtat to the people working for the minumun salary, the elderly who need several medicines daily, the people living on Social Security....
The sunprime mortgage crisis has culprits, mainly the regulators, styrating wirh the Fed and the Treasury, the Comptrolley of the Currency and so on.
What we need is leaders with brains and not emptiness in the head, and that goes for the White House and the Congress, Can we call a medium to talk with FDR?
Norberto Svarzman
Miami
nsvarzman@aol.com

Posted by: Norberto Svarzman | January 22, 2008 6:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company