----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless
> > > Matt G wrote: > >> Perhaps someone wants to argue that GWB > >> should *not* have to endure a half-hour > >> with her, and maybe even that he's not > >> accountable to her (or even the public). > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > Why, because of her views, is half an hour > > with her more important than half an hour > > with her other son, or his father (both of > > whom seem to think his death is a nobel > > sacrifice). How about all the others within > > a first degree of kinship (parent, child, > > sibling)? Don't they have an equal right > > to half an hour? That would be more than a > > full time job for a year. > > *Her* views drove her to camp out in TX, > which I don't recall anyone else doing. > That has to have earned her something. Maybe, but why more than a meeting with the national security advisor (Rice's old job)? When I look at these things, I try to generalize the principal. Do anti-abortion protesters against Democrats who are that vocal get the same consideration as she does? If they don't, I would argue that one cannot use the view that they are wrong and she is right gives her a privledge that they don't have; because that's a subject that is debated within our society....with significant fractions of the population taking different sides. I'm trying to think of precidents where an individual citizen with a complaint was able to force a meeting with the president in modern times. If there was a precident, it would be useful to use it for comparison purposes. If not, then the setting of such a precident is a fairly important act...one with significant repurcussions. > There definitely should be some minimal show of > resolve by those without the power to force > an audience. Automatically assigning > limited time to all comers is oviously not > a practical solution. Do you really > want to argue that since GWB doesn't have the > time to see everybody, then he should see > nobody? That is not my arguement. The arguement that I have seen was that the loss of her son meant that GWB had a moral obligation to meet with her privately, after meeting her earlier as part of a group. Since I think I've established that there are roughly 4k-6k people who are in that position, we see that he can't meet all of them. Your arguement is that many of the rest of them are not dedicated enough with him to camp out at his door. I think that it is reasonable to assume, in politics, that people don't camp out at a leader's door (insisting that they must see him) to tell them how wonderful he is doing. I think it is reasonable to see this as happening mostly when someone strongly disapproves of the action. I'm trying to think of a good way to define the precident. The best I can define is: "people who feel that the improper action by the government (led by this president) has resulted in the death of a loved one have the right to see the president if they show strong committement by camping near where he is until he sees them. > > So are you saying that the only time and > place that a politician should be held > accountable for his decisions is in the > voting booth? Come on, you can do better > than that. USA politics already don't > work that way. So, you are arguing that a politician will change his mind based on pressure from someone who will not change the chance of his being re-elected, or having people in his party re-elected? > Also, while we're at it, he won by what, > 2% of the popular vote, at most? Isn't > that a pretty good statement that total > public support is tepid? It's certainly > not a 65%+ carte blanche "mandate" to do > whatever he wants. I think the influence of having or not having a mandate is a bit over-rated, with regard to getting what you want. Lincoln won with only 39.8% of the vote. The Democrats won significantly more votes (47.6%), but they split between a Northern Democratic (29.5%) and a Southern Democratic (12.6%). He governed very strongly, redefining the power of the federal government. Nixon and Johnson had mandates, and it did them little good. Once a president is re-elected, he doesn't worry about personally being rejected by the government. The contraint on his actions are in Congress (and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court). If the opposition controls one or both houses of Congress, then he needs to compromise. If his party has a clear majority in the house and at least 60 seats in the Senate, the minority party cannot directly slow down or stop legislation. So, what constraint on the government is there in this case? Many/most of the folks in the House and Senate are planning on running for re-election. If they take action that is unpopular with their own constintuancy, then they lower their chances of being re-elected. (As an aside, the vastly increased number of "safe" seats has lowered the House members' sensitivity to this...until it seems to be lower than the Senates.) > > Republicans also gained > > seats in the House and Senate in 2004; > > which indicates that the voting public > > had a preference for the Republicans. > > If that is changing, the 2006 elections > > are only a little more than a year away, > > and intelligent Republican congressmen > > and senators should have a feel for which > > way the wind is blowing. > > You would think that a sitting president > would also be able to gague those same winds. Given the fact that the Republicans have taken the Democrats to school and ate their lunch on the way since around 2000, when it comes to playing the political game, I wouldn't be so sure that the presidents' advisors are misjudging the political situation. > GWB should have done something more than > just avoid her, if simply to keep from > geting his image tarnished too badly. But, he did do more, he sent out two high ranking staff members to talk with her. That wasn't good enough for her. I don't see meeting her as being risk free; I think it would have a number of practical political downsides. It would certainly increase the publicity she obtained. If you recall how the perception of Carter's weakness was initially caused by folks who would meet with him and then lambast him (mostly Democrats BTW), one could see a big downside to a meeting. Especially, if she came out of it in tears, accusing the President of being unpleasant or harsh with her. If the West Wing is at all accurate (and, IIRC, insiders say it is fairly close) , one of the things a White House worries about is keeping on top of the message. I think that such a meeting would entail the risk of the message going out of control. It all depends on how the moment is captured on TV. GWB, while better than his father, is not a master of TV appearances. As further evidence that this story has run it's course, She ended the camp-out and is now planning a bus tour....with Al Sharpton saying he's going along. If he's along, > He didn't have to be on the hook for anything, > All he had to do was let her meet with him and > then pretend to listen to and understand her > grievances. Early enough and it could have > defused her emotionally, he could have spun > himself as being a compassionate politician, > and deflated the political football we have > today. I tried to find a poll on the subject at pollingreport.com and didn't see any. I'm not sure if it is a significant issue among independents or Republicans. From what I've seen, it's been a rallying issue for the anti-war movement, but Bush and the Republicans have few potential supporters there. The story has some legs; probably more than other anti-war statements, but it still hasn't been the stuff of headlines. My feel is that the president's actions had negative repercussions, but that seeing her would have the risk of a much bigger downside. My opinion on this aside, I think that the pros and cons from a purely political perspective are a matter upon which reasonable people can differ. So, while it would be reasonable to argue that he should see her, I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Bush made a big mistake by not doing so. I know that too many people lost money betting against the Bush team's political instincts in the past for me to say, without clear and convincing evidence, that I know how to conduct politics better than they do in any given situation. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
