Lambert ran the bush-cheney campaign slogan, “Steady Leadership in a Time of Change,” through an anagram server. It gave 8 results and Lambert likes number 1 best:
I’m a hypertense, death-dealing fiasco
Via Atrios.
Update (2/16): George Must Go has a top 10 list of additional suggestions.
The Talking Dog has some concerns with John Kerry:
There were also Karl Rove style “push-polls” in Iowa and New Hampshire, all while a smirking candidate pretended to stay above the fray. Remind you of anyone? That’s kind of my point: we’ll be replacing one irritating, dirty-rat-bastard Skull and Bones member with another. That’s progress? We’re supposed to be better than them– not just better at being them than them.
Now the dog may just be a little jealous that his choice of candidates has fallen by the wayside. But, really, when it gets right down to the nitty gritty this is pretty much the way it has been for a long time.
I haven’t often read Andrew Sullivan but his analysis of bush’s MTP appearance seems pretty accurate to me:
We have a few options here: The president doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying, or he trusts people telling him lies. But it is undeniable that this president is not on top of the most damaging part of his legacy–the catastrophe he is inflicting on our future fiscal health.
And in closing:
I cannot help liking the president as a person. I still believe he did a great and important thing in liberating Iraq (although we have much, much more to do). But, if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he’s in the Caribbean.
Via Atrios where some of you may be entertained by the comment thread.
For a moment never mind that I’m not a conservative.
A few minutes ago I was thinking about what appears to be the upcoming bush-kerry competition. First, I think bush is a total disaster (and thought much the same of his predecessor). His potential opponent, depending on which aspects of his voting record you review, looks like a bush clone on Iraq or only a bit left of bush when it comes to spending.
So I was thinking that since things happen best in DC when they happen least that the optimal result this time around will be a kerry win along with a few more repuglicans in both the house and senate. About 1 minute later I happened on to Chris Lawrence’s post linked below which is in response to Steven Taylor who has some thoughts on my opening question and reminds folks:
In short, repeat after me: �I will never get exactly what I want all the time from democratic government.�
The only government in which one gets everything one wants is a government in which one is the absolute dictator. Those jobs are hard to come by.
and then points out:
To put it in simple terms: if one is unhappy with aspects of Bush’s administration, this shouldn’t be a surprise. However, the only serious alternative, it would seem, is Kerry.
And recall that all the conservatives who were upset with Bush I’s breaking of the “read my lips pledge” and who said that “it can’t get any worse” helped led to eight years of Bill Clinton.
To which Chris Lawrence replies:
On the other hand, if you�re a conservative�not necessarily a Republican, mind you�a spell of divided government might well be desirable.
…given that Congress is essentially a lock to remain in Republican hands for the forseeable future,* if you�re not much of a social conservative and you make under $200k it�s hard to see what you�d lose under a Kerry (or Edwards) administration.
This is probably good advice for conservatives as well as those who are orthogonal to the demublicans.
James Joyner considered the performance and found that:
Overall, it was largely uneventful, but the president acquitted himself well enough. He came across as thoughtful and considered. And, while he was almost certainly prepared for hours by staff members, he didn�t appear to be giving the memorized speeches that one is accustomed to from politicians on these programs. Bush actually seemed to pause and consider his answers.
Brad DeLong thought Russert could have done a better job with his followup questions
Tim Russert didn’t seem to me to do a very good job. He didn’t ask what seemed to me the natural follow-up questions…Here are three examples
Go read’m.
Now, Kevin Drum appears to disagree a bit with James:
It’s hardly surprising that I thought Bush’s performance on Meet the Press was weak (“labored and uninteresting….like he was addressing a class of sixth graders”),
and expresses some surprise at the responses from NRO:
…but the fine conservatives over at NRO are piling on in a fashion normally reserved for Jimmy Carter op-eds…For once, I find myself in full agreement with National Review….
(Kevin quotes a number of the responses he refers to.)
I’ve watched part of it and at this point find it unlikely I’ll invest the time to watch the last half hour unless it is to reconsider what James described as pausing to consider his answers. My reaction after a few of these pauses was that bush was faking them in order to pretend the answers were considered. My secondary thought was that he was pausing in order to assure himself that he was dredging up the correct practiced answer for the question.
And, as Dave Ehhrenstein notes, these are frightening words:
I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.