The Panderer-In-Chief

[RTFirefly]

I’m putting this in the Pit because I’m not sure there’s much of a debate here. It just seems that a number of fairly big things Bush has done lately seem to be solely about pandering for votes.

I’m thinking specifically of:
[ul]
[li]last fall’s prescription drug benefit;[/li][li]last month’s immigration proposal; and[/li][li]his endorsement of the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions. [/ul] [/li]
I’m sure others will come to mind. (I don’t think the Mars thing qualifies, btw: that’s more of an attempt at distraction than a pander. No sizable ‘space bloc’ to win votes from, you know.)

It’s kind of odd, IMHO, that the ‘panderer’ label hasn’t been applied to Bush before this. At least in terms of their talk, the Bushies are aggressively pro-free trade, yet they applied tariffs on steel that not only went against their supposed core principles, but that they had to know constituted treaty violations as well. But they wanted to solidify support in WV and OH, and pick up support in other Rust Belt states like PA and MI, so they instituted the tariffs.

Compare that to Clinton, who had the ‘panderer’ label applied to him early, but defended free trade even when it cost him and his party: if he’d placed Bush-style tariffs on steel in 2000, that might well have tipped WV and/or OH to Gore.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@RTFirefly

his endorsement of the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions

If this is a pander, it’s a stupid pander. Between the people who support gay marriage or are at least on the fence about it, and the people who don’t like it but don’t want to foodle with the Constitution over it, it’s gotta turn off more people than it wins over, right? Right?

[UncleBeer]

Pandering for votes. That’s a pretty succinct job description for about 99% of politicians, at least among those eligble for re-election.

It’s kind of odd, IMHO, that the ‘panderer’ label hasn’t been applied to Bush before this. At least in terms of their talk, the Bushies are aggressively pro-free trade, yet they applied tariffs on steel that not only went against their supposed core principles, but that they had to know constituted treaty violations as well.

Don’t forget Bush did pretty much the same thing—violated the core conservative value of free-trade—with the Farm Bill he signed into law in 2002, as well as the huge tariffs he placed on Canadian softwood lumber in 2001. As like all other politicians, his quest to be re-elected began the moment he first walked into his new office.

[Orbifold]

I just have to wonder: at what point do the rank-and-file members of the Republican Party lift their heads up, look around, and ask themselves “Where the fuck has this guy taken us?”

I mean, what happened to the fiscal conservatives and foreign-policy isolationists in that party? Have they disappeared? Are they all being blackmailed somehow? Have they been replaced with socially conservative pod-people?

Perhaps we should be keeping a close eye on the Log Cabin Republicans, now that Bush has officially launched the War on Homosexuality. Maybe we now have a chance to observe the assimilation process at work…

[elucidator]

Actually, this is a very skillful, if repulsive, political manuever. He panders directly to the Troglodyte Right, blows the bugle and rallys the troops. But this legislation is going on the Slow Boat to Nowhere. Ordinary plain old conservatives will not be required to wrestle with thier consciences any time soon, such as they are. Certainly not before November, which is the entire point of the excercise.

Nosir, when it comes to cynical and souless political manuevering, Mr. Rove is the acme and the paragon. The only thing better would be massive HIV-infected Drag Queens for Kerry! demonstrations.

[athelas]

Hmm…a politician pandering to his base? How astonishing!

Seriously, why doesn’t anyone take John Kerry to task on his fence-squatting on this issue? If pandering is a crime, we’d be out of politicians

[rjung]

Have to agree with UncleBeer on this – pandering for votes is part and parcel of any politician. I thought it was stupid when Republicans dinged Clinton for this, and that’s why I won’t bother to ding Bush for the same thing (not that I don’t have enough other things to ding Bush with, mind you ).

@Orbifold

I just have to wonder: at what point do the rank-and-file members of the Republican Party lift their heads up, look around, and ask themselves “Where the fuck has this guy taken us?”

Not for a long time; this is a group that’s largely controlled by folks who think “dittohead” is a badge of pride, after all. Classic Republicans, of the Barry Goldwater variety (people you can actually respect for having intelligent views, even when you disagree with them) are mostly extinct these days.

Whereas the Democrats have the opposite problem, they’re usually as diverse and incohesive that rallying them to any cause is like trying to herd cats. Will Rogers was right.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

Pandering for votes. That’s a pretty succinct job description for about 99% of politicians, at least among those eligble for re-election.

I disagree. Certainly, almost all politicians are trying to get re-elected. But that doesn’t mean everything they do is pandering. For instance, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, responsible in large part for our enormous budget deficits, aren’t pandering. They’re part of his core mission.

But there is a certain degree of variance, from one politician to the next, in terms of how far away, and how excessively, they’re willing to depart from their core values to get re-elected. Nixon’s instituting wage and price controls in 1971 has got to be the champ, at least for America in the past century.

Don’t forget Bush did pretty much the same thing—violated the core conservative value of free-trade—with the Farm Bill he signed into law in 2002, as well as the huge tariffs he placed on Canadian softwood lumber in 2001.

I appreciate the additional examples. But I’m gonna toss the Farm Bill into the ‘core mission’ category too, since giving blowjobs to big business is part of his core mission (we’re talking about a guy who, in 2002, blamed our economic doldrums on - get this - “SEC overreach”), and ADM and the like, who are the biggest beneficiaries of such largess, are definitely big business.

athelas: I’m not any keener about Kerry’s fence-sitting here than you are; I’d like to see him take a clear stand, and be done with it. But I think there’s a big difference between a politician trying to duck an issue that he’s decided just isn’t the hill he wants to die on (which isn’t pandering, per se, since pandering is active), and a politician looking for stands to take on issues that he’d normally skip, or vote the other way on, in order to suck up to voters. (If, for instance, a candidate doesn’t intend to use the power of the office he seeks to do anything, one way or the other, about indecency on the airwaves, then it isn’t unreasonable for him not to take a stand on Janet Jackson’s breast. Aside from issues of national importance - the war, the economy, the budget - where action is unavoidable, what matters most is a candidate’s stance on the issues he does care about, and which issues those are.)

While I agree that one of the purposes of Bush’s anti-gay stand is to rally his base, it’s hard not to see this also as a “let’s divide America into two pieces, in a way where my piece is bigger” gambit. A substantial majority of Americans right now oppose gay marriage, and the idea is to not only rally the base, but pull in a bunch of swing voters who might not have otherwise voted for him.

rjung: how did Will say it? I think it was “I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” After all these eons, it’s still as true as when he said it.

[UncleBeer]

disagree. Certainly, almost all politicians are trying to get re-elected. But that doesn’t mean everything they do is pandering. For instance, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, responsible in large part for our enormous budget deficits, aren’t pandering. They’re part of his core mission.

If don’t think that every foolish little idea that runs through a politician’s head (and that of his staff) is weighed against the effect it’s likely to have on his vote totals, then I can only say that you’re quite likely mistaken. Re-election is paramount in the minds of politicians. Not that one can necessarily hold that against 'em; after all I’m in favor of me keeping my job, too. Or perhaps you’re just less cynical than I.

I appreciate the additional examples. But I’m gonna toss the Farm Bill into the ‘core mission’ category too, since giving blowjobs to big business is part of his core mission

I’m not so sure about this. Who are the guys that are buying Bush his election? It’s some of the same fat cats that he’s blowing with the Farm Subsidy Bill. The guys who are reaping the largess of this bill, and others, are the very same guys contributing mightily to Bush’s election campaign. Of course, the fat cats are very fond of multiple orgasms, so they’re also contributing to the Democrats in hopes of getting another blow job. There is most certainly an element of pandering in these subsidy bills. The Farm Bill in particular justs happens to coincide with Bush’s “core mission;” that is, if Bush can be said to have a core mission other than re-election.

[Skywatcher]

@RTFirefly

I disagree. Certainly, almost all politicians are trying to get re-elected. But that doesn’t mean everything they do is pandering. For instance, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, responsible in large part for our enormous budget deficits, aren’t pandering. They’re part of his core mission.

Whatever the tax cuts are, they pissed off a bunch of Federal employees. Guess how Dubya is trying to make up for the deficit caused by his tax cuts? Our overtime pay!

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@RTFirefly

I’m putting this in the Pit because I’m not sure there’s much of a debate here. It just seems that a number of fairly big things Bush has done lately seem to be solely about pandering for votes.

I’m thinking specifically of:
[ul]
[li]last fall’s prescription drug benefit;[/li][li]last month’s immigration proposal; and[/li][li]his endorsement of the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions. [/ul] [/li]

The thing that sets me off like a Roman Candle (Seriously! I’m spinning wildly and shooting out flames right now!) is the fact that no one, at least not the American public in general, recognizes pandering for pandering. Fuckin’ sheep. Nor do they bother to care when all the rhetoric turns out to be crapola.

And I pit the mainstream press for not calling the pols on the pandering, either. Gutless wonders.

[Chefguy]

I would have to agree that the constitutional amendment thing will probably backfire on more than one front:
*Marriage and laws pertaining thereto are historically and correctly states’ rights issues, not federal. Bush’s proposal will piss off any and all states’ rights groups.
*Activists for smaller and less intrusive government will be unhappy with this notion.
*Any thinking person who believes that fucking around with the Constitution to promote a personal agenda is a bad idea should be thoroughly disgusted with this moron, and
*The two remaining gay Republican voters will vote Democratic

[Matchka]

@Chefguy

*Activists for smaller and less intrusive government will be unhappy with this notion.

Didn’t these people used to be called…Republicans?

[RTFirefly]

@Chefguy

I would have to agree that the constitutional amendment thing will probably backfire on more than one front:

*The two remaining gay Republican voters will vote Democratic

I don’t know how accurate Andrew Sullivan’s claim was that 1M gays voted for Bush in 2000, but it wouldn’t surprise me terribly if it were so. Back then, he ran as being personally against gay marriage, but not of a mind to do anything for or against it, which gave gays the room to vote for or against him based on whether they thought he’d be a better President overall.

I think Bush just lost those million votes.

I think he may also have lost the votes of some right-leaning people with gay friends too. I’m thinking of my mother here - absolutely detested Clinton, and surely voted for Bush the last time around. But some good friends of hers are gay, and when she’s close to someone, she takes attacks on them personally. She may or may not vote for the Dem nominee, but I’m willing to bet Bush has just lost her vote.

But I think Bush just lost a whole bunch of people who would have been Perot voters if this was 1992, and that’s what’s really going to kill him. There’s a whole bunch of swing voters who simply want to see government tackle the real problems of the country, rather than play politics - “get under the hood of the car and fix what’s wrong” as Perot put it back then - and this (along with Mars, and along with steroids) is a manifestation of a total lack of seriousness of this President in that department.

He’s just lost them. Unless the Dem nominee does something equally infantile to lose them back, that’s probably the ballgame.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

If don’t think that every foolish little idea that runs through a politician’s head (and that of his staff) is weighed against the effect it’s likely to have on his vote totals, then I can only say that you’re quite likely mistaken. Re-election is paramount in the minds of politicians. Not that one can necessarily hold that against 'em; after all I’m in favor of me keeping my job, too. Or perhaps you’re just less cynical than I.

Whatever, but I figure that there are things Tom DeLay wouldn’t vote for in order to get votes, simply bacause he’s viscerally opposed to them. Certainly all but a rare few politicians ran for office in large part because they wanted to see their picture in the paper, but they also generally ran because they had a point of view and were convinced it was right. Passions like that can be tamped down a bit, but it’s hard to kill them outright. I’m not sure I’m being less cynical; I just think money and votes aren’t the sum total of even the worst Congressman’s motivation. People, even bad people, are more complicated than that.

Who are the guys that are buying Bush his election? It’s some of the same fat cats that he’s blowing with the Farm Subsidy Bill. The guys who are reaping the largess of this bill, and others, are the very same guys contributing mightily to Bush’s election campaign. Of course, the fat cats are very fond of multiple orgasms, so they’re also contributing to the Democrats in hopes of getting another blow job. There is most certainly an element of pandering in these subsidy bills. The Farm Bill in particular justs happens to coincide with Bush’s “core mission;” that is, if Bush can be said to have a core mission other than re-election.

Actually, the current state of GOP dominance has caused the fat cats to become much closer to being one-party givers - in part because the GOP told them that if they played both sides of the street, they’d be cut out of the action. Pure power politics. But if the Dem nominee is 10 points ahead in the polls in October, their giving will go back to being bipartisan, you betcha. Because then the GOP won’t have any force behind their hardball anymore.

But I do think Bush has a core mission: unlike Norquist, he doesn’t want to shrink government until it can be drowned in his bathtub; he wants to leave just enough of it to still be a piggybank for the corporate world, but aside from that, he’s with Norquist all the way. And he wants to cut taxes on the rich as far as he can cut them and get away with it.

[Eleusis]

@RTFirefly

I don’t know how accurate Andrew Sullivan’s claim was that 1M gays voted for Bush in 2000, but it wouldn’t surprise me terribly if it were so.

Yep, according to CNN and ABC, 25% of self identifying gays and lesbians voted for Bush.

The Log Cabin Republicans also tout the million plus figure.

I think Bush just lost those million votes.

Agreed.

[UncleBeer]

Certainly all but a rare few politicians ran for office in large part because they wanted to see their picture in the paper, but they also generally ran because they had a point of view and were convinced it was right.

Perhaps. But I believe that the further a pol moves from local politics towards the national scene, the further he’ll be displaced from any strong convictions he once held. Money does that; and money, vast amounts of it, is required for a local pol to advance. That’s what we’re really talking about here, isn’t it? Politics at the national level?

And anyway, whatever happened to the ideal of our governement representatives doing just that, representing their constituency? I’d find it quite refreshing if these guys would just stop telling me what they think is best, and start telling me that they’d do their level best to represent the majority view of the district from which they were elected.

Actually, the current state of GOP dominance has caused the fat cats to become much closer to being one-party givers - in part because the GOP told them that if they played both sides of the street, they’d be cut out of the action. Pure power politics.

That’s a pretty sweeping statement there, RT. And in fact, pretty much contradicts something I posted just a few days ago showing that, in this election cycle, the monies Kerry has from a wide range of special interests is second only to the monies Bush has received from the very same interests. If you have something handy that shows the trend you’re saying now exists—that special interest contributions to political parties is increasing for the Pubbies and decreasing for the Dems—I’d be interested in peeking at it. (Not that I’m demanding a “cite” here in the Pit, because I think that’s kinda silly, but I’m genuinely interested in the data.)

[Chefguy]

@Matchka

Didn’t these people used to be called…Republicans?

Yes. My point exactly.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

Perhaps. But I believe that the further a pol moves from local politics towards the national scene, the further he’ll be displaced from any strong convictions he once held. Money does that; and money, vast amounts of it, is required for a local pol to advance. That’s what we’re really talking about here, isn’t it? Politics at the national level?

OK, look at it this way: pols more than occasionally compromise their principles in the name of money. Now how many national pols can you name who’ve done an across-the-board shift of positions, due to money? I can think of many pols who’ve changed on a few issues because of money; and I can think of some pols who’ve moved a fair ideological distance over time for seemingly nonmonetary reasons (e.g. John Anderson from right to left; Zell Miller from centrist Democrat to Republican with a D- in front of his name), but I can’t think of one offhand who’s wound up espousing a whole new set of core issues because that’s where the money was.

That’s a pretty sweeping statement there, RT. And in fact, pretty much contradicts something I posted just a few days ago showing that, in this election cycle, the monies Kerry has from a wide range of special interests is second only to the monies Bush has received from the very same interests.

“Second only”: how close or distant a second, may I ask?

If you have something handy that shows the trend you’re saying now exists—that special interest contributions to political parties is increasing for the Pubbies and decreasing for the Dems—I’d be interested in peeking at it. (Not that I’m demanding a “cite” here in the Pit, because I think that’s kinda silly, but I’m genuinely interested in the data.)

It’s been widely reported in the media, including the aspect of the GOP’s use of its power to reduce the bipartisan nature of corporate influence peddling. I don’t have a particular cite handy, unfortunattely, and I’m away from home again, so I probably won’t have time to dig one up for few days.

[grayhairedmomma]

@UncleBeer

And anyway, whatever happened to the ideal of our governement representatives doing just that, representing their constituency? I’d find it quite refreshing if these guys would just stop telling me what they think is best, and start telling me that they’d do their level best to represent the majority view of the district from which they were elected.

Yes dear god, yes. I agree. This would require a large number of people becoming actively involved in the local&state level though since it seems much of congresspeople use those positions as a spring board.

This type of attitude which is certainly shared by politicans, doesn’t help much

by niblet_head
…no one, at least not the American public in general, recognizes pandering for pandering. Fuckin’ sheep. Nor do they bother to care when all the rhetoric turns out to be crapola.

And honestly - I think people do recognize pandering. The thing is, we expect politicans do it and if your “representative” is getting something done to benefit your community then you’re not going to punish them for something as minor as spouting off a little rhetoric.