"How Bush should spend his windfall of political capital."

September 21, 2001 1:36 AM

"How Bush should spend his windfall of political capital." Many links have been posted in the past 10 days to cheap political opportunism in the wake of 0.81- but this takes the cake: an op-ed calling for Bush to explicitly exploit this tragedy to pass bigger tax cuts, ANWR drilling, etc. Yep, another sickening WSJ effort; I'm sure the families of the victims will take heart in knowing their loved ones are, in fact, a "windfall of political capital" for Bush. (sorry for the two-front-page-posts-in-a-row, btw)
posted by hincandenza (13 comments total)

Can we please NOT refer to the tragedy in 1337 codewords? ("0.81") It bugs the crap out of me. I can't believe anyone would feel the need to use a cliqueish slang term for this horrible act of inhumanity. Not to mention confusing casual readers. Anyone else?
posted by curiousg at 2:08 AM on September 21, 2001

Seconded.
posted by rmannion at 2:53 AM on September 21, 2001

....and what does 0.81 mean exactly?
posted by ookamaka at 3:21 AM on September 21, 2001

Yeah, next time use hexadecimal...
posted by dawiz at 3:28 AM on September 21, 2001

Please don't use 0.81 to refer to the events of the 9th of September

It's not big and it's not clever. It's not even informative.

ookamaka: 9/11 = 0.81818181818.....
posted by netsirk at 3:54 AM on September 21, 2001

You Americans with your funny date ordering, you crack me up!
posted by holgate at 5:43 AM on September 21, 2001

The capitalists of the Wall Street Journal recommending that tragedy be exploited so that the most wealthy among us would profit at the expense of the unfortunate? Say it ain't so! Doesn't this blow the Libertarian pipe dream all to hell about how capitalistic greed solves all of society's problems?
posted by nofundy at 6:14 AM on September 21, 2001

Oh, nine elevenths. I thought that it was some reference to the approval ratings boost these kinda things bring.
posted by donkeymon at 6:55 AM on September 21, 2001

0.81 -- gimme a freakin' break...
posted by spilon at 7:01 AM on September 21, 2001

0.81818181818 = 8.2 anyways
posted by mook at 7:03 AM on September 21, 2001

Anyone who thinks that politics has somehow disappeared from Washington, DC is living in a cave. The airlines were lobbying for their "relief package" within hours after the accidents. Tons of other pet projects are being put in bills b/c people are hoping that little scritiny will be applied to them in the wake of the tradegies.
posted by Witold at 7:40 AM on September 21, 2001

donkeymon: that's what I thought too - weren't 81% of americans (or so) in favor of bombing the hell out of [Afghanistan|Syria|Egypt|Paterson,NJ] for as long as it takes?

anyway, as for the article. *blink* *blink* *jawdrop* now, I generally don't agree with the Up With Stockbrokers viewpoints of the Journal, bur even I'm sort of surprised even they are this out of touch with political reality.

Widespread tax cuts, primarily to the affluent, do not provide stable economic stimulation. We learned that in the early 1990s, when Reagan's tab for the economy of the mid-80s came due.

George I did not lose in 1992 because he failed to exploit his Gulf War approval ratings to push through an agenda, he lost because he inherited Reagan's mess and was mediocre on domestic issues, while Clinton was possibly the best showman to run for the office in the 20th century. To say that Bush's agenda would have saved him is to overestimate the superiority of the conservative viewpoint, which I guess is sort of what the Journal is all about.

Politics have not disappeared from Washington DC. They have also not disappered from the rest of the country. Bush has high approval (hell, three months ago I didn't consider him legitimate, and now I back him), but that approval is not unconditional. As long as he stays center or slightly center-right, stays focused on Infinite Justice or Noble Eagle or whatever they're calling it this week, doesn't piss off our allies too badly (as it looked like he'd been trying to do for the past six months), and stays the hell away from clearly useless initiatives (National Missile Defense is kinda obviously ignorant now, eh?) it appears he'll be a shoe-in for a second term. Otherwise, NBC will have to call Dana Carvey in to do his "please vote for me" routine on SNL in 2004.
posted by Vetinari at 8:26 AM on September 21, 2001

The main point that it is tasteless and offensive to try to turn the evil into political advantage is dead-on. Stupid move by the WSJ. Of course, same should be said about Michael Moore.

Widespread tax cuts, primarily to the affluent, do not provide stable economic stimulation. We learned that in the early 1990s, when Reagan's tab for the economy of the mid-80s came due.

Median income in 1980 was $35,850 (1999 dollars), and was still $36,850 right after the 1991 recession. That's not a failure, that's called real growth for the average American.

he lost because he inherited Reagan's mess

He lost for the same reason Carter did: he happened to have a recession at the same time he was running for re-election. That's the business cycle.

National Missile Defense is kinda obviously ignorant now, eh?

If someone breaks into my car, I do not reconsider buying a smoke alarm. Missile defense is a separate issue, and needs to be analyzed on its own merits.

it appears he'll be a shoe-in for a second term

Barring war, he will be re-elected if the economy is strong, and won't be if it isn't. You might be surprised at how often that's all there is to it.
posted by marknau at 10:59 AM on September 21, 2001