Shared responsibility

Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington. To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.

Now that you won, you are responsible for everything I fucked up and will fuck up, but you should not be nasty like we were when we had all the power, because that would not be nice.

That mix of whiny contempt and breathless arrogance is quite typical of this administration.

I believe

I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure.

When we bomb the shit out of furners, we scare the shit out of the rest of the world, and that's good.

I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America's workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Money comes from workers, and stays with companies and their shareholders, as it should be, because we destroyed the government's ability to have a sane economic policy.

I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.

The federal government, and this administration, is not accountable.

I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can't help themselves.

It's not their fault if big corporations cannot help themselves exploiting people, and we certainly played a big role in helping them do that.

Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy.

I'll just point again to my very ideological diary: I don't do charity. Charity is useful and a good thing, but it should not be necessary. Government can be caring enough, if it's competent and has given the necessary objectives by the representatives of the people. I'm glad to see Dubya say the opposite, personally.

But what an amazing list of admissions. He's bragging about it all. No shame. No regrets. No intention to change anything.

Iraq

In the days ahead, I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation and hasten the day when the Iraqi government gains full control over its affairs. Ultimately, Iraqis must resolve the most pressing issues facing them. We can't do it for them. But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.

I'll tell you what I will decide to do in Iraq, and you can either support me, or be responsible for defeat.

Note: I'm still a bit stunned to see the word "defeat" in his text. It's about blame shifting, of course, and it does not seem to have an impact on actualt policy making, but it's still remarkable that it's perceived now as a possible outcome in the White House. Maybe they're not absolutely delusional...

Tax cuts good. (Democratic) Earmarks bad

It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people.

I'll continue to do my thing. It's good for my base. Taxes would be bad for my base. Unhappy about it? Tough shit, commie.

One important message I took away from the election is that people want to end the secretive process by which Washington insiders are able to slip into legislation billions of dollars of pork-barrel projects that have never been reviewed or voted on by Congress. I'm glad Senator Robert Byrd and Congressman Dave Obey--the Democrats who will lead the appropriations process in the new Congress--heard that message, too, and have indicated they will refrain from including additional earmarks in the continuing resolution for this fiscal year. But we can and should do more. It's time Congress give the president a line-item veto. And today I will announce my own proposal to end this dead-of-the-night process and substantially cut the earmarks passed each year.

The election was not about Iraq, no, it was about Congress being corrupt (as an institution, not because it was full of corrupt Republicans). The solution, of course, is to cut the power of Congress, to give ME more, and it has nothing to do with the fact that this power and these earmarks would go to others than my friends.

"Bipartisanship" (do it my way)

Our Founders believed in the wisdom of the American people to choose their leaders and provided for the concept of divided and effective government. The majority party in Congress gets to pass the bills it wants. The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form bills take. And the Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgment whether they should be signed into law.

That gives us a clear challenge and an opportunity. If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate.

Let the minority party decide what's in your bills. If you don't, those bill will be "political" and will be vetoed by me - but I will blame you for bringing ineffectiveness and "stalemate" to Washington.

These are not the words of someone willing to be conciliatory. This is defiant, petulant, arrogant posturing - unfortunately backed by a lot of institutional power.

The challenge is clear. Bush will be a resolute obstacle to anything sane the Democratic Congress will try to do, and will continue to do his things as if nothing had happened in November - while using the opportunity of Democrats being "in power" to blame them for everything.

There can be no compromise. This is a declaration of war. Which should be good news, right? Bush is unable to win any war. Time to wage this one.