SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (167391)8/3/2001 10:21:48 AM
From: ColtonGang  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 769667
 
So Far, Bush is Only Play-Acting as President
Lance Morrow looks at the Man in the White House and finds, at least through the first few months, there's no there there


TIME MAGAZINE
Thursday, Aug. 02, 2001
It's early yet. But not that early.

George W. Bush's term is one-eighth gone, and there remains a curious lifelessness at the heart of his administration, a quality of grumpy somnambulism. Or something.

What movie is screening itself in the Bushies' heads, what visions project themselves there? None that I can make out. There's no plot, no clarity. The script needs work. Bush is indulging in WASP Zen, that reticence that is the sound of one hand clapping, a self-confident smirk meant to signal a resolute and maybe cunning refusal to be ingratiating to the rest of the world, about Kyoto or anything else.

That approach might be the beginning of something admirable or original — if the man at the center, who gives the administration its name, were really at the center. But we don't see him there, we don't feel him, we don't hear him. He has an agenda, but it is not sufficiently articulated, not persuasively proclaimed.

What our heat-sensors pick up at the center is Dick Cheney. The vice presidency, historically a vacuum and nonentity — not worth a pitcher of warm spit, as John Nance Garner said (actually, he mentioned a liquid slightly more colorful) — has become, by an odd default, the engine room, even as Cheney ferries his ticker in and out of the Coronary Care Unit.

The narrative line of the Bush administration may crystallize. The president's virtues may manifest themselves by and by. Or perhaps a theme will be thrust upon him, the way that "crises" used to be thrust upon Richard Nixon, and maybe W. will rise to an occasion we do not yet see. Perhaps, like Mr. Toad, he will be magnificent.

But the 2002 elections are already kicking up dust on the horizon. And now, for the first time, Bush's poll numbers have dropped below 50 . If I were Karen Hughes or Karl Rove, I would have trouble sleeping.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Polls rise and fall. Public opinion blows this way or that from month to month. The Bush problem runs deeper. George W. Bush has failed to connect with the American people. It begins to seem possible — probable — that he is incapable of making the connection.

During the campaign, Bush kept up a line of brave talk that went like this: "I'm a leader...that's what a leader does...a leader leads!" No: Leading means doing something that George W. Bush has failed to do. Sometimes when I see him in the White House, there pops into my mind the image of the sixties student radical puffing on a cigar, with his feet propped on the Columbia University president's desk. I have the disconcerted sense that the President of the United State is play-acting.

Play-acting is part of a president's game, of course, but he had better be wonderful at it. The presidency is the world's most powerful theater. I don't think that George W. Bush, as a performer, will be rated with Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt.

Strange. What is Bush waiting for? Why does he not talk to the American people? Why does he not explain himself, his policies, his direction? Much of what he has to offer makes sense, and may be handsomely saleable.

Bush came into the White House counting too much on a prissy moral contrast between his way of conducting himself, and Bill Clinton's. It was slightly hilarious the other day to see Clinton — easy and shameless and smart as the devil himself — presenting the gaudy carnival of Bubba to his new neighbors in Harlem.

Clinton was — is — almost corruptly articulate. He can sell anything. No WASP Zen there. A policy of well bred, conspiratorial inarticulation works only in a society of like-minded gentlemen. In the diverse and noisily media-driven United States, a nation accustomed to theatrical politics, George W. Bush needs, first, to get both hands clapping, and, second, to figure out what they are clapping for.



To: Neocon who wrote (167391)8/3/2001 10:54:55 AM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Very encouraging story. Implications are much more bullish for growth than the two bit tax cut:

WSJ:

August 3, 2001



Regulatory Rollback Under Bush has a Major Impact on Economy
By JOHN HARWOOD and KATHY CHEN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Six months into his presidency, George W. Bush is quietly and steadily using the federal government's far-reaching regulatory authority to stamp his imprint on American society.

Aided by a cadre of appointees who are skeptical of government regulation, if not hostile to it, Mr. Bush is easing enforcement of many government rules. And the effects of the changes are beginning to reverberate throughout the nation's economy, among banks and hospitals, oil companies and telecommunications giants, employers with labor-management problems and corporations seeking tax breaks.

At the Department of Health and Human Services, a top official has vowed to stop "overzealous" Clinton-era fraud investigations of some hospitals and nursing homes. The Environmental Protection Agency has frozen a probe of more than 100 energy companies suspected of violating the Clean Air Act, after Vice President Cheney questioned whether the law had been properly applied.

The Department of Labor is shifting emphasis from prosecution of workplace violations to helping employers avoid violations in the first place. And just Thursday, Treasury Department officials moved to change tax-shelter regulations to ease reporting requirements on certain transactions by businesses.

In each case, administration officials say they're no less committed to stamping out wrongdoing than their predecessors. But their approach to regulatory policy represents a philosophical shift as sharp as any occurring in the legislative arena.

"We are not a bunch of crazy, wild-eyed deregulators," says Cameron Findlay, the Deputy Secretary of Labor. "But we want to look at the costs as well as the benefits. And we don't want to do anything stupid."

The effort seamlessly blends the philosophic bent and political self-interest of the nation's first president to hold an MBA. Cheering on Mr. Bush's approach to regulation are the corporate executives who financed his presidential bid, helping raise a record-smashing $104 million for his primary campaign and $166 million in unregulated soft money donations to the Republican National Committee. Most of his top financial backers come from businesses with huge stakes in regulatory shifts, including banking companies, utilities and health-care providers.

Administration officials say their regulatory decisions will be made openly according to scrupulous cost-benefit analysis, not other factors such as insider influence. "It's very important that the public has full confidence that decisions are being made on the merits," says Budget Director Mitch Daniels.

For GOP donors and administration officials alike, regulatory rollback represents a major piece of unfinished business. Ronald Reagan set out to tame regulations in the 1980s. And even George Bush, who took a more moderate approach to regulatory issues, named his vice president, Dan Quayle, to head a White House "competitiveness council" designed to curtail the reach of rules.

What's different this time is that the Republican administration -- from top cabinet officials to second-tier appointees -- is more uniformly conservative. The upshot: Just as district attorneys decide which crimes to emphasize and how aggressively to enforce them, individual agencies are doing the same thing. And they're heeding candidate Bush's pledge to give Americans "more choices and fewer orders."

The new approach has already sparked some intense battles. Senate Democrats registered strong opposition to the nomination of John Graham as the top regulatory official at the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Graham, a Harvard specialist in weighing the costs of government action against its benefits, was an adviser to the GOP Congress when it unsuccessfully attempted to pass a regulatory overhaul in the mid-1990s. In the Senate Commerce Committee Thursday, Democrats sought to kill the nomination of Mary Sheila Gall as chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, arguing that she sides too readily with industry on regulations to protect children.
.
.
.
interactive.wsj.com