One of the things that bothers me about the way many people on the left argue against the Bush administration is that they perhaps focus too much on how the administration became more autocratic and imperial after the 09.11 attacks. Certainly that happened, but I think focusing on what happened after 09.11 makes people forget about those first eight months of the administration. Let's not forget that Bush came into office having clearly lost the popular vote in the 2000 election, with large questions still (even to this day) surrounding whether or not he actually won the electoral vote, a 50-50 Senate tie that eventually flipped Democratic when Jim Jeffords went independent and started caucusing with the Democrats, and a fairly small majority in the House. Even if you believe that Bush won Florida (and thus the election) fair and square, you can't deny that it was like his administration won some kind of huge and sweeping mandate.

In spite of this, look at the people Bush put into his cabinet. Yes, the aftermath of 09.11 and the invasion of Iraq made much clearer how much people like John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld were on the fringes of the right-wing, but let's not forget things like Ashcroft demanding that a drape be put over the statue of Lady Liberty because he wasn't comfortable being in the same photo with a stone boob. Yes, Democrats and people on the left did exaggerate the right-wing credentials of Bush's appointees, as is always the case in politics, but long before 09.11 happened Bush appointed a large number of people with very far right-wing beliefs into his cabinet, in spite of the fact that he barely got into office campaigning on governing much closer to the centre than he ever actually did.

After 09.11, of course, the actions of Bush's cabinet and his appointees both became far more extreme, and were portrayed as more extreme by opponents of his administration. It seemed like for all that opponents of the administration brought up some of the clearly far-right positions held by some of these people, they all either continued to serve in office or won confirmation to their positions. Although it took several years, I think the accumulation of these incidents played a big part in the Democrats' success in the 2006 elections, as there was a clear, tangible, and easily understood body of evidence to support Democrats' claim that Republicans in the House and Senate had essentially formed a "rubber-stamp Congress" that allowed Bush and his administration to do whatever they pleased, without providing the checks and balances that are one of the main reasons why this country has been able to survive and thrive for as long as it has.

Had Bush nominated Holsigner to be Surgeon General in 2003 or 2005, I'm sure that his claims about homosexuals and homosexuality would have generated a large amount of anger among left-wingers, and perhaps a bit of mainstream press coverage, but the nomination would have gone right straight through without most people really noticing this. For Holsinger to be nominated now, with the Democrats in firm control of Congress, boggles the mind. I'm certainly not going to claim here that last November's elections somehow made the American populace fully tolerant and welcoming of non-heterosexuals, but at the same time the notion that homosexuality is some sort of mental illness has clearly been outside of the mainstream of American thought for quite some time. This nomination is more than likely doomed to failure from the outset, and this isn't like the Harriet Myers Supreme Court nomination where Bush might possibly be putting up one candidate for the mere purpose of making a second candidate look better by comparison.

This whole thing is making me recall comments made by Karl Rove in the leadup to the 2006 elections, back when the outcome was still kind of in question. Rove asserted to the interviewer that the Bush administration was "a centre-right government" for "a centre-right nation." With all due respect, I would very much appreciate it if Rove could point to twenty, ten, or even five politicians he would define as being to the right of this current administration. (I believe the only reason why people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter spout such extreme right-wing rhetoric is to make people like Bush and Cheney look reasonable by comparison.) It's bad enough that this administration seems to believe that they have the right to act however they want and legislate however they please, but for them to try to push through Holsinger's nomination after the 2006 elections suggests that not only do they not care about the current political climate and what American voters have so clearly requested their elected representatives to do, but that they aren't making even the slightest effort to be aware of that climate.

Comment by  joepet at 6/6/07 23:30:
If there's one thing you have to admire about George Bush, it's that he always does what he feels is right, regardless of contrary advice, and regardless of ethical considerations. I believe it is his firm conviction in doing what he believes is right above what other people tell him is right that has led him to two election victories, as well as a clear victory on war funding despite two Democratic controlled houses of government. So the reason that George Bush is putting up Holsigner for nomination is simple: he believes Holsigner will make progress in the agendas he wishes to push. And given the strength of our president's will, misguided as it is, I really wouldn't bet against him getting him approved.

 

Comment by  Sean at 7/6/07 14:01:
I don't think the comparison to the Democrats' capitulation over war funding is effective simply because I don't think that there's going to be a way for the right-wing to spin this like they did by turning the Democrats' opposition to Bush's plans into a "they don't support the troops" thing. If nothing else, the Surgeon General position is so relatively unimportant that it almost seems like the Bush administration is giving the Democrats a free opportunity to point out how out-of-touch the administration is on some issues.

 

Post a Comment