Bush Scandals Result in Predictable "Perfect Storm" Cliche
The Wash Post has a story about the many scandals nipping away at Geo. Bush's second term. Most interesting bit? These blurbs from tenured scandal-monger Larry Sabato and former Bush flunky and current Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels:
Scandal historically has ripened in second terms, including Watergate for Richard M. Nixon, the Iran-contra affair for Ronald Reagan, and the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation for Bill Clinton. "It always comes back," said Larry J. Sabato, a University of Virginia scholar who has written on Washington scandals. "There may be a couple of dry years occasionally, but it is a style of American politics -- always has been, always will be. And now it's back with a vengeance."
Some administration allies lament the return of the scandal culture. "There was essentially none of that for the first five years," said Indiana Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. (R), Bush's first budget director. "That doesn't make the current situation any easier to watch."
And the inevitable "perfect storm" cliche (let's face it, calling something the "perfect storm" is the crack cocaine of political cliches):
"It looks like a perfect storm," said Joseph E. diGenova, a Republican and former independent counsel, who noted that so many investigations can weigh on an administration. "People have no idea what happens when an investigation gets underway. It's debilitating. It's not just distracting. It's debilitating. It's like getting punched in the stomach."
Whole Post story here.
Gov. Daniels' recent shout-out [*] to former Reason editor Virginia Postrel's excellent 1998 tome The Future and Its Enemies here. The money quote:
Gov. Daniels turned to the book by Virginia Postrel: "The Future and Its
Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress."Daniels said that Postrel, editor of the libertarian Reason magazine, identified reactionaries which she called "stasists," people who are wont to keep things as they are, make few if any changes, and "dynamists," those who are comfortable with change, moving forward, finding new solutions.
"She made a very important point," Daniels continued. "There are two kinds of reactionaries or stasists. One kind are those who are naturally apprehensive and fearful. And that's a very human thing; we're all a little that way.
"There's another sort of stasist and those are the people who know exactly what they are doing," Daniels said. "The status quo serves them well. They organize and lobby for it. They form special interests. It puts money in their pockets, it puts power in their brief case. And these folks have very, very specific reasons for opposing change of any kind."
[*Belated tip o' the pixel to Mike Kole, who's got a good comment somewhere in the thread below, too]
