Frankly My Dears, We Don't Give a Damn

In his Philadelphia Inquirer column, Election outcome won't bring closure over Iraq, Dick Polman explores the impact of a potential post-election change in control in Congress. Despite the fact that the election results may be a rebuke to the Bush Administration's policies (especially if the Democrats win big), Polman notes:

As Lee Feinstein, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, said the other day, even if the voters seek to hold Bush accountable and prompt him to get help in cleaning up the mess in Iraq, he won't necessarily budge: "He was prepared to go into Iraq without international support. He is prepared to stay there now without domestic support."

Polman continues this discussion in his American Debate blog, "It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter...", saying:

It’s clear that the people running this war – most notably, Vice President Cheney – view Tuesday’s event, in which voters exercise their traditional democratic right to have a voice in the affairs of their government, as an irreverent trifle that will have no bearing whatsoever on how they choose to proceed in Iraq.

And it's clear how the Bush team plans to spin a bad election night. If the Democrats retake the House, the team will merely say: So what?

As if he wanted to provide confirmation to the view expressed in Polman's column:

Cheney virtually said this today on ABC News. . . .

“It may not be popular with the public. It doesn’t matter – in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”

It may not be popular with the public. It doesn’t matter….That remark encapsulates the governing philosophy of this administration – that, as an expression of the public’s desire for accountability, this election will not matter. Cheney was clearly signaling that, even if Bush is humbled by the voters on Tuesday night, he will not humble himself by substantively shaking up his approach to Iraq.

Crooks & Liars also notes (with video) that Cheney told George Stephanopoulos that he would "probably not" appear before Congress if the Democrats take over Congress & he were to be subpoenaed. More it doesn't matter.

Paul Krugman takes up the same theme in his op-ed piece, Limiting the Damage, saying that Bush's personality won't let him accept the handwriting on the wall that would be read as a rejection of his policies:

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.

There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. . . .

At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.

Bush and Cheney. A well-matched pair, where no rules need apply. However, as Krugman concludes:

But here’s the thing: no matter how hard the Bush administration may try to ignore the constitutional division of power, Mr. Bush’s ability to make deadly mistakes has rested in part on G.O.P. control of Congress. That’s why many Americans, myself included, will breathe a lot easier if one-party rule ends tomorrow.

I'm afraid to breathe at all till then.

Tags: Bush, Cheney, Politics, Election, Commentary