On Chris Matthews' Show, Matthews argued that one of the major differences between President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama is the fact that Obama is intellectually curious while Bush never liked to do "homework."  Bush made decisions based on "gut".

Everybody seems to forget that a President like Bush, who doesn't really like to think but only acts on "gut" feelings, was therefore easily manipulated by other, stronger people with real convictions (not that we agree with them) like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush was led around by the nose by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocons; he basically never questioned them; so they had a field day with him.

Bush also turned, like Circe, people who worked for his Administration and disagreed with his acts, into beasts or swine by playing on their ambition and loyalty: one example is the greatness that once was Powell and the smartness that once was Rice, as well as so many others now departed. So Bush was the figurehead and people behind him like Cheney and Rumsfeld called the shots, and the Republican Congress went along with it and destroyed their party, and the Democrats, fearing to look soft on terrorism, went along as well.

What a sorry mess was made of the whole thing. If Bush were to try to confront what he had wrought, he would probably be fit for a padded cell.  No way it could sink in.  He must still feel invulnerable; his Dad will bail him out as he always has if he runs into any trouble.

I once did business with a number of General Motors divisions. This was some time ago. At one meeting, in Saginaw, I believe, I ran into a young man who was headed to executive status; he told me, proudly, that he was going to go to G.M. University. I blinked; I'd never heard of it. Afterwards, the more I thought about it, the more I began to realize how incestuous G.M. was when someone went to their university instead of being sent to Harvard, or M.I.T. or U.C.L.A. or Carnegie Mellon or any one of the major schools outside of the G.M. universe, so they could absorb new and different ideas about how G.M. should be run.

Alas, G.M. still seems to be caught in that incestuous, inwardly-looking mode. I would have thought, when they confronted that Congressional Committee recently, and they were asked for a "Plan", one of them might have reached in his back pocket, and pulled one out, and said, "Here it is. We've been working on it feverishly. Happy to share it with you. Any improvements or suggestions are welcome." But no, all these auto executives could do was slink off in shame and go back on their jets to the cocoon that they live in in Detroit.

Maybe they'll come up with something; maybe not. But I kind of wish they had had a Plan in their back pocket, happy that someone asked for what they had been working on so hard to make things right.

Foolish me.

Why haven't I seen this mentioned anywhere?

Those Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians who still believe in less government involvement and regulation need to be confronted with how stupid was their push for private Social Security Accounts. If that had happened, more than 55 million people would have lost, at a rough guess, 40% of their benefit payments or the entire Social Security Program would be at grave risk. This points out:

. That government programs, like Social Security, are always badly administered as contrasted with private investment accounts or IRAs

. Investing in the stock market pays huge dividends in comparison to the stupid, badly-run government-administered social programs

. The enormous funds that investment houses, like Bear Stearns (remember them?), would have earned would have sustained them through the current crises

. The resultant revolution by those over 65 would not have serious social consequences in our country.

(Of course I'm being sarcastic by listing these points here.)

But the point is well-taken and no respectable Republican, Conservative or Libertarian would dare to mention privatization of Social Security today. At least until we've all forgotten the trauma that has been on-going as the stock market has tanked and continues to do so. Or, for that matter, letting investment companies alone as good ole Phil Gramm and Rush Limbaugh recommend, without any regulation or over-sight.

The stock market slips and falls and careens downhill, and the stories out of Congress (OK, in this case the Senate) are filled with indignation about how they broke their own rules applauding cconvicted felon ex-Senator Stevens and lauded him, like the tight, ineffective, incestuous, elitest club they are, while afterwards they leave and won't be back to even acknowledge the crisis in the downward spiral of stocks or to attempt to do something about it. No wonder they have such low rating.

"Do-Nothing" is a mild epithet for this pitiful group of Senators and Representatives. The media has no story about it; no indignation; only stories about their treatment of the Big Three Automakers. I, for one, am angry at how indifferent they all are, what a bunch of sheep they are, when it comes to the fundamentals of our economy. The stocks and mutual funds are part and parcel of most Americans' savings, their 401Ks, their IRAs, and the Congress walks out and doesn't even pay attention while Rome (in this case, the U.S.A.) burns.

It seems to me that the Democrats have been playing the victim, as in "Poor me!", for much too long. First, they let the Republicans mount an attack on them and their positions. Then they act surprised at the "bad" Republicans for doing this. Then they protest, calling what the Republicans do "dispicable" or "dirty tricks" or "untrue". All of which only makes the Democrats look even more like victims. And so they dig their own fate. I also sense that, when they do this and ring their hands, they are hoping the Republicans will receive their comeuppance from some mysterious force, and that they will self-destruct of their own accord. Act like a victim, end up like one.