Top Ten List - Bush Accomplishments

As George W. Bush winds down the last 53 days of his presidency, it seems he’s desperately trying to come up with a positive legacy for which he can be remembered. With 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and a failed economy among the long list of disasters that occurred on his watch, it’s a tough task. So far, the best he and his supporters seem to be able to come up with is the assertion that he “prevented” any additional terrorist attacks on American soil.

In the spirit of holiday giving, I’m going to help Bush out and give him some additional ideas that he can claim as successes during his presidency, as I present the Top Ten Bush Accomplishments (Besides Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Since 9/11):

10. Kept the U.S. Economy from completely collapsing during the last month since it completely collapsed.

9. Effectively prevented the rapid spread of teen vampirism.

8. Not one meteor landed in a major American city.

7. Headed off virtually all instances of baby abduction by Sasquatch.

6. Cleared out the nation’s vast oversupply of flag draped coffins.

5. Maintained America’s extensive system of gravity.

4. Created thousands of government jobs left undone.

3. Kept the time running on time.

2. Made great strides in promoting the idea that even special-needs children can grow up to be President.

And the top Bush Accomplishment (Besides Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Since 9/11):

1. United the world with the majority of Americans in counting down the days until Obama’s inauguration.

Obama Recession, Huh?

Remember when Rush Limbaugh said this:

The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.

Here is what happened during the four market days since Barack Obama started taking a public leadership role on the economy by rolling out his economic team and discussing his plans:


(click to enlarge)

And here is what happened during the previous fourteen months . . .


(click to enlarge)

. . . when the markets had only this guy to look to for leadership on the economy!


(surely, you don’t want to enlarge)

These gains may not last, because there is certainly plenty of potential bad news out there. And they may not have anything to do with Obama’s recent visibility on the economy, because markets are fickle and sometimes behave irrationally. However, the likelihood that any part of the long decline over the past year is related to the market’s reaction to Obama’s leadership . . . is roughly proportional to Rush Limbaugh’s peanut-sized brain!

Enough About the Bush Tax Cuts, Let’s Make This Permanent!

I’m not quite sure who this treatment is going to benefit the most: Ann Coulter, whose broken jaw is apparently wired shut, or the rest of us! Perhaps we should, on a prophylactic basis, provide the same treatment to O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

Not So Deep Thought

From the perspective of the children who are the future of the country, aren't all parents too big to let fail?

You Don’t Get “Change” Unless You Hit the Shot!

For those unfamiliar with the title reference, it’s the practice of returning a basketball to the shooter (change) after he or she makes a shot during warm-ups. In light of Barack Obama’s predilection for hoops, I bring this up now, and I’ll return to it in a moment.

First, I’ll point to Jane Hamsher’s post, which presents the optimistic view of the idea I want to discuss. She points out that, despite a lack of progressive voices among the team Obama is putting together, if he is able to work with them to deliver the things he promised during his campaign (health care reform, alternative energy programs, troops out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, etc.), even progressives should be happy!

Next, I’ll admit right up front that I understand Barack Obama is many times smarter than I am, and has a much better temperament for the job of Potus. His choices during the long presidential campaign have proven, again and again, to be brilliant and forward thinking, so I am hardly in the position to legitimately criticize anything he does.

At the same time, after watching his tacit enabling of Joe Lieberman’s ability to work against change with no significant consequence; and now his seemingly imminent selection of the relatively conservative and hawkish Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, I find my sense of the Obama “honeymoon period” starting to wane.

Immediately after his election, I was mentally prepared to stick with Obama, despite any setbacks, throughout a long slow march toward change. Now, with these latest moves, I can’t help but notice an attitudinal shift where I find myself thinking:

“OK smart guy, it’s time to put up or shut up! Show me you’ve got game, or quit with the “trash talk” about bringing change!”

Frankly, as hard as we all worked to elect Obama as president, I’m thinking that it will be particularly disconcerting if we end up having to spend his entire first term seeing Joe Lieberman be one of the only beneficiaries of an administration that Lieberman fought his hardest to keep out of office!

Frankly, it will be upsetting if the people who donated to Obama, made calls, and knocked on doors for him, don’t see a return; while Hillary Clinton, who tried to cast him as a Muslim terrorist and an “empty suit” during the primaries, gets to pad her foreign policy credentials for a future presidential run in 2016.

Frankly, if this is all that change ends up looking like, I’m not sure I’m down with it!

On the other hand, I guess it really comes down to whether Obama can back up the confidence he shows when he enables a former foe like Lieberman to head the committee that can hound him during his efforts to change our approach to national security, or when he chooses a former foe like Clinton to be the face of his administration throughout the world.

Returning to the basketball analogy, it feels as if Obama just called “glass” right before he takes the most important shot in the history of our country.

If he makes it, he gets "change" and everyone is happy!

If he misses it, he looks like he blew the shot for the whole team, just because he was cocky!

Will Obama’s Foreign Policy Team Believe in Change (Or Is It Just Us?)

Ayayayayayayaaaaaaaay!

With Hillary Clinton supposedly ready to accept a Secretary of State post that carries the customary practice of bringing along one’s own set of advisors, I’m really starting to wonder about the veracity of Barack Obama’s "change" mantra, at least when it comes to foreign policy!

During the primary and general election campaigns, I really hoped that Obama would end up surrounding himself with people who embraced the new vision best captured in this excerpt from a memo issued by early Obama advisor, Samantha Power, ironically in response to attacks from Clinton:

American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

In this article, Spencer Ackerman details the paradox of expecting Clinton to be the one to facilitate foreign policy change that is “tailored for the 21st century;” and here Jeremy Scahill runs down a list of 20 former clintonites and neocons who are rumored to be in line to fill out many of the positions in Obama’s foreign policy team.

Disturbingly, while Obama may follow through on his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, it appears there are going to be quite a few voices telling him that indefinite military action (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere) is the only viable option, while he may have nobody around who is inclined to offer an opposing viewpoint.

In fact, it seems that Obama is pretty much surrounding himself entirely with advisors who are firmly rooted in the centrist 1990’s. As Christopher Hayes points out here, there doesn’t appear to be a progressive voice in the bunch!

Since progressives were among Obama’s biggest supporters, having perhaps the greatest stake in the power of “believing in change,” I’m starting to understand what the religious fundamentalists would have felt like, if they didn’t just rely on their pastors to tell them how to feel, when the GOP shrugged them off immediately following election after election!

At this point, we can only hope that Obama himself is prepared to be the progressive "page-turning" counterbalance to everyone else in his foreign policy team!

Bush’s Real Legacy: The President Who Killed Capitalism!

Its funny how we’ve gone years thinking that George W. Bush would go down in history as being remembered for lying us into an unnecessary war in Iraq, and botching the government’s reaction to Katrina. But when it’s all said and done, he’s really more likely to be remembered as the president whose philosophy of unregulated free markets and thoroughly politicized but impotent government proved that unfettered capitalism leads to nothing but an economic “Lord of the Flies” that is unsustainable.

Left to Bush’s economic “survival of the fittest” ideas, wealth will naturally flow toward a small number of the most greedy, unethical, soulless bastards in the country. And yet, what we inevitably end up with is a situation where nearly everything is run by a small number of mega-corporations that are “too big to be allowed to fail!”

This, of course, leads to the forced “socialization” of these corporations by taxpayers, overseen by a government with absolutely no competence in managing such things!

My expectation is that in the A.B. Era (that’s After Bush), U.S. Governments will have no choice but to take a more socialistic approach to managing the economy and regulating commerce, with a view toward what is best for society as a whole rather than what is best for the greediest, most cut-throat members of society.

It took a long time to find a president so inept that he could, almost single-handedly, blow up the glorified image of what is known around the World as “American-Style Capitalism,” but George W. Bush proved that this was the one task he was up to accomplishing during his presidency.

And that will be his real legacy!

Obama’s Lieberman Problem Won’t Go Away So Easily (For Me Anyway!)

In his speech on election night, Barack Obama made it clear that change has not come just because we elected him to be our President. Only with hard work and sacrifice, he said, do we have to opportunity to create the change we seek!

I agree with that sentiment and I want to do my part to help. Really, I do! But I have a problem that makes it very difficult to focus my energy and enthusiasm toward the work of creating change.

His name is Joe Lieberman!

You see, after watching Lieberman campaign for John McCain, cheerlead for the opposing team at the GOP Convention, and essentially trash the patriotism of Barack Obama and me for supporting him, I can't forget about Lieberman. As long as Lieberman holds a plum committee chairmanship based on “seniority” in a party to which he doesn’t even belong, I can't stop thinking about what it would take to be rid of him.

I can’t stop thinking that today’s efforts to protect him from the consequences of his decision to campaign against change, are the exact opposite of the accountability I’ve been craving for the last eight years.

Clearly, I’m not the only one!

I understand that Obama wanted to avoid a messy intra-party fight in his first month as President Elect. I understand how Obama would want Lieberman to remain in the caucus as a sign of his desire to heal partisan divisions. I understand that the Senate acted today based on their understanding of what Obama wanted to happen.

However, at this point, I can’t help but view Lieberman like a large splinter in my thumb that is a bit infected and too painful to ignore. Before I'm truly ready to start the hard work of creating change, I may need to extract the splinter!

I can try to ignore it. It's not a life threatening problem, and I know it will probably work itself out if I could just put it out of my mind. But it keeps grabbing my attention and diverting my ability to focus on the work ahead. As long as it's there, nagging me, I’m afraid I won’t be able to use my hands for anything more productive than finding a way to remove the splinter!

Similarly, as long as the splinter of Joe Lieberman is heading the Homeland Security Committee as a senior member of the Democratic Caucus, whatever time and money I have to devote to politics is going to be irresistibly drawn toward finding a way to remove him, even if it takes until 2012 to do it!

This probably means that President Obama is going to have to run for re-election in four years without the benefit of my occasional $50 to $100 donations. Those will more likely end up going to whoever decides to run for the Connecticut Senate seat as an actual Democrat!

I’m sorry if I’m not quite ready to turn the page and start the hard work of changing our country and our politics. Despite my best intentions and a strong desire to extend my enthusiastic support from the campaign into Obama’s first term, I'm afraid that today’s vote means that I’m going to have to spend much of the next four years dealing with the somewhat painful and irritating distraction that is Joe Lieberman!

If I Were a Conspiracy Theorist . . .

After an Obama campaign that was fanatically tight-lipped about leaking anything, there seems to be a whole lot of leaking going on regarding Hillary as a possible Secretary of State appointment.

If I didn’t think Obama was such an ethical, non-manipulative guy, I’d be wondering if the deal Hillary made to get her and Bill to enthusiastically endorse Obama, was that she would be made Secretary of State in such a way as to “launder” Bill’s questionable business dealings.

It would be so simple:

Step 1: Leak that Hillary was offered the job.
Step 2: Leak that she might not get the job because of problems in vetting Bill.
Step 3: Leak that aides think Bill shouldn’t be a problem.
Step 4: Hillary gets the job.

The Real Payoff: In the eyes of the public, Bill’s business dealings must be completely above board because “even Obama’s team was satisfied with the vetting process!”

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a conspiracy theorist!

Is Hillary Working the “Enemies List” Against Kerry and Richardson?

Here’s a fascinating assessment by Al Giordano about the surprise leak of Hillary Clinton as Obama’s potential choice as Secretary of State, first reported by Andrea Mitchell on Countdown.

Giordano suggests the media are being played like drums by the Clinton people in an effort to undercut leading contenders, John Kerry and Bill Richardson, as payback for endorsing Obama in the primary.

The piece led to a bit of a firestorm at DKos, and even prompted a rebuttal of sorts from Keith Olbermann, who pointed to a Huffpo column indicating that Obama has offered the post to Clinton, leading to an updated response from Giordano expressing continued skepticism. (It even led to a post by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), an Obama supporter and one of my favorite legislators in all of D.C., to suggest that this may be a sign of Obama’s Lincolnesque qualities!)

It’s all quite interesting. Although I generally respect Keith and tend to trust his instincts on most things, I’ve got to lean toward Al’s view on this one, because I can’t reconcile the following question:

Why would “anonymous Democratic sources” be pushing Hillary as a potential selection who has been offered the job, while simultaneously leaking all of the many reasons she might not want to take it?

I understand that Obama may be enamored with the “team of rivals” concept, and he seems to have the diplomatic and persuasion skills to pull it off. However, this doesn’t add up to me. It looks, as Al notes in his original piece, more like a way to make sure the eventual selection looks “like sloppy seconds!”

Frankly, I’m kind of hoping that Obama puts it all to rest by either persuading Hillary to take the job (if he actually offered it to her), or announcing that the person who eventually gets the job was his first choice (if he didn’t).

Sanders Really Gets It, Channels Seenos!

Zing! Looks like somebody’s been readin’ some Left-Over!

Here’s Senator Bernie Sanders seconding his fellow Vermonter, Pat Leahy, on Lieberman.

To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country . . . Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not “change we can believe in.”

Jeez, after the passage of Prop 8 exposed the hidden underbelly of California bigotry, I’m thinkin’ it might be time to consider moving to Vermont!

Leahy Gets It!

Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont becomes the first Senator to publicly state opposition to Joe Lieberman retaining his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

I can only assume - since Lieberman has yet to apologize to the 66 million Americans who voted for the change represented by an Obama presidency, while Lieberman fought hard to prevent that change by spreading lies about Obama - that Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (whose electoral votes went for Obama) will be with Sen. Leahy in voting to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship!

The Senate Dems Forgive Joe Lieberman at Their Own (and President Obama’s) Peril!

Throughout the primaries and the general election, Barack Obama liked to say that the supporters who donated money or volunteered time “owned a piece of his campaign.” Many of those supporters bought in, in large part, because of a hunger for change that would return accountability to those who serve in our government.

In choosing to support John McCain and publicly attack Obama for his patriotism and readiness to lead, Joe Lieberman wasn’t just, as he would have us believe, “following his principles and doing what he thought was right.” Lieberman was actively working against each and every one of those people who skipped lunches so they could send a few bucks to the Obama campaign, or who gave up their weekends to make calls or knock on doors.

But Harry Reid has pointed out that Lieberman votes with the Democrats 90 percent of the time, and there are some indications that Obama himself is signaling that he wants Lieberman to remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Besides the glaring question about keeping Lieberman as the chairman of the committee dealing with the 10 percent of issues where he never votes with the Democrats, what kind of message would it send to those who sacrificed their hard earned money and time fighting to put a Democrat back in the White House, if one of the first official acts they see from a strengthened Democratic majority is to ensure that Joe Lieberman, who openly tried to stop the change they were fighting for, does not have to sacrifice anything?

Accountability? I guess we can cross one overly idealistic hope off the list!

Emily Dickinson once wrote that “Hope is the thing with feathers.” At this point, hoping for accountability for the choices made by Joe Lieberman just might end up being the “thing” that leads an entire “flock” of hopes, inspired by the historic Obama campaign, to suddenly fly off into the sunset!

Lemme Tell Ya a Little Story ‘Bout a Woman Named Sarah . . .

“Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast”

(leaked from a high ranking official in the McCain campaign)

It wasn’t too long ago that Sarah Palin was still on the campaign trail, rejecting accusations that she was using the RNC credit card to stock her wardrobe and sneak in a little back-to-school shopping for the kids, with the claim that “the clothes were going to charity.”

So how is it that even her own father admits that she spent the weekend in Wasilla sorting through her clothes, trying to figure out what she accidentally brought home with her?

Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, said his daughter spent the day Saturday trying to figure out what belongs to the RNC. “She was just frantically . . . trying to sort stuff out,” Heath said. “That’s the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for.”

So if it’s all on the up and up, then what’s with the frantic sorting? Apparently, RNC lawyers are now involved, “working with” Palin, presumably to make sure that she doesn’t swipe so much as a pair of underwear for Trig. I’m guessing they probably won’t stop until they find Piper’s Louis Vuitton handbag wrapped in saran wrap and a moose carcass and buried in the yard!

Not sure the Palins are endearingly funny enough for a “Wasilla Hillbillies” sitcom, but I think their story has potential for a new TV crime drama:

CSI Wasilla: Palin Clothes Detectives

Obama Sets the Stage for Governing

One of the great things that Barack Obama accomplished during his campaign, with increasing determination toward the latter stages, was to talk about the need for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to work together in order to address the serious problems facing the country. In a way, he has made cooperation and the affirmative act of trying to understand opposing viewpoints and work through them to find common goals into a seemingly patriotic act.

While he’s inspired voters to consider the possibility of personal sacrifice and hard work as their contribution to bringing about change, he has also begun to create an environment where it will be virtually impossible for a Republican minority to take an obstructionist stance toward moving forward with the policies Obama hopes to pursue.

Even if the Democrats don’t end up with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (and they still have a remote chance pending the results of a runoff in Georgia, a recount in Minnesota and, well, some sort of finding that Alaska Republicans are just too corrupt to participate in government), it will be very difficult for Republicans in Congress to continue the belligerent tactics often promoted by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House.

In an Obama Administration with a broad mandate and enthusiastic voter commitment and support, any Republican who appears to be dragging down America’s efforts to bring about the change it seems so hungry for, will be an immediate target to be ousted at the first opportunity, even in some of the more reliably conservative areas of the country.

And that backstabbing Joe Lieberman, whose ass has been kissed by Democratic leadership for far too long in an effort to keep him in the caucus and hold a majority, should be unceremoniously dumped. It doesn't matter whether he's in the caucus or not. He is now irrelevant, since even admitted Republicans will have to support Obama’s policies, at least grudgingly, in order to avoid looking like turds in the punchbowl!

Think about it this way: If the unpopular George Bush could use the presidential soapbox to shame Democrats into accepting policies that allowed torture and warrantless wiretapping by questioning their patriotism, just think what Obama will be able to do to Republicans who fight his policies, when those policies are sure to respect the constitution and seek to benefit all Americans!

More Thoughts on the California Ballot Measures

I’m always puzzled by the collective stupidity of Californians when it comes to ballot measures. In addition to the despicable passage of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (Prop 8), which I addressed in a previous post, here are a few other observations on the results:

The largest margin of victory came when 63.2% voted in favor of improved standards for confining farm animals (Prop 2). Yet the same population essentially voted 60.0% against "improved" standards for confining nonviolent drug offenders - by denying treatment as an alternative to prison (Prop 5). Question: Would Californians vote to tolerate non-violent drug use by farm animals, if it were shown to improve their living standards during confinement?

Californians voted 53.5% in favor of increased rights for crime victims (Prop 9), yet the largest margin of defeat came when 69.3% voted against increased funding for law enforcement (Prop 6). I guess they figure we might as well have as many victims as possible to take advantage of their newly won rights!

And finally, Californians rightly rejected a requirement for parental notification for teen abortions (Prop 4). However, the same population - which includes all of the religious zealots who lead the fight against both reproductive rights and gay rights - voted to ban gay marriage (Prop 8). Question: How about if we just allow gay marriage but don’t notify the religious zealots that it’s happening?

For Many Californians, Gay is the New Black . . . and Churches are the New Plantations!

There are surely a lot of Californians today who are viewing themselves as being oh so “sophisticated” and “forward thinking” because they were “open-minded” enough to cast their presidential ballot for an African-American candidate. They see themselves as being a vibrant part of the 21st century, standing on the winning side of an historic election that will change America.

And yet many of these same people voted for a constitutional amendment to remove rights of gays and lesbians by creating a permanent barrier that keeps the scary homosexuals at a second class status when it comes to the legal rights of marriage.

In contrast to the electoral map above showing the breakdown of counties with dark green for and light green against Proposition 8, here’s the equivalent map of counties supporting Obama and McCain. To the extent that these maps aren’t identically divided, we can basically identify pockets of bigotry disguised as enlightenment.


It is completely shameful that anyone would take pride in having helped elect Barack Obama, while at the same time helping to institutionalize discrimination that harkens back to the era of segregation!

If Proposition 8 holds up to legal challenges, which is far from certain, it will be extremely difficult to undo in a state that requires a two-thirds congressional majority for legislative constitutional amendments, and where gridlock is virtually ensured by the current districting practices.

However, I’m with Kos on the idea that the best way to respond to this odious proposition is to eliminate “marriage” as a legal construct altogether, and make all couples opt for a “civil union” in order to gain rights afforded by the state.

Then, we can let “marriage” be absolutely and completely between a couple and their God! Or their cult leader, or an ex-hippy circus clown, or their favorite mime, or whatever!

YES WE DID!

And it ain't even close....also....you betcha!

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama - but most of all congratulations to the citizen's of this great country!

Here's a little theme song for the evening




Barack 2012!

[Update by seenos] Here's my pick for quote of the night: GOP strategist Mike Murphy, shortly before Barack Obama officially clinched the presidency, on why he thinks it's over for McCain:

I've been doing some back of the napkin calculations in the back room with Dr. Smirnoff!

As for Ms. seenos and me, we're celebrating with Dr. Korbel!

This One Voted for That One!

Just Faces in the Crowd

Somehow, this shot captures the gravity of the historical moment that Barack Obama, and in fact, all of America (well, most of America) are right on the verge of achieving.

I love the way the people in the background are looking right past Bruce Springsteen and his wife, Patti Scailfa, as they all listen to Obama speak. Just a bunch of ordinary citizens who are hopeful and proud of their country!

Contrast this with McCain’s rallies, where even the people he buses in to give the impression of enthusiastic support welcome the distraction of getting an autograph from Joe the Plumber!

It Takes Some Talent to Get People to Laugh at a Train Wreck!

Oh my!



This has got to be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard, but kind of horrifying at the same time.

My first thought was that there’s no way Sarah Palin can admit that it was really her taking the phone call. But, sure enough, her campaign spokesperson just released a quick statement:

"Gov. Palin received a phone call on Saturday from a French Canadian talk show host claiming to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy," emailed spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie."

They actually think that they can spin this to show how much she has in common with other heads of state? Really?

How long do you think it’s taken anyone else, much less other heads of state like Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, to figure out they were being pranked by these guys? I must have counted a dozen lines that would have tipped me off, and that's if I ignored the silly french accent that sounded about as authentic as this guy's:



Stunning and side splitting all at the same time!

[Update 11:30 PM] I'm actually kind of surprised at the way the media has chosen to cover this. It seems they are pretty willing to cut Palin a lot of slack because she seemed good natured about the whole thing. And that would be fine, if she seemed like she was just going along with the joke! But there were several times when it was beyond obvious that it was, in fact, a joke - and Sarah was still trying to make serious (talking) points! It was blatantly clear that she was completely unaware of what was going on, right up until the time they told her it was a prank; and even then, she just blathered something about wanting to know the call letters from the pranksters' radio station, as if she thought that might be a passably intelligent thing to say in the immediate situation!

This woman is running to be second in succession for the most important job in the country, and she seems incapable of processing basic information! Instead, she instinctively tries to fake her way through any situation by stringing together words that sound as if they might be coming from a thinking, coherent person. It's really quite amazing that she's gotten any further than her limited success as a beauty pageant contestant!