A commenter at Djerejian’s touches on one of my favorite ideas that many rightwingers cannot or will not grok: one person may be both superlatively good at campaigning and at the same time superlatively awful at governing. It seems reasonable enough in theory but in practice never manages to penetrate.
People are always doing this, using “mediocrity” to describe someone completely out of his depth. In fact, the younger Bush is an exceptionally talented and disciplined campaigner, not only (or even primarily) because of he has the traditional politician’s people skills but also because he has mastered the mechanics of the modern American campaign. It is remarkable how seldom, during one of his campaigns for public office in the last 12 years, he has put a foot wrong; he has nearly always known what he had to do, when he had to do it. No national politician I can think of has gotten more electoral success relative to his skill at statecraft than Bush has. You can’t call him (or, really, anyone who serves two terms in the White House) a mediocre politician.
On the other hand history will record Bush as a wretched President: ignorant, lazy, unprincipled, deeply entitled, careless of the dignity of the office, easily rattled and anxious to hide it, disrespectful of those outside his circle, helplessly dependent on an exceptionally small group of subordinates on whom he relies not to accomplish specific tasks but to just to keep his administration functioning, contemptuous of all who preceeded him in the White House and indifferent to all who will come after — and, of course, much more interested in campaigning than governing. For over 200 years no American President ever let his Vice President be much more than a respectable ornament; this President can allow his Vice President to block efforts to rationalize policy on detainee treatment just so he won’t have to surrender any previously-won bureaucratic turf. I would never use the word “mediocre” to describe George W. Bush as a statesman.
…
Djerejian’s original post also raises the interesting question of how John McCain, whose maverick reputation seems ready to die a sad death, will react to the administration’s obvious attempt to render his torture amendment useless.
Stand on principle, or stand by your man? Tough call.
Jim Allen
Sadly, I’m betting “stand by your man” will win out in the end.
tBone
Up to now, I’d managed to never see that picture before. And now, I can never un-see it. Thanks a lot, Tim. :)
Thinking about McCain just depresses me. I wonder if he at least got a COD when he handed his balls over to the theo/neos?
John S.
It’s only a tough call for a small handful of the human population. For ideologues, politicians and demagogues it’s a no-brainer. They will gladly fall on their own sword and take one for the ‘team’.
yet another jeff
Doesn’t the Lyle Lovett version of the song play in your heads looking at that picture?
…give him two arms to cling to
and something warm to come to
when nights are cold and lonely….
KCinDC
It’s not a tough call. Of course he’ll cave, just as Specter did on the NSA spying investigation. Just as every “independent” Republican does when it comes time to do something more than mouth a few ultimately meaningless words in opposition to Bush’s latest outrage against the Constitution or against civilized behavior.
At this point, what possible reason is there to hold out any hope that any of them will grow a spine and start caring about principle?
Punchy
Call me crazy, but how can the Pentagon adjust the Army Field Manual so that it deliberately breaks the McCain law? I know about the signing statements, Bush’s desire to ignore the law, etc…but this is brazen. Obvious. Intentional.
Are they skirting the law through a technicality? Is McCain going to say anything?
CaseyL
No.
Presumably, McCain knew about the signing statement that rendered his much-ballyhooed Anti-Torture bill null and void. Did he say anything then? Has he said anything since?
No.
McCain’s another Arlen Spector: he isn’t a “maverick,” he just plays one on TV.
yet another jeff
James Garner was a much better Maverick than McCain ever could be.
RSA
John DiIulio was talking about this four years ago, that the Bush administration is all politics, no policy. It seems that the approach has spread to the entire Republican party, in particular in the Senate. John McCain is no exception; even though he has a reputation of being a maverick, it’s never with respect to policy decisions that actually matter.
snorkel
OK, I may be revealing my stupipdity or naivite, but what is the origin of the word in caps? Is it an acronym?
snorkel
“stupipdity” = stupidity, of course.
Andrew
The amazing thing is the fact that Bush is totally incompetant at governing is still getting play as any sort of new or original idea. Oh! Look! A “serious” moderate/conservative has come to understand that they were wrong!
It has been entirely clear since approximately 9/11/01 that Bush is a disaster.
The whole process of former hawks talking through their mistakes strikes me as a sad attempt to salvage undeserved credibility. You were wrong. Period. We’ve lost thousands of Americans and spent hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have while cutting taxes for the rich. Yeah, let’s go and ban gay marriage.
Until former Bush supporters start to actively campaign and work for Democratic control of Congress to investigate these criminals, they don’t deserve to have your opinions respected. They don’t deserve respect, at all. You supported a bad man. Failure to actively oppose him now means that you are a bad person too.
Jim Allen
I think it was a misstatement — probably should have been “receipt” (COD would be Cash On Delivery).
I like “stupipdity”, though. Lines up nicely with “misunderestimated”.
Davebo
AnotherJeff,
I’d have to go with another Lyle Lovett classic to explain McCain.
She wasn’t good, but she had good intentions.
And actually that’s giving him a huge benefit of the doubt.
tBone
My bad. I was referring to certificate of deposit, but COD usually refers to “cash on delivery.” Which works too in this context, I guess. :)
Davebo
Cod as in Cod piece ala mission accomplished on the flight deck.
Just a guess.
slickdpdx
This insight seems neither deep nor any more relevant to one group than another.
Tim F.
Yes, that is more or less the point.
Spoken as if you have never seen a rightie pull out the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to end a policy argument. New here?
RSA
Not surprisingly, this is an observation one sometimes hears about Bush from his fast-shrinking set of supporters. “Good” here in the sense of “competent” rather than the opposite of “evil”.
Al Maviva
Yeah Tim, we right wingers haven’t a clue that Rove’s triangulation divide & conquer strategy, doesn’t do a thing towards formulating effective policy or that most of the policy emanating from Rove & the DPC are merely highly manipulative, pandering offshoots of the Permanent Campaign. We haven’t a clue. Totally beyond us. We can’t figure out why the WH keeps screwing us over on key issues. Not a clue. We probably think it’s God’s will. Or maybe he’s using Satan to test us.
And Andrew, as always, it’s good to see that the guys on the keyboards are keeping up with the very tough talk about disrespecting conservatives unless they actively pursue goals that are invidious to what they believe. See, ordinarily, that would be considered scummy hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is a bad thing if you’re a principled left-liberal. Nothing worse than conservative hypocrisy, right? It’s perhaps the highest evil. But as long as its a conservative selling out his deepest beliefs in order to take revenge on crass Republican politicians… well, that’s something you can respect. Nice. I think you need to understand something, Andrew. Conservatives and right/libertarians who vote Dem this fall, or who stay home, will be doing so while holding their noses. It doesn’t make lib/cons loathe socialist positions any less, and the nature of the transaction, the attempted repudiation of Republicans who have sold out and become greedy, rent-seeking centrists-of-convenience, is more like self-amputation to get out from under a wrecked car, than a glorious awakening to the utopian beliefs that comprise left liberalism.
Brian
You know, Tim? Sometimes, the people are given the choice between worse and more worse. The choice between two evils. Maybe Bush was the “worse” and Kerry was the “more worse” in 2004. In the end, Bush was elected, and you can wave your arms in frustration all you want, but that’s the way it works. As a result, Bush is in the WH, and he’ll either be the most perfect president for our times, or the worst, and it may only depend on something as whether your name is Brian, or it’s Tim.
But you seem ever-frustrated that Cheney is given the power that he has. Have not all other VPs been mere hood ornaments? How dare Bush buck tradition and give his VP more influnce than is typical for the role?? But from where I sit, I would rather a VP have such influence than, say, the first lady (i.e. Hilary Clinton), who was not elected as part of the ticket. If anyone should be a hood ornament, it’s her.
Now, back to the subject of campaigning. The Dem’s are having continuing trouble at the polls, as evidenced by the election in California yesterday for Duke Cunningham’s seat. The Dem’s had EVERYTHING going their way: a disgraced and jailed member of the “culture of corruption”; dissatisfaction with the course of immigration legislation; a Democratic primary for state governorship; and a GOP candidate who was less-than-inspiring. Yet they still lost the race. And don’t tell me it was because of her ill-timed comments over last weekend, because from every pollster I’ve read, that affected the race marginally; she would have still lost.
The Dem’s have two problems working against them: 1) the Dem’s that are elected are poor tacticians who have again chosen a losing strategy (“culture of corruption!!”), and 2) their candidates are unelectable, even when things are completely slanted in their favor.
Tim F.
You’re a smart enough guy, Al, not to see ‘many’ and read ‘all.’
Punchy
I’m calling the police. Congress SPECIFICALLY stated ENGLISH as our national language. Latin, by means of being neither English nor comprehensible, is forbidden. Stick with the program, buddy.
Muchos gracias.
SeesThroughIt
Hell, that waste of oxygen Tom Cruise was a much better Maverick. I found McCain at least somewhat interesting and respectable right up until he groveled before Jerry Falwell. Anybody who courts Falwell deserves nothing but harsh contempt. You fucking blew it, Johnny.
I have always found humor in the prattle of partisans that their candidate won because of “superior ideas” that “resonate with the people” and all that crap. No, 9 times out of 10, the candidate won because of excellent campaigning–which, sadly, often is inversely proportional to governing skill. See: George W. Bush.
Steve
…EVERYTHING, by the way, except a 15-point registration advantage in favor of Republicans in this district, and a 20-point advantage among likely voters. The Dems had a lot going for them in this election, no doubt about it, but let’s not pretend it was a perfect storm. A 15-point partisan edge counts for a lot.
Andrew
Gee, Al. Thanks for the deep insight. I didn’t realize I asked Republicans to become leftists.
Any “honest” conservative or libertarian should be pushing for divided government. Here’s an update on the elections calendar: Bush will (probably) be president until 2009. A Democratic Congress will not suddenly be able to push unlimited welfare for gay black Muslim illegals, unless Bush is physiologically (as opposed to pathologically) unable to issue a veto.
The only think that will happen is to slow down the rapid expansion of government spending and power. That sounds awfully conservative to me. However, you still seem to be unable to separate the notion of conservative and Republican.
A divided government is fundamentally conservative. Supporting Republicans in Congress at this juncture is fundamentally radical.
John S.
Al is also smart enough to know when he sees something that he knows he can turn into a partisan diatribe.
Brian on the other hand isn’t that smart, but smart enough to know how to follow the way paved by guys like Al.
Brian
If California can elect a Republican governor, then a Democrat can win in a GOP district. It was a Democratic primary, for crying out loud. Democrats were going to the polls.
Busby LOST A RACE SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD IN THE BAG. And if you can’t win an election like that, then it’s not a good sign for you in November. After all, you can’t count on winning Donky strongholds; you need to win over the other guy. If you can’t do it on a day like yesterday, you’re fucked.
Fledermaus
Shorter Brian: Thank God the GOP can be hoplessly corrupt and not suffer any consequences.
Al Maviva
JohnS, show a little disrespect please, willya? I’m getting tired of your generally respectful tone.
srv
Al thinks there are conservatives out there. Heh.
John S.
Sorry, Al. You’re a douchebag.
=P
John S.
Sure, Brian. I’ll remind you of that when Katherine Harris LOST A RACE SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD IN THE BAG (I’m assuming the caps have some hidden effect of sincerity).
Brian
Hm, John S. When you put it that way, I can see how my comments might have been a little hyperbolic. Sorry, everyone. I thought that Busby had a reasonable chance of taking the seat, but she didn’t win and I might have overestimated her advantage in my comments above, while ignoring the structural advantage Bilbray had. It’ll be interesting to see analyses over the next few weeks to really get a feel for how much of a predictor this might be for the midterms.
.
.
.
KIDDING!
ImJohnGalt wrote this, but wouldn’t it be refreshing?
demimondian
Remember, Al, that the first step towards recovery lies in admitting you’ve got a problem.
“Hi! My name’s Al, and…I’m a conservative.”
tBone
Eh, I don’t know. Reasoned analysis is nice and all, but would it have killed you to throw in some ALL CAPS and a gratuitous reference to buttplugs?
ImJohn Galt
Hey, the “KIDDING!” was for extra-special sincerity.
SeesThroughIt
You forgot about mandatory abortion.
Brian: To be fair, Arnie’s not exactly the most conservative Republican you’re going to come across. He parts company with Bush on a lot of issues–particularly social ones–and this mix of political/economic conservative leanings and socially liberal leanings made him at least intriguing to voters. Of course, he’s also pretty much squandered his opportunity to make progress in the state and is generally unliked at this point, but he got into office in the first place by acting like a liberal/conservative mix rather than being a straight-up conservative.
Perry Como
I’d take an honest conservative any day over the douchebaggery that we have these days.
Steve
My wife was quite shocked the other day to find out that I am not, raging liberal that I am, a registered Democrat. I told her, “I hope to be able to vote for a Republican again someday.”
“Not in our lifetime!” she responded. But I still hold out hope. The Republicans had a reasonable agenda, once upon a time.
slickdpdx
Tim: Another problem, who would consider Bush a good campaigner?!
Bruce Moomaw
If McCain is nominated and the Dems have any political sense (which, alas, they usually don’t), they will plaster that photo of the Intimate Moment between him and Bush everywhere there’s room for it — especially if it’s accompanied by McCain’s statements that we absolutely must stay in Iraq even though he doesn’t have the slightest idea of how we’re going to win the war.
stickler
Not to pick nits on a dead thread, but this, from Brian:
… shouts out, “I don’t know jack shit about current events!”
The vote that Busby nearly won was NOT a “democratic primary,” it was a special election to fill the Duke-stir’s seat until November.
When Brian finishes seventh grade, he’ll probably be a little more up to speed on how “elections” work in this country.
ppGaz
Spoofing, like being president, is Hard Work.