I'm well aware that various conservative pundits have bailed on George W. Bush over the past year, but now (slap forehead here) he's got a real problem: The funniest one has jumped ship.
It's one thing if a chin-stroking, throat-clearing columnist eruditely explores the geopolitical setbacks of the Bush foreign policy. I mean, wake me when it's over.
But when the sharp-eyed satirist Christopher Buckley http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.buckley.html turns his quill against the president, boy, alert the zeitgeist police. Buckley is, after all, the author of "Thank You For Smoking," which became a major motion picture. He is also a loyal Republican.
So when Buckley unloads on the president -- and without a lot of cheap gags -- it gets my attention. The piece is in the Washington Monthly:
Advertisement
"I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. In 2004, I could not bring myself to pull the same lever again. Neither could I bring myself to vote for John Kerry, who, for all his strengths, credentials, and talent, seems very much less than the sum of his parts. So, I wrote in a vote for George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom I worked as a speechwriter from 1981 to '83. I wish he'd won. . . .
"Who knew, in 2000, that 'compassionate conservatism' meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief? Who knew, in 2000, that the only bill the president would veto, six years later, would be one on funding stem-cell research? A more accurate term for Mr. Bush's political philosophy might be incontinent conservatism. . . .
"Despite the failures, one had the sense that the party at least knew in its heart of hearts that these were failures, either of principle or execution. Today one has no sense, aside from a slight lowering of the swagger-mometer, that the president or the Republican Congress is in the least bit chastened by their debacles. George Tenet's WMD 'slam-dunk,' Vice President Cheney's 'we will be greeted as liberators,' Don Rumsfeld's avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves 'neo-conservative' (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform), have thus far: de-stabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran, and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others' throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000 -- with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. . . .
Advertisement
"What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back? One place comes to mind: the back benches. It's time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds."
Could a new group be forming: Republicans for Pelosi?
Oh, and by the way, check out this AP report: "I know Iraq is a mess and we have screwed up seven ways from Sunday."-- Sen. Lindsey Graham http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/11/358160-sen-graham-us-screwed-up-in-iraq, (R-S.C.). He adds, however, that "the fundamental idea behind Iraq is still correct."
American Prospect's Greg Sargent http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/09/post_352.html#006296 says the MSM fell for the White House line in framing Monday's Oval Office address:
Advertisement
"The big news orgs have been pushing the idea that the White House's planned commemmoration of Sept. 11 was somehow intended as apolitical -- when it wasn't intended that way at all. Check out how the New York Times characterized the Dem reaction to President Bush's speech Monday night using 9/11 to defend his disastrous war in Iraq:
"Mr. Bush's address brought to a close a day when leaders of both parties put aside, at least for the moment, the acrimony that has characterized the national security debate since the brief period of national unity after the attacks. But as soon as the speech was over, the partisanship flared again . Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the president 'should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning' to justify his Iraq policy.
"Got that? The partisanship only 'flared' after the president's speech, when Dems attacked him for it. But here's what the president said: " 'Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.'
Advertisement
"Okay, so Bush didn't name Dems. But he used his Sept. 11 address to deliver precisely the same message that Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove and other GOP strategists have explicitly described as the GOP's central message in the midterm elections -- that those advocating a pull-out from Iraq are putting American lives at risk."
At Americablog, John Aravosis http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/just-saw-this-on-corner.html says the speech was "all about Iraq. Surprise. What a pathetic little man. Rather than give a speech that Ronald Reagan might give, about our sorrow and the hope for our future, Bush decided to go political, giving the nation a laundry list of how great he is, how wonderful HE has done, and by implication, why everyone should vote Republican in the fall. The man is simply pathetic. Today isn't about Iraq. It's about the dead. It's about our grief. And about our future. It's about all of us. But it is most certainly not about Iraq nor George Bush's personal report card."
The New Republic's Jonathan Chait http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060911&s=chait091206 can barely contain himself over Bush's terror tack:
Advertisement
"The Bush administration has decided to stake the 2006 elections on Bush's record of fighting terrorism. It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. He let our worst enemies escape; he is on the verge of creating a terrorist haven in Iraq where none existed before; and this is the issue he picks to highlight. Why not run on his record of evacuating New Orleans? Maybe Bill Clinton can run on his record of chastity!
"Of course, Bush doesn't really want to be judged on his record of fighting terrorism as much as his image. Republicans want you to think about him on that rubble pile and of his vow to bring bin Laden to justice 'dead or alive,' rather than whether bin Laden actually has been brought to justice.
"Bush's defenders insist that his paramount contribution to the war against Islamic radicalism is 'moral clarity.' Moral clarity means keeping in mind that even if we're not perfect, we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. The president's defenders are correct that having moral clarity is a necessary condition for fighting evil. What they fail to realize is that it's not a sufficient condition.
Advertisement
"There are millions of teenage boys who have moral clarity but who are nonetheless unqualified to lead the free world against jihadists."
The qualifications of teenage boys aside, shouldn't Bush's anti-terror efforts be judged by more than the capture or non-capture of Osama?
The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/12/on_the_stump_all_enemies_are_equal/ has an interesting analysis of the president's rhetorical approach:
Share this articleShare"Despite the public's misgivings about some of President Bush's strategic decisions, one approach to the war on terrorism that is likely to outlive his administration is his way of selling the war to the American people.
"In his blitzkrieg of 9/11 speeches, Bush has lumped together numerous countries, foreign leaders, religious figures, and political movements under one banner -- as supporters of terrorism -- and ignored the differences among them.
Advertisement
"On the stump, this conveys a sense of moral clarity, of a battle between good people and evil people, suggesting a clean distinction can be made. But it also has led to a widespread misunderstanding -- that all the people cited by Bush are working in concert against the United States.
"This has become the way many Americans perceive the war on terrorism. It is why 43 percent of Americans questioned in a CNN poll last week said they think Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. And now, a similar blurring of distinctions is marking the language of Republican presidential contenders."
In yesterday's primary voting, the Senate's most liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, survives:
Philadelphia Inquirer http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/15504109.htm: "On one level, the campaign was a test of the nation's anti-incumbent mood less than two months before the midterm election that will determine which party controls Congress."
Advertisement
The argument made by the new Democratic nominee, Sheldon Whitehouse: " "The fact that the Republican establishment scrambled to back Chafee in the primary shows that -- despite his record of breaking with the party -- his reelection would bring a huge benefit to Bush and the GOP Congress," reports the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/13/chafee_beats_laffey_in_tight_ri_primary/.
Andrew Cuomo http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stag0913,0,5460166.story?coll=ny-top-headlines made a comeback by winning the nomination for New York attorney general.
Another candidate has gotten into trouble for leaking against his rival, reports the LAT http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-091206audio,0,2108783.story?coll=la-center-politics-cal:
"The campaign of Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Treasurer Phil Angelides today said it was the source of audiotapes of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that were published last week by The Times.
"Campaign officials said a researcher obtained the tapes legally from Schwarzenegger's website.
"A day earlier, Schwarzenegger administration officials had said the tape was downloaded from a password-protected section of the governor's computer system and thus was unauthorized and 'a breach of one or more security protocols.' "
This was the tape in which Schwarzenegger said an assemblywoman was "hot" because she had black and Latino blood.
A note of realism here? Look at this NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/washington/13chertoff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin piece:
"Congress and the American public must accept that the government cannot protect every possible target against attack if it wants to avoid fulfilling Al Qaeda's goal of bankrupting the nation, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate committee Tuesday."
And just when you thought you'd never hear from him again:
"Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey spilled his guts to Oprah yesterday about the years he spent living as a closeted 'gay American,' but Oprah's audience was unimpressed," says the New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/452060p-380350c.html.
"Oprah swore the audience to secrecy at the taping of her show, which airs Sept. 19 -- the same day that McGreevey's memoir, 'The Confession,' hits store shelves.
"If the reaction of her fans who watched the taping are any indication, McGreevey's musings -- for which he reportedly got a $500,000 advance -- could be a tough sell.
" 'Not impressed with him or his story,' one woman who declined to give her name said after she left Harpo Studios, the Chicago home of 'The Oprah Winfrey Show.' "
The Associated Press responds http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003120636 to that snippet from a 2000 Iraqi intelligence document about getting information from an AP source:
"An AP employee who provides a government official in any nation with a copy of a published AP story is providing public information, not espionage services."
Joe Wilson http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/033 is no longer paying for The Washington Post: "My conclusion about their editorial was that the editorial board cannot be bothered to read the news pages of its own newspaper -- so why, then, should I subscribe to the newspaper? I cancelled my subscription. I'll get my news from somewhere else, and I would encourage others to do so."
The former ambassador was reacting to this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html editorial, which said: "It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson."
David Frum http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24882/pub_detail.asp says Bush was clever to put Democrats on the spot over the issue of trials for terror detainees, but then John McCain "revealed his trick: He immediately produced his own version of the President's bill--but one calculated to appeal more to Democrats and the media.
"McCain has been performing variations on this same trick for a decade now: vibrating back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, always to intense media acclaim. Can a man really become president in this way?"
Maybe not, for Frum cites the example of McCain's pal Joe Lieberman.
"Conservative Republicans likewise do not trust John McCain. And candidates who cannot win the trust of their parties do not win their parties' primaries."
New Republic owner Marty Peretz http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=37054 is now blogging:
"Contemporary journalism is afflicted by sheer amnesia. It . . . has no grasp of grand history. That is axiomatic. Journalists don't even pretend to know history. They also don't know the sheer facts of yesterday, and this they do purport to know. Which means they interview fools and knaves as if they were wise and good. Every time I see Al Sharpton on television, I wonder why this great and phantasmagorical liar is being put forward as a witness to anything. Has journalism no judgement? Is this what is meant by objectivity?"
All of which spurs this insta-critique by Slate's Jack Shafer http://www.slate.com/id/2149361/:
"He never identifies the stupid journalists, but by the end of the item Peretz adds some much-needed specificity to the post with an example: He's angry at the TV press for interviewing Al Sharpton! . . .
"Number of words: 1,500. Number of self-references: 28. Number of $10 words: 2 ('tocsin' and 'phantasmagorical'). Number of stupid comparisons: 1 (the Republicans are like Sen. Joe McCarthy because they have the 'habit' of referring to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat Party,' just as Joe did). Number of foreign words or phrases: 1 ('par excellence'). Number of grammatical errors flagged by Microsoft Word: 1 (he writes 'It's' when he means 'Its'). Number of sentences that begin with 'And': 9. Number of British spellings: 1 (he writes 'judgement' twice)."
Welcome to cyberspace, Marty.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZK6zr8eirZ5nkqrAqrrErKporJWYta%2B7y6iesmdiZX13e49yZmprX6m1orrKZrCorV2bvLN50qGYq6GenHx3rcVwb52dYmKzen6XZmtpmmlihXKwl2adbWtml4aifcGdbW9n