When I talk to people who strongly oppose President Obama, I can usually predict what they think about President Bush by how they express that opposition. If they think that Obama is simply wrong on most of the vital issues facing the country, they usually think that Bush was a good president (or average, or excellent, but somewhere within the range of satisfactory). If they think that Obama is un-American, and suspect that he actually harbors a secret plan to injure the country, they usually think that Bush was a blithering idiot. I can usually find common ground for discussion with members of the first group -- which can be important when they're family -- but with the second it's like debating the drunk on the next barstool who says, "And let me tell you another thing, buddy…"islandboy5150 wrote:BTW, I too think Bush was a blithering friggin idiot.
One characteristic modern presidents have in common is that they convinced many thousands of people one-on-one that they were right for the job. Many of those people were highly intelligent and motivated judges of a candidate's character, charisma, and guts. They have plenty at stake, whether they are local politicians, contributors, or policy wonks who hope to implement their ideas. I don't think an idiot or a traitor can run that gauntlet. My favorite illustration of Bush's intelligence is an article by Nicholas Lemann that can be found at http://www.slate.com/ebooks/Sons%20Geor ... 20Gore.htm. It is convincing because Lemann is a liberal journalist who was most certainly not writing a puff piece (he makes a point of how little Bush had accomplished compared to most candidates) and because it was written in January 2000, so it is uncontaminated by later opinions about how the Bush presidency turned out. Bush wasn't a distinguished student, but there is little evidence that presidents who were, like Wilson and Clinton, systematically outperformed those who weren't, like Franklin Roosevelt or Reagan. What comes through is that Bush was a genius at connecting with people, quick and clever in an interview, and canny in his political knowledge. One example:
Dumb like a fox. I happen to think that the Bush administration made tragic mistakes, but the man was no blithering idiot. To dismiss him as one is to evade the hard work of figuring out what he did right, what he did wrong, and how we can do better next time. To say, "They're all idiots, they're all crooks," is an easy, lazy way out that excuses us from learning and thinking.A couple of months before I travelled with Bush in New Hampshire, I was granted a brief telephone interview. His sharpest, most alive answer by far came in response to the question of what lesson he had taken from his father's defeat in 1992. "First lesson, polls change," he said. "I take nothing for granted. Second, we've got a strategy for the timing of policy speeches. It's important to have a strategy and set the debate. In many ways, they didn't spend the capital wisely. It was reactive in many ways. It wasn't necessarily my dad's fault. It was a two-front war. You die a death of a thousand cuts in politics. Buchanan inflicted a lot of cuts, and then Perot picked it up. He got defined as somebody who didn't care about the domestic economy and how people were doing at home. They defined him before he could define himself."
By the same token, many thousands of smart, impressive people have attached themselves to the Obama campaign and presidency, and I frankly don't think they are all incapable of sniffing out someone who really doesn't give "a flying F*&^ about America." I have an interesting citation from a conservative observer, but I'm saving it for another post. Think, however, about what islandboy's opinion says of distinguished patriots like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or incoming CIA chief General David Petraeus. Both chose to accept appointments for what could be the final acts of lifelong careers in public service in political, policymaking roles as members of the Obama administration. Are they so unconcerned for their reputations, or so ambitious, as to serve a president they know intends to injure the country for the sake of a couple more years at the center of power? Or are they just a couple of stupid suckers duped into carrying out the orders of someone they should realize is an un-American, unpatriotic, deceptive, secretive liar? I believe both men are smarter than me about judging the character of presidents, and I sure as hell believe they're smarter than islandboy. But who can argue with what islandboy says he knows in his heart?
