I'm trying to figure why you wrote that, Kevin. Instructions from your WaMo overlords?

What did Bush say in 2000 he was going to do that he has actually done?

Enact a More Humble Foreign Policy?

Be a Uniter not a Divider?

Begin a New Era of Compassionate Conservatism?

Sounds to me like Bruce Bartlett is jumping on board the 'Incompetency Dodge' Train. Everyone else better hurry. Seats are filling up fast!

Krugman made a related point in the Times this morning. He suggested examining the candidates' policy proposals, and briefly compared those on health care. Turns out, however, that none of the Republicans has made any policy proposal. Giuliani's proposal doesn't provide health care, just a tax cut. Edwards and Obama have similar proposals, but HRC has similarly advoided making one.

So pay attention to what they say, if they say anything.

What Model 62 and gussie said. Regulate CO2. Restore honor and dignity. Vast majority of tax cuts go to bottom. Etc. Everything Bush said in 2000 was a lie.

But what is the Democrats' dodge? Even when they are in majority in both the houses, they seem to be afraid to offend the sensibities of some people who, if so offended, will apparently cause disaster for the party. The identity of this group of people is a great mystery, as most Americans oppose the Iraq war, and, if asked, will certainly not like to transform our nation into one where the government can listen in our private conversations without any real controls.

Wait! I though Bush's speechwriter said the problem was that Bush didn't actually believe the words that the writer kept trying to put in his mouth. So which is it: did Bush totally buy into his own rhetoric, or was he totally divorced from it? Fanatic or cynic? Zombie or Machiavel?

What takes up all the time isn't figuring out what the candidates are going to do, but the horse race coverage.

From the second Bush/Gore debate, October 2000;
'MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.'

actually [take] presidential candidates at their word

Hannah Arendt made this point about sixty years ago.

We all know that Hillary Clintonisn't a dim bulb, but for the life of me I don't know what she really believes. Everything she says and does is carefully planned by Team Clinton.

Our job is to figure that is to get past Team Clinton and figure out if Hillary has any real substance and if so, what she really believes. If we bloggers just take what the campaign's say as gospel, we could be kicking ourselves by the end of 2009. Maybe we should all read Carl Bernstein's new book "A Woman In Charge." Unlike his old running buddy Woodward, I still have some confidence in Bernstein.

It didn't help, in 2000, that the media was all ga-ga over GWB and the Naderites were out claiming that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. It was an easy year in which to be stupid. Still, as with the Iraq war, it was possible to see through the hype. The New Republic had Bush nailed early on, but who listens to them.

If we actually took presidential candidates at their word, political pundits would still be just as important. But, jeepers, the poor bastards would actually have to work for their living not just opine. Fact-checking presidential candidates would itself be a full-time job, but imagine trying to analyze their approaches and policies? That's what would drive 90% out of the field.

I am a compassionate conservative. I hoped that Bush wouldn't be too bad.

I voted for Gore so don't blame me.

However, there are a bunch of compasionate conservatives around. Bloomberg, Corzine, Rubin come to mind but there are a bunch of people who fit the bill. However, EVERY single one of them is Democrat.

dummy, dimwit, dimbulb, dingbat...dubya... Those words all start with a "d". Methinks there is something a bit suspicious about that. I don't think it is just a coincidence... Queue the Twilight Zone theme yet again.

I've always liked Bartlett, but essentially he's saying this: I didn't say the things I was thinking during Campaign 2000.

This strikes me as a strange admission.

I don't think taking politicians at their word would really help much, and George Bush is the reason why. When he was running in 2000, he lied about half the time. He was telling the truth when he said he would be more aggressive against Iraq. He was lying when he said he supported a carbon tax. There only way to approach a candidate like Bush is to sort through what he says and compare it to past actions and the desires of his campaign contributers. His past history in Texas would indicate that he was not a small government conservative and that he would never do anything the oil industry didn't want. His campaign contributers would indicate that he would have a militaristic foreign policy that defended the interests of the oil industry. So, every position that George Bush took once in office was predictable based on past performance and campaign obligations. But these positions were not predictable by merely believing (or disbelieving) what Bush said during the campaign.

The identity of this group of people is a great mystery..

Not really, Gregor. The people they're afraid of are the US Media, who will say mean things about them if they rock the boat too much.

And Kevin - you're kidding about taking politicans' words at face value, aren't you?

"See that 200-pound dog? He may be snarling, frothing at the mouth and straining to get loose from his chain - but he won't bite you, because I said he's a harmless little puppy."

Good luck with that.

Considering the Republican Crazies think government is the problem is it any wonder their policy suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Considering Republican Crazies say they want to shrink government to where it can easily be drown in a teacup, but actually spend like drunken sailors should we really give them any credence or power?

Considering it was the Republican Party which 'selected' Dubya to be their nominee should we EVER trust the Republican party to nominate a sane person.

bob somerby: [he] didn't say the things [he] was thinking during Campaign 2000.

This strikes me as a strange admission.

Is there a 7-yr. statute of limitations on Stupid Punditry?

I can understand voting for someone even though you cynically (and all too often correctly) assume that none of the words spilling out of his (or her) mouth represent true convictions. You still need some reason to vote for the candidate, some theory of what the candidate is really about and might be expected to do in office. But Bartlett doesn't really explain what he thought he was going to get in a Bush 43 presidency and why he thought so. There's a vague reference to Bush 41, suggesting that Bartlett thought 43 was a cipher and the grown-ups would re-run Bush 41, and that would be acceptable, but he doesn't actually say that. We know what Bartlett DIDN'T believe. What DID he believe, and why?

As an excuse, "I voted for him because I thought he was stupid, malleable and a liar" isn't exactly the best I've ever heard....

"I've always liked Bartlett"

Bartlett is a long time Scaife/Bradley employee who made his comfortable living twisting economic data to provide misleading arguments for use by health insurers in their long campaign to enhance profits by reducing their claims losses and shift payment burdens onto their insureds and the government (aka - HSA's).

What's to "like"? Oh, he must be a nice guy.

I think Mr Bartlett is referring to the 2000 Bush fiscal policy and tax cuts that did not add up. Bush was stupid, lying or both. Mr Bartlett came to the conclusion that Bush was lying. So Mr Bartlett is more than willing to support someone who he more or less had to be lying to the American people? and was being dishonest about debate?

To me, this is the BIG problem with Republicans. Republicans support a lot of policies that are downright unpopular. So they try to "spin" them or lie about them. They won't be honest and take the consequences at election time. So they get in office, enact very unpopular programs and the vast majority of Americans hate them. The solution is for the voting public to see Republicans the same way Mr Bartlett does- liars.

The reason Kevin's suggestion isn't grounded in reality is that the political world now regards election campaigns as The Main Event. What happens in government afterwards is something candidates, even candidates for President, think they can just improvise.

As Bartlett says, the issue isn't whether candidates mean what they say. Actual conscious efforts to deceive are still pretty unusual, especially at the Presidential level, partly because the opposition is always looking for precisely that kind of thing. Instead, candidates are focused on what will get them through the election -- and once the election is over their first priority quickly becomes doing the things that will get them through the next election. Government is an afterthought.

This isn't a philosophical proposition, persuasive enough to have gained conscious adherents over the years. It's simply the way politics has developed. In Campaign World -- and this includes a vast industry devoted to servicing the permanent campaign as well as a substantial part of the media -- the standard for success is one's dedication to and skill with the mechanics of the permanent campaign. That's all. You don't get bonus points for having achieved great things in public life.

By that standard George W. Bush was golden in 2000. He was and is a talented campaigner, a tireless fundraiser, a shrewd judge of political trends. He wouldn't have become President otherwise. The problem is that his skills in Campaign World weren't the things he needed to be an adequate President.

It's important that we understand this is not an aberration, let alone a partisan phenomenon. The Democrats, for example, are now proposing to answer the Bush years with a candidate who claims vast experience through all the years she spent as Bill Clinton's wife. On its face the claim is laughable, especially compared to the records of other Democratic candidates (specifically, and tellingly, the ones who have no chance of winning) this year.

But this is true only if we are talking about government. In Campaign World, remember, achievement in government doesn't count. The campaign is what counts, and by that standard Hillary Clinton is not just ahead of the Democratic field, she is way ahead. No one in her party is as dedicated to the mechanics of the permanent campaign as Sen. Clinton. It's what she does. It's what she is.

Anyone looking for the reason the United States is in the process of handing the Presidency back and forth between just two families for decades at a time need look no farther than this. It's not what candidates say that's important; it's what they do. There's a science to advancing in Campaign World; there are rules explaining how some candidates can do it, and why some can't. And it is as certain as the sun rising in the east that the only way the United States will ever elect a President in this environment able to match the achievements of the abler men who have held the office in the past is by accident.

I have posted a comment here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/what-did-i-say-.html

By the way, I have never worked for Scaife or Bradley or had any dealings with them whatsoever.

cj: But Bartlett doesn't really explain what he thought he was going to get in a Bush 43 presidency and why he thought so.

well..

i'll bet at the very least he wasn't voting for..

a liar and incompetent...

Shorter Bartlett:

I didn't believe a word he said, I voted for him anyway, and now I'm surprised that things are f*cked up.

Doc at the Radar Station: dummy, dimwit, dimbulb, dingbat...dubya... Those words all start with a "d". Methinks there is something a bit suspicious about that. I don't think it is just a coincidence...

The Dictionary of "Dubya"
doofus, dingleberry, denier, dork, dick, dumbbell, degenerate, dirtbag, dastard, downer, dictator, delinquent, destroyer, dullard, dunderhead, dolt, dotard, disease, disaster, driveler, dry drunk, dabbler, deceiver, dissembler, Dementor, devil, demon, dangerous, dizzy, dismal, delusional, deplorable, detestable, discourteous, dishonorable, deranged, damned

Actual conscious efforts to deceive are still pretty unusual, especially at the Presidential level

I assume Zathras was asleep during the selling of the Iraq War...

Posted by: Zathras on August 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM

That might be the best comment I have ever read here or anywhere.

OK Zathras, are we all just screwed? Has American politics just turned into some sort of giant NASCAR race with various professional teams pushing their cars around the track, drivers (candidates) completely interchangable? What do we do about Campaign World?

Bartlett was in mainstream punditworld when he argued that Bush was the lesser of two evils.

The pundits were idiots then and are idiots now. If you thought that Bush would be better than Gore, then your judgement was horrible and probably still is. Please do the world a favor by not commenting on or voting in future elections.

Although Bush's liberal policies disappointed conservatives, they didn't make liberals happy. Liberals don't thank Bush for adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare, which they portray as a gift to big phara. They attack No Child Left Behind, even though it included a 42% increase in federal education spending the year NCLB went into effect.

Didn't people say the same about Hitler? "I didn't think he meant all that!"

"ex-liberal" wrote: Although Bush's liberal policies disappointed conservatives

Bullshit. Those "disappointed" conservatives voted for Bush in droves, to the ringing praise of the entire conservative media. "ex-liberal" is just trying, dishonestly as usual, to distance his neocon cabal from Bush's record of failure, mendacity, incompetence and corruption (the "tyranny" part "ex-liberal" and his neocon ilk are just fine with, of course).

I know it gives you a sick thrill to post the most disingenuous, bad-faith arguments here you can, "ex-liberal," but that dog won't hunt. Bush and conservatism are co-branded, and if there's a single bright spot in the whole sorry mess that is Bush's legacy of failure, it's that he's singlehandedly ruined the Republican Party's decades-long branding effort in "strong on defense," while idiots like you cheered him on.

Jackass.

I wonder if they'll let us stop listening to the punditry...

ex-: Liberals don't thank Bush for adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare, which they portray as a gift to big phara.

Gee, having people pay more for drugs and supporting massive corporate welfare is a liberal idea?

I guess ex-thinker would be a more appropriate tag.

You've gotta love Republicans. 'I believed everything Bush said seven years ago, but that was wrong. Now, I believe everything Romney and Giuliani say. Trust me--either one would be a decent President, definitely better than Clinton or Obama.'

parrot makes a good point, but it would be even better if they put somebody on my TV set who understood politics.

The pundit who got Bush 43 exactly right in election year 2000 was Molly Ivins. Go read Shrub; and wish that more of us had listened.

Bush and conservatism are co-branded....

Posted by: Gregory on August 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
------------------------------

What does it say about the 25% who still support Bush?

Dim bulb imcompetent who led this nation into the worst foreign policy disaster since Napoleon invaded Russia--still supported by 25% of the population.

On what grounds?

But Bush was obviously a complete moron. It didn't matter what he said!!
Bartlett needs a better excuse.

I don't have good answers to corpus juris's questions upthread at 1:51. That isn't to say good answers do not exist; they can be drawn out of our own long history. I'm just not sure how I can make them effective right now.

"There only way to approach a candidate like Bush is to sort through what he says and compare it to past actions and the desires of his campaign contributers."

I think that is right, and it is something you have to do for any candidate. With one as obviously (once you start the process of investigating his past, and listening to what he is saying) deceitful as Bush his past actions become the only useful measure of the candidate, but it is very useful for all of them.

Frontline does a biography of each presidential candidate soon before the election, just going over their life from birth to the present. Bush's was pathetic. The fact that a man like Bush could be the presidential nominee of the republican party was proof that the party had gone completely off the rails.

Duh,

Any half wit with two brain cells knew Bush was lying about EVERYTHING in 2000, except the tax cuts.

People didn't CARE, 2000 was about unverifying Clinton and the success of the LIBERAL administration.

Zathras, you are not correct. Clinton did a lot besides campaign. Bush did a lot besides campaign, also, you just don't like what he did.

Campaiging is what it has always been, saying things to get people to vote for you. The difference is that in the past, what you said during the campaign had to match what you did in office, or you would get villified by the press.

See the problem, now?

Nick: What does it say about the 25% who still support Bush?

the radical fringe don't know they are the radical fringe..

they think they are the victims...

Kevin says: "What if we actually took presidential candidates at their word and quit playing the game of looking for ulterior motives in everything they do?"

Fine. At the GOP debate the other day, John McCain said Democrats want the US to "surrender" in Iraq. So he believes that the Democrats want the US Army to offer its arms to the enemy and present the troops as prisoners. Let's ask him to prove this. Give us the names of the Democrats who have made this proposal. And let's don't relent until we get an honest answer.

"By the way, I have never worked for Scaife or Bradley or had any dealings with them whatsoever"

Mr. Bartlett's former employer, National Center for Policy Analysis, is primarily funded by the main wingnut foundations, including Scaife, Bradley, Olin, etc. Regardless of the serious sounding names these people put on the "policy" organizations they fund, they serve one purpose, to forward the wingnut agenda of those families. Mr. Bartlett plays cute, but he knows who funded his paychecks as well as I do.

Sorry, not Olin. That was habit, he's usually right there with the rest of these freaks. But the rest, yes. Bradley, in particular. That's where the big money is, as I'm sure Mr. Bartlett is well aware.

We wouldn't have been led astray if only we had believed everything Bush said in the 2000 campaign? Nice try, but that one doesn't pass either the laugh- or the sniff-test. Remember Shrub's line about "compassionate conservatism"? How about his lingo about being "a uniter, not a divider" and "restoring dignity and honor to the office of the Presidency"? And most all, what about his assertions that the U.S. should be "a humble nation" not about to embark on reckless "nation-building"? What a joke.

1001 conservatives in search of an alibi.

david, you don't even need to go that far. Bartlett has a contract for two articles a week for The Washington Times.

He sure tries hard to sound reasonable, though.

A little data on Bruce Bartlett's homies.

Kevin, why don't you let us know these things? We don't care what no stinking wingnut shills say!

Here's what has to be the wingnut story of the day:

GOP State Rep. Bob Allen today explained his recent arrest for paying $20 to preform oral sex on an undercover cop by explaining that the guy was big, and black and he thought he "was about to be a statistic."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=post_4498&4

Dorothy, we ain't on the plantation anymore.

Anyone who doesn't compare what a candidate says with his/her actions is an idiot. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots in this country. And even more unfortunately many of them are "intelligent" (just like Mr. Bartlett).
If Mr. Bartlett is upset at Bush now, why wasn't he upset in 2000? Because even a conservative who lies to his supporters is better than no conservative? (Those focus groups.) If he lies to his supporters how do you know he's a conservative? And who, in the Bush camp, pushed the idea that Bush was a bit of dim bulb? Mr. Bartlett didn't see anything unusual in that? (I'm assuming he didn't get that from us "liberals".)
So basically we're supposed to feel sorry for Bartlett because he supported Bush in 2000 based on what some "insider" must have told him; that the Bush campaign was just lies to sucker the voters and fully expecting that Bush wasn't really going to be running the country, but that the conservative agenda would still go ahead?
Of course if the conservatives had a platform that didn't require them to lie to get votes...
D.E. Stamate
USN (ret)

The only people who mattered in 2000 were on the Supreme Court. What Bartlett thought or for whom he voted was as irrelevant then as now.

What if we actually took presidential candidates at their word and quit playing the game of looking for ulterior motives in everything they do?

Then we would believe all kinds of bizarre things like that George Bush really was a "compassionate conservative" dedicated to bipartisanship and being a uniter, not a divider.

Rather than thinking that that rhetoric was all motivated by an ulterior motive to of making Bush seem palatable to an electorate to whom his real intentions would be unacceptable right-wing extremism.

Oh, sure, much of those real intentions were also evident in things Bush said, but the trick to finding them isn't to stop looking at what is behind the politicians statements entirely (because then you'd be forced to give those lies as much credit as the revealing statements, and you'd be left nowhere), but to actually be good at separating out the truth from the lies, which means (surprisingly enough) doing a better job of sussing out the underlying motives, not abandoning that effort.

somerby nails it.

shorter bruce bartlett: you didn't deserve the truth in 2000, but please believe me now.

In the linked-to post, Bartlett lauds GWHB for being at least "serious and responsible."

Does that mean Bartlett himself has now given up his support for supply-side econ?

Mr. Bartlett has also expressly endorsed lying to the public in pursuit of public office.

Per Somerby, here's Bartlett in an op ed piece earlier this year: “[a]s one who was present at the creation of ‘supply-side economics’ back in the 1970s.� Lickety-split, Bartlett echoed some of the points that Yglesias made:

BARTLETT (4/6/07): The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues...

So, no, I don't think Bartlett has given up supply side economics but then he never engaged in the distortions of it like Rush and Sean inter alii.