That autograph business is the sort of thing I'd never think of doing -- I never claimed to be a politician -- but I can't imagine why, once the idea came up, anyone with either a shred of humanity or an ounce of political sense would refuse, especially if the person asking is an important member of your own party.
How did the idea that W is a regular guy you'd want to have a beer with ever get started?

It is obvious that 50.00001 % is an overwhelming majority.

Bush is doing god's work, he don't care what we think.

Rove epitomizes the sickness at the heart of American electoral politics: that it's possible to be good at winning elections but terrible at governing. That the two could become such different skills is itself a deeply worrying phenonmenon. After all, we should elect people who can govern, right? Why else would we want to elect someone? What other skills or qualities should matter? And how did we get to where we are now -- where the skills and qualities that are selected in a campaign have so little to do with effective government. Rove welcomed and in fact reinforced this split. Good riddance.

When the Conservative movement is run out of Washington on a rail, there's going to be a desperate demand for scapegoats.

Rove has made for some pretty easy pickings.

Nothing fails like failure.

The "card signing" anecdote is another interesting tid-bit that reveals the pathology of the Bush Admin's thinking.

Do you think that Bush and Rove conferred about the pros and cons of signing Armey's name tags prior to the time Armey made his request? Probably not.

My guess is that Bush refused to sign the name tag precisely because it was something that Clinton had done.

But he knew that when I left his office, the first schoolkid I came across would be given that card
"Bush refused to sign the card. Rove, who was sitting across the table, said, 'It would probably wind up on eBay,'" Armey continued.

Kevin, do you know there is a huge drug/crack problem in the DC area for poor minority kids? The school kid who got the card would have sold it on ebay, and then used his money to buy drugs and smoke dope. How could you support such a thing?

And yet congress has from that day till now bent over for these guys and taken it.

Of course, nothing was said about this until W and Rove were both clearly on the way out. And such treatment didn't trigger off for Armey the thought that perhaps these guys weren't to be trusted and that additional oversight and restrictions would be needed from Congress to keep them in check. Nope - all ahead full on the Rove-O-Throttle.

Until they were caught.

Cranky

Chief,

That's my thought exactly - Rove was great at winning 50.00001% of vote - the other 49..9999% can go "F" themselves in the Rove/Bush world.

The best book title for the Bush Presidency will be "Squandered - the Wasted Opportunities of the Bush Years".

But he knew that when I left his office, the first schoolkid I came across would be given that card. "Bush refused to sign the card. Rove, who was sitting across the table, said, 'It would probably wind up on eBay,'" Armey continued.

Kevin, do you know there is a huge drug/crack problem in the DC area for poor minority kids? The school kid who got the card would have sold it on eBay, and then used his money to buy drugs and smoke dope. How could you support such a thing?

Posted by: Al on August 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Yep, Al, the halls of the House and Senate office buildings are just swamped by kids from Anacostia and Northeast looking for presidential autographs to help support their drug habit.

Actually, Dick Armey comes out pretty good in the anecdote. I probably disagree with him on a vast majority of political topics, but, like Clinton, he at least does appear to have a good public relations sense about him. Can't say that about Rove, for all his "genius."

The Bush White House was tone-deaf to the normal courtesies of the office."

Amazing. After all this time, Armey's statement implies that Bush and Rove would have honored the "normal courtesies of the office," if only they weren't "tone-deaf" to them.

Hogwash. Bush and Rove's utter contempt for the "normal courtesies of the office" couldn't be more plain. I suppose Armey giving Bush and Rove the benefit of the doubt like this is also one of the "normal courtesies of the office," but it's one Bush, Rove and their minions have utterly forefeited by their own churlish behavior.

My guess is that Bush refused to sign the name tag precisely because it was something that Clinton had done.

This is probably true, and epitomizes a deeper problem with Bush, Rove, and the media in 2001 -- they all thought that Clinton was far less popular than he really was, and that demonizing him at every turn was an intelligent strategy.

I agree with some above. Armey is a slimey toad, but compared to Rove and Bush, he is a shining light of rational political thinking.

Who could believe that the main effect of the Bush presidency would be to rehab Nixon, Reagan, and the Repukeliscum establishment prior to 2000?

When the Conservative movement is run out of Washington on a rail...

I keep hearing this.

I understand it was also a popular phrase in 1974. Six short years later came 1980.

Why do we keep underestimating the ability of the American voter to forget we've been down this path before and then respond the same enthusiastic way he always has to campaigns based on fear, loathing, intimidation and greed-based bad economic theory?

Rove was only a failure to those of us who have a political philosophy that extends beyond the acquisitioin of power. He doesn't. They don't. And there are plenty more behind them who don't, either.

The guy's not an anomaly. He's just an extreme example.

The other problem is that Armey believed that the "normal courtesies" involved respectful behavior on both sides (WH and HoR/S).

For Bush, "normal behavior" involves the kissing of rings. For Bush, Rove and Cheney, the POTUS is the king, and all must bow, scrape and kiss the ring of the King.

Like all Republican political "geniuses", Rove really had only one angle on politics: the smear.

How do you make a smear out of a Presidential visit to New Orleans, or an autographed name tag?

Both are a simple waste of time.

The card signing story is additional confirmation that George W. is an arrogant, short-sighted jerk. Too often the media protrays W. as a good guy lead astray by Cheney and Rove. I anticipate we will see Rove scape-goated now rather than the media pointing out that the real problem is the Pres.

Vincent is right, there are probably a bunch of kids, now young adults, who have and cherish those cards. Dick Armey and Bill Clinton on the same card scream we are all Americans first.

Karl Rove is a Republican first, last and always. He doesn't know what it means to be an American.

As I said in the previous thread Karl Rove is just a hired hand. George Bush is the guy who failed in Dick Armey's story. He demonstrated that he is truly lacking class and character.

Unfortunately, the fact that Rove gets to resign quietly, means that his methodology is vindicated and validated.

He didn't let Bush land in N.O. because the strategy there was: The Heartland hates urbanites and blacks, the Heartland thinks they're all scum drug dealers and welfare queens and looters, and the more we ignore them, the happier The Heartland will be.

Which is why Rove picked Bush as the candidate in 1999. He's the one guy that really would tick off liberals more than anyone else. Thus The Heartland is pleased.

And it worked. Bush still has his 28%.

Rove is, and always has been, a genius at capturing the hearts and minds of the "hate liberals" crowd.

Of course, just about anybody could accomplish what Rove accomplished with the willing apparatus of Rupert Murdoch's media empire. So - it's not so much genius as; ruthless and amoral application of raw monopoly power towards a fascist propaganda machine.

And because he was never called to account for his sleazy tactics, we must all brace ourselves for the next round, where you know damn well they will lower the bar even further into the slime-pits.

He's not even going to retire, you know. He's getting ready for working on sabotage for Hillary '08.

It takes a lot for a story involving Dick Armey to end with him looking like the good guy.

"Karl did not want the plane to land in Louisiana."

Being a bit of a history buff, the autograph story and this story makes a perverse sort of sense. The king is never to appear engaging in "mortal" habits. Remember that in Bush's campaign appearances, the gound on which he walks is always to be covered with a walkway-- so that his feet never touch the ground. It's much like how some kings would never be seen eating or sleeping. There always had to be some doubt about whether he was "just a man" or whether he was something more. These anecdotes are in the same vein-- the president can never have any of his writing from his own hand in possession of hoi polloi, nor can he be seen on the ground in a land surrounded by suffering and destruction, where he might be mistaken for one of the mortal victims.

So where do you think this leaves the GOP leaders in congress? Rove was also their go to guy...I've heard the expression that if yuu cut off the head the body dies...ah crap, there's still Cheney.

I understand it was also a popular phrase in 1974. Six short years later came 1980.

The Conservative movement wasn't disgraced in 1974. Nixon was.

That's the basic difference.

In general, we're undergoing a secular change in the US. California, once a toss-up state, is now reliably blue, as are, to a lesser degree, Washington, Oregon, Illinois and a number of other states. There's just no reason to believe these trends will reverse.

Things really do change in politics, and the notion that we're always going to have to deal with a formidable Conservative movement has no basis in demographics or political realities. It is simply a fear.

ah kevin,

when will you get over the idea that we mortals can even touch the hem of His garment, let alone behold His divine mark.

California as a blue state - With Oregon, Washingon and Illinois to follow.

Unless the Initiative in California passes whereby there will be no winner take all for electoral votes - All of these states are blue in the major cities, but very red in the rural and suburban areas. Should this initiative pass and the other states follow suit, the ball game will change dramatically.

He was good at winning elections, but not at much else.

He wasn't even good at that. Apparently, his real strength was stealing elections.

I understand it was also a popular phrase in 1974. Six short years later came 1980.

Nixon was an authoritarian warmonger, but otherwise not much of a conservative.

Wage and price controls? Diplomacy with the Soviets and the Red Chinese? EPA?

Much of what became the Reaganite right hated Nixon . . .

Kevin, do you know there is a huge drug/crack problem in the DC area for poor minority kids? The school kid who got the card would have sold it on ebay, and then used his money to buy drugs and smoke dope. How could you support such a thing?

Not the worst fake Al I've ever read, but definitely in the top 10.

Kevin may be correct about compaign acumen versus political acumen, although they do not seem like entirely separate concepts. As to the particulars of the Armey story, we all should be adult enough to recognize that we are only hearing one side of it. I have no idea of what actually happened, but like most things, it probably has two sides to it. Same on New Orleans -- probably a political mistake but who knows the real reason for not landing? Josh Green certainly did not know in his "mysterious anecdote."

What strikes me is how Kevin, and to a much greater extent the comments section, make this a matter of personal hostility and criticism of Bush and Rove. People just cannot get past their personal animosity.

Why do we keep underestimating the ability of the American voter to forget we've been down this path before and then respond the same enthusiastic way he always has to campaigns based on fear, loathing, intimidation and greed-based bad economic theory?

Because the hapless Ford pardoned the criminal Nixon, and these loathsome, mendacious bastards have felt untouchable ever since.

Much of what became the Reaganite right hated Nixon . . .
Posted by: rea

As is made clear in the Nixon oval office tapes, the hate went both ways.

So much has been said about the administration's interest in politics over policy. John DiIulio was maybe the first person to have been on the inside & speak about it later. To my mind, though, may be the most despicable example of this was putting Rove in charge of reconstruction after Katrina. It was never more clear that these guys don't give two shits about anything but control.

In these anecdotes Bush just comes across as so passive. It's really unsettling.

brian: "What strikes me is how Kevin, and to a much greater extent the comments section, make this a matter of personal hostility and criticism of Bush and Rove. People just cannot get past their personal animosity."

I think I speak for everyone here when I say you can go fuck yourself. It's nothing personal. I've got nothing against you. I mean it in the most Vice Presidential way.

"Because the hapless Ford pardoned the criminal Nixon, and these loathsome, mendacious bastards have felt untouchable ever since."
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on August 13, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Yep, and you watch as the same is attempted yet again by the time GWB leaves office. I have little faith that anything short of a type of truth and reconciliation process or some sort of equivalent American process exposing just how damaging the Bush Presidency has been especially when aided by the rubberstamp GOP Congress Bushco had through its first six years, especially in the period between the swearing in of the 2003 Congress through to when the GOP lost the control of the House and Senate when they changed hands in 2007 will be enough to really make the needed changes. I wish I could feel more optimism on this but after the last seven years of ever increasing horror at what the American people simply sat by and let happen does not fill me with hope, even considering the efforts of the progressives in 2004 and 2006. The main reason I am so pessimistic though is the active complicity of the vast majority of the MSM in spinning for the GOP in all things, I just don't see that stopping with a change in government and that MSM still reaches/"informs" far too many American voters despite the ever increasing power of the internet and blogosphere to counterbalance that. I really hope to be proven wrong in this, but these days I am not going to believe anything hopeful/positive in this regards until I actually see it happening.

I'm sorry, but it is very hard for me to have any faith in a positive outcome after everything I have seen, and this is another thing I curse Bushco, the GOP and complicit MSM for, they managed to destroy my faith/trust in the American people and system of government to prevent exactly this sort of tyrannical abuse, and I do not thank them for it.

It is simply a fear.

It might be more accurate, and is certainly no more dismissive, to point out that breaking out the champagne and cake at this stage is simply unwise.

The challenge is not going to be getting the White House or increasing Congressional majorities in 2008; it's going to be keeping them blue past 2010 or 2012 or 2014. You and I may know the conservative movement has been disgraced, lots of others know the entire conservative movement has been disgraced, but many Republican and even some independent voters will have little trouble convincing themselves that the Republican caucus was hornswoggled by Bush just as they themselves think they were. Hell, they're doing it now.

No one here needs to be reminded that both the Republican party and the media will be immensely helpful in reinforcing that "we ain't Bush" meme--and we have more than enough reason to believe that many Democratic party leaders and candidates will be less than effective in reminding voters that Republican voters marched in lockstep with Bush long after the party's "disgrace" was complete.

Because of the Bush presidency, the GOP is going to go down hard in the 2008 elections--we will pick up seats in the House and the Senate and take the White House. Beyond that, to predict that all of conservatism will be consigned to the wilderness for a generation requires ignoring several significant factors: the repeatedly demonstrated short memories of voters, the scope and depth of social conservatism and its power to mobilize voters on single issues, Republican media ownership and bias, the tendency of the Democratic party to lack organization and unification of message, long-term effects of gerrymandering, the almost total lack of consequence to Bushco criminals, and so on. That's not even including the unpredictability of several global scenarios and the power of those events to affect voters.

And it's not including an even larger factor: the increasing influence of the cult of personality on voters in presidential races. You simply can't predict that the right confluence of issues, events and candidate personality won't return a Republican to the White House within a few years.

Conservatism is taking a well-deserved hit. It's really much too early to predict that it's dying the death it really deserves.

I have a different take on this incident. Everything's an act of political communication with these guys. They didn't do this inadvertently. It was meant to communicate something. The moment came up and they used it to communicate what the new relationship was going to be. Not so much between Executive and Congress, but between President as Party Leader and the rest of the GOP.

In that sense there are a lot of messages. You're not our friend yet, so don't presume. And you definitely don't want to be our enemy. We're not nice guys. We didn't take this office to have fun with it. We've got power and we mean to use it. You need us; we don't need you. Do what we say or get hurt.

It all boils down to establishing the pecking order and letting people know who's boss and how they mean to use their power.

is that link under "this mysterious anecdote:" broken? it doesn't seem to point to the Atlantic.

Rove-Armey-Bush. All are shit wrapped in skin. No more needs to be said.

It all boils down to establishing the pecking order and letting people know who's boss and how they mean to use their power.

I think that's exactly right. Of course, occasionally Bush forgets this, but he can count on his natural heaping helping of adolescent petulance to carry him through those murky moments.

Man. When an asshole calls you an asshole, you are *really* an asshole.

(Dedicated to all those who tout Bush as just a Regular Guy.)

"How did the idea that W is a regular guy you'd want to have a beer with ever get started?"

It was started by the same people who told Bush Senior that his favorite food was pork rinds. (And how tone-deaf was that--for a pol to like pork?)

It all boils down to establishing the pecking order and letting people know who's boss and how they mean to use their power.

That's a compelling explanation for the autograph story, but do you think this explains the hurricane katrina anecdote?

Josh Green: Hurricane Katrina clearly changed the public perception of Bush's presidency. ... one Bush official told me ... "Karl did not want the plane to land in Louisiana." Rove's political acumen seemed to be deserting him altogether.

Kevin Drum: I suspect the answer here is that Rove never truly had a lot of political acumen. He had campaign acumen. He was good at winning elections, but not at much else.

Landing the plane in Louisiana would have meant owning the problem. Rove did not want Bush to own the problem, that is, take the blame or promise to bail out the state or city. He figured that Bush could get away with largely ignoring the problem. That Americans wouldn't care much after a short time. And he was largely right.

That is political acumen.

….People just cannot get past their personal animosity. brian at 1:29 PM

Tyro,

When Mother Nature is doing your Urban Political Redevelopment work for you, why bother.

How many have returned? How many ever will?

Calculating bastards. No wonder America has turned against them consistently when there wasn't some major event like 9/11 which caused them to "rally 'round the president".

It might be more accurate, and is certainly no more dismissive, to point out that breaking out the champagne and cake at this stage is simply unwise.

I'm not really suggesting that my prediction of the demise of the Conservative movement is a certain one -- but it is what I predict. Nor do I think that we are anywhere near a point where we should celebrate, or, least of all, rest on our laurels.

It may not seem so, but I'm really just trying to make an objective call here on the merits of what I'm seeing. I'm not trying to inspire confidence, and certainly not overconfidence.

But I do think that the concerns people have that the Conservative movement will soon rise again with a force equal to or close to that it enjoyed during the reign of Bush and the Republican Congress is much more based on the emotion of fear than on a dispassionate analysis of our current and future circumstances.

The unpopularity of the Iraq war and the Bush Presidency are inextricably tied to the Conservative movement in a way that has never been true of any other major event and political figure in history which anyone alive has experienced. Nixon was only slightly related to the Conservative movement -- mostly Conservatives despised him. The only clear example on the left of a figure who even in the slightest resembles the effect of the Bush Presidency is, I think, Jimmy Carter, who exemplified in many people's eyes the weakness and ineffectuality of the Democrats. But Jimmy Carter, who was always disliked by many Democrats, was never the representative of the progressive cause as Bush has been of the Conservative cause. Bush embraced fully Conservatism, and Conservatives fully returned the love; and the disasters and unpopularity they wrought attach to them in ways inescapable.

Point is, we are basically on uncharted ground when it comes to the Bush Presidency. There's no one really like him in these important political respects. We can only extrapolate from what we've seen in the past to the far more extreme case he represents.

Yet any way I try to do that extrapolation, he and his Iraq war will damage the Republican Party and what it stands for for many election cycles into the future. I see no way they can regain their footing before fundamental demographic changes take them out of the running by themselves.

Once, California was a toss-up state. Now it's reliably blue. Today, America is a toss-up country. I predict it will become a reliably blue one.

What strikes me is how Kevin, and to a much greater extent the comments section, make this a matter of personal hostility and criticism of Bush and Rove. People just cannot get past their personal animosity.

Posted by: brian on August 13, 2007 at 1:29 PM
----------------------

You don't seem to understand that we don't just dislike Bush, we dislike his worldview. That extends to people who support that worldview.

The Southern Strategy of the Republican Party would not have succeeded without the active or tacit support of millions of conservatives who weren't bothered by the idea of stoking racial fears for political gain at the expense of an historically horribly oppressed minority.

Scumbags. That's what I think of Republicans. And yes, it'a a very personal animosity.

Brian: What strikes me is how Kevin, and to a much greater extent the comments section, make this a matter of personal hostility and criticism of Bush and Rove. People just cannot get past their personal animosity.

Believe it or not, I didn't feel personal animosity against Bush until he invaded Iraq. I didn't even blame him for 9/11 on the basis of neglecting the issue of terrorism. I hadn't yet heard that he had responded to the urgent message that bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. with the words "You can go now. You've covered your ass." I hadn't yet heard that Cheney hadn't bothered to convene a meeting on dealing with the terrorist threat since the election.

The invasion of Iraq was such an egregious and unnecessary error that it filled me with rage, and I just can't overlook the fact that it was Rove's, Cheney's and Bush's lazy, misinformed, partisan approach to government that caused this disaster. Since then they've exhibited behavior that makes them look far less competent and honest than the Mafia.

What good have they done that could make me say, "Well, they were wrong about 1, 2, 3 .... but at least they . . . ?" I didn't like Nixon's policies or LBJ's escalation in Vietnam, but Nixon went to China, and LBJ worked hard to mitigate racial discrimination. So what part of Bush's legacy can I look to that will inspire me to get past my "personal animosity?" I'm really curious as to what you would suggest.

He made the trains run on time, or was that the autobahn he completed?

A friend of mine had a great cartoon from a Central American newspaper. It quoted a headline saying something like “Latin American nations fear Dick Armey”, and showed a drawing of a huge marching army of dicks invading a country. I still laugh every time I hear his name.

thethirdPaul: He made the trains run on time, or was that the autobahn he completed?

Maybe it was launching Sputnik?

Wow. You've got a good point. The only way Bush can come out ahead of the worst of the worst will be by having done less genocide.

Quite a team, no? —Kevin Drum

Good enough to bamboozle America twice when it really counted.

I want to back up frankly0, on the differences between 1974 and today. I was relatively young (22) and uninformed in '74; I rejoiced at Nixon's fall, and hoped it meant a return to Democratic dominance. But I clearly didn't see the history: the Roosevelt coalition, thanks to Vietnam and Civil Rights, had been broken, first tenatively in '68, then decisively in '72. The extraordinary personal scandal of Nixon brought about his downfall, but the electorate's turn against the GOP in the next election was mere political reflex, not a decisive rejection of conservative ideology -- which, in fact, was in the ascendancy, just as Kevin Phillips had predicted. Carter's bare victory in '76 should have tipped us off that it was going to be tough sledding for Dems in the years ahead...and, as frankly0 documents, the clear failings of the Carter administration hurt the Democratic brand for a generation (far more, I'd argue, than "McGovernism").

I see 2000/2004 as equivalents of 1976 -- narrow victories for a fading coalition, aided by extraneous circumstances (first Lewinsky, then 9/11, as Dems had been aided by Watergate), even while voter surveys showed preference for the other party's positions. The abject Bushian failures in the last two-plus years make the Carter shortcomings seem almost puny by comparison, and have at last shattered voter illusions about the GOP's allegiance to any cause beyond its inner circle of belevers. As a result, I'm convinced Democrats are about to receive their 1980: the electorate will finally start voting in accord with its policy prefernces, and install Dems by wide margins in all the governing branches (judicial to come later). The contention up above that OH is still GOP is laughable: Clinton carried it twice, and it's gone Pub in the last two elections by an eyelash; the Bush taint will paint it blue by 10PM election night. And MO, CO, NM, FL at minimum will follow.

Whether this is a long-term coalition will, of course, depend on the political skills of the person we select in the primaries. Which is why we should be very careful about making our choice next year.

I'll go further than Kevin -- Rove wasn't even very good at winning elections. Consider his conclusion in 2000 that Bush had it in the bag and could therefore afford to spend his last week trying to add California and New Jersey (both of which he lost by landslides) to his Already-Winning List of States for extra prestige. If it hadn't been for the fantastic conjunction of evil stars that hit Gore in Florida, Rove would have become a political laughingstock of the Thomas E. Dewey variety. Rove had simply been willing, before then, to manage campaigns only in right-wing states where the Republican would have had to work hard to lose.

And, of course, after 2000, 9-11 was a fantastic stroke of political luck for the GOP -- despite which Bush almost managed to lose 2004 as well, and won only because the Dems nominated a comparable fool themselves. But that brings us to the point that the Dems, for a very long time, were willing to help spread the "Karl Rove Is An Evil Genius" legend themselves -- in order to avoid facing the fact that he kept winning only because THEY themselves also kept acting like fools.

"When the Conservative movement is run out of Washington on a rail..."

I keep hearing this.

I understand it was also a popular phrase in 1974. Six short years later came 1980.

My two cent analysis: the economic turmoil and inflation of the 70s was perceived as connected to the civil rights era, busing and abortion. In short, or shorter, social morality will put the money back in your pocket.

demtom - you mentioned Missouri. Before the blue states write us off as "simply red" they should read this. Glad to see someone remembers 'twas not always thus.

the truth is, Landing that plane and dealing with New Orleans AT ALL would have insulted Bush's base= The group of greedy scumbags that wanted every poor black bastard in Nawlins to drown so they can level the residentials and build some high dollar tourist traps. That's why New Orleans HASN'T been rebuilt at all. That's why FEMA has been allowed to be such a complete fubared mess. The same reason that Iraq hasn't had any effort put forth into reconstruction.

They Don't want to fix it. They didn't want to save either location in the first fucking place.

When Churchill was Secretary of State for the Interior, about 1921 or so, he was caught by an urchin waiting outside 10 Downing Street, as he left a meeting with the Prime Minster.

"Gimme yer 'toe-graph boss."

"All right, young man." "What will you do with that?"

"I can trade it fer two newts, Gov."

"Well done, young man."

. -dlj.

brian, everyone's favorite faux-rasonable concer troll ("What strikes me is how Kevin, and to a much greater extent the comments section, make this a matter of personal hostility and criticism of Bush and Rove"), wrote: As to the particulars of the Armey story, we all should be adult enough to recognize that we are only hearing one side of it. I have no idea of what actually happened, but like most things, it probably has two sides to it. Same on New Orleans -- probably a political mistake but who knows the real reason for not landing?

Shorter brian: No matter how much unfavorable information you hear about Bush and Rove, you should attribute it to "personal animosity" and give Bush and Rove the beneift of the doubt!

Bullshit, brian. The pleas of an authoritarian Bush cultist like you hardly excuse your support of Bush and Rove, and your faux-reasonable tone hardly disguises your contemptible and continued support -- in the form of pushing bogus GOP talking points in these forums --- of this tyrant and his disastrous policies.

Blue Girl, Red State -- I'm kind of baffled why anyone, but esp. Dems, refer to states as "red" just because Bush carried them twice (likely by thin margins). Bill Clinton had 370 and 379 EVs, and though some of those are probably not repeatable (GA in '92, LA with New Orleans decimated), I see no reason not to go for most every state he carried either time (and at least one -- VA -- that he narrowly missed in '96).

As you point out, MO comes close to the national average. That favored the GOP when Bush was just over 50%; how can it not favor Dems today?

George W. Bush will be the commissioner that inducts Barry Bonds to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And they deserve each other.

demtom: The abject Bushian failures in the last two-plus years make the Carter shortcomings seem almost puny by comparison...

Sure.

...and have at last shattered voter illusions about the GOP's allegiance to any cause beyond its inner circle of belevers.

Not so sure. As I pointed out above, it remains to be seen whether Bush's disastrous presidency will translate into "shattered voter illusions" about the GOP in general, and Congressional GOP seats in particular, past the next election or two. So far, I'm seeing far stronger evidence for anti-Bushism than for all-encompassing anti-Republicanism.

The 2006 election was heartening, but for all the reasons I mentioned--most of all the GOP-held media, which to this day is successfully helping mask from voters the fact that they prefer Democratic policy positions--let's see how the electorate reacts once Bush is safely out of office.

It pretty much goes without saying that I hope you're right and I'm wrong about this.

Looking at this from the bright side - this reminds me how effortlessly good Clinton was at that kind of thing. I remember visiting a cafe in the Hague, in the Netherlands. The year before, Clinton had had a walkabout just outside the parliament building, and had gone into this cafe for a cup of coffee.

They had the picture to prove it, plus a signed letter thanking the owners that he'd sent from the White House afterwards. I'm part-Dutch, and it really opened my eyes to the friendly, bighearted side of America. Given that it was a very busy cafe, no doubt thousands of others saw the same thing in the years that followed. If only Bush had gone in for more of that kind of diplomacy, rather than the F18 kind...

I'm kind of baffled why anyone, but esp. Dems, refer to states as "red" just because Bush carried them twice (likely by thin margins).

It's worth remembering as we try to gauge the blueing of some of these states that there's more involved than electoral votes. About half of Missouri's Congressional representatives are still Republican, no? Nine of the 19 House seats in Illinois, which has gone Democratic in the last four presidential elections, are held by Republicans. More than a third of California's representatives are Republican. Those are just off the top of my head.

Missouri has one Senator from each party, and nine Representatives - five Republican and four Democrats. We have an opportunity to flip that to five Democrats and four Republicans. For the first time since Sam Graves took the seat, he has a serious challenger with name recognition and political savvy. This time, he is facing Kay Barnes, my former mayor, who was term-limited out.

We are also going to be reclaiming our governors mansion, which goes back and forth. Our statehouse is why everyone thinks we are insane as a state - and those clowns are the perfect illustration of what the hell is wrong with term limits.

I would encourage anyone who can to give a couple of bucks to the Barnes campaign, because as the gentlewoman from Illinois reminds us - there is more at stake than electoral votes.

Oops, to save cmdicely a paragraph or two :), I checked, and 19 of the 53 representatives from California are Repubs--not "more than a third" as I'd wrongly said.

In response to Dr.BB at 1:57, and with all due respect to Tyro and shortstop, I think that the argument that this was designed to reinforce the pecking order can't fully explain what was going on in this story. If the White House team had simply refused to sign the card, or had explained it by saying "we're not going to do that sort of thing," then I might buy your argument. But look at the context and the follow-through: this wasn't just any GOP Congressman, it was a senior member, a close ally, and a fellow Texan, and even in that case, the response wasn't a simple "no," it was "no" followed by a stupid and insulting suggestion: that Armey was asking for reasons of personal gain, and that the history of the card-signings was simply not to be believed.

This isn't just establishing or reinforcing a pecking order, this is saying, "we don't trust you at all, we won't believe even the most reasonable explanations you offer, and we have no interest in working with you."

Everything's an act of political communication with these guys. They didn't do this inadvertently. It was meant to communicate something. The moment came up and they used it to communicate what the new relationship was going to be. Not so much between Executive and Congress, but between President as Party Leader and the rest of the GOP.

It all boils down to establishing the pecking order and letting people know who's boss and how they mean to use their power.
Posted by: DrBB on August 13, 2007 at 1:57 PM |

Yeah, that's a good point, keith, but I guess I don't see that much difference between DrBB's summary and yours, except that your version has Bush and Rove being much more blatantly fuck-youish...and not bothering to change their MO even for a close ally.

Snarking at Armey instead of carefully explaining themselves is the action of people who are used to being as disdainful of others as they like and not having to pay any price for it. It's been a mystery to me how Republican members of Congress have not only jumped to fulfill Bush's every whim, they've often done it while Bush is showing open contempt for them even in the face of their devoted servitude.

Actually, my take on it is not so much "We don't trust you" as it is "We don't trust the American people. They are greedy, self-centered, cowardly and short-sighted. They have no principles to guide them, and no judgement"

Come to think of it, that's really a theme of the administration. I wish someone could find a way to focus on this politically.

Republican members of Congress have not only jumped to fulfill Bush's every whim, they've often done it while Bush is showing open contempt for them even in the face of their devoted servitude.
Posted by: shortstop

I think this is explained by them being politicians first and Republicans second. Like Dr. Igor, aka Tom DeLay (and Al Davis), the Republican play book since 1994 has contained one page with just one sentence printed on it - Just win, baby!

The Republican party since the 1990s really hasn't stood for anything consistently except cutting taxes, which is obviously a pretty impoverished platform. The rest is just fringe shit (abortion, stem cells, the environment, free trade) to shore up the precentages (Rove has been caught saying as much). The Republicans that have held the leadership over the last decade or so don't care about the "Big Picture" or the details, so they can't possibly have a "Grand Vision" for America or its place in the world.

That's not to say that the Dems are any better, but . . .

"Bush's Brain" was actually a corrupt national press. Rove was just the go-between for the corporations and the American people. He put a monstrous face on the heretofore indescribably unAmerican.

Rove is many things; abject failure; amoral; sociopathic; sadistic; mean-spirited; ill-tempered; hypocritical; lost. Now gone and to blame.

Spending time with kids
eating cake
wished to the corn

shortstop:

I don't disagree with DrBB's basic point, I just think that there's more to it than just a desire to put the Congress in their place (which is the flip side of the unitary executive/imperial president thing); there's an extra measure of petty nastiness that can't be accounted for by an effort to assert that they're the king of the mountain.

I don't know, maybe this is largely a reaction to things associated with Clinton, or maybe it comes out of the whole college republican background, and explains why the competitive m.o. of Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and others has to include this sort of thumb-in-the-eye gesture. Nonetheless, it seems to have struck even their fellow republicans as excessive.

JeffII is exactly right to point out that the GOP Congress went along with the Bushies, and I guess they did so both because they feared being on the wrong side, and b/c they thought that tying themselves to the President would bring in campaign bucks and campaign success. That worked for a while, and now that the ship is sinking, those same congress-critters have reexamined the political calculus and are now willing to air some of their grievances.

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that Dick Armey didn't come forward with this soon after the midterm elections, especially since he's not in office any more, but maybe he feared Rove's influence beyond the political sphere.

Over at Slate, John Dickerson explains that Rove may just be moving to a field where he thinks he can do something more vital than orchestrate policy for another year and a half: spin the Bush legacy. He's appropriately skeptical...

ah, I lost my conclusion. I meant to add that Dickerson is skeptical because of Rove's m.o. ("the politics of conflict and division") and because his success in gaining political advantage in so many aspects of government means that policy failures are strongly (incredibly strongly) linked to Bush himself... and now there's no way to fall back on nice guy gestures like signing those cards!

[trolling deleted]

http://www.ronsuskind.com/newsite/articles/archives000032.html
"... people in Washington, especially Rove’s friends, are utterly petrified to talk about him...
"....I made these inquiries in part because last spring, when I spoke to White House chief of staff Andrew Card, he sounded an alarm about the unfettered rise of Rove in the wake of senior adviser Karen Hughes’s resignation: "I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary...."

"...One senior White House official told me that he’d be summarily fired if it were known we were talking. "But many of us feel it’s our duty—our obligation as Americans—to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It’s just kids on Big Wheels who talk politics and know nothing. It’s depressing. Domestic Policy Council meetings are a farce. This leaves shoot-from-the-hip political calculations—mostly from Karl’s shop—to triumph by default. No one balances Karl. Forget it. That was Andy’s cry for help."

"....It’s an amazing moment," said one senior White House official early on the morning after. "Karl just went from prime minister to king. Amazing . . . and a little scary. Now no one will speak candidly about him or take him on or contradict him. Pure power, no real accountability. It’s just ‘listen to Karl and everything will work out.’. . . That may go for the president, too..."
..."There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," says (staffer) John DiIulio. "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis..."
"I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions," he writes. "There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical nonstop, twenty-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking: discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue..."
2003 Ron Suskind in Esquire Magazine

blue girl, red state,

You are going to need to change your name if you really think Mo is not a red state.

I think it still is comfortably red in any presidential election when there is a strong republican candidate and almost certainly will not go for Hillary.

You are dreaming about liberal democrat Barnes beating Graves (although it will interesting to see her pretend she is not a liberal) and Ike Skelton eventually will be replaced by a republican, so count probably is 5/4 going on 6/3.

I have no idea about the governor's race, although Nixon has been around forever and never before able to move up (he also is not a very good candidate).

The critique of Rove's campaign acumen is interesting. In hindsight, the last minute 2000 campaigning in California and New Jersey seems stupid, but he did win the election. I think he came close to losing an election against a unlikeable democrat candidate, and that he is overrated (as our most winning consultants). He won in 04 largely because Kerry was such an awful candidate.

On the other hand, everyone knocks Shrum, but he basically has been unlucky in some close elections with bad candidates.

keith: I just think that there's more to it than just a desire to put the Congress in their place (which is the flip side of the unitary executive/imperial president thing); there's an extra measure of petty nastiness that can't be accounted for by an effort to assert that they're the king of the mountain.

Yes, absolutely. That's more or less what I meant by my comment about their openly showing contempt even to allies. That is their trademark, and it's a reflection of how vindictively they're wired and how little they've had to suffer for it, which of course reinforced their willingness to keep doing it.

As for spinning the Bush legacy, perhaps Rove can personally threaten all journalists, historians and academics who fail to hew to his revisionist version of Petty McPetulant, Decider-in-Chief. Like Dickerson, I find it hard to see what else Rove might bring to that particular table.

brian, everyone's favorite faux-reasonable concern troll, favors us once again with his insightful political analysis.

But since you supported, and still support, Bush and the Republicans, brian, why should your GOP talking points -- er, opinion -- opinion be regarded with anything but the usual mixture of revulsion and pity?

gregory,

glad to know I'm your favorite and you consider my political analysis insightful, but why the lurch to the personal "revulsion and pity."

And in response to my view that Rove did something stupid and is overrated? And my view of home state politics in Mo? Tough audience when that generates revulsion and pity.

I think you sell Barnes short. I also don't think you realize that the rural people in the 6th have been drastically affected by the Blunt administrations cuts to the social safety net.

As to Nixon, what do you mean by he 'hasn't been able to move up"? He is our Attorney General and has won statewide election to that office more than once. He is solidly favored to take Blunt standing up next year.

Matty B is almost as popular as George Bush. not quite, but almost.

It is the statehouse that makes everyone think we are nuts, and as to Skelton being replaced by a Republican. You forget the college towns and those dreaded liberals that infest them in the 4th.

I wouldn't get too hopeful about this yet. I know plenty of people who openly admits that the GOP are worthless scum, but then goes on to nitpick the Dems for some perceived (not real) fault.

Most days, I'm forced to conclude that a good plurality of humanity don't deserve to live...which is why we're DOOMED!!! DOOMED I say!

If you caught Countdown this evening, what's interesting is that George Bush Sr. was the discoverer and first patron of Rove. Rove was already in trouble as a young Republican for his lies and slime, and George Bush Sr. was sent to investigate him, saw how useful he could be, and saw to it that the decent Republican who reported Rove's wrongdoing was instead the one who got reprimanded. Then Bush Sr. saw to it that Rove got hired wherever.

The idea that "conservatism" should "go down" is asinine of course. Evil, creepy, lying right-wing conservatism should go down. I'm a mixture of the extremely conservative and the extremely liberal, and I think that's true of basically anyone who's sane.

The whole career of creeps like Rove is thanks to the right-wing noise machine founded by scum like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family.

junebug >"I think I speak for everyone here when I say...I mean it in the most Vice Presidential way."

ROFLMAO because I wish I had said that

He`s just another punk that has no clue & no idea how to get one

"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille

The sock puppet troll brigade has been dying a public death. I think Rove's machinery has ground to a halt now, leaving only a few of the mental defectives who worked for free. That is one truly positive outcome of all this. The administration will stay in a bunker and speak "on-message," but they will sound like Perino and Hughes in a protracted junior miss pageant from Hell.

I think I will pop a cold one and salute the folks here who have laughed in the face of counter-bloggers, and have outlived the sons of bitches.

Something almost everyone here ought to be cognizant of is the Anyone But Clinton mentality. I'll say, for the sake of discussion, that she has the inside track right now.

I live and work in a very conservative area, especially from a social perspective. These people are a typical representation of the religious right. Talking with one such person recently, I learned that, if the choice came down to Clinton or Guiliani, it is a no-brainer. This VERY socially conservative person, who I've never known to waiver from his ethical foundation, would vote for Rudolph Guiliani. That is a telling message. I'm suggesting real caution in your optimism. 2008 is not in the bag for the Democrats.

Now, would any of you consider the idea that Rove might jump at any chance to keep Clinton out of the White House, for example by orchestrating Guiliani's campaign, unreasonable? Rudi seems to be as ruthlessly arrogant and fear-mongering as Bush. That's quite a terrible thought. And quite possible even.

Personally, I have a bad feeling about what's going to happen in '08. I hope my gut is telling me wrong. But, if it's not, what then?

FairE: I think Rove might go to work for Hillary.
Frankly, she is a Republican wet dream, that is why the MSM keeps talking her up. I would personally vote for any other Democratic candidate over Hillary. Love her lack of conviction and Goldwater work. Part of the GOP strategy has always been to get the most beatable candidate nominated. Then steal the election when your own malfeasance and devil deal become public. . .

Whether Hillary is what repubs should wish for is one of the most interesting questions of this election. If there was strong alternative, I think it would be wise for repubs to wish for Hillary. But neither Obama or Edwards seems like presidential material, so I think the wiser move for repubs is to pull for one of them. Not that the repubs can much influence anything, unless they are sitting on some information that could be used against her or the others - which usually is not the case.

Repubs would go grazy if Hillary actually became president. But in our highly polarized political world, what would be her real prospect for a successful presidency anyway? I think Obama might have the best chance for success as a president, but even that is quite a longshot. I guess the last politically successful presidents were Reagan and Eisenhower -- pretty surprising when you think about it.

brian, with every post you demonstrate what a complete moron you are. Clinton has a better chance at a successful Presidency than any Republican. That's largely because Republicans don't govern. They run on a platform that government doesn't work because they don't understand the first thing about actual governance and the results prove it.

There's something a lot of people miss about the Republicans, their incompetence is all consuming. Even their "strengths" aren't any such thing. There is no such thing as a "Strong on National Defense Republican." Did Bush's war improve national security? Of course not. It wasn't designed to do that, it was designed to win elections.

For all of the complaints about Kerry, he nearly unseated a sitting President who was running on a war that the press was still spinning as a success. The election was Bush's to lose and he nearly did.

Oh, and brian? There were not 3000 votes for Pat Buchanan among elderly Jews. His reputation was that of an apologist for Hitler (the veracity of this claim doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion, that's what those individuals were told). There was simply no way that his supporters were clustered in Palm Beach county. What does that mean? That means that Rove lost the election. The Supreme Court then deciding that equal protection meant counting some votes in a less equal manner was what handed Bush the victory over the winner.

To say Rove was a success is akin to saying Enron was a success.

I forgot to mention, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, or even Carville would be a better President than any of the goobers running on the Republican ticket.

Republicans haven't put up a candidate interested in fulfilling the preamble to the Constitution since Eisenhower.

To Blue Girl: A July 26 poll of the Missouri governor's race showed Jay Nixon ousting Gov. Blunt by 19 points ( http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=8384602e-7a93-4779-b82f-bdddb1cd370c&q=41544 ). I find this a relief: my original home state did give the nation John Ashcroft, after all, and I'd hate to think that it has COMPLETELY lost its marbles.

As for the polls of Missouri in the 2008 presidential election: the few I've seen show it pretty close, no matter whether Hillary or someone else is the nominee. (It was, after all, very close in 2000.) I've also seen the first 2008 poll of West Virginia, which may have gotten over its recent flirtation with the GOP: every Democrat (including Hillary) beat every Republican (including Giuliani) by a margin of at least 6 points there.

And as for Rove winning (sort of) the 2000 race for Bush: keep in mind that in 2000 -- as in 2004 -- Bush had the advantage of running against an utter dork. If the Dems had nominated anyone who acted like a recognizable human being, Bush would definitely have lost in 2000 and quite possibly in 2004. Bill Bradley would have made coleslaw out of him.

Revisionist history is an amazing thing, especially when it's conservatives who are looking to distance themselves from neocons, "who," conservatives would have us all believe, "are the real bad guys, not us!"

Dick Armey was one of the principal architects, along with Newt Gingrich, of the 'Republican Revolution,' and the chief author of "The Contract on America." Armey never voted for legislation that helped the American people, and always voted along party lines. Always.

While the story is charming, it shows just what a two-faced son of a bitch Armey is - voting against kids' interests all the while flashing them a smile and handing them a 'crumb' of celebrity. The real moral of that story is that with Clinton and Armey, a real child of America stood an opportunity to make a few bucks (they could sell the autographed booty on Ebay). With Bush and Rove, "stick it to the kids, too."

The more I learn about what's been going on behind the scenes, the more this administration resembles life inside the Third Reich.

Remember Barbara Bush's remarks about Katrina refugees, how "it's working very well" for the poor.

There's something weird going on with that link. Is anyone else getting redirected to a right wing website?

It goes right along with what Cheney said to members of the GOP We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party

The Bush administration as a whole never served anyone but themselves.

The point here that some writers can’t seem to clarify is that manner of politics this administration played out.

"Karl did not want the plane to land in Louisiana."

It would really miss up the political play-book to “blame it on someone else” – Karl Rove in a nutshell

Don’t pay attention to your August 6th intelligence briefing so it must be “ Clinton’s fault”

Don’t show up until a week after Katrina hit New Orleans and “it must have been the Governor’s fault”

And the pattern becomes crystal clear. Do something wrong, than just blame it on the other guy.

It was a projectionism scheme – And it has painted the Republican Party in a whole new color.

Didn't Karl Rove just have a meeting with Republicans - to tell them that it was the war in Iraq - it was corruption???

SO that even as Karl Rove had let his secretray get the AXE go keep himself from getting it, and thus also attempted to BLAME the Repugs for the loss of the house and senate - this this blame on the GOP now must have backfired.

I bet the was the GOP that told Bush "get rid of Karl or else". Blame it on the other guy can get fired sometimes too. Could happen to a better guy

heavy,

The best place to verify Buchanon's Wehrmacht leanings would be to peruse the Hearst archives, if they exist - Pat B wrote columns for them in the 70s and early 80s. If they are still there, you will find his column about the DC Subway tunnels proving that gassing could not have occurred. He, and George Will, wrote columns extolling the virtues of those poor victims, the Wehrmacht and SS, when a book was released in Europe, showing photos taken by regular German soldiers at the front - Can't recall the authors name - There were exhibits in West Germany with public riots from the old guard and the new neo-nazis. The photos showed regular soldiers gleefully executing civilians, especially women and children, thus putting to rest the old adage of "the regular people and Army simply did not know what was happening". Will and Pat B were brothers of the Bund in defending them.

Brian: "I think it still is comfortably red in any presidential election when there is a strong republican candidate"

When's that going to be?

But neither Obama or Edwards seems like presidential material,

Just wow. Brian, our in-house Bush cheerleader, is judging "presidential material". Must be a gut instinct.

Sorry guys, but it you think Hillary will do well in Missouri, I think you will be disappointed.

There is no doubt that in 2000 Bush got lucky in Florida in a very close election, although he did win Florida convincingly in 2004. I also always thought the confusion of the butterfly ballot cost Gore a couple thousand votes. On the other hand, I think the early erroneous call of Florida by the networks no doubt cost Bush some votes in the pandhandle. So I don't know how a "perfect" Florida election would have turned out. Bush and repubs certainly cannot be blamed for the butterfly ballot designed by democrats. My view is that the vice presidential candidates were influencial in Florida, with Leiberman helping Gore significantly and Cheney (who was well regarded then) helping Bush enough to get over the top. I also think Gore is such a strange non-genuine guy that he would not have been a successful president.

brian, stop with the revisionist history. Bush lost Florida. There weren't hundreds of people in the boonies waiting for the networks to call the state before going to the polls. That's just more stupidity.

As to the quality of a Gore Presidency, you support an idiot whose Presidency has been a monumental disaster. It's a god damned Irwin Allen production. There's not a chance in hell that Gore would have been worse than Bush.

Picking someone randomly from the Social Security records would have given us a 90% chance of getting a better President. Picki