November 3, 2008

And now, at long last, The Washington Post shows some respect for President Bush.

Dan Eggen writes:
[A]ccording to allies inside and outside the White House, Bush's mood remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it.

"His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us," said Kevin Sullivan, Bush's communications director. "There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and that he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to the irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."
Read the whole thing. My heart goes out to President Bush, even as I plan to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow. One thing I don't like about John McCain is that he never showed respect for Bush. He was all about distancing himself from Bush, but if it's distance you want from Bush, there's Obama. And Obama had no reason to defend the other party's President, but for all his criticism of Bush's policies, I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush. McCain treated Bush like an outcast. Was there even a word of defense for the man who protected us from terrorist attacks for 7 years?
For the first time in recent memory, a sitting president has effectively sat out the presidential race, avoiding public appearances on behalf of McCain and other Republicans and raising far less money than usual in private fundraisers. Bush voted for McCain by absentee ballot rather than voting in person in Texas, as he has for the past three elections, and officials say he plans to spend election night at the White House rather than at a rally or other campaign-related event.
I seem to recall Al Gore giving Bill Clinton the cold shoulder. Al Gore lost -- not by much, but he should have won by a lot that year.
Aides say privately that Bush long ago made peace with his low approval ratings, which have persisted despite significant improvements in Iraq, the original source of his polling woes. Some current and former aides argue that Bush's unpopularity has made it easier for him to push ahead with difficult decisions, such as a series of dramatic interventions into the financial markets that have angered conservatives over the past two months.

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."...

There is little outward sign of irritation from Bush, who has maintained a sense of good cheer...

That enduring, frat-boy enthusiasm is exactly the sort of thing that riles his detractors, but supporters say Bush's optimism has been central to his political survival....
We Americans like an optimistic, cheerful President. Look back over the past elections. Doesn't the more affable man always win? Including this year?

64 comments:

bleeper said...

Is "affable" a code word for "communist" in the context of this election? Barry is not an affable or humorous man. He is dour, shallow, unaccomplished, blank and empty. Joe Louis was affable, compared to BHO.

Simon said...

"One thing I don't like about John McCain is that he never showed respect for Bush ... Obama had no reason to defend the other party's President, but for all his criticism of Bush's policies, I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush."

The mind boggles!

L. E. Lee said...

John McCain has every right to distance himself from Bush. McCain has been on different sides over the last eight years from Bush including the conduct of the War. But now McCain, who was savaged by Bush during the 2000 primary election, is going to lose his last shot at being president because of Bush's recklessness.

Would any one argue against the fact that Bush was the least qualified person ever elected to be U.S. president? He was a man who seemed to celebrate being not intellectually curious. Heck, he seemed to be on vacation half of his presidency down on his Texas ranch.

With that said, I do get the sense that he has in the last few months during the financial crises come to have some self knowledge about his horribly flawed presidency. He relied on his appointees too much and many of them, especially from his first term, served him poorly. (Does it now seem almost totally unbelievable that Rumsfeld was actually Secretary of Defense?)

I think deep down Bush now understands that he had no business being president. History will not treat him kindly.

Oligonicella said...

"Doesn't the more affable man always win?"

Both candidates seem (when it suits them) to be "pleasantly easy to approach and to talk to; friendly; cordial; warmly polite". Only one seems to have the added ability to joke well and poke fun at himself.

McCain wins.

Harwood said...

... even as I plan to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow.
---
Gosh golly gosh. What a surprise.

L. E. Lee said...

Also, does anyone doubt that if Bush was running against Obama the Bush campaign would be playing the race card over and over again? McCain has steadily avoided doing this even though I am sure his political advisers have been encouraging him to do so. Bush is not half the man that John McCain is.

Pogo said...

In which WaPo pretends to be evenhanded for one of its issues in 8 years.

It's just the same old Lucy trick, just prior to yanking the football away from Charlie Brown. Or when a criminal admits to some small crime in order to hide or disavow the larger one.

BFD.

ron st.amant said...

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."...


Well not always, Katrina remains the tipping point in the Bush presidency. But I would agree that Bush's best days were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 which is a crisis I would hope no President ever faces again.

I think Bush is smart enough to know that he tied his legacy to Iraq long ago and that until (if ever) Iraq is a legitimate, functional democracy with long-term security and stability, his administration is more failure than success.

I worry that his excitement over being able to involve himself in the financial crisis is more to do with the fact that he is attempting to force through further deregulation that will be difficult to remedy by future administrations, rather than his desire to save the next President a challenge.

Let's face it, we have yet to see the bottom of this downturn. There are likely more significant valleys in the financial markets before real recovery occurs and this will be a significant challenge for the next President and the next Congress.

Simon said...

L. E. Lee said...
"Would any one argue against the fact that Bush was the least qualified person ever elected to be U.S. president?"

Come back in thirty six hours.

Daryl said...

Of course, you don't like how McCain wasn't friendly enough to George W. Bush, but you have no problem with Barack Obama denouncing the past seven terms, of Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.

Do you really think Barack is an optimist? He tells people that our best days our behind us. He never talks about "winning" in the war on terror. His plan is to cause energy prices to "skyrocket." Instead of creating opportunity, he wants to spread around existing wealth. Which the poor people will have to immediately spend on their heating and electricity bills.

Do you really think Barack is friendly? Mr. Let Me Eat My Waffle? With his extremely thin skin? With his inflated sense of self-importance? Even after he said Hillary was PMSing? After he held up his middle finger when he was talking about Hillary? He is not a friendly man.

He has never--not once in his entire life--taken a stand against corruption. If that's what makes him "affable," then you've just got really bad taste in politicians.

rdkraus said...

Despite all my complaints about Bush, and there are MANY, I think he has unfairly not been given any credit for the lack of follow attacks on US soil since 911.

After the attack, opinion was virtually unanimous that we would now have numerous incidents and we were unprepared. Since then, nada.

Whatever else he's done or not done, he's done a GREAT job there. It's not fair to blame him for every negative that occurs on his watch, but not give him credit for the total lack of follow up attacks since 2001.

The absense of terrorism in the US has also made it much easier for Obama to concentrate on the economy. As big as that issue is, it would be put aside if one or more other 911 occured this year.

Bob said...

In a year or two we'll be looking back at how good we had it under Bush should Obama win. Higher growth rate, lower jobless rate, and lower deficits. If an American city suffers another attack then Bush 43 will be seen as having his priorities right. You always are convinced the current guy is the worst and then the next guy comes along and proves you wrong.

Doyle said...

My heart goes out to President Bush

That's because you never understood that the Iraq War was wrong.

downtownlad said...

9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he was missing in action. He was forewarned, and he ignored those warnings. And then he got us into a pointless war that removed our focus on Al Queada. And let's not forget that Osama bin Laden is still a free man.

As for the financial crisis, he's been reactionary, completely behind the curve. The crisis started in August of 2007, and Bush did nothing for 13 months until the market forced his hand.

Even now - he's still messing up. Banks still aren't lending to each other.

And while Bush has completely messed up foreign and domestic policy - where does he focus his energy? On making gay people second class citizens and on putting people in jail for producing porn.

History will not judge him well.

Simon said...

rdkraus said...
"Despite all my complaints about Bush, and there are MANY, I think he has unfairly not been given any credit for the lack of follow attacks on US soil since 911."

And part of the reason for that has been a set of programs that have had an incredibly modest effect on the civil liberties of a very small number of of people and none at all on those of the vast majority, and yet the left has spent the intervening time bleating about how Bush is Hitler.

I just hope they're honest about this. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Shut down everything this administration has done that the left has decried. And then do the decent thing and fall on their swords when we get slammed again.

Palladian said...

"I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush."

It's called selective amnesia, honey. Sadly, you're not going to wake from your coma until it's too late.

Simon said...

Bob said...
"If an American city suffers another attack then Bush 43 will be seen as having his priorities right."

Obama apologists will say it was Bush's fault, the media will amplify it, and it will become "obliteration of Los Angeles caused by Bush, 7/16 Commission report determines."

downtownlad said...

Also, does anyone doubt that if Bush was running against Obama the Bush campaign would be playing the race card over and over again? McCain has steadily avoided doing this.

Where have you been? McCain has been playing the race card this entire election.

downtownlad said...

Here's a great pictorial of the Bush legacy:

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9415.html

Palladian said...

"And then do the decent thing and fall on their swords when we get slammed again."

They might not need to do that next time we get slammed, Simon. The next slam might be hard enough that no one gets back up again.

I hope Obama's been practicing his powers to raise the dead, in the event of such a catastrophe.

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"[I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush.] It's called selective amnesia"

It's such a clever way strategy, though, isn't it; one can't even work out where to begin in rebutting it.

downtownlad said...

The wingnuts like Palladian still think Iraq caused 9/11.

It's mind boggling.

Simon said...

downtownlad said...
"McCain has been playing the race card this entire election."

That's a filthy lie. The only people who have played the race card - again and again and again this season - have been Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters. McCain never has, Palin never has, and to my recollection, neither did Clinton, the vapid "good night" "controversy" aside. Accusing someone else of playing the race card has exclusively been a smear used by the Obama people when convenient to shut down the opponent du jour. Get used to this dishonorable trick, because Obama's going to be using it a lot over the next four years. "If you oppose Deval Patrick's appointment to the Supreme Court, you're a racist!"

MayBee said...

Obama's entire campaign has been a potshot against Bush. At a debate, given an opportunity to say something positive about Bush, Obama instead chose to say something about 41.
Obama rarely mentions specific policies of Bush's he dislikes. He just ties McCain to Bush in a pejorative manner.
Obama rarely says anything positive about any President besides FDR and Kennedy. When he does praise Kennedy, it is about his willingness to talk to our enemies.

MadisonMan said...

"[I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush.] It's called selective amnesia"

It's such a clever way strategy, though, isn't it; one can't even work out where to begin in rebutting it.

The way to rebut it is to list quotes of Obama's that show disrespect for the President. You and Palladian seem to think that should be easy, so go for it. Jar Ann's Memory! Make her remember!

downtownlad said...

They played the race card with Jeremiah Wright.

They played the race card with the Socialist theme.

They played the race card by saying Obama wasn't a real American.

They played the race card by saying Obama is an Arab.

They played the race card by saying Obama is a Muslim.

They played the race card by saying Obama wasn't born in America.

And they played the race card by calling Obama a terrorist.

bearbee said...

Bush was fiscally irresponsible.

The 2008 US deficit is an estimated one trillion dollars. Since 2001 the US debt (not including off-balance-sheet debt) has soared from $5.7 to $10.0 trillion (est)

I disliked his disastrous policies but not the man.

Harwood said...
... even as I plan to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow.
---
Gosh golly gosh. What a surprise.


**giggle**

But she did try awful hard to make us think that she was neutral.

Simon said...

DTL, you're an idiot. None of those are credible examples of "playing the race card." You're certainly correct that someone played the race card over Jeremiah Wright, but it was Obama.

MM, the cleverness is that there are so many attacks that Obama's made that none of them stand out. Moreover, Obama's entire campaign has been a blanket of hatred against this administration, so how does one go about picking any single thread without risking some idiot saying "oh, that one example isn't so bad"?

Besides, why invest time going out to disprove this notion? Lookit, when someone is rationalizing, you can't talk them out of it by pointing out the flaws in the rationalization. The rationalization isn't the reason, so to attack it is to storm an empty keep. You can't persuade someone unless they're willing to tell you what's really on their mind, the issues that are really governing their decision. To waste time and resources falsifying the rationalization? Pointless.

Bob said...

People will be ashamed a dozen years from now (possibly sooner) about how they treated Pres. Bush and VP Cheney. They're both decent men who made hard decisions to keep us all safe, and appear to have been successful.

For my part, I sent thank-you emails to both men, and actually got a mailed reply from VP Cheney. I'd recommend that, if you believe that Pres. Bush and VP Cheney have kept us safe, that you email them before they leave office.

Palladian said...

Don't engage him, Simon. Remember this line from "The Exorcist":

"Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him. Remember that - do not listen."

I just don't want anyone to have to throw themselves down 10 flights of stairs is all.

The power of Christ compels you!

Kirk Parker said...

Doyle:

"That's because you never understood that the Iraq War was wrong."

downtownlad:

"9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he was missing in action. He was forewarned, and he ignored those warnings."

Behold the cognitive dissonance inherent in the (BDS) system. He's damned if he acts, and damned if he doesn't. It does make it easier to know what position to take on given issue, I'll grant you that.

Meade said...

"I just don't want anyone to have to throw themselves down 10 flights of stairs is all."

Ha ha. God love Palladian!

X said...

dtf said: Where have you been? McCain has been playing the race card this entire election.

check the archives here and it's you that usually plays the race card and drops n bombs

Synova said...

Also, does anyone doubt that if Bush was running against Obama the Bush campaign would be playing the race card over and over again?

This policy of pre-emptive cries of racism is offensive and wrong. And no, dtl, McCain hasn't been playing the race card, he's been twisting himself in knots and risking a loss tomorrow by refusing to touch anything that could be interpreted as playing to racist sentiment.

It hasn't helped him to attempt the high ground, because it's quite clear that no one needs to actually play a "race card" to be accused of it. Any criticism of Obama is "racist", any criticism at all. He plays to appeal to the intellectual elite, and calling him on that is "racist" because whatever word one uses it's calling a black man "uppity." Call him on his very liberal economic views, and you're a "racist" for pointing out his socialism. Point out his radical white associates and you're "racist" for calling the white associates terrorists.

All the while Obama plays the pre-emptive race game... "they" are going to bring up race, they are going to try to scare you, they are going to say these things...

And if they *don't*... well, that's because he headed them off, hum?

Bill Clinton has been called a racist. Ferraro has been called a racist. L.E. Lee, in these comments called Bush a racist just on principle, because he *would* have used race, oh yes he *would*, so even if he didn't, well, you *know* what *those people* do.

I'm disgusted.

L. E. Lee said...

I base my observation on what Bush did to McCain in 2000 and his campaign's swiftboating of John Kerry. Bush is not a racist but there is every reason to believe that he would have used race to beat Obama.

Pogo said...

Revel recognizes the racism canard as the use of taboo by leftists. Racism, like power, can be a lens through which to see, and it can explain literally everything that one finds disagreeable. But it offers an additional advantage, in that any disagreement with the victim class means you are a racist.

Anti-illegal immigration is racist.
Oreferring actual merit over against quotas is racist.
Capitalism is racist.
Whites are racist by their mere existence, as Hillary and Geraldine learned.
And President Bush, who appointed blacks and hispanics in his administration, is racist.

It is a taboo, however, because those who disagree that these are examples of racism cannot discuss it, because if they do, they are racists. And whiners ("poor babies"); always whining about being called racists!.

What a fun game to play; heads I win, tails you lose.

Palladian said...

"What a fun game to play; heads I win, tails you lose."

Why do you think the Democrats nominated Obama? After all, nobody wants to be branded a racist! So you'd better hop on the train.

miller said...

LEL,

That comment doesn't do your intellect well. As far as we know, no one - including you - can read minds, predict the future, or accurately describe undone actions such as "Bush would have done that had he had the chance."

It does show what kind of character you have, of course, and while I won't blacken your character beyond what you have revealed, I will say that it does not do you much credit.

What Bush has actually done can be discussed. What Bush might have done given the chance is the realm of fantasy. Say what you want about Bush, but he hasn't played the race card, unlike Bambi, who plays it well.

bleeper said...

Ah yes, swiftboating, where someone was willing to tell the truth about the anti-military Kerry. Did you see his testimony? Did you hear him pronounce "Jin gus con"? Of course, to those who loved ol' John, telling the truth was just wrong. And Breck "who me cheat" Edwards was a brilliant choice, too.

Too bad no one was willing to tell the truth about Obama. Could have saved us a lot of misery.

miller said...

All the truth-telling about Bambi will give us plenty to talk about over the next few years, should he be anointed as Supreme Leader.

I know, it will be racist to bring up his past. But it will come up. Perhaps it will take the British papers to dig through public records such as the books he's authored/approved, but truth will out.

Jim Hu said...

Althouse: If Obama's vote totals show a Bradley effect, there are alternative explanations:1) white voters are more racist than they will admit, or 2) nonracist voters lie to pollsters because they don't want to be accused of racism.

As this guy who got Instalanched yesterday writes:
"So, when the phone rings and the pollster calls -- and your Clever Hans social antennae tell you the pollster is young and liberal and likely an Obama supporter -- would you have the nerve to tell the pollster the truth that you wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years? I mean, they called you; they know your number. They know who you are. Can you be absolutely sure they aren't putting a check mark in the "Racist" box next to your name in some mysterious database? "

I've wondered if there are more people than usual who are not responding due to things like the above, or out of contempt for the press.

Synova said...

Of course everyone who supported Kerry knew he was anti-military. That's why they liked him.

His anti-military, anti-war activities, including his Senate testimony and the other things he most certainly did do, were good things that couldn't possibly upset anyone.

miller said...

I've found it fun to answer pollsters' questions the way I imagine a liberal would.

Sheesh. A lot of people are going to be surprised tomorrow, and a lot of them won't admit to their surprise.

We'll see a lot of second guessing starting as soon as the polls close tomorrow.

William said...

The lessons of history are that Republican Presidents are undervalued and Democratic ones are overvalued. The three Presidents who have suffered the greatest downturns are Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson. Jackson, particularly, seems to have been wildly overrated. JFK's reputation still seems intact. He was on the right side on taxation and civil rights, and he had a lot of style and wit. But, my goodness, ponder the Bay of Pigs, point of no return commitment to Vietnam, assasination of Diem, attempted assasination of Castro, trysts with Mafia molls, use of cocaine and amphetamines, near nuclear Armageddon. What does it take to blacken the reputation of a handsome liberal who died young. History, as Nxon said, is written by liberal historians....Even so, the reputations of Eisenhower and Reagan have been revised upwards. If Iraq evolves into a better country than it was under Saddam (a low bar, surely), there will be reason to remember him with more kindness than today.....FDR is remembered not for his failure to lift the country out of the Depression but for the success and popularity of his New Deal programs. It all depends on where you put the accent marks.

Roger J. said...

Only an arrogant fool predicts how history will treat today's events and personages. Harry Truman was widely thought to be a buffoon, Ike an amiable golfer, and JFK a saint. If you are so good on predicting the future you should have made a killing in this bear market! somhow I rather think that wasnt the case.

The Exalted said...

clinton left office with 60+% approval, bush will leave around 25%

gore was clinton's handpicked righthand man, whereas mccain was savagely destroyed by bush in 2000

don't see how you can attempt to compare the two campaigns vis a vis the sitting president without acknowledging these facts

former law student said...

One thing I don't like about John McCain is that he never showed respect for Bush.

And why would he show Bush something that Bush denied him? McCain never struck me as a "turn the other cheek" type. As Richard H. Davis reminisced in 2004 (on the boston.com website):

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"


The conservative W. and his surrogates were sadly lacking in compassion.

BJK said...

For the most part, I believe that President Bush's legacy will be positive, once we are far enough down the line to have some perspective about it.

The one caveat to that is the appointment of Bernanke to replace Greenspan. By getting away from the Greenspan formula (using the money supply to combat inflation), the Fed has played a causal role in the mini-stagflation which lead into the financial crisis.

That neither party is bringing it up serves to show that we don't teach economics well as a nation.

mccullough said...

Interesting that voters will replace one inexperienced ideologue with another inexperienced ideologue.

Let's remember that it's the same voters who elected W. twice when Obama gets elected. No reason to think they were idiots and now sages.

More likely they were idiots all along.

chickenlittle said...

Ann Althouse wrote: Doesn't the more affable man always win? Including this year?

I thought you told us the taller man always wins.

Ron said...

Doesn't the more affable man always win? Including this year?
No. Obama is, as my mother would say, "a cold fish." McCain is funnier and even warmer than Obama any day of the week.

former law student said...

No. Obama is, as my mother would say, "a cold fish."

Obama is a nerd, with a nerd's self-absorption. When he tried to take a light touch ("You're likeable enough, Hillary.) everyone jumped on him. His dignity is too fragile to poke fun at himself.

L. E. Lee said...

Given that Bush used the race card against McCain in 2000 why is it unfair of me to extrapolate that he, unlike McCain, would have done the same against Obama? Remember Bush's father's disgraceful 1988 race when he did the same in the race against Dukakis.

MadisonMan said...

I thought you told us the taller man always wins.

Short people are angry. It's called short man syndrome. That's why taller people win, they're more comfortable with the hand that God dealt them and are more likely affable.

That's my tall-person's perspective, at least.

reader_iam said...

So, when the phone rings and the pollster calls -- and your Clever Hans social antennae tell you the pollster is young and liberal and likely an Obama supporter -- would you have the nerve to tell the pollster the truth that you wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years? I mean, they called you; they know your number. They know who you are. Can you be absolutely sure they aren't putting a check mark in the "Racist" box next to your name in some mysterious database?

What the hell? My Lord, what angst, what drama, what paranoia!

I have had no problem telling pollsters that I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I have never worried, and do not now worry, that they know who I am[!!!!!]. And a mysterious database with checkmarks next to one's name?!?!? Oh, c'mon. For crying out loud!

In any case, get a little spine, people.

OK, now I'll go and actually follow the link(s) and check out the context. Usually, I do that first, but--what the hell!--it's fun to go off half-cocked on occasion.

reader_iam said...

Oh, and I also have no problem with telling pollsters that I'm not voting for McCain, even if that means I accrue a second checkmark against my name in that mysterious database.

LOL.

Marcia said...

Affability?

Wouldn't that preclude electing candidate who flipped off his main primary rival, and his general election opponent?

Synova said...

I thought that was silly, too, reader.

I understand that people won't answer polls, hang up and stuff like that. And I certainly understand refusing to answer "on the street" questions, because people who do always look like idiots.

Worry that the poller knows who you are, though, is way out in paranoia land. And even if you think they support the other guy, the whole situation is the easiest one to be confrontational in. It's not like you have to stand around and be social afterward or ever see them again or drive their child to soccer practice every third day.

blake said...

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child.

I keep hearing this story, but I can't find any evidence that Bush was behind it, nor even that it was responsible for the trouncing McCain took.

At the time, I thought it was McCain's transparently false pandering about the flag that did him in.

blake said...

I seem to recall McCain pointing out that we haven't been attacked during the debates, even if he didn't follow it with "Thank you, Mr. President."

Would've been cool if he had, though. Maverick-y.

blake said...

Waitaminute.

Nixon was more affable than...anyone?

halojones-fan said...

As William points out, once Eisenhower and Reagan were out of office, certain facts came to light. Admittedly, in Eisenhower's case it took fifty years; but once the actual facts were declassified, we all realized that Eisenhower wasn't such a flake after all.

The same thing will happen with Bush. Come 2054, suddenly it'll turn out that there was a lot more going on than anyone was being told about.

AlphaLiberal said...

What alternate universe was this posted from?

The Washington Post has been editorializing in support of Bush policies for 8 years now. And someone writes this crap?

Really, Republicans have divorced themselves from reality to dream up their victimization schemes.

Waaaaaa!

David said...

I'm always taken aback by commenters who say that Bush is neither intellectually curious nor engaged. I live in Northern Virginia and have worked in and around the Federal government for over 25 years. I have heard a number of second hand stories from people who have worked directly with President Bush. They consistently support that Bush is engaged, probative, insightful, and active in the decision making process.

A case in point, with regard to the decision leading to the surge in Iraq, it is documented that Bush took an active role in the process, sought out information from a variety of sources and ultimately made the decision to surge. These are not the actions of someone who is disconnected or ill-informed.

As someone who has worked in and around government for over 25 years, I can also say without reservation that I've seen more positive change in the way government agencies operate in the last 7 years than in all the years previous. This administration has instituted eGov, CPIC, PART, and other fundamental reforms that will benefit us all for years to come. These things don't get reported because they are neither sexy nor exciting. But they are the kinds of basic reforms that government has needed for years but no previous administration ever had the insight or audacity to implement.

Bush is the only President to hold an MBA. Before becoming President he was a business man who owned and operated an energy company. He was Governor of Texas for 6 years. Can anyone honestly state with a straight face that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President at this time in his life than Bush was 7 years ago?

People may not like the guy. They may not agree with his policies. But to say that Bush is neither qualified nor curious demonstrates only partisanship and ignorance.