In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.Webb, Will whispers, said that the rich are "literally living in a different country." The loathsome "literally" lapse!
I haven't read Webb's books, so I'm in no position to say whether they are written in such excellent style, and I don't know whether the language Webb wields in his new senatorial guise is all that different from his novelist's approach. But I suspect that what we're seeing is not a man who has instantly succumbed to Washington's ways but a man with a novelist's mentality in a new setting. One way to explain his awkward behavior with respect to the presidential receiving line is that he thought through that scene like a novelist. If you were writing a novel about a character like him going through a receiving line with a President like Bush, wouldn't that be exactly the sort of scene you'd want to think up?
Ordinarily, in all sorts of social and political situations, people try to figure out how other people usually act and to stick to the convention and proceed smoothly along. This is nice enough, but rather boring. In a novel, a conventional social situation tends to be a set up for our hero to do something that shakes things up. The ordinary characters are aghast. They condemn the bad behavior of the protaganist, and we readers, in our armchairs, know how right he is. Of course, a novelist who concocts scenes like that is himself utterly conventional.
I don't think Webb has quickly picked up the Washington style. I think he's got the novelist's style, and he's his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington. And, what immense fun this is going to be! It looks like a great read:
Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.I can't put it down.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
The comment thread from yesterday also proves that Webb and Bush are so incredibly transparent that everyone knows their innermost thoughts and what controls their actions. It's uncanny!
I can't remember where I read it, but yesterday there was a story about Webb ripping then President Clinton a new one. What's up with dave? Does he use a small d because he has a small dick?
I very much like and respect the people that I work with and yet we are prone to get a lot more brusque with one another than this exchange on (if not daily) a weekly basis with one another.
The conversation may or may not have happened as written. I find it silly that it was reported and discussed, but, given the media's handling of "news" not surprising.
I would only truly be concerned if either man carried the "hurt" on past this point and used that "hurt" as a basis for a policy decision.
[D]ave is the protagonist of his own little book about the one man who knows the truth about how everyone in the world is mentally retarded.
MadisonMan said: "The comment thread from yesterday also proves..."
Yeah, don't repeat yesterday's comment thread!!
I must insist that you deal with the new material in this post. Go back and write in the old post if you want to talk generally about the Webb-Bush encounter. I've made some specific points here, and they were not made before. Let's keep this post focused and use the old post for the more general reactions to Webb.
Yeah Ann, this post is really groundbreaking in a way that yesterday's was not.
You've clearly taken the time to consider just how you want to try to make Webb out to be the jerk here. Use George Will as cover (and to provide the title), and then segue in to some original Althouse nonsense about Webb being a fictional character in his own mind.
What garbage.
Let's see, we have the war in Iraq, which is killing so many innocent Iraqis, tearing their country apart and has the potential to spread into a regional war. It's the worst foreign policy debacle since the Vietnam War. Shall I make that my lead post in my blog?
No, Webb becoming a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language is much more important to the fate of our country.
And my insightful analysis will point out that he percieves the real world as a novelist would in one of his works of fiction.
Although I disapprove of dave's language, I have essentially made the same observation as he did.
I agree with Ann. I'm at the distinct disadvantage of not having actually been in the room and privy to the actual conversation so I could discern tone and context, but that doesn't seem to have stopped hundreds of others from weighing in regarding what was meant by whom, and what their motivations were, so what the hell, I'm in.
That said, this whole deal initially impressed me as something that was dreamed up and planned to go exactly as it went by Senator Drama King (D- VA). Ann's contention that this incident was staged by Webb to fit some kind of internal daydream ("Boy, when I meet that SOB face-to-face I'm gonna give him what-for...") seems credible to me.
Of course to make that statement, I have to disregard the fact that trying to read motive into a written transcript is rife with potential error, but no one else seems to care about that, so I too shall ignore it.
I am more inclined toward Althouse's sense of the scene, Webb as novelist, over Will's desciption, which I found inapt.
Cantankerous curmudgeons are a recurring American character, some are loveable, some repellent, others risible. Webb here doesn't seem genial or seductive in his contrariness, but rather prickly and off-putting. First impressions anyway.
As dor dave, what hell it must be to live as dave, never to be recognized for your exalted wonderfulness because the world is just too stupid to see it. So he is left with urinating his message on other people's lawns.
Well, George Will wasn't at this meet 'n' greet, and yet he also, like yesterday's commentariat, apparently knows the innermost workings of the two protagonists. However flowerly he puts it, Mr. Will wasn't watching Webb wrangle W with witticism (or wudeness). But as Will writes: "Never mind". (That's a construct I don't like -- if you don't want to consider it, don't mention it!)
The one sentence I've seen that rings most true in this little drama came from Webb: ..leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is. Both Bush and Webb did that in this exchange.
george said..."No, Webb becoming a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language is much more important to the fate of our country. And my insightful analysis will point out that he percieves the real world as a novelist would in one of his works of fiction. Although I disapprove of dave's language, I have essentially made the same observation as he did."
Well, George since I disagreed with Will, your comment is incoherent, but I take it to mean that I need to post about things in the order that (you think) they are important. I reject that approach to blogging. There's nothing "stupid" about that. You're just such a rigid person that you think there is one true way to do things and the failure to see that true way must be caused by stupidity. Good luck with that.
MM: "' ..leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.'"
I'm amazed that you don't make the obvious connection to my point! That's novelist talk!
Sorry, troutjacki. I can't let you use this blog to float stories about actual people. Take it to a journalist.
Doyle, I think you're missing the point.
If there is a point, other than "That Jim Webb thinks he's so great!", I'm missing it by a mile.
What explanation does she have for Bush's behavior?
Ann's observation makes a certain amount of sense. I guess over the next few years we will get a pretty good idea if that's how he operates.
Maybe we'll get some Cheney/Leahy type interactions.
He's a truculent bastard that despises anyone who hasn't or won't exhibit physical courage.
That's another facet that makes Webb, as a character, so interesting.
If you imagine Webb thinking in terms of story structure, the scene makes sense. I like Ann's explanation, and I don't think it tars Webb. It makes him a more sympathetic character.
What's the new book called?
Mr. Smite Goes to Washington?
Doyle: What explanation does she have for Bush's behavior?
The subject of the post was Webb's behavior, not Bush's. Bush's behavior is dissected everywhere on a daily basis, and Ann chose to focus on Will's column and her reaction to it. If you'd rather talk about Bush's behavior, why don't you and George start a blog together to discuss it?
Will's take on Webb's abuse of language is accurate, but I agree with Ann that Will has misdiagnosed Webb's motivations. I don't know Webb, but based on the public record, he appears to be the kind of guy who would always say something for effect. Anyone who takes the time to formulate the thought, leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is, believes it, and then actually regurgitates it in an interview when discussing what should be a minor matter of courtesy, is someone who is role-playing in a big way.
That Webb has cast himself in the role of hero senator in the novel of his life makes sense to me. But fiction runs on different rules than reality. Let's see how well he does in the non-fiction world.
Al: how about Senator Spins a Webb.
Is Webb "his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington"? I think so. Look at these cites:
"In tribute to [his son] Jimmy and 'all the people sent into harm's way', Webb wore his son's old combat boots every day during his 2006 Senate campaign." NYT Sept. 18, 2006
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Webb wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today (Feb. 18, 2004), in which he accused Bush of using his father's connections to avoid service in Vietnam.
IMO, the first cite shows Webb to be a bit of a drama king. The second cite shows that Webb holds a certain amount of contempt for Bush.
Webb is Scots-Irish and he lauds the fiercely independent streak and individualism of the Scots-Irish. Think Andrew Jackson and John Calhoun. When Webb is reported to have been tempted to "slug" the president after their first meeting, we should not be surprised.
Will Webb pick up on the Washington style? I doubt it. I think he'll relish the role he has cast for himself. Will he be an effective senator? No, not without "Washington style."
Oh, look, another cocky, self-appointed moral paragon. It takes a big man to have no manners whatsoever.
He's a narcissistic bozo. Lack of self control is not the reliable indicator of moral superiority that people like "dave" above seem to think it is.
...much less a reliable indicator of intellectual superiority, another strange notion these folks appear to cling to sometimes.
That Webb has cast himself in the role of hero senator in the novel of his life makes sense to me. But fiction runs on different rules than reality. Let's see how well he does in the non-fiction world.
The problem with casting yourself (in your own mind) as the hero of an ongoing novel is that you tend to forget that there are many many other authors writing in the same book. Being just one player in the novel and not necessarily the central hero Webb imagines himself to be, he may be surprised when the plot doesn't turn out exactly as envisioned.
Ann says: "I think he's got the novelist's style, and he's his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington. And, what immense fun this is going to be!"
Like Ann, I haven't read his novels, and probably never will. But assuming that Ann is right about Webb's casting himself in the senator-as-novelist role, it doesn't sound like Webb will add much that is useful to an already dysfunctional process, unless sheer amusement at the egotism of it all is what you're after. If novelist-as-scene maker is what Webb was doing in his encounter with Bush, then I think Ann is on stronger ground when she says that the kind of preconstructed novelistic scene that Webb played out was "utterly conventional." That would be damning in a book review, and it isn't any better here. The "convention" is clearly two-dimensional, pulp fiction; the characters in that kind of scene are made of cardboard; and any resemblance to real life or people is purely coincidental.
If Ann is right about Webb in the senator-as-novelist role, he comes across as too tightly wound for his own good (to say nothing of his constituents), self righteous to the point of vanity, unshakably committed to his goals and wedded to a view of the world that many will find to be more fiction than reality. If that's what makes him tick (I have no idea whether the portrait is accurate), then he manages the remarkable feat of combining the worst character flaws that their critics (think dave, derve and that crowd) attribute to McCain and Bush.
If watching all of that unfold over the next few years strikes you as fun, you're probably also a fan of demolition derbys. If this were a novel, I wouldn't make it past the first chapter.
You have an interesting perspective on this Professor Althouse, although I disagree with both you and Will.
The reason for Webb's behavior is a bit more primitive. His life has been about proving he's tougher and better than everyone else. I don't believe the exchange with the President was as contrived as you make it out to be. It's who Webb is.
There are a lot of men in the military like this. They set "don't mess with me" boundaries with others all the time (especially with people they don't respect).
p. froward: Oh, look, another cocky, self-appointed moral paragon. It takes a big man to have no manners whatsoever.
He's a narcissistic bozo. Lack of self control is not the reliable indicator of moral superiority that people like "dave" above seem to think it is.
I can't quite tell: is it Bush, Webb, or dave that is the self-appointed moral paragon? :)
As a tall person, I wonder if Webb is short and is compensating for his lack of stature by being blunt. If he's short, is he tall in the novel?
Duck Goose: You're right. I've changed "in" to "with respect to."
"I can't put it down."
I find it unreadable. Webb's disagreement on policy doesn't empower him to renounce simple human courtesy. It was vulgar behavior and it is a shame to embarrass your constituents before you even formally take office.
which I suspect is the real reason he hates Bush and therefore opposes the Iraq war.
Right, because the only thing not to like about the Iraq War is that the guy who started it never served.
It probably doesn’t have anything to do with his assessment that it was a bad idea strategically, or that the ostensible reason for the war was false, or that there was never any plan for what to do once we easily defeated the Iraqi army.
No, it’s almost certainly just the visceral dislike for everyone who hasn’t served.
And if there's anyone more viscerally dislikable than the smirking chimp...
LarryK -
That's a good (dare I say, extraordinary?) rendition of the George W. Bush story. I don't take issue with any of that stuff except perhaps the success of the Texas Rangers.
But it is different from my version, and now (too late, of course) a minority view.
Yeah where does Webb get off taking a question about his son in Iraq to be some kind of excuse to comment on the Iraq War?
Those crazy Scots-Irish!
Again, for Drew's benefit, "Bush antagonists" includes most of the country. It’s Bush apologists who are a group unto themselves.
And if Webb was such a boor, George Will probably wouldn’t have had to doctor the exchange in his column.
It sounds to me like Webb was trying to start a fight, and Bush called him on it. Webb later said that he wanted to punch Bush. What would have happened if he tried to punch Bush, and Bush kicked his ass? Bush is in good shape. We live in interesting times. Are we going to settle our differences by fighting each other? If so, I have dibbs on dave.
Drew, that is a great story.
To be fair, Bush's response wasn't quite as inspiring as Reagan's. But then, Bush's poor response was only necessitated by Webb's unnecessary hostility.
Are we going to settle our differences by fighting each other? If so, I have dibbs on dave.
I'm so impressed and intimidated by this guy.
One way to explain his awkward behavior with respect to the presidential receiving line is that he thought through that scene like a novelist.
His behavior wasn't awkward, it was boorish. It was Bush's party...if Webb wasn't willing to go through the receiving line, he shouldn't have gone to the reception.
If you were writing a novel about a character like him going through a receiving line with a President like Bush, wouldn't that be exactly the sort of scene you'd want to think up?
Yes, if I wanted to establish the character as a clueless lout. Since Webb seems unaware of the impression he made, his cluelessness would seem to be fact, not fiction.
Since Webb seems unaware of the impression he made, his cluelessness would seem to be fact
Either he was a boor and made a bad impression on everyone (except the filthy left) OR he is a calculating novelist who orchestrated the whole thing for political benefit.
It can't be both.
It sounds to me like Webb was trying to start a fight, and Bush called him on it. Webb later said that he wanted to punch Bush. What would have happened if he tried to punch Bush, and Bush kicked his ass? Bush is in good shape. We live in interesting times. Are we going to settle our differences by fighting each other? If so, I have dibbs on dave.
Ha Ha Ha... I really would love to see this. In fact I think all of our wars and political disagreements should be handled this way. A slapdown contest between world leaders is something that would actually be worthwhile to watch on television. I would even buy it on pay per view!!! Much better than any other reality show.
Probably would need some stand-ins or pinch hitters for some of the participants. The Pope vs Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vs the Prime Minister of Israel in a winner take all free for all. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman in a spectacular mud wrestling match.
Whatever Will thinks about how Webb handled the President's inquiry, one cannot avoid the fact that Webb will be a highly influential Senator.
That's exactly why this discussion is perhaps more important than yet another blab-fest about Bush. Well, not this discussion, but the kind of discussion that might have followed from Ann's post.
I was excited by Webb's election. Here's just what the Democrats need, and in fact the Senate needs -- a guy steeped in the issues of the military and foreign affairs, who was critical of the weak hopefulness and lack of vigilance during Clinton's years, then just as critical of the gung-ho naivete of the neocons. That's what I thought. A real "third way," not the PR-BS "third way" of Clinton.
Now, it seems to me that Webb is in danger of becoming a laughing-stock. Not yet, but he's heading down that road. He is still possessed of important ideas, but my fear is he won't be listened to. Instead he'll be caricatured by the press as some kind of narcissistic hothead, leaving the Senate's liberal wing without anyone to challenge or balance it from within.
For the sake of the country, I hope Webb changes his act. Too much is at stake.
Webb doesn't live inside Chimperor Nutsack's bubble of delusion. He lives in the real world, where he has a son who could get killed because of the brain farts of this idiot president. Further, Will and his ilk will never serve, have never served and likely don't have any kids serving, which explains their effete servility to the pompus, pants-peeing Washington crowd who consider it a disaster if Fresh Fields runs out of their favorite cheese. Will treads thin ice with this coulum.
Drew;
Freat story- thanks for sharing. Barney Clark did what a lot of ordinary people would have done.
On the other hand, Webb is far from ordinary and he should have acted in a suitable manner. There are situations where you follow generally accepted standards of behavior. These include weddings, funerals, parties to which you are invited and must attend.
I can't stand a bunch of pols and would be tempted to spit on them if I ever met BUT I have family and don't want to set a poor example. So I restrain the urge.
It is a shame the commenters have basically split into two camps based on the commenter political leanings.
Lastly, it seems the Dems are desperate to find "their Great White Hope". By that I mean a standard-bearer that they believe is tough- they thought they had one in Kerry but he turned out to be a weakling. This is revealing that the Dems secretly acknowledge their main leaders appear weak.
And as to dkittl, you have obvioulsy not seen many fights or you would know upsets and surprises happen. The big bad blowhards are not always the real tough ones.
LarryK's rendition of Bush's life narrative is an interesting one that I hadn't really condiered before. Very appropriate for this dicussion about Webb seemingly acting based on his own personal narrative.
Although I think Ann's psychoanalysis of Webb is facile and overly convenient to her political views, in a general way she is right that whatever makes Webb tick, it's inside of him, and it is probably ferocious and dark more than it is breezy and accomodating. In any case he does NOT strike me as a pouty prima donna as some have tried to paint him. I believe his history, and now this evenet, show that he doesn't give a rat's ass what the outside world thinks he ought to do. And that may be his biggest handicap in the Senate. (As if an overblow ego would actually hinder you in the Senate. Sheesh.)
Here ya go, Knemon. From those Bush-haters at NewsMax.
Bush would fight.
He had his chance during Vietnam, right?
Wonder if Webb will go after his own party and its Fair Weather Caucus. He sounds like a man who would have a thing to say about "phased redeployment" or whatever is the phrase of the week.
If he starts grabbing Reid and Co. by their lapels, then I'll really be impressed.
Regarding the Bush vs. Webb fight -
Webb was the Brigade boxing champion for his weight-class at the Naval Academy. His name was still on a plaque in the gym when I took boxing during Plebe summer.
The coach still remembered him, as he was quite a fighter during his time in the ring.
My money's on Webb - bring it on...
dklittl:
I finished 2nd in my Army basic training test. At the time, I probably weighed 140 lbs. What's your point. Did you do any basic training? Do you know what you are judged at? What skills that you need? I'll answer those questions, no, you don't.
Per Dave: Yes, the stupid does burn, doesn't it?
Althouse calls Webb a "man with a novelist's mentality in a new setting," Hmm. Funny, I thought James Webb served as Asst. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Sure he wrote some novels, but let's face it: It's not his first time at the DC Rodeo. And he stood up to Bush, which -- when you look at the state of Iraq and our own country these days -- is something we obviously need more of. Go Webb!!!
"That's a good (dare I say, extraordinary?) rendition of the George W. Bush story. I don't take issue with any of that stuff except perhaps the success of the Texas Rangers."
I think he meant that the Rangers became more successful as a business; I concede that we're still waiting for the team to advance to at least the second round of the playoffs.
(says the guy who's been a partial season-ticket holder since 1998)
I don't think Webb has quickly picked up the Washington style. I think he's got the novelist's style, and he's his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington.
That's an interesting and amusing idea. I've known a number of actors and actresses who approached their lives as if they were stars in a movie *about* their life. I haven't witnessed the same behavior in writers, but then the writers I know write non-fiction.
The Bush-Webb encounter does play better as drama than it does as either normaly social interaction or political manuvering.
Althouse said: [D]ave is the protagonist of his own little book about the one man who knows the truth about how everyone in the world is mentally retarded.
For me, this post is just another chapter in Althouse's drama -- where she's almost always the "intellectual" but at times throws poo just like the average ape.
Althouse, help me remember -- what are some of your favorite terms for people with whom you disagree? One is idiot. Another is moron. Oh, and let us not forget the double-whammy disreputable slimeball. Ouch.
Perhaps the above is an idication of the weight I give to your "new material" in this post. It's entertaining, but fluffy.
So what's wrong with entertaining?
One of politics' saving graces (and sometimes there seems precious few) is its entertainment value.
Just to throw it out there: Don't all politicians play a role to one degree or another? Presentation, symbols, gestures, etc. strike me as part of the game. A lot of it is theatre, no?
Think about national (in particular) campaigns, for example: Don't they strike you as more roadshow than anything else?
Actually, "disreputable slimeball" isn't one of my favorite things to call people. I think I've only ever used it once. When I think of how much that phrase stirred people up... I'm quite amused.
Of course, Glenn Greenwald is a disreputable slimeball. He writes long posts attacking me that are full of distortions and lies. This justifies my attacking with words far nastier than "disreputable slimeball."
The other day I was trying to explain the incident to someone -- something I've done exactly once -- and when I got to the phrase "disreputable slimeball," I laughed a long time. It's like in that Marx Brothers movie when someone lets loose with the insult "upstart." It's funny because everyone gets upset as if it was some outrageous obscenity.
And I'm puzzled that I wrote "slimeball." I usually say "sleazeball."
By the way, one of the most important events in my life is very tied up with getting so angry at someone that I hurled the epithet "unscrupulous."
Oh, yeah. It's "Duck Soup." Ambassador Trentino calls Firefly an "upstart," and their countries go to war over it.
Either "Althouse" or Ann Althouse wrote:
The other day I was trying to explain the incident to someone -- something I've done exactly once -- and when I got to the phrase "disreputable slimeball," I laughed a long time.
And at what point in your hysterical outburst did the other person conclude "Althouse" and Ann Althouse were both batshit crazy?
Speaking of batshit crazy, the only people crazier than "Althouse" and Althouse are the people who imagine Bush would take Webb in a fight. Here, for your reading pleasure, is the commendation language from Webb's Navy Cross. But, hey, Bush sort of, not really, kind of landed that figheter jet on the aircraft carrier when he told us that the mission was accomplished.
Althouse said: Actually, "disreputable slimeball" isn't one of my favorite things to call people.
Intriguing, do tell(!)
When I think of how much that phrase stirred people up... I'm quite amused.
I thought that by classifying it as "poo" you might see the silliness of it. Alas, you count me among the "stirred up." *sigh*
Of course, Glenn Greenwald is a disreputable slimeball. He writes long posts attacking me that are full of distortions and lies. This justifies my attacking with words far nastier than "disreputable slimeball."
Sweetie, yes he writes long posts. By my count two of those were about you. Your sentence construction implies that he only writes long posts about you. Trust me, 99.9% of his posts are not about you. Clarity is golden. Given that two out of several hundred posts of Greenwalds were about you, it's ever so reasonable that you throw poo, no? I'd wager that Greenwald thinks you are the center of the universe, too -- based on the numbers.
Your response is perhaps Chapter Two in the Althouse drama -- soon to be a made for tv movie. This seems a good coda: By the way, one of the most important events in my life is very tied up with getting so angry at someone that I hurled the epithet "unscrupulous."
Anyone up for a bet on the next chapter?
"I'd wager that Greenwald thinks you are the center of the universe, too -- based on the numbers."
At the center of Glenn Greenwald's universe is a black hole (just like the black hole that is speculated to be at the center of our galaxy). I'm just trying to figure out if that black hole is his asshole or his mouth. It's quite hard to differentiate them, don't you know.
Sweetie.
Wow, that's a smack down there pal :)
Could you try agian without the -ism, sweetie?
Your sentence construction implies that he only writes long posts about you.
Um, did you drop out of school in the third grade? The construction "X writes Y about Z" in no way implies that X *only* writes about Z, or that all Y written by X are about Z.
Similarly, the sentence "John Kerry gives speeches about George Bush that are condescending and insulting" does not imply (a) that Kerry only talks about Bush or (b) that everything Kerry says is condescending and/or insulting.
Go back to school, stay awake in English class this time, get your diploma, and try again.
Hey revenant,
Let's have a look at this. Both you and Althouse are having trouble with adjective clauses. Your relative pronoun that immediately follows the noun Bush, while Althouse's r.p. follows the pronoun me. Neither of your relative pronouns refers to those (pro)nouns, but rather refers to a previous noun in each of your sentences (speeches and posts, respectively). This placement introduces ambiguity.
But hey, if you feel better about yourself because you put me in my place, well, bully for you!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा