The Low Bar For Great Exhortations: W vs. Obama

Drudge is in a twist. Huffington Post is atwitter. The last president, George W. Bush, we are told, “slams” and “attacks” the current president. Big news, right? Especially big because Bush has been doing such a good job of not pulling a Cheney up to now.

But once we click through the headlines, what do we find? A Washington Times story that has a bunch of mildly cool quotes from the former president, delivered on Wednesday in Erie, Penn. In the first set of quotes Bush claims:

I know it’s going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we’re in. . . .Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.

Now before we call this a “Slaming Smackdown Super-Wallop Attack,” let’s breathe. Would Obama or his economic advisers disagree with any of these statements? I don’t think so. It’s basically what they have been saying. Though like Bush last year, they also argue that government must intervene in crises to prevent total collapse.

Bush also says, “You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money,” an old Republican electoral cliche, which Obama has worked hard to render less relevant. Remember, Obama is pushing through major tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans for the foreseeable future, a decision which is one of the reasons we will soon find ourselves in an unsustainable fiscal mess. (Read about it here.) Now this line could be read as suggesting that Obama is keeping too much tax money, or it could be seen as a bland restatement of political identity. It’s one thing for a Red Sox fan to wear a Red Sox cap. It’s quite another for him to call Alex Rodriguez a philandering poser who cheated his way to the top.

At another point in the talk, Bush says: “I told you I’m not going to criticize my successor. . . . I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that — persuasion isn’t going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind.”

This is a bit more critical, but only indirectly. It reads as a non sequitur that ends with a red herring. Has Obama announced a plan to give Al Qaeda leadership at Guantanamo therapy as a prerequisite to release? Didn’t Bush begin the process of reviewing release of Guantanamo detainees? Isn’t it more likely that Bush is just trading his old talking points for speaking fees, trying to burnish his own tough-guy image without exactly challenging the authority of the new guy? Whatever it is, we need not dust off the ex-president/new-president wrestling ring. A slam, it is not. Unless you can slam with a feather duster.

Though it is enough for the blogs and the cable networks. So get ready for lots of gabbing. Did Bush go too far? one host will ask, teeing up another hollow Wiffle Ball for the pundits to wack around.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • spob

    “non-sequitor” should be “non-sequitur”

  • queencersei

    How many people even care about W’s opinion on any subject? Considering his track record as President I think he was wise in keeping his mouth shut. It was about the wisest decision he had made regarding just about anything.

  • FlownOver

    1. “non sequitur
    2. “go too far”
    3. Wiffle Ball™
    .
    Ask your buddies in the Village why they would give it (a typically unremarkable and unenlightening collection of Bushisms) so much time and space.

  • apollyon07

    MEDIA SENSATIONALISM

  • mccainfluffer

    Are you telling us that a Drudge headline is not accurate? How can that be?

    By the way, I love the quote from W about how the “government doesn’t create wealth.”

    His cronies sure made a lot of cash off the government during his tenure as president. It’s amazing to me that he can say such a statement with a straight face.

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    Though it is enough for the blogs and the cable networks.
    .
    That’s a rather broad brush, isn’t it?
    .
    It’s probably good enough for the professional dicks at Politico.com, sure.
    .
    That’s not the same thing as “blogs” at all.
    .
    Please correct this slur by naming names, Michael Scherer:
    .
    Which blogs in particular are most likely to forsake real news about real events in order to flog fake controversy for the millionth time?
    .
    Surely you can’t mean real blogs like FireDogLake or TPM, right?

  • michaelscherer

    spob and flownover, those and other typos fixed.

  • Friar Tuck

    Shorter MS: Pay no attention to the bright shiny object I’m describing – pay attention to ME for being in the know about it (and calling attention to it).

  • kbanginmotown

    stuart: Well put. I’d add that this “story” is a case of MSM ADOS disorder.
    .
    MS: Follow up to W: What part of the Enron debacle was “an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States”?
    .
    Also, the quotes are suspect since they are two sucessive complete sentences. Please re-check. Also.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Michael, me lad –
    .
    How many people d’ye think really be carin’ wha’ W be sayin’? Be thar nothin’ more important an’ topical ye could be coverin’? I be done wi’ this thread already b’cause it be so much spindrift t’ me.
    .
    Arrgh. (it be not worth an exclamation point, matey)

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The former President is free to say what he will and doesn’t owe Obama any particular measure of decorum. What I find so much more troubling is GWB echoing the Karl Rove’s ‘nyuk nyuk’ joke about giving terrorists therapy, not for what it says about terrorists but for what it says about his target audience’s attitude toward the mentally ill.
    .
    The whole joke is based on the assumption that people who seek help for behavioral problems are actually shirking responsibilty. I’m sure it’s a real hit for folks who see ‘therapy’ as a code word for coddling but if I were a returning PTSD sufferer, I don’t think I’d find it very amusing.

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    On further reflection, I withdraw my complaint.
    .
    I don’t even think of Drudge as a blog, just the way I don’t consider People Magazine a magazine about people.
    .
    HuffPo is a blog. Apparently they’ve got people on their payroll who wake up at the crack of dawn to read and reprint Drudge. Oh well.
    .
    I was wrong; you did name names that could be understood to be “blogs”.
    .
    I apologize for my error.

  • destor23

    I dunno, seems to me like even these mild criticisms from Bush show less grace than Bill Clinton offered W over 8 no-doubt frustrating years.

  • http://deepbraindiary.com/2009/06/18/so-much-for-owing-him-my-silence-eh-booosh/ So Much for “Owing Him My Silence,” Eh, Booosh? | DEEP BRAIN DIARY

    [...] on the LATEST lie of this serial liar can be found here and here. Oh, and Michael Scherer at the Swampland thinks we’re making too much out of it.  Maybe he’s right — after all, you EXPECT [...]

  • kathy

    Actually, it seems like Michael is agreeing with the position most of us would take: “this isn’t a story.”
    .
    Only exception I’d take is that to wear a Red Sox cap is pretty much the same thing as making totally accurate remarks about A-rod, such as the one you suggest..

  • shepherdwong

    So, if I get this right, you’re preemptively attacking likely future media fixation on a completely political non-story by writing a 532-word blog post about it?

  • jackie1962

    Well, it is obvious that only liberals read the Times. It sounds like an Obama cult but what should you expect from the left.

  • vwcat

    The sad commentary on today’s media. The former president, who I disliked greatly, makes some general remarks in keeping with his conservative views and the media tricks it up to sound like some ‘smackdown’ of the current president.
    It cannot be because they are bored. Not with all that is happening in the world (and they are doing their best to underplay or ignore).
    Our media has become not the proud successors of such luminaries like Murror, White and Cronkite. Instead they are now the successors of such reporters as Hedda Hopper, Walter Winchle and E entertainment.

    How pathetic.

  • hellslittlestangel

    Looks like Question Hillary has had another litter of crackpot babies.

  • pafro

    Can you fix Bush’s grammar too:
    “I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that persuasion isn’t going to work.”
    I think the best thing in the world right now would be for Bush to start telling us how terrible government run healthcare is. Well the next best thing in the world after Cheney doing the same thing.

  • carpevis

    The sensationalism I see here is from this individual who quotes two mostly irrelevant and certainly less than mainstream sources about something no one else is talking about.

    Bush? Bush who?

    Oh, that’s right, the unconvicted war criminal who was Americas third dictator until the American people wised up and punted him and his party from office and power. Who cares what he says? The only reason anyone cared before was because he could have ordered the world to be destroyed. Now that he’s a no-body, his opinions count for nothing.

    And why isn’t he on trial?

    In any event, having heard nothing about this alleged political brouhaha anywhere else, my guess is that this whole story is little more than a thinly plausible excuse to justify some blog posting.

    (And please, use a spell checker. Being a professional writer demands SOME mastery of the skills involved in writing.)

  • gysgt213

    Well this sucks:
    .
    FROOMKIN OUT?….
    .
    In a move sure to ignite the left-wing blogosphere, washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin (author of the “White House Watch” blog) has been let go by the news organization, POLITICO hears. In so many words, Froomkin was told that his blog had essentially run its course.
    .
    Froomkin’s work for the Post has, at times, been amongst the most popular, but he has also ruffled some feathers, including former Post ombudsman Deb Howell, who used a column to field complaints over the labeling of Froomkin’s “highly opinionated and liberal” “White House Briefing” column, which was subsequently changed to “White House Watch.”
    .
    Not sure it’s going to ignite the left blogs.
    .
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

  • gysgt213

    From the great mind of Mark Halperin: Please remember while you are reading this guy still has a job. In the media.
    .
    HALPERIN’S TAKE: 5 reasons to bet AGAINST major health care reform passing this year.
    .
    1. 1/6 of the economy can’t be remade without genuine bipartisan support.
    .
    2. The sticker shock threatens to whittle the thing down to something well short of universal coverage.
    .
    3. The public is not demanding action.
    .
    4. The upside doesn’t seem big enough now to give congressional Democrats sufficient cover to vote for a tax increase.
    .
    5. Most journalists still have health insurance.
    .
    http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-5-reasons-to-bet-against-major-health-care-reform-passing-this-year/

  • FlownOver

    gunny:

    Well, that’s Halperin for you. Politics up to the minute, idiocy up the wazoo.

  • stuartzechman

    I’d like to hear from Froomkin about this currently inexplicable decision.
    .
    I truly don’t understand.

  • gysgt213

    Stu:
    Politico has 2 updates. One from Post and one from Froom:
    .
    UPDATE (3:50pm): Washington Post Media Communications Director Kris Coratti tells POLITICO:
    .
    I think the easiest way to put it is that our editors and research teams are constantly reviewing our columns, blogs and other content to make sure we’re giving readers the most value when they are on our site while balancing the need to make the most of our resources. Unfortunately, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, and this time it was the blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced for washingtonpost.com
    .
    UPDATE: (4:50pm): Dan Froomkin writes POLITICO:
    .
    I’m terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn’t “working” anymore. Personally, I thought it was still working very well, and based on reader feedback, a lot of readers thought so, too. I also felt White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online. As I’ve written elsewhere, (http://www.niemanlab.org/category/themes/danfroomkin) I think that the future success of our business depends on journalists enthusiastically pursuing accountability and calling it like they see it. That’s what I tried to do every day. Now I guess I’ll have to try to do it someplace else.
    .
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Froomkin_out_at_Washington_Post.html
    .

  • mccainfluffer

    Froomkin getting canned is a reminder to MSM reporters not to rock the boat too much. Viva Self Censorship!

    All Hail the Liberal Media!

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I would have thought that the war criminal Bush would keep his mouth shut, given that Obama refuses to hold anyone responsible for the Bush administration crimes. However, the fact that he won’t hold anyone responsible is the signal of his weakness that Bush now feels he can take advantage of.

  • Cliff

    Well, it is obvious that only liberals read the Times. It sounds like an Obama cult but what should you expect from the left.
    .
    Petulant, irrelevant, and entirely ignorant of the discussions held here, yet amazingly concise.
    .
    A+

  • shepherdwong

    The Post is a right-of-center rag that regularly publishes neoconservative insanity (Charles Krauthammer) and centrist rubbish (David Broder, Robert Samuelson, etc., etc., etc.) where seldom a liberal voice is heard. I’m surprised that a smart and competent liberal critic like Froomkin lasted there as long as he did.

  • jcapan

    SZ: “I’d like to hear from Froomkin about this currently inexplicable decision. I truly don’t understand.”
    ~
    Did you need to hear from Froom or the Wa Po to understand? See MS’ post above or FT’s better description: “Shorter MS: Pay no attention to the bright shiny object I’m describing – pay attention to ME for being in the know about it (and calling attention to it).”
    ~
    This is the type of reporting that the dying institution validates. Someone like Froom, who privileges true information over false equiv and bipartisan fetishes, not so much. You can not change this institution, Stuart, you can only help to destroy it or relish its downfall. Seeking to change it is akin to serfs attempting to negotiate with their lords.

  • thefoff

    How about we start moving the country forward instead of revisiting the last 8 years of moral depravity?

    I’ll be interested in what W. has to say when starts acting like his father and Bill Clinton–both of whom are at least attempting to do good in the world now that they are out of office.

  • jcapan

    Upon reflection, what Froom did over a period of time was cross into the sphere of deviance. And this proves that there are consequences in the MSM to expressing your views honestly, even if they’re backed up by facts.
    ~
    This also erodes the b-s we’ve heard from some of the folks pictured to the right, that they are free to say whatever they wish. Not that they’re closet progressives holding back, mind you, but if MS started throwing progressive grenades into Versailles, if he thinks there wouldn’t be consequences he’s batsh!t crazy. If you’re part of an institution you don’t go to war with it–it will cut you off sooner or later. The war, for people who really want change, must be waged from outside the circle.

  • shepherdwong

    “If you’re part of an institution you don’t go to war with it–it will cut you off sooner or later.”
    .
    You mean like “government is the problem” Republican public officials? If that’s an example the “or later” it takes too damned long.

  • jcapan

    “You mean like ‘government is the problem’ Republican public officials? If that’s an example the ‘or later’ it takes too damned long.”
    ~
    Good pt. Shwong. Gov’t is an institution, but only bureaucrats are vulnerable to the type of retribution I allude to. If you buck the system, they can’t fire virtually tenured mandarins, but they’ll make your role irrelevant, redundant or downright farcically meaningless. My dad observed folks at his agency, I saw it in my time with the Smithsonian, and a good friend of mine who is retired from State goes on for hours about the practice–putting brilliant men & women at little corner desks to count pencils.
    ~
    BUT, congress is a diff animal entirely. A toothless institution if ever there was one. Members from both parties are there forever, subject only to the limited democratic powers of their electorates, and with g-mandering and methods of financing their campaigns…. The gov’t itself, as an institution, has zero self-regulating power to circumscribe the virtual house of peers we now have in America. Thus, there is no sphere of deviancy, unless the voters decide you’ve strayed too far.

  • jcapan

    To follow up, b/c congress & the fed. gov’t are separate institutions, what the GOP does, threatening and/or seeking to bankrupt the fed. gov’t, outsourcing all human services to private industry, is not a threat to their institution. Congress has other sacred cows–e.g. preventing any real campaign finance reform or term limits from ever happening being discussed, preventing guys like Ron Paul or Russ Feingold from ever getting in positions of real power (relative to the industries their ideologies threaten).

  • sacredh

    So Bush is talking now? Would you say that’s better or worse environmentally than cow farts?

  • shepherdwong

    “Thus, there is no sphere of deviancy, unless the voters decide you’ve strayed too far.”
    .
    Like if you’re a sex-moralizing Republican caught eliciting gay sex in a public restroom or a civic-moralizing Democrat caught committing public policy in the corporate-owned government. That the sort of “deviancy” you mean?

  • sacredh

    How far is too far? I think us democrats can away with just a little bit more. We have a special relationship with God. Just ask the republicans. God is disgusted with us. But he tolerates us because we’re more interesting. The republicans are far more predictible. They claim to be the party with a higher moral standard, then the next thing you know, one of them is trying to blow some stranger in a public restroom. They hide that stuff. We run on it.

  • jcapan

    Shep:
    ~
    Not sure what your pt. is, but I’m obtuse at times. Are you under the impression that I’m defending any of the above here? The MSM, the GOP and most of the congressional dems–scorn all around. Help me out a bit. What members of either party are being held acct’able for is not my pt.

blog comments powered by Disqus