WaxWorks
|
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Hughes
Salon.com has a great article by James C. Moore, author of Bush's Brain, about Bush adviser Karen Hughes. Moore discusses Hughes almost cultlike devotion to Bush, and her willingness to lie and deny reality in order to protect him. Moore quotes Tucker Carlson about his experience in interviewing Bush in 1999, only to have Hughes come back at him unhappy with the article:
Despite her former career as a journalist, Hughes has cultivated an absurd, counterintuitive notion that she can either control or strongly influence what is reported. Of course, she ought to know better, but this does not preclude her from persistently trying to write stories for reporters. She relaxed -- momentarily -- when conservative writer and commentator Tucker Carlson came to Austin to interview Bush. The piece Carlson filed for the now defunct Talk magazine was not what she had anticipated from someone whose politics were expected to be like Bush's.
Carlson, a floppy-haired antagonist of progressives, wasn't supposed to be hard on Karen's man. In fact, in an interview with Salon last year, the CNN host said his wife was worried that his story might appear to be "sucking up." Bush, knowing Carlson's political predisposition, lifted the shades hiding his true beliefs and offered a clearer view of himself to the reporter. Carlson's story described how Bush swore freely and mocked condemned death-row inmate Karla Faye Tucker. He told Salon that he was astonished by how Hughes responded to his article in Talk.
"It was very, very hostile," Carlson said. "The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus], Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."
When cornered, Hughes dissembles. But she is rarely cornered. Nonetheless, she seems to have lost her ability to distinguish between the real world and the red, white and blue movie playing on a loop in her head; it's a drama where "W" is the hero and crowds are cheering him as a savior while the national anthem plays as the soundtrack. This is considerably more than a political skill. It's more of a serious psychological tic. Even when confronted with a videotape or a transcript contradicting her recall, Hughes still finds denial a viable political tool.
Hughes' recent denials over her statement clearly comparing pro-choice supporters with terrorists is a great example of this. However, I thought this was the most interesting part though:
Actually, Hughes had become unsettlingly close to her boss long before journalism or outsiders began to take note. In fact, her worst critics have accused the presidential counselor of living almost vicariously through Bush. His goals and political ideology have been so inculcated into Hughes' consciousness that she may no longer be able discern between her own thinking and the president's. This undoubtedly is an odd characterization to make of two of the world's most powerful adults. There is, however, no shortage of evidence to prompt the speculation.
The first time I noticed an indication of a radio frequency bouncing between the brains of Bush and Hughes was during Gov. Bush's initial State of the State speech in Texas. Still a simple press hack, Hughes did not take to the riser in the Texas House of Representatives, instead standing off to the side, behind the shiny brass railing rimming the chamber's floor.
"Look at Karen," I said, nudging a colleague.
"Oh, my God. You've got to be kidding me."
As Gov. Bush read the text of his speech from a teleprompter, his communications director was silently mouthing the words along with him. The synchronized delivery suggested a parent sitting in the audience of an elementary school pageant while mouthing forgotten lines as her child stood dumbstruck onstage.
"Do you suppose she has any idea how odd that looks?" my friend asked.
"If she does, I don't think she cares. She seems to just want her guy to do well."
In the ensuing years of Bush's political development, Hughes was spotted many times as she pursed her lips and moved her jaws to each word her employer was stammering in the front of the room. After a while, those of us in the traveling press corps became so accustomed to her mannerisms that we were no longer amazed.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Wrong
It's rare that I would find anything worth quoting in USA Today, much less in their Letters to the Editor, but I think this writer does a very good job of crystalizing why Rumsfeld should go:
* Rumsfeld was right only about the forces necessary to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
* He was wrong about the weapons of mass destruction that were the putative justification for this war.
* He was wrong about the forces necessary to secure Iraq's infrastructure and protect its people against looting and rampant crime.
* He was wrong about the cost of the occupation, which the administration claimed Iraq's oil revenues would cover and which is, instead, costing the U.S. billions of dollars.
* He was wrong about the scope and speed of reconstruction that would be required to restore and expand basic services to Iraq.
* He was wrong in believing that the U.S. could create and control a provisional government that would be sufficiently acceptable to the Iraqi people so as not to require propping up with a massive U.S. military presence.
* He was wrong about the degrees of resentment and hostility that a mismanaged and increasingly repressive U.S. occupation would provoke among ordinary Iraqis who originally hailed U.S. troops as liberators.
* He was wrong about when our soldiers could begin to come home. Instead, tours are being extended.
* And now, he is wrong in his dealings with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Rumsfeld either does not grasp or will not acknowledge that his own eagerness for war and poor planning for the ''peace'' in Iraq have endangered America's interests in the world, destabilized the Middle East and led to the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis.
He should resign for the incalculable damage he has wrought on his country and the world. If he will not resign, he should be fired.
Laura Livesay
Eggleston, Va.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Superb
I'm reminded today of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine has the hots for a cute pediatrician after he tells her that she looks "quite breathtaking." She's excited about this... until he describes what by all accounts is an extremely ugly baby as "breathtaking" as well.
That's my reaction after hearing reports that Bush told Rumsfeld he was "doing a superb job."
Hillary News
One of the most interesting unanswered political questions is what Rudy Giuliani will decide to do with his political future, post 9/11. I've speculated here before that he's the only New Yorker who has a shot of beating Hillary in 2006, but he's got a tough choice to make. Governor Pataki's term is also up that year and Republicans, facing a strong and well-financed Democrat in Eliot Spitzer, are worried about the sputtering Pataki's chances. I've long speculated that Pataki will not run for another term, setting up a great opportunity for Giuliani, whose personality is much better suited for the executive role of Governor than being one of 100 Senators.
It seems like the New York Republican party has figured this out, per Bob Novak:
Well-placed New York Republicans concede that there will be no chance to keep the state's governorship for a fourth straight term in 2006 unless Rudy Giuliani returns to politics to run.
These Republican leaders have no idea what the former New York City mayor will do. But they see nobody else who could beat state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the likely Democratic candidate. Three-term Republican Gov. George Pataki is expected either to return to private law practice or, if President Bush is re-elected, get a federal appointment.
All in all, this is excellent news for Hillary, who certainly would face a competitve race from Giuliani. Incidentally, Hillary's approval rating just reached its highest point yet from New Yorkers.
Timing Is Everything
This from the incomparable Josh Marshall:
Just to pass on some added information, about which we'll be saying more. There is chatter in Pakistani intelligence circles that the US has let the Pakistanis know that the optimal time for bagging 'high value' al Qaida suspects in the untamed Afghan-Pakistani border lands is the last ten days of July, 2004.
Of course, other events scheduled to occur during this time period are 1) the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and 2) the Democratic Convention. Let's wait and see.
But I've reached a level of suspicion and paranoia with this Administration to believe that anything's possible from them in order to hold onto power. The Medicare bill and the WMD scandal are exhibits 1 and 1A on this.
Zogby on May 9, 2004: Election is Kerry's to Lose
I've mentioned before my strong faith in Zogby polling -- he was right on the nose in 1996 and was the only major pollster I know of that had Gore winning the popular vote in 2000. His polling during the Democratic primaries has been right on.
That's why I have to take notice, particularly in a time when grumbling among Dems has started about Kerry's inability to pull away from Bush during such bad news for the Administration, when Zogby posts a headline like this: The Election Is Kerry's To Lose
Zogby's premises are strong: only 44% feel the country is headed in the right direction; only 43% believe Bush deserves to be reelected; Kerry leads by 17 points in "Blue States" that voted for Gore, while Bush only leads by 10 points in "Red States" he won four years ago. Also, Zogby notes that the economy is still the top issue for votes (Kerry leads Bush among those voters, 54-35); the war in Iraq is second (Kerry leads among those voters 57%-36%) and the war on terror is third (with Bush leading 64-30 among those voters)
Also, Zogby notes that the fact that there are so few undecided voters is bad for Bush, since undecideds generally break for the challenger against the incumbent.
Finally, the most significant (and most wishful, for Democrats) point is that Kerry is a great closer:
Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry's campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possibly positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can't spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean's message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: "I'm a veteran", "I have the experience", and "I can win". His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one former his Vietnam War colleague of told a television correspondent in Iowa: "John always knows when his homework is due."
Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President's side).
Definitely worth a read if you're looking for a pick-me-up in morale...
