Comments on: The NY Times Drops The Mask

By: Knemon

Knemon — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:01:32 +0000

Peter, beware of confirmation bias.

Bush’s dad seemed like another Carter in January 1993. Now, not so much. Now maybe that’s due to comparison with his son – but also with Clinton.

Still too soon to know. 10 years from now, hopefully, we’ll know if you’re right.

Bush might be the Republican LBJ? whom the Democrats rehabilitated in last year’s convention (if not before). Or maybe we shouldn’t look to past presidents for comparison.

Whatever. Three-day weekend is almost upon us. Mark, peter, and everyone else – have a good one!

By: peter

peter — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:59:27 +0000

Well, OK, maybe I overstate my case — and of course Bush didn’t cause Katrina, it was the reaction to it (or lack of one) which got him in trouble — but give it another year or two, and I think he will be written off by all but a very few — this reminds me very much of Jimmy Carter circa 1978, when he was more or less laughed off the stage –

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:50:19 +0000

peter, peter…I have no doubt there is a huge consensus on the left that Bush is a disaster, but believe me, there are still tens of millions who don’t subscribe to the Bush caused Katrina, misled the country into war, and ran over my dog view of history…if all George W. Bush accomplished (and it’s not all, but just for argument’s sake) was deposing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, those victories alone earn him permanent gratitude…now if you throw in an Afghanistan and Iraq that, huge problems with insurgents and all, appear to be pretty firmly on the road to democracy, well, give me that much of a disaster with every president…

By: peter

peter — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:40:59 +0000

Agreed, except for the last sentence — I think there is an emerging consensus that Bush is pretty much a disaster, and there will be an ever-dwindling number of people willing to take the pro-Bush side of the argument –

By: Knemon

Knemon — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 03:23:52 +0000

“Also, you can term it “sexual predation,” but it was consenting and between adults – ”

Did you miss the word “serial” in there? In the course of a lawsuit an attempt was made to establish Clinton had a history of boinking the staff, because that would’ve made Jones’ claims more credible. He knew this, surely, which is (part of the reason) why he lied.

But basically, I think we’re on the same page here. Clinton = a heck of a smart guy, hardly our best president, but definitely not our worst. Where he really dropped the ball is

(a) not being able to keep it in his pants during this important phase of his career (viz., being president)
(b) thinking he could lie his way through all that mess.

There’s no need to re-hash all of this (he says, having done just that). Enough in the news to talk about as it is.

How’d we get on this again? (scrolls up) Right – the issue of which is more intense and creepy, Clinton-hatred or Bush-hatred …

I’ll say this: Bush-hatred is way more intense and mainstreamized, if you dig – but Bush has given his opponents a lot more to work with than Clinton did. As he recedes into the historical rearview mirror, it’s going to be hard to remember what all the fuss was about over Clinton one way or the other, pro or con. Not so with Bush – I have an awful feeling we’re going to be arguing over this for the rest of our lives.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:19:47 +0000

Also, you can term it “sexual predation,” but it was consenting and between adults –

By: peter

peter — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:18:47 +0000

I don’t disagree, but I wonder how the rest of us would act if we were in Clinton’s shoes. I don’t have the Presidency, the fame, or the good looks to give me unlimited sexual access to women. (OK, maybe the looks). Let’s face it: if you are President, you can probably have sex with anyone you want without even having to ask nicely. This is not to say that all Presidents are serial philanderers – hey, Jimmy Carter only “lusted after women in his heart” – but we don’t know what it is like to literally be the master of the universe. This is not to excuse him – only to point out that, in my opinion, most mere mortals (especially the Type A people who would run for office) would, if they had the chance, probably have the same zipper problem that Clinton had –

By: Knemon

Knemon — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:51:00 +0000

“The righteous son, Alyosha, said no. I believe that is the right answer.”

I remember this. I believe that neither answer to that question can be said to be the right one unequivocally.

Peter, more than Clinton’s “philandering” was at issue. Unless serial sexual predation upon subordinates is now just “philandering.”

Unlike many others out there, I actually think he was a halfway decent president, but there’s a very nasty side to him – not just pathologically ‘philanderous,’ but mean and vindictive …

I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Bush, either.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:15:58 +0000

Mark, you’re a better man than me — I was at the bookstore recently and looked at those 800 pages, and thought, well, maybe some other time –

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 02:09:15 +0000

peter, on an incidental note, I am re-reading the Brothers K currently – though I’ve read it before, it has been many years…