« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | Better watch out, Kevin... »

If it looks too good to be true...

One of the earliest lessons I ever learned was "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is." In politics, this is even more true. Whenever I've heard or read something that perfectly confirms my preconceptions or beliefs or suspicions, I get paranoid. I find myself far more suspicious of those who speak up in support of me than of my detractors.

It's paid off. I once got into a big argument with the host and some posters on another web site. Another guy chimed in, backing me up and offering more evidence to support my position. But it turns out he was plagiarizing, cutting and pasting whole paragraphs from online articles. Luckily, I recognized what he was doing and busted him before my whole position could be discredited.

But it's a lesson that others never seem to learn.

In the Rathergate scandal, Rather and Mapes had their own version of events locked firmly in mind. George W. Bush had served less than honorably in the National Guard, shirking his responsibilities and using his family connections to evade being held accountable. Then, when they received those infamous fake memos, they let themselves be blinded by that belief and refused to give those memos even the most casual scrutiny that would have revealed them for the blatant forgeries they were.

It's happened again.

The Left has its image of George W. Bush. Since he was born again at the age of 40, they're convinced he's a religious zealot, a fanatical Jesus freak who uses his belief in God as his touchstone on every single major decision.

And last week, when Nabil Shaath, the former Palestinian Foreign Minister told London's Guardian that President Bush had told him that "God had told him to invade Iraq," and later God had told him to help establish a Palestinian state.

This was exactly the kind of story the Guardian and others on the left could sink their teeth into. Here was clear and convincing proof that the leader of the free world wasn't being guided by principle, or politics, or even pragmatism, but the direct, personal, one-on-one word of God -- much like the Islamic terrorists who scream their god's praises as they saw off people's heads and blow up bombs strapped to themselves.

In their eagerness, though, they never questioned the credibility of their source. And why should they? They all KNEW that what he said was accurate, if not necessarily true. So the need to nail down the finer details was lost in the rush to disclose the "greater truth."

What they should have done was note several facts:

1) The statements, while confirming their perceptions of George W. Bush, was completely out of character for any other of his public statements.

2) Bush has never been particularly fond of the Palestinian leadership, and would not be likely to make such an intimate confession to people he doesn't trust.

3) The phrasing itself is awkward, and not in the usual Dubya clumsiness. To my ear, at least, it has the hallmarks of someone for whom English is not their first language, but one they have studied and learned -- unlike Dubya's stumblemouthedness, which is more of a dialect of English itself.

But that simply didn't matter. The Guardian (among the most liberal of London's papers, with a long history of simply getting things wrong, out of ideology, laziness, or both) rushed the story to print.

And now that they've committed themselves, their original source is backing off. The White House (apparently not asked to comment before publication) has said, unequivocally, that Bush never said any such thing. And Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian leader who was also at that meeting, has also denied Shaath's account -- who cannot be reached for comment.

But facts are pesky things, especially when THE TRUTH is obvious. Just ask Mary Mapes or Dan Rather.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If it looks too good to be true...:

» Vagabondia linked with Stupid Media Tricks

» Eclipse Ramblings linked with A good lesson...

» NIF linked with Back in the Saddle

Comments (39)

I posted about this a few d... (Below threshold)

I posted about this a few days ago here.

One thing that is perhaps even more important than the Left once again letting their bias get the best of them is this: this allegation will be directly dangerous for the USA in the War on Terror.

This allegation was first published by some Israeli publication called Haaretz. At the time, it didn't get any play.

Now that BBC is sourcing the allegation in a documentary, all the world's largest news sources are on it like white on rice.

Let's sit back for a minute and take this in: George Bush claimed God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

What has Osama bin Laden been saying all these yeears? That Bush is conducting a crusade in the Middle East, to annihilate Islam.

BBC just gave the perfect cover for Osama bin Laden's propaganda, and now the whole world will be hearing about this, far fewer will hear the correction coming from Abbas.

This will once again put American lives in danger, and set us back in the War on Terror in the attempt to win hearts and minds in the Middle East.

All because the BBC couldn't call up Mahmoud Abbas and confirm some dubious allegation that they just KNEW had to be correct.

Go read my blog post about it, where the Independent in the UK uses this mindset to rationalize that "it's plausible, it must be true!"

When are these MORONS going to start being on OUR side?

Jeez, thanks for the gratui... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Jeez, thanks for the gratuitous, Kos-lite analysis (kettle/black?) of Bush's many linguistic failings. I'm trying to find a politician who doesn't make such errors, including Clinton(s). The point isn't that there aren't occasional gaffes by Bush, it's that his are edited together by news organizations to discredit him...or Dan Quayle for that matter. (Making it all a self-fulfilling prophecy of stupidity for CBS, et al.) Recall, Bush outpointed Kerry in college...and went to grad school at Harvard, and wasn't shelved like Kerry to a second-tier postgrad institution (BC.) Recall the Texas governor Bush, when the MSM found him TOO slick and garroulous, postively loquacious. It wasn't until Mapes, Rather and company at CBS in the '90s ran an attack story on Bush the governor that a meme of stupidity was born. You bought into it,so it did work. So did the idea of Ford as a stumblebum--selective editing of a Republican who was inarguably the best athlete ever in the White House--and the only football All American...yet thanks to idiot Chevy Chase and other liberals, Ford was an uncoordinated bouffe. BTW, I've seen Bill Clinton trip twice coming down the stairs of our university auditorium during his commencement address--but nothing on the news about it. Plus, even reading from a script, Bill mangled at least a half-dozen points and words. Parents even thought he must be bombed. 'Course, the news carried nothing of it. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Glad to see your self-serving memoirs of your paranoid insights don't include doubting the media's memes.

"But facts are pesky things... (Below threshold)
Bob:

"But facts are pesky things, especially when THE TRUTH is obvious. Just ask Mary Mapes or Dan Rather."

Oh, my! You missed a few who are fast and free with the facts -- DeLay, Rove, Safavian, Abramoff, Frist, Libby, Brown, Chertoff.

Just an oversight, eh?

Bob

Too dumb? What literal, sc... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Too dumb? What literal, scientific, rigourous proof--as opposed to rumour, ideologically-based innuendo or MSM meme-manufacuring-- does one have regarding DeLay? Libby? Rove? Bueller? Bueller? Thought so. Smear campaigns by the left haven't done well when inspected under a microscope: vide Rather and Mapes. (Well, was Kerry in Cambodia? Working for the CIA? No, well, I read it in the Boston Globe! Funny how the credibility of old-school media melts when under the hot light of the blogosphere. So too do the innuendos against Bush, DeLay, et al. Name one retraction by the 'right' and I can name a dozen corrections and retractions by the left. Check out the 'public editor' of the Times on Bush-bashing columns on the editorial pages, as well as Bush-bashing inventions on their 'news' pages. It's getting ridiculous--don't the Grey Lady ever make an error on the pro-Bush side? 300 plus corrections and retractions regarding Bush administration alone this year! Acte est fabula.

Hee, I usually smile and ig... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee, I usually smile and ignore our hosts' spelling errors, typos, etc., figuring boys are boys, but this time I agree with Jack here...

Did JayTea get abducted by the Bush Hating Aliens this weekend and got replaced by a mole? Did they pour kool-aid in his beer?

I'll still luv ya if you post more Plamegate threads, though :)

Mary and Dan would not know... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

Mary and Dan would not know the truth if you hit them over their heads with it. As was done for 5 months (9/01 - 1/05) a year ago.

Once a group of dirty lying... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Once a group of dirty lying liberal left-wing journalists always a bunch of dirty lying left-wing journalists nothings changed

In other pesky news....</... (Below threshold)
DUDACKATTACK!!!:

In other pesky news....


"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

-- President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.

"Bush says he sensed a higher call during his second inauguration as governor of Texas. He called a friend in Fort Worth, telling him, "I believe God wants me to run for President."'

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/014/1.38.html

More proof that God gives g... (Below threshold)
Jake:

More proof that God gives good advice.

There is a difference in wh... (Below threshold)
Sabba Hillel:

There is a difference in what the media (and Shaath) claimed and the statement later in the article. Everyone has a moral and religious obligation to try to do the right thing. Of course, the quote below also does not sound like a native English speaker. I do not think that Americans would use the term "moral and religious" in that sense.

Abbas, who was also at the meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, recalled how the president told him: "'I have a moral and religious obligation'".

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/051007131357.nstalu7a.html

The fact that Mapes/Rather ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

The fact that Mapes/Rather relied on what were likely false documents didn't make the whole story untrue, although the right managed to play it that way and get the media to back off what I believe is a true story. The story about Bush's Guard service didn't originate with Mapes and Rather, so any mistakes they made in reporting it are only reflective of their reporting, not of the credibility of the allegations. Similarly, if the Guardian did a sloppy job of reporting Bush's alleged remarks, it doesn't suddenly mean he's actually really articulate, and any perception otherwise is a media invention. It also doesn't mean that he hasn't invoked God as giving him guidance, as noted above.

I mean, c'mon. If you want to argue that an occasional flubbing of words doesn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence, then fine. But to say that the media "strung together" a few misstatements, and that's why we think Bush is inarticulate, is a joke. And you may hate Clinton, but to compare him to Bush in this regard is ridiculous. Clinton is an accomplished public speaker, and very good speaking contemporaneously. Bush is clearly an uncomfortable speaker, gripping the podium for dear life. He doesn't articulate his thoughts well, latches onto a phrase like "hard work" and beats it to death so he won't have to think of a new phrase.

I don't buy the fact that Bush is stupid, but I think he has more cunning than native intelligence. He doesn't seem to have a great curiosity about the world. And you can spin it all you want, but he has a history of making incredibly garbled statements. I could post 10 or 20 or 30 if you like, but it's kind of a waste of speace, since they're all over the web.

People will believe what th... (Below threshold)
Jack:

People will believe what they want to hear.

This story made the rounds ... (Below threshold)

This story made the rounds in June of 2003 orginally, with slightly different quotes from Bush by the Palestinians. And far be it from me to excuse the Guardian, but in this case they were going from the BBC, which has at least one Palestinian minister (information natch) on tape making the claim. BTW, the BBC story is going to be broadcast on PBS tonight, so expect the tale to have legs.

BR, I still support Bush, a... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

BR, I still support Bush, and am still proud of voting for him. But you gotta admit -- he DOES tend to be stumblemouthed. Remember the OB-GYNs who were being prevented from "sharing their love" with their patients?

J.

Chris, the problem wasn't t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Chris, the problem wasn't that the TANG documents were forgeries, it was that it's the ONLY solid evidence for that case, versus circumstantial evidence to the contrary (Bush's honorable discharge, for example, which would not be granted had he deserted or been found AWOL or otherwise failed to fulfill his commitments).

If you wanna prove something that substantial, you gotta have SOMETHING solid to back it up. All Rather and Mapes had were those incredibly poor forgeries and their own biases.

J.

If you wanna prove somet... (Below threshold)

If you wanna prove something that substantial, you gotta have SOMETHING solid to back it up. All Rather and Mapes had were those incredibly poor forgeries and their own biases.

And sooner or later you just have to step back and realize that if there's no smoke, there's probably no fire.

Unfortunately, it's difficu... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Unfortunately, it's difficult to prove that somethig didn't happen, especially when you've got well-connected friends who are in a position to alter or destroy documents. But it's my understanding that there are no payroll records for Bush during his entire time in Alabama, one officer remembers him reporting for duty in Alabama, but no one remembers him being in Alabama after that, including his superior officers. The only record is a dental exam in Alabama. No reason is given for his failure to take his flight physical in 1972. Other pilots at the Alabama base have specifically said they never saw him, and it wasn't that big a group of pilots.

When Bush went back to Houston after his time in Alabama, his commanding officers wrote that they couldn't complete his annual evalutation covering from May 1972 to April 1973 because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." If any of these facts have been refuted I'd be interested to know where.

The story Mapes and Rather were working on had to do with how the Bush family pulled strings to get him in the Guard ahead of the 100,000 people already on the waiting list. The allegations about his service in Alabama are another story altogether, and do not disappear because of anything Mapes and Rather did. This is exactly what I mean about the right trying to use Mapes/Rather as proof that he is absolved of all charges.

And by the way, this story has been around since at least 2000, despite Brainster's comment that this story originally made the rounds in 2003. And I think it's a little disingenuous to say that there's no proof, because he wasn't found guilty of desertion or AWOL. The entire point is that he had powerful friends covering his ass the whole way, just like he's had the rest of his life.

The entire point is that... (Below threshold)

The entire point is that he had powerful friends covering his ass the whole way, just like he's had the rest of his life.

And who might those friends be? Remember that the Bushes are an east coast family and it is debatable that they were at all powerful or influential in Texas in the early 70s. The fraudulent Rather/Mapes documents mentioned a Col. Staudt as the pressure-applier, but unfortunately, he had retired in 1972, well before the purported date, which was 1973.

Drudge had this one in H1.<... (Below threshold)

Drudge had this one in H1.

The guy needs to stick to hicks getting blowjobs in the White House.

By 1972 the American... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


By 1972 the American involvement in Viet Nam had been rolled back to the point you had experienced fighter pilots flying desks all over the States, we didn't need any Reserve Pilots. Bush was not the only Reservist told unofficially to go find something else to do during the period in question. The truth is out there if you were serious about finding it.

<a href="http://www.awolbus... (Below threshold)
DUDACKATTACK!!!:
I think when you're in the ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I think when you're in the military there's a little difference between being told to go find something else to do, and making that decision on your own. The Bushes have had no problem digging up people from the past willing to say whatever they want, I'm sure they could get whoever told him to take a hike to admit it on the record now. The point is his commander in Alabama would know if that was the case, and he's never even hinted that Bush was excused.

And by the time Bush was ready to join the Guard, they weren't "from Connecticut." His father had been in the Texas oil business and politics for many years. Bush started an oil company with $50,000, then attracted millions in investments despite the fact that the company was losing money and Bush had no track record of business success. He got another company, Spectrum 7, to buy it, and make Bush CEO of the new entity. Harken Energy bought Spectrum 7 two years later, and Bush ended up with $530,380 and a $120,000 consulting gig. (I guess there was a demand for consultants to show people how to lose money.) He sold all of his Harken stock four years later for $848,560.

Bush put up $600,000 to buy part of the Texas Rangers in an ownership group that was headed by two wealthy contributors to George H. W. Bush's campaign. He was made managing partner, despite only owning 1.8 percent of the team (this just doesn't happen.) His visibility with the team did manage to raise his public profile enough to get him elected governor, however. Bush then sold his share in the team for $15 million (after his partners made a gift to him of 10% more of the team.). A common thread in all this is that Bush never demonstrated an actual ability to run a business profitably, yet managed to continue to make money, almost always with the involvement of friends of his father. (To be fair, the Rangers increased in value, but this was at a time when even the most poorly run franchise increased in value significantly. The team was not particularly successful on the field, however.) Probably Bush's biggest success was a threat to move the team, which led to a sales tax increase in the City of Arlington to fund a new stadium. I guess taxes do have their place, after all. But the new stadium paid off, since the rent the team paid to the city was actually going to purchase the stadium, for a total cost of $50 million, less than half of what the taxpayers paid for it. Ownership of the stadium is what made the team so valuable when Bush and his partners sold the team later to Thomas O. Hicks. Oh, and by the way, Hicks was a major Bush contributor.

So there's a reason why Bush's critics see him as having gotten a free ride all his life, and why it's not so hard to believe that the family could find someone to alter a few Guard records from 20 years ago.

"The point is his commander... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"The point is his commander in Alabama would know if that was the case, and he's never even hinted that Bush was excused."

"So there's a reason why Bush's critics see him as having gotten a free ride all his life, and why it's not so hard to believe that the family could find someone to alter a few Guard records from 20 years ago."

Make up your mind, is the Guard covering for him or not? It's really hard to debate someone who can't figure out what their story is gonna be from one paragraph to the next.


Sometimes I wonder if I did... (Below threshold)
cat:

Sometimes I wonder if I did too many mushrooms when I was younger. Mushrooms (of the magical persuasion) can create a damn good impression that they can bend time. This is not something one would normally want to bring up in a discussion like this.

But...

Nine months ago I read that very same quote at the beginning of Dilip Hiro's book Secrets and Lies. The statement is attributed to a certain G. W. Bush speaking to Mahmoud Abbas - and the source is Ha'aretz, June 24, 2003. Not the Guardian. Not the BBC. Ha'aretz - two years ago.

Obviously too many mushrooms. But I still have the book - and there it is in print - along with the dates.

I just tried to find that quote (and its context) on Ha'aretz's website...and it's not there in English - but of course it wouldn't be. My Hebrew is so abysmal, I'm not even going to try the search in the only language that would bring up the desired result -- if indeed it really is there.

So, do I think I did too many mushrooms? Yes. Do I think Bush said those exact same words? Obviously not. If he said anything like that, he would have been saying them to a non-native speaker of English - Abbas. If another non-native speaker then paraphrases him, is it going to be a direct quote allowing us to use linguistic analysis to determine if it is a real or fake Bushism? If your answer is yes, then you did more mushrooms than me.

So, if anyone is closer than I am to a library that stocks back issues of Ha'aretz maybe they would like to look up the June 24, 2003 edition of Ha'aretz and see if that quote is there. Even if it is, it won't prove Bush actually said those words. But it should give us a bit more context.

chrisHave you cons... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

chris

Have you considered getting a thorough mental evaluation? rather, mapes and other members of the "elitist media" have no problems digging up someone to lie to support their bias. benny barnes made his accusation of providing assistance to get Bush into the TANG. Yet there has never been a singel individual to step forward to substantiate his lie. There have been a number to step forward and denounce his lie.

cbs refused to tell the American public that benny was a member of kerry's Texas campaign staff. cbs refused to tell the American public that several of the "experts" it contacted refused to authenticate the phony documents. cbs refused to tell the American public the "documents" they displayed were not orignals until questions about their authenticy were raised. cbs would have never made this public if they had not be called into question.

Creating a lie and then forging documents to substantiate that lie does not mean the lie is valid. cbs and people such as yourself have attempted for more than a year to shift the responsibility of disproving a lie onto President Bush and Conservative. It doesn't wash. rather and mapes, if not directly responsible for the creation of the forged documents, wanted the information on them to be true. There was and there is no proof to the charges contained in them.

However, there is proof that kerry lied time and again. But, as he was the darling of the "elitist media", this was never reported to the American public. (A number of "journalists" including cnn's jeff greenburg, met secretly with kerry in a New York appartment to outline his campaign strategy). kerry met with leaders of communist north viet nam in violation of his oath to the U.S. Navy.

TheEnigma, you forgot one e... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

TheEnigma, you forgot one essential detail: Barnes said he helped Bush get into the National Guard by using his influence as Lieutenant Governor. Unfortunately, Bush signed up well before Barnes' term began. Oops...

And as for the "not observed" -- I've heard that one explained. In military lingo, that apparently means "not observed for evaluation purposes," not "not seen" or "was not present." Several other veterans stepped forward and presented their own records with the same phrasing, and it meant they had not been at their current station long enough for a formal assessment. Some have even argued that the use of that phrase is proof that Bush WAS present, but I don't know enough to push that one.

J.

The biggest problem ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


The biggest problem with the idea the family pulled strings to keep Chimpy out of the war, was that you didn't have to pull strings to get in the TANG because it wouldn't keep you out of the war at the time W joined. They were sending pilots over there, and George volunteered. Damn strange way to avoid combat, you ask me.


Actually, God told GWB to j... (Below threshold)
epador:

Actually, God told GWB to join the TANG. I read it in my tea leaves so I know it has to be true. Or was it written on my mushrooms? Heck, its hard to remember, I'm still reeling from Chris's financial history lesson. I just wish he was as forthcoming on both Fast Willy's and J F'n Kerry's financial history...

Not that I'm surprised, but... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Not that I'm surprised, but I notice how much of my post was conveniently ignored, despite the lengthy responses.

So, in order:

BMoe: There's no contradiction in what I'm saying. I never said that the entire National Guard was in on covering up for Bush. I don't know if anyone was in on it. What I said was that Bush's commanding officer in Alabama said he was never there. Other members of the Guard in Texas may have covered for him. Why is that so contradictory? And I think it's convenient that Bush is a hero because they were sending pilots to Viet Nam, but it was OK for him to leave his unit because they weren't sending pilots to Viet Nam. It's hard to debate when the other side can't make up its mind.

The Enigma: Have you considered reading comprehension lessons? I made it clear that there was a difference between the CBS story, which was about how Bush got into the Guard, and what I was posting about, which is whether he fulfilled his service. Two different stories, in two different states. Next time maybe you could read an entire post before you respond. Nothing more embarrassing than making a snarky response, then having it turn out that you're the idiot.

JayTea: I can't really respond to your assertion that "you heard" what not present means. However, if you're depending on "it meant they had not been at their current station long enough for a formal assessment," perhaps you should note that this was for an entire year of Bush's supposed service.

Oh, and epador: "I just wish he was as forthcoming on both Fast Willy's and J F'n Kerry's financial history..." What the hell is that? How am I not being forthcoming because I'm not discussing something that's not even the topic of this thread? I guess then I'm not being forthcoming about the Miers nomination or the response to Hurricane Katrina, either. And incidentally, miliions and millions of dollars were spent investigating Clinton's finances. How much wrongdoing was discovered? I'll wait for your answer. Also, the reason for my financial history lesson is that I was responding to this statement: "And who might those friends be? Remember that the Bushes are an east coast family and it is debatable that they were at all powerful or influential in Texas in the early 70s." I notice no one had a word to say about that, and that JayTea was the only one to even acknowledge that he might have actually read what I wrote about Bush's Guard service.

I guess my only question is, are you guys all also hoodwinked by the Republicans meme that the Mapes/Rather gaffe absolves Bush of all suspicion, or are you intentionally taking part in the whole misdirection play?

When he enlisted the... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


When he enlisted they were sending pilots to Viet Nam, and he volunteered for the program. Those files are on record, and they aren't forged. By the time he got his wings, the war was being phased out and we didn't need pilots. Stop being a dumbass. This is common knowledge if you talk to anyone in the Air Force around this time.

Speaking of Mary Mapes, hav... (Below threshold)
Redhand:

Speaking of Mary Mapes, have you checked out some of the excerpts from her book? It's straight out of a complete alternate universe. It gets incredibly wierd when she starts whining about all the blogger attacks, when all she and Dan are trying to do get out the truth about Bush. Mary makes Dan's denials look like a lucid acceptance of responsibilit. Amazing.

B Moe,Chris has made... (Below threshold)

B Moe,
Chris has made up his/her mind:
Bush is bad, mmkay?

Chris: While you're undoub... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Chris: While you're undoubtedly at least as smart and brilliant a public speaker as either POTUS we're discussing, I have to thank you Chris for demonstrating my point. I agree as well, "Clinton...is very good speaking contemporaneously (sic)" !!! And so are you equally accomplished writing 'contemporaneously.' While I myself am only outstanding writing or speaking extemporaneously, I'd have to still insist that Clinton's gaffes were howlers--'contemporaneously' or reading from a script. And I knew all of the players of the 80s in the party, and like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern I watched the principals from the wings throughout the decade and into the '90s. As a 'public intellectual' and professor on the Charles--in JayTea's territory--with a specialty needed (especially pro bono, but oh the perks!) by the ruling party, I worked ad hoc for 10 years at the Statehouse downtown. Kennedy, whom I knew a bit, is actually a decent and fun guy, liked the Bush family quite a lot and despised frequent visitor (Gov) Clinton, our Gov Duke, and especially arriviste Lt Gov Kerry, a born snob with less real personal wealth than the strap-hanging Duke! All were cold, calculated and plotting (and plodding) pols to the funky Teddy and clan. The Bush bunch--with their extremely tight, extended family structure so alike the Kennedys (and so unlike the backbiting, broke and tiny group of remaining Kerrys and the broken and broke Clinton clans) and were more to Teddy's liking and party affiliation didn't much alter the kinship the two families shared behind the scenes. Back then, believe it or not, the Bush kids (the boys, with strong ties to Boston area, especially Milton) were considered 'sharp' and 'smart' and quite likely to become successfully politicians by our own statehouse touts and the Boston Globe! Quelle surprise!

Just as I expected, this th... (Below threshold)
BR:

Just as I expected, this thread would attract a moonbat or two. Chris, is your other name Paul Lukasiak or Linda Starr or Martin Heldt or Bill Burkett? Or are you Mary Mapes or Dan Rather in drag? Tell us more here, on the record, for future prosecutors when they begin to investigate CBSgate. Those who still assert the minutiae of Lukasiak's four years of faulty opposition research on Bush at his AWOL Project site glcq.com, must have some vested interest, hey? CYA time is long over. And Mapes' book, Chapter 1 (discussed in this Wizbang thread) which strangely disappeared from Amazon.com (but not from their Canadian site), will further sink the doomed DNC/MSM Titanic, just like Wilson's loose lips will sink the CIA/Plame/MSM cabal.

I don't edit myself as much... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I don't edit myself as much when writing a post as other things, so contemporaneous and extemporaneous was just a slip-up on my part, but your point is taken. That of course totally negates any further points I might have made. And other than extolling your access to the rich and powerful, I'm not sure what your point was. You seem to say that Clinton is no better a speaker than Bush, but the rest of it kind of got buried in My Brush With Fame. And I'm not surprised that people thought the Bush boys were bright, and destined to be successful politicians. I never said they were a stupid family. But it is well knowwn, leaning on the conventional wisdom that seems to be your primary source of information, that Jeb Bush was the one who everyone thought was ticketed for the White House. GW was considered the ne'er do well, or at least he and Neil seemed to be in a race to the bottom. Observers of the Bush family have been as amazed as anyone at GW's success.

And I don't really think that supreme intelligence is the best quality for a politician anyway. I think we could point to a boatload of politicos on both sides of the aisle who have done very well without being particularly intelligent. I think Bush has a lot of that hearty handhsake, look 'em in the eye, remember everyone's name quality that has done very well for him. I also think it helps him that he can't remember more than about four talking points. Helps him stay on message.

And yes, I've done a lot of public speaking, as well as stand-up comedy for 14 years, so I can guarantee you I am a better speaker than George Bush. I would still take a back seat to Clinton, however.

Where do you play, Chris? ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Where do you play, Chris? I'd like to hear your extemporary stand-up comedy in person.

Are you Matt Cooper, the <a... (Below threshold)
BR:

Are you Matt Cooper, the "moonlighting comedian" ?

I still want to hear about ... (Below threshold)

I still want to hear about Karl Rove traveling back to 1973 in his magical time machine, explaining to the TANG superiors that young Lt. Bush was going to be president one day, and therefore they'd better give him a good write-up despite his not showing up.

It sounds like a good premise for a stand-up comedy bit.

Bush and the Repubs are not... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Bush and the Repubs are not particuarly strong, or unified, or have any stellar candidates at this moment. If the Dems played their cards right, they could pick up seats in the off-year elections and take the White House again, too.

There are many things for them to talk about that could help them in the elections.


However, if they bring up the fake Dan Rather story and once again attack Bush for serving his country, they will lose yet again. These Dems are such losers that they can't even beat these mediocre Repubs.

And they wonder why they don't get taken seriously...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy