I finally finished the Bush article. Is there much there? Well, let's see. He was not a great student, but he did okay. He was a frat boy. Lanny Davis says: "We were fraternity brothers, so we went to parties frequently. In all of the times I saw George partying- and we were not known for bashful parties- he was always just drinking and dancing and having lots of fun. I never saw him lose control." They don't have much else on him. He has more or less conceded that he has used illegal drugs in youth, and that he did not practice abstinence, but it is not much to hang him with, since he long ago cleaned up his act.
To give you an idea of the manner of procedure, George W. didn't get into the University of Texas Law School, but did get into the Harvard Business School. They then report "speculations" that his acceptance was connected to his father's growing success (GWH was RNC chairman). They do not explain why Harvard would have cared, but not the University of Texas, and they do not mention that MBA's had not yet taken off as desirable degrees in the early '70s, so that it is possible that the admissions criteria were not as strict. Pure innuendo. As another example of pure innuendo, George W. had very attenuated relations with BCCI (through third parties), at a time that one could hardly swing a cat in Texas without their involvement in something. They can't make much of it, but they engage in headshaking anyway.
Another element of the article is exemplified by this quote about Barbara Bush:"Barbara Bush is an exceedingly vindictive, nasty individual with a very high opinion of herself. She's always been that way. " Now, I have read many attempts to take Barb down a peg, for example, an article in the New Republic trying to insinuate that her commitment to literacy was a sham, but I have never seen a quote even remotely resembling this in my life, until now. One wonders how many rocks they had to turn over to find an "unnamed Republican" with such a grudge against Barbara. Of course, the point is the George W. is characterized as "just like her".
They allege that his father made a call on his behalf to another politician with clout over the Texas National Guard, but they have only one source, which would ordinarily keep it out of the Post or the NY Times. They insinuate that he kept afloat in the oil business merely because people were trying to score points with his dad, by then the VP, but they do not show where there was either an expectation of political profit, nor anything that may have the flavor of tit- for- tat, and they have to acknowledge that George W, was a charming guy who was good at raising money. They make a big deal out of the stadium deal that Arlington agreed to, which involved a small increase in the sales tax (1/2 a cent), but they have to admit that it was typical of the way these things are done in the sports business. They make a big deal about how George W. was an "enforcer" for his father during his campaigns and in the immediate aftermath, but do not exactly have a gruesome tale to tell, and have to admit that he was good at politics.
They make a point of denigrating Bush's achievements as governor, trying to say that he took credit for Democratic achievements, and had little clout, quoting people like Molly Ivins (!) to make the case. They do not, however, put forward a convincing explanation for why his is so widely praised by Democrats in the state; why he is so popular with the public; and why many prominent Democrats supported his re- election. They raise a few points that could hurt him if they were developed, but do so little with them, and imbed them in such an obvious hatchet job, that it remains to be seen if anything will come of any of them. As far as one can tell, compared to Clinton, he is clean as a whistle..... |
