<George W. Bush, for example, has been an effective governer of Texas for two terms..>
This is the man who calls Greeks "Grecians" and Kosovars "Kosovians"? Sounds to me as if he should stay in Texas, especially if he is effective there. He's not likely to be effective in dealing with foreign countries, which is what Presidents spend a lot of their time doing.
I'm tired of Presidents who are absolutely clueless about foreign policy!! (I include Clinton among them.)
Can't resist citing the views of an arch-conservative (George Will) on this point:
Bush Lite
By George F. Will
Wednesday, August 11, 1999; Page A19
Fortunately for George W. Bush, the first issue of Talk magazine
featured Hillary Clinton blaming her husband's glandular life on his
grandmother. The resulting hilarity distracted attention from Tucker
Carlson's profile of Bush in the same issue.
Carlson, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, admires Bush,
but his article has dismayed some Republicans, who understand how
heavily invested their party is in Bush. They are not suffering buyer's
remorse, but they are unsettled by what the profile suggests about the
candidate's frame of mind and judgment.
Bold type over Carlson's article says: "George W. Bush doesn't give a
damn what you think of him. That may be why you'll vote for him for
president." But few will think more of Bush after reading the article.
Regarding Carlson's reporting of Bush's several uses of the f-word,
Karen Hughes, Bush's communications director, who travels with him,
says, "I don't remember those words being used." She says Bush agrees
with those who say such language is inappropriate. Carlson, who says
he remembers the words, quotes a Bush aide who says Bush "used to
say 'f -- k' a lot more before this all started."
Dwight Eisenhower could turn the air blue with barracks profanity.
Ronald Reagan, too, knew the pleasures of salty language. But not in
front of the children, meaning the press.
The most disquieting aspect of Carlson's report of Bush's language is
not what it says about Bush's ability to dignify politics after Clinton's
squalor. Rather, it is that Bush may have been showing off for Carlson,
daring to be naughty. He may be proving his independence, which
Carlson likes, but it is independence from standards of public taste --
not the sort of independence many voters will be seeking in a successor
to Clinton.
Carlson reports asking Bush whether he met with any persons who
came to Texas to protest the execution of the murderer Karla Faye
Tucker. Bush said no, adding: "I watched [Larry King's] interview with
[Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What
would you say to Governor Bush?' " Carlson asked, "What was her
answer?" and writes:
" 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't
kill me.' "
Hughes, who says Bush's decision not to commute Tucker's sentence
was "very difficult and very emotional," says Carlson's report is "a total
misread" of Bush. Carlson, who describes Bush as "smirking," says: "I
took it down as he said it."
Nothing remotely resembling the King-Tucker exchange that Bush
describes appears in the transcript of King's hour-long Jan. 14, 1998,
program. And it is difficult to imagine anything Bush said that Carlson
may have "misread" that could do Bush credit.
Again, what is troubling to Republicans who have plighted their troth
to this man is not that they think he is a coarse or cruel man. Rather it
is that Carlson's profile suggests an atmosphere of adolescence, a lack
of gravitas -- a carelessness, even a recklessness, perhaps born of things
having gone a bit too easily so far.
Bush has recently referred to Greeks as "Grecians," Kosovars as
"Kosovians," East Timorese as "East Timorians," conservatism as
"conservativism" and confused Slovenia with Slovakia. Such slips are
understandable; none is a flogging offense. However, having committed
them, Bush should take care not to exacerbate the suspicion that he
has a seriousness deficit. When he was asked by Carlson to name
something he isn't good at, he should not have said, "Sitting down and
reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something."
Bush told James Barnes of the National Journal, "I'm a decisive
person" who doesn't "read treatises," and he told Carlson, "I'm not
interested in process. I want the results. If the process doesn't yield the
right results, change the process." All very brusque and hearty.
But process, a k a constitutionalism and the rule of law, has its
charms, especially after the Clintons' depredations. And Bush should
not advertise any allergy to serious things. A critical mass of lightness
in a candidate causes the public mind to snap closed, with the
judgment, "Not ready for prime time."
"You get the sense," Carlson writes, "that if Bush had chosen his own
campaign slogan he would have printed bumper stickers that read
GEORGE W. BUSH: SO SECURE, HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU
THINK OF HIM." But Jefferson, who knew something about declaring
independence, recommended a "decent respect" for opinion.
Bush is taking a political party along on his ride. He and it will care if
on Nov. 7, 2000, people think of Gore or Bradley as an unexciting but
serious professor and of him as an amiable fraternity boy, but a boy.
search.washingtonpost.com
|
