Login HereJacob Weisberg is a nitwit.
Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to want to be the kind of president indicated by that first address. He meant to build a broad coalition on the model of his governorship in Texas, where he worked closely with Democrats in the Legislature, made his chief cause correcting racial disparities in education, and was re-elected in 1998 by an almost 40 percentage point margin, including 27 percent of the black vote and at least a third of Latinos. I always sort of liked that George W. Bush. Whatever happened to him?
I assume that it never occurred to Weisberg that the 73 percent of the black vote and, let's say, 67 percent of the Hispanic vote figured out George W. Bush and his "chief cause" in a way that surpasseth Jacob Weisberg's understanding.
This is no more surprising than the fact that the New York Times seems to be giving op-ed space to just about anyone these days.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Whatever happened to him?!?
It’s almost sad to see Weisberg embarrass himself like that. The days when you could get away with a “misunderstood genius” statement about the preznit are *so* over.
The whole “aw, shucks, and I thought he was going to find a cure for cancer and establish world peace” schtick kept coming in handy to enable him to get away with killing other people’s kids (”once he’s done screwing up in the Middle East, he’ll get around to the really important stuff…”); but now that we’re able to definitively put a big, fat, double line under the (obvious) conclusion: COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE = EVIL ASSHOLE, even ass-kissers like Weisberg really should get with the program and perhaps start, you know, analyzing Bush’s actual atrocities instead of regurgitating tired old PR lines about what a wonderful man he is/was/could’ve been if only he hadn’t been such an incredibly cynical, ignorant and indifferent jerk.
Nitwit? Nitwit?
Can we expect some of that home spun profanity as the week wears on?
If anybody wades through the muck to the end, Weisberg admits that the whole compassion thing was all BS. The piece looks more like bad writing than stupidity.
Which is sad, because Weisberg is quite capable of writing stuff that’s tight, factual and cogent.
W: It wasn’t the Dems, Karl, it was you. Remember that night in the Rose Garden you came down and you said, “Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the hit-piece on Wilson.” You remember that? “This ain’t your night”! My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the talking head shot on 60 minutes and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Freeper-ville! You was my brother, Karl, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn’t have to take them wing-nut schemes for the short-end money.
Karl: Oh I had some bets down for you. You saw some money.
W: You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Karl.
I’m confused, isn’t Karl the priest?
Stinky, that was great.
I remember reading, during the 2000 campaign, about some Texan, a Republican, I think, who said that W was much more conservative than people think. So, no excuses.
Weisberg obviously thinks that he can appear more ”balanced” with this approach. Perhaps someone should tell him that, if you ride the knife-edge, you just end up with a deeper ass.
Maybe the dingo ate your Bushie.
I fondly remember the George W. Bush of 2000.
The way his eyes lit up in the second debate talk’n ’bout his love for the death penalty.
What ever happened to that George W. Bush?
Nothing. Still there…
I got two words, count ‘em, for anyone who is still kidding themselves that W yoostabee a decent guy: Ann Richards.
This whatever happened to this fine young man line is the standard
dodge you get from people that went into the deep end of that dry pool
known as George Walker Texas Ranger Bush, especially the Texas Monthly
crowd who all “knew him in Austin and Dallas”. They all are lying and
found his lying attractive, it just got a little out of hand and didn’t
“work out”, guys like Mark McKinnon, who worked for Anne Richards first,
say they “fell in love”… I was asked “Haven’t you met him?”, as if
that was all it would “take”. There will be some pretty breezy stories
to come later as this crowd debriefs.
Yeah he wanted the broad coalition. Is that why he had Karl Rove in the White House or that he made every single aspect of government, down to the janitors political? Is scorched earth politics a good foundation for bipartisan efforts? This asshole who didn’t do a honest days work in his life, wanted it to be easy. Well DC ain’t Austin, and you were never up to the job pal.
“President Bush gave his last State of the Union address tonight…”
Did you get a thrill too when the newsguy said “last”? It made my frickin’ day!
Like anybody believes he and KKKarl didn’t steal all those Texas votes in 1998.
Merk nailed it. Those fucking toads — the crippled insouciance of the Austin version of the Villagers was in full effect back then. I ran with the Texas Observer crowd back in the early to mid 90s and NO ONE should have been fooled by that motherfucker. But they wanted to. They were more comfortable with the shit-kicking fraud than Ann, who was often brittle to them, hurting their precious little egos.
McKinnon deserves a special place in hell. And I don’t even believe in hell.
The new rationalization - we weren’t wrong about Bush, he let us down…