If I had had a blog back in 2000, I would have written a column like Ezra Klein’s piece on Trump, except it would have been about George W. Bush. I don’t know how you could live through the Bush presidency and say that now is the first time you’ve really been afraid of the direction of American politics. What more could Bush have done to ruin this country than he did? Even if you weren’t afraid at the beginning, you should have been terrified by 2002. Why do you think I spent the last eleven years of my life doing this?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Bush didn’t present as a sociopath. Klein’s piece is thoughtful, analytical and grounded in reality. We’re all with you on your political acumen to see that Dubya was a train-wreck before the fact, but that was a stretch for our pundits. At least Ezra’s piece sets a marker for those comfortable with the false equivalency narratives that they will be held accountable by the fringe outlets like Vox if and when the bill comes due.
The lust for a horse-race is powerful among our punditry but if they are forced to cede that position the next likely ‘story’ is how the mighty are fallen; let’s hope that becomes Trump’s destiny. It would be fitting.
I am not intending to be harsh with Ezra. I respect him a lot and his piece is good.
But, man, George W. Bush presented as a sociopath from the moment I first saw him in 1988.
That guy is was just the worst human being.
Yes, but a compassionate conservative sociopath. So that was ok for the news media. They were then able to pivot and go after the guy they thought was the worst human being — Al Gore.
Ezra was 4 years old in 1988, 16 in 2000, still in college in 2004.
Too young, green, and wet behind the ears to have an adult opinion about Bush II until it was obvious to everyone.
The Frog Pond, and other “web logs” that staked out and homesteaded left blogistan – they kept me sane through the dark years. Thanks ~Boo~ for all that you do.
I don’t know how you could live through the Bush presidency and say that now is the first time you’ve really been afraid of the direction of American politics.
Yes. It was completely clear in 2000 that GWB was a thin-skinned, no-nothing, incompetent, arrogant, narcissist that liked to bully others and sign death warrants. He didn’t trash Mexicans (Latinos, or Hispanics) or even Muslims, and for that I’ll give him a pass on being a racist, but that may be generous because it was politically expedient for him to refrain from exhibiting such racism. What may possibly infuriate me the most is that in 2000 GWB telegraphed his intention to mount another war on Iraq. And the political reporters were too busy being charmed by the old frat boy and his adolescent stunts to bother doing their freaking jobs and report the information the voters needed to make a semi-informed decision.
Each time the bar for qualified is lowered based on a presidential aspirant’s intelligence, knowledge, judgment, demeanor, ethics, etc., another one will come along to lower it again. Nixon was a lying, sneaky, scumbag (and possible alcoholic). Reagan used race to divide the electorate and had, at best, a weak grasp of reality that was progressively diminished each year he was in office. (Affirmative action for Alzheimer’s victims is a step way too far for public office.) GHWB was always a lightweight and only looks good in comparison with his senile predecessor and dim son.
It’s not that we haven’t had the opportunity over the decades since Goldwater lowered the GOP bar to vote for decent people that are fully capable of being decent and potentially excellent presidents. But those are the sort of people that are popular with the moneyed and/or elite set or voters. Bernie is the closest we’ve gotten to that since 1972, but we’re going to need a lot more like him to win elections and move into positions of power if we’re to have a chance to right what has gone so terribly wrong in this country.
Those of us on the left knew that ‘compassionate conservatism’ was bullshyt.
but, we were left holding the bag for the duped in this country.
We only somewhat knew the depth of the wickedness of The Evil One.
People have no excuse. This ignorant, racist, fascist, lying grifter with no concept of how the actual world works.
There is no excuse. It’s all right there. Period.
Can’t even say “won’t get fooled again” because four years later GWB won with a majority of the vote.
I think he DOES know how the world works or at least, how human nature works. Power matters, destroying your enemy matters. Many people prefer the days of royal rule. Fear and hate are easy to stoke and quite effective at helping gain power. If you’re not strong enough to stop them what does it matter what you think?
How Roger Ailes was Republican party’s wizard behind the curtain
Fox News creator fuelled success of many Republican politicians
Edward Luce
God seems to be toying with American conservatives. On the same day Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination, Roger Ailes, legendary creator of Fox News, was being ushered out of his role.
Mr Trump’s rise may have taken the world by surprise but it is hard to imagine his message having taken root without Mr Ailes’ groundwork.
Felled by sexual harassment allegations from a former Fox anchor, the news channel’s departing creator is no household name. Yet Mr Ailes has played wizard behind the curtain to more than two generations of Republican presidential candidates, conservative pundits and intellectuals. He is the creator and destroyer of ambitions — the Shiva of US conservatism. Without Mr Ailes, Rupert Murdoch would have been a far less potent figure on the US scene.
In fact God’s theatrical timing is even odder than it seems. Mr Trump’s convention theme draws explicitly from Richard Nixon’s successful 1968 law and order presidential campaign, which was shaped by a young Mr Ailes. That was the election that launched the then 27-year-old on to the national scene. Mr Ailes cornered Mr Nixon and said: “The camera doesn’t like you,” in reference to his notorious 1960 televised debate performance with John Kennedy. “It’s a shame you have to use gimmicks like television to get elected,” Nixon replied. “Television is not a gimmick,” Ailes replied. “And if you think it is, you’ll lose again.” Mr Ailes’ role was chronicled in the classic book The Selling of the President. From then on, he was an acknowledged master of that medium.
Crap, I’ve been afraid of the direction of American politics since… I was aware there was such thing. So I guess that was Nixon. I thought Reagan was going to be as worse as it would get. Crap, did I get that one wrong.
And yes, it was so obvious that George Bush didn’t have the character to be president from day one. But luckily for him, his brother was governor when it mattered. But I’m convinced that the George Bush selection was the start of some dystopian alternate reality timeline that somehow we all got stuck in. I’m confident there is a much better parallel universe where Gore won, the crazies never captured the Republican party, and sanity prevails throughout the world.
And how many of us celebrated that end of such a dark period in US politics when Nixon resigned on the eve of being impeached. How we’re we to know that it was the beginning and not the end of the nightmare to come.
The New Yorker — Jane Mayer on her interview with Tony Schwartz: Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All and follow-up Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal”.
Oddly, Schwartz doesn’t reveal anything about Trump that isn’t easily already known or easy to observe.
Quibble with Mayer in her presentation.
She does note that that was a generous deal by Trump for his ghostwriter. I’m not sure if one gets a book byline that “ghostwriter” is exactly correct. Lynn Vincent only got a “With” for Going Rogue, but she only spent six months putting it together and not a year as Schwartz needed for “Deal.” Seriously doubt that Vincent received half the advance and royalties. (Okay, “Rogue” is a piece of crap fiction and “Deal” is apparently high quality fiction.) But does any sentient being believe that Palin actually wrote any part of “her” book?
Criticism that Mayer has left herself open to is the deals that Hillary’s ghostwriters have received. Not even a “with.” Did any of them receive a large chunk of the advances and royalties?
It’s not so unique for people to act as if they believe they wrote or produced something a work when they only contributed little to nothing of the actual work when it’s published under their name. People appropriate credit for all sorts of things everyday with seeming unawareness that they are entitled to no credit.
How much of the above do you buy? Does HRC believe all of it is true? (Kosovo sniper fire — cough cough.)
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone really believes or cares if a celebrity’s book was personally written by them – it’s supposed to be a reflection of them as a person and their vision as they want it presented. I honestly don’t know the appeal, but I feel like the “I wrote it my own self” thing is a lie (even when it’s true) that everyone just “knows”. It’s just not important, although I definitely believe that Hillary Clinton wrote more of her book by hand than Trump wrote of his at all, simply because I can’t imagine Trump writing anything longer than a post-it note – or a Tweet.
(That was part of what made “Dreams of my Father” so different because it was not a celebrity’s book, but a book by an eloquent, thoughtful guy who had stuff to say about some of his personal his experiences who later became a big politician. When he wrote it, he was a nobody, so everyone knew it was almost certainly authentic, except for the people who thought his parents went back in time to birth him in Kenya and publish his birth in Hawaii because blah blah blah…)
However, I totally agree with this: “Schwartz doesn’t reveal anything about Trump that isn’t easily already known or easy to observe.”
That was my reaction too. He’s a horrible, lying, thin-skinned, militantly ignorant narcissist. And…?
Does anybody (other than reviewers) actually read these celebrity/politician vanity books?
Do people not care/believe that celebrities write the books published under their names or have they merely come to accept that most are all or mostly ghostwritten?
I did read “Dreams of My Father” and questioning who wrote it was just silly. However, Obama did get a good editor, a necessity for almost any writer. Overall, it enhanced Obama’s authenticity with most people because he didn’t take credit for a book written by someone else. We get all bent out of shape over instances of plagiarism, but ethically claiming full authorial credit for a book written in whole or part by others seems like a larger character failing.
heh — recall back when “Art of the Deal” was a published and a friend that I hadn’t seen in years told me that he was reading it. I rolled my eyes and he said, “Really it’s a good book.” My eye rolling from me as I told him that I would not be reading it because unlike him, I wasn’t a Tory and would never be a Republican.
Remember after 2004 Ezra’s knee jerk reaction at Pandagon was to blame millenials for Bush’s election. You habe to.expect occasionally oddity.
As for what more, Bush could have given in to Cheney’s delusions and attacked Iran.
Reagan was far scarier than either Bush Junior or Trump for many reasons, but one above all others:
In 1980 we had thousands of nuclear warheads on a hair trigger and that nutbag was going to take control.
Neither Trump not Bush were close to as scary.
Reagan and GWB seemed equally scary to me because the military would do whatever either of them ordered. Trump is more likely to be what partisans always claim a third party president would be like: unable to get anything through Congress and passive-aggressive behavior among federal public employees and the military. However, he’d still be scary and could do much damage as he would continue to whip up the ID of the gun-toting, racist, misogynist assholes.
Trump can start WWIII just by childishly signaling that he won’t honor existing treaties because he want money (already done), and then changing his mind after the die has been cast. I don’t know about you, but I not only think that’s a plausible scenario but actually the most likely one.
Regarding him being like a 3rd party President, I disagree. The only way he’s a pariah among Republicans is if he loses and takes them down with him, or he wins and then tells them to all go f*ck themselves and fights them over policy. I have not seen anything that suggests to me that he would fight them over domestic policy, and his foreign policy will be belligerent, which is all Republicans really care about anyway. If he has a Republican Congress, I think just about all progressive legislation from TR’s first term through present day is up for grabs.
Trump won’t veto Republican bills; we’ll get whatever McConnell and Ryan can ram through as fast as they can. And with his clearly incompetent crew, we’d almost be guaranteed another 9/11, and there goes the Constitution.
Each right-wing President or potential (ack!) President is his own special snowflake of terror and awfulness; I’d urge caution to anyone thinking that something would prevent Trump from being completely horrible in one aspect or another…
Failing to honor treaties is the very definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Seriously doubt that even all of the Congressional teabag faction would risk their political futures in not acting on such gross Constitutional violation attempts by a sitting GOP POTUS. Plus they’re a minority in Congress anyway. Also have to factor in that Trump’s stated agenda doesn’t exactly conform to that of the teabag faction.
So, impeachment, trial, conviction, removal from office — and say hello to President Pence.
We’re still fucked.
Not claiming that we’re not fucked. But that’s hardly a new condition. We’ve been living with that for much of the past few decades.
Laura Ferejohn:
Who does he think he is? Erdogan?
This is pretty silly.
It is very true that the Europeans are not living up to their commitment regarding defense spending.
I don’t blame them for that, by the way.
But to pretend that we should just agree to go to war for countries that aren’t paying to defend themselves is somehow dangerous doesn’t strike me as very persuasive.
Trump’s basic position is that we wants a negotiation.
I actually think he is more right than wrong about this.
We want them to buy MOAR of OUR weapons. NATO has rather morphed into a MIC subsidy, after all.
We now know the Russians had concluded in 1982 that Reagan was intent on winning an arms race with the result being a nuclear war.
There is nothing in the world that comes close to the danger posed by the cold war. The world is far safer now than it was then.
The irony is when Reagan found out from US intelligence what the Russians had concluded it SCARED REAGAN.
I don’t get the Bush Jr fear. By the time he ran it was clear the cold war was ending, and he always struck me as far more sensible than Reagan.
He was amoral pig. But scared? no.
Yeah.
Right.
Now we have “thousands of nuclear warheads on a hair trigger” that don’t work very well, ones that are operated by a bureaucracy that is about as effective as the one against which you run up whenever you try to get chat help online.
Whew!!!
I feel so much safer!!!
AG
Yeah, Reagan’s portrayal of loony tunes war monger scared the shit out of me, too. Not surprised the Russians were sold. He was an actor, after all.
It’s hard to imagine, but in 2000, Mickey Kaus was one of the most influential bloggers on the political web, not just an angry racist crank who vomits shit on to his keyboard.
I feel like it’s relevant to mention here how many of Bush’s people are coming out of the woodwork as somehow relatable and human. They are naive and complicit because they believed every word of what they were doing and didn’t see the nature of what Rove (and Gingrich before him) were working with, and didn’t see the problem with cronies as US Attorneys to boot. But they themselves at least seen to have understood the principle of not inciting hatred.
To my lights, the cause and danger we are haunted by here is hate radio. And the entirety of the pundit class seems blind to it. Perhaps because it’s radio and they’re all vain TV worshippers. Oh, wait, that’s relevant to this moment, too.
The 1992 GOP convention was a racist hate fest. The “southern strategy” was always about inciting hatred. So, no, they’ve been playing that card for as long as we old timers here can remember.
Billmon:
Earlier the GOP crowd cheered for a gay high-tech guy. (Republicans are only bigoted against those that aren’t Republicans. Billionaire, Republican, gay married, one-eyed, purple people eaters are welcome in their tent.)
happened to see that part; he presented it as Sanders most important issue – he’s appealing to Sanders supporters explicitly.
He must mistake Sanders’ supporters for teabag rubes.
no, not at all. he’s appealing to the economic argument
We probably shouldn’t overlook this: The Guardian — What’s one thing Democrats and the GOP agree on? Restore Glass-Steagall
But which party and its elected federal office holders really mean it and will work to restore it is the question. Those backed and funded by Wall St? (Which plays on both sides far more than partisan Democrats would have anyone believe.) Might be popular among the teabag hoi palloi, but not the big bucks libertarians that fund their operations. That leaves the usual suspects that in Congress can be counted on a person’s fingers and toes.
Neither party would even bother with the kabuki, probably. They would certainly have enough Senators in a back pocket to kill it, if it managed to live that long.
From the Guardian story:
“I suspect that by 2020, we’ll have reached a tipping point. My hope is that when we do, it won’t be the Republican platform – which, bizarrely, twins the restoration of Glass-Steagall with the repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act. The latter’s package of Wall Street reforms have managed to contain at least some of the worst risk-taking behavior.”
The reporter then talks about the need to modernize regulation of financial institutions, not just re-institute Glass-Steagall. Clinton has been slamming away at that exact need on the campaign trail. Here’s her campaign plank on this issue:
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street
Here’s two of my favorites:
“Tackle financial dangers of the “shadow banking” system. Hillary’s plan will enhance transparency and reduce volatility in the “shadow banking system,” which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies.
Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.”
I think the best way to make use of these campaign promises is to earnestly support Clinton in pursuing their passage or implementation thru regulatory decisions wherever possible. Reacting to them cynically and expressing certainty that Clinton does not really want to achieve these reforms would make it much more likely that these campaign promises will remain unfulfilled.
If you get any more naive, you’ll have to fall off a turnip truck.
Hillary is running on regulating financial institutions with policies much more to your preferences. How does being ultra cynical about these plans benefit you? How does it make it more likely that these regulations come to pass?
Its not going to happen and I think everyone knows it.
But the truth is the rules aren’t the f’ing problem. It’s the willingness to enforce them.
Want to get Wall Street in line: appoint Rudy Guiliani head of the SEC.
Guiliani is a racist asshole. But there isn’t a lawyer who practiced on Wall Street when he was US Attorney who won’t tell you that he scared everyone on the Street right down to their underwear. He did it because he wanted to run for office.
But he was tough. And he didn’t need a raft of new rules: the current regs are tough enough.
But they aren’t enforced and everyone knows it.
So pardon me if I am cynical about Clniton’s plans to get tough on Wall Street.
Guiliani priorities today aren’t what they were thirty years ago. Protecting Wall St. is now what serves his personal interests.
HRC will never get tough on Wall St. That’s how it works when someone is owned.
Watched Trump’s entire speech. On the bright side, won’t ever have to explain 1933 to any one ever again.
Except a) Trump hasn’t won and b) even if by some remote possibility he wins, he wouldn’t have to begin the process of the US invading, decimating, and occupying other countries as we’ve been doing that decades.
The real danger isn’t that Trump wins in 2016. The real danger is that if Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll be crushed by a more competent and powerful fascist in 2020 — who will be even more empowered than Trump was after four years of political skulduggery, economic stagnation, gridlock, warhawkery, and right-wing propaganda.
Unless Hillary Clinton dies of a convenient heart attack in the next couple of months, there is no choice to avoid having a fascist in the WH. Your choice is whether they reign in 2016-2020 or 2020-2024.
Also not to be overlooked. A certain somebody isn’t down with the component of the DEM platform.
Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton’s VP.
Kaine and Pence probably agree on a few other things.
Yeah.
But…
Pence is much more photogenic.
That’s why Trump hired him.
A graet-looking frontman!!!
Kaine, on the other hand, often looks like W.C. Fields after a particularly bad night.
So it goes.
The medium is the message.
AG
See also…
Movement conservative Daniel Pipes saying much the same thing. How does this description not fit the last Republican president who he was fully willing to support?
“Trump’s boorish, selfish, puerile, and repulsive character, combined with his prideful ignorance, his off-the-cuff policy making, and his neo-fascistic tendencies make him the most divisive and scary of any serious presidential candidate in American history.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160722_Daniel_Pipes__With_Trump_as_nominee__time_to_qui
t_the_GOP.html
er, “interesting” choice of nic?
A Speech only a Dictator Would Deliver
Trump’s Outrageous Foreign Policy Views
by Nancy LeTourneau
July 21, 2016 3:32 PM
Recently I’ve noticed that I have developed two lines of defense against the kind of panic I would feel about an actual Trump presidency. First and foremost is the fact that the odds against him being elected are enormous. The Upshot recently calculated that Clinton has a 76% chance of winning.
Running a distance second to that defense is the fact that, as Stephen Colbert put it, “If he doesn’t ever have to mean what he says, that means he can say anything.” As soon as Trump says something truly outrageous, he and his campaign get busy walking it back. Just to demonstrate the level of outrageousness expressed by Trump, I actually fear his unpredictability less than I do what he says.
I must admit that the second line of defense tends to crumble with stories like the one Kevin Drum reports with this headline: “Donald Trump Just Invited Russia to Attack Eastern Europe.” Or how about this one from Jeffrey Goldberg? “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin.” Neither one of these men are the type who are prone to hyperbole. Here’s more from Goldberg:
Too bad such people don’t yet know that Vladimir Putin is becoming by the day less and less the bogeyman du jour. Nice try.
hat tip-BJ
On Feb. 25, the heavy hammer of justice fell hard on James T. Green.
And this is the thing. Hitler’s rise wasn’t just about hate. It was about craven fucks who thought he was their best bet for power.
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) July 22, 2016
The Republicans lining up with Trump now would’ve gone with Hitler in the 1930s, seeing his rise as an opportunity.
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) July 22, 2016
I remember watching the first debate between George Bush and Al Gore with some friends. We were all struck at how obviously unprepared Bush was for the office the Presidency. We couldn’t believe the country would select someone like him. Of course the next day, the media presented it almost as a draw concentrating on Gore’s sighs as much as Bush’s incompetence, and the unthinkable happened.
I never expected the Republican Party to run a nominee that was more unfit to be President than Bush was, but here we are.
Trump’s Speech: An Appeal to His Supporters’ Id
by Nancy LeTourneau
July 22, 2016 9:36 AM
Donald Trump’s speech last night had the fact-checkers geared up to overdrive. He threw out a lot of numbers and made a lot of claims. In summary, most of them turned out to be distortions and/or lies. You can check out the results at Politifact, Vox and the Washington Post. Overall, he proved Stephen Colbert to be a modern-day prophet by coining the word “Trumpism,” meaning, “If he doesn’t ever have to mean what he says, that means he can say anything.”
The other thing you might have noticed about Trump’s speech is that he didn’t offer any real solutions. Here are just a couple of examples from Peter Suderman:
So what it boils down to is that Trump provided a collection of lies to define a set of problems to which he offered no solutions. That would be the kind of analysis that comes from people who are reality-based. But Frank Rich identified what that misses about what was going on last night.
Lots of noise being made today about how Clinton’s most likely veep pick is Tim Kaine. If true it does corroborate my impression of the Clinton decision-making process (bad, on so many levels). What do y’all think?
Perfect to reinforce who she is and what she stands for. That’s actually, IMHO, the strongest way for a nominee to go. Should, but won’t, dispel the illusion among liberal Democrats that Sanders pushed HRC to the left. However, for Republicans squishy about Trump, this will seal that deal that she’s their gal.
“She’s their gal.” Right. Some of us have been saying all along that she’s a Rockefeller Republican.
The press has two ridiculous memes about this:
(1) That one of the reasons is, Tim Kaine will peel of some Trump voters. Axiomatic about Trump voters is (a) they absolutely hate Hillary, and (2) they hate traded deals like the TPP. So how is Kaine supposed to make even one Trump voter go for Hillary. i never heard anything more idiotic.
(2) That there’s ONE group in the Democratic Party that won’t be happy about this. And that group is … “liberals.” In other words, about, what, 80% of Democrats? But, hey, it’s just one group.
Are journalists really this ignorant and incapable of a rational interpretations and commentary? HRC isn’t going to pick up any Trump supporters (even if she chose David Duke for her VP). HRC has spent the past two decades trying to woo the non-teabag GOP set. Kaine would be more of the same.
Of course liberals won’t be happy. But absent an unexpected game changer, must will choose to stop Trump by voting for HRC.
That’s undoubtedly why Hillary felt she could choose Kaine with impunity.
But here’s the problem . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7czDNIp1r0
Linkie for lazy people like me.
This is classic Clinton. They pull this shit over and over again. I’d had more than enough of it by 1998 and therefore, have refused to support her.
Can’t wait to hear all the tedious rationalizations from those that went with HRC because they believed that on policies she was authentically moving in Bernie’s direction. What fools.
I don’t believe it, but still, I don’t want President Trump, and neither does Bernie.
So yeah, she’s done it again. But in reality, the fix was in four years ago, as our moderator has never failed to remind us. Very likely eight years ago, in fact.