Will Saletan and Timothy Ireland

Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the final entry):


Well, which is it? Critics of Bush assert that he is either a coke-headed, duty-slacking Daddy's boy devoid of any life experiences, or he's a dimwitted Daddy's boy dutifully following his ordained path on behalf of the "powerful"--but it cannot be both, can it?
Two more points: First, regarding Bush's alleged lack of intelligence, the record reflects that both his college boards and grades were marginally superior to Gore's. Second, concerning President's Bush's obliviousness, after twelve years of life within a security zone you too might be surprised by mundane technological developments. At least President Bush knew where he was and why he was there. Evidently, Gore cannot say the same regarding his visit to the Buddhist Temple, can he? I'd rather vote for a guy who knows who he is, and what he believes in, than for someone with a facile interest in "big" theories and contempt for the truth.

--Tim C

(To reply, click here.)


From day one, Bush's response to concerns about his not being the most knowledgeable, or politically-engaged, fellow in the world has been to insist that his innate leadership skills, combined with his ability to surround himself with good talent, will carry him through any tough decision. The problem with this line of defense, however, is that determining whether to act on the counsel of one's advisors is something that calls upon independent judgment, judgment that in Bush's case is likely to require some of the very qualities (knowledge, engagement with the issues, etc.) the absence of which it is the role of the advisor to compensate for in the first place. The danger that this presents is of a President utterly unprepared to judge the quality of the advice that he is being given and thus an administration entirely beholden to the particular agendas of those whom Bush has chosen to advise him. In light of this, let us examine the process by which Bush's selected a running mate. Bush called upon Richard Cheney to advise him about whom to select and Bush ends up selecting... Richard Cheney. Now that's leadership!

--Paul Safier

(To reply, click here.)


One of the very clever aspects of Bush's VP search was waiting until even John McCain indicated he might take the job, and then choosing someone else.

--Waldo

(To reply, click here.)


Adult supervision would have been nice in the Clinton White House [Monday's entry]. "Ah, no son--no quickies with the intern while Arafat is waiting. It's bad manners." To prevent such events in the future, I think both candidates should choose Letitia Baldridge for VP.

--A.G.Android

(To reply, click here.)


It's not Dubya's lack of intelligence that bothers me as much as his apparent lack of any life experience that would inculcate empathy for others (Karla Faye Tucker comes to mind) or a healthy skepticism for his own beliefs. Everytime I hear Dubya eschew polls as tools for decision-making and hear him tout his own "leadership" I wonder, what the hell will he base his decisions on if he's not interested in the public's opinion? Rake Clinton over the coals for following the polls, but at least he's listening to the people. Dubya seems to be going down the same road as his father who was so out of touch he'd never seen a grocery checkout scanner. I'll choose a little pandering over obliviousness any day of the week.

--Robert Bolton

(To reply, click here.)


To Robert Bolton: Bill Clinton showed a lot of empathy when he was running for President--Ricky Lee Rector comes to mind. And Clinton's polling was to find out what the American people would believe, what words worked, and what charges would stick. Clinton listened more to Dick Morris than he listened to the American people.

--WillV

(To reply, click here.)


[Notes from the Fray Editor: That was one of many responses to Mr Bolton's post, and he answered some of his critics: "I find it interesting that no-one contested Bush Sr's being out-of-touch, only that the scanner story wasn't true." But see also Tim C's post above.

Last week the Fray question was "can you be good, clever and interesting?" This week: Can a political leader be fat, powerful and successful? Don't miss Tim Ireland debating the merits of U.S. Presidents with a reader--extra value Fray! And yes, we found someone who says Tim changed his life (click here).

There is plenty more political discussion in The Fray: Fascinating list comparing political experience of VP candidates this century (and the ever-vigilant Android asking whether time away from government is good or bad) and a very good case being made that we need to hear more of Jim Traficant. A theory on why Bush Sr chose Quayle in '88--he reminded him of Dubya. Suggestion from Kangaroo for Gore's VP choice: go for boldness--Patty Murray, Steve Gunderson as a party-switcher, Steven Spielberg, or Harvey Weinstein. There were even top picks for dead and undead candidates--Nosferatu Kennedy and Eleanor of Aquitaine in 2004.

Also featured: discussion on the morals of Napster here, where did Hillary go to school, and a reprimand for Will for being frivolous about Concorde.]

(7/28)

• Robinson: McCain's Faith in the Surge
• Stumped: McCain's Gambling Problem
• Krauthammer: Truly Puzzled by Palin
• Gerson: More of the Same from Obama