Scarborough asks "Is Bush and Idiot?"
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, asked this question prominently on his show, and has created quite a stir among conservatives. My favorite part is the Scarborough nailed Bush for exactly the right fault: it's not so much that Bush is dumb, but that he completely lacks curiosity about the world:
I love it when my thoughts are echoed in the larger media world:While the country does not want a leader wallowing in the weeds, Scarborough concluded on the segment, "we do need a president who, I think, is intellectually curious."
"And that is a big question," Scarborough said, "whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness -- if that's a word -- to continue leading this country over the next couple of years."
If I was going to surrender my conscience to some god-king, it would not be to an inarticulate dry drunk whose profound incuriosity about the world is matched only by his smug certainty about the correctness of his judgements on it.UPDATE: Sullivan's guest bloggers link to the video.
Comments
My only hope was that he would have better handlers.
"Irresponsible"? I don't know about that. He was the lesser of two evils. We are given little choice in our system. What's a traditional conservative to do? Voting for Senator Kerry is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
I didn’t think then Governor Bush had any particularly good qualities other than he would govern as a conservative. He was supposed follow a foreign policy of non-interventionism, keep our military strong (Which includes using it wisely), protect American economic interests, reduce the size of government agencies, and keep a balanced budget. Not a very good report card there. I’m grateful that we added two solid jurists to the SCOTUS but that is about the extent of his success (I’m sure you won’t agree there)
In the beginning I figured Bush was playing the "Texas good-ole boy" thing to appear as a populist. Unfortunately, it turns out he really is a dolt.
Bill Clinton was a master of acting like the lovable "Bubba from the South" and then turn around and give insightful interview about foreign policy or global warming. I almost miss the old rapscallion.
Yes, if you like judges like Scalia, you might be pleased with Bush's judicial appointments. My main concern with those appointments is not so much their stances on social issues (and you're right, I disagree with them strongly) but with the possibility that they might defer to Bush's yearning for unlimited power So far, they have not done so, though Roberts had to recuse himself on Hamdan.
Yes, I miss Clinton with less reservation than you, I suspect. But right now, I find myself missing Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon (though I was only alive for a few months of his administration). Maybe I'm whitewashing the past, but Bush 43 has been more awful than anyone I remember.
I do like Scalia. However, I differ with him about the death penalty. I understand your concerns about a more powerful Presidency with Bush in office. However, I recognize the merits of the unitary executive theory (Not related to the other Unitarians – ha ha:) advanced by the likes of Scalia and the Federalist Society. It seems both parties are inclined to executive abuses. Clinton had his Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles. Those people were weirdoes but they didn't deserve what happened to them.
Sure, maybe there's some left-of-Kerry candidate (say Kucinich) also involved who would draw some Kerry votes, but again, not enough to change the ordering, and the candidate is simply lopped off the top in the runoff rounds.
The only voters who will affect the ordering of the critical 2nd or 3rd runoff rounds are those who rank BOTH a hard right and hard left candidate ahead of the mainstream candidates. I think this "anyone as long as he's extremist" constituency is probably rather limited, so the only real change IRV makes to the system is that it allows people to vote for candidates like Ralph Nader in an early and irrelevant way, and know that they won't be a spoiler.
The only way I see IRV having the potential to have changed the 2004 election would have been that it could have freed Bush to openly run his political stances that only a lunatic could love, and then he'd be the marginalized candidate out in round one.
It seems both parties are inclined to executive abuses. Clinton had his Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles.
Waco maybe, but the confrontation at Ruby Ridge took place 5 months before Clinton was elected. He was Governor of Arkansas at the time and had nothing to do with the events in Idaho. Unless you're referring to aspects of the subsequent trial, which did last into the Clinton administration....
Thanks for the correction on Ruby Ridge. Your recall of the time frame is better than mine. Your scenario regarding the IRV rings true to me as well.