> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:40 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent > > On Jun 29, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Horn, John wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Dave Land > > > >> But I do think that progressives should address the actual cause of > >> the nation's (and some of the world's) woes -- the conservative > >> program -- instead of engaging in smug, self-satisfied and > >> ultimately self-defeating talk about incompetence. > > > > I feel the same way about the people who call Bush "stupid". I don't > > think the man is stupid. He's not a genius but he is certainly not > > dumb. I think he plays up the folksy stupid aspect to get people > > to let > > their guard down and then... Whammo! How many people thought "that > > guy > > is way too dumb to be president" back in 2000. But he ran an > > extremely > > smart (and nasty) campaign. And he's gotten way too much of what he > > wanted since then. Or if he doesn't get what he wants, he signs > > the law > > with a little statement that says "except when it applies to me"! > > Spot on, John. "He's so stupid" assumes that this one guy, with his > folksy ways, /is/ the administration. It ignores the fact that he is > surrounded by the likes of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove -- arguable some of > the fiercest minds in politics today.
The skill sets needed to effectively win election and effectively run the government are not the same. There is no doubt that the Bush team's political strategists were much more effective than the Democrats. They are good campaigners. But, when it came to running the government, they proved to be horrible managers. For those who believed in the value of invading Iraq, and who honestly wanted success, Bush's actions have been extremely grating. Throwing away a first rate State Department plan for rebuilding Iraq for a collection of wishes was a blunder. Eschewing people who know about the ins and outs of development, and having someone's whose experience with economic development was the managing of a day care was stupid. Keeping Zalmay Khalilzad out of the loop on Iraq for ~2 years was extremely stupid. By all accounts, he has done amazing work trying to cobble together a political agreement since he became ambassador. I think that a good Democratic tact on Iraq is not that we should never overthrow dictators. It is not that we always need permission from the UN. It is, that, if one decides to do this, one damn well better be prepared. IMHO, if Kerry were to focus on day care workers running Iraq, maybe with a commercials depicting someone working in a day care, praising their work, but asking "is this the right person to send to run Iraq?" But, that's mostly hindsight. Looking forward, I see only one Democrat on the national scene who "gets it": Barack Obama. He had some interesting statements on the way Democrats deal with people of faith yesterday. I can provide links if people want. One question to be asked is why middle and lower income whites have as much trouble identifying with the Democratic party as they do. To me, knowing a number of them, the answer seems pretty obvious: they see the national party as having less in common with them than the Republicans. I think Obama has presented one of the reasons why. I think there are others, and that an understanding of these is a prerequisite for any real resurgence of the Democrats. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
