I noticed the fact that the reflexive comment by old man Rove is that criticism of the white house doesn't sound like ANYONE in the mainstream press; only a blogger could say these things, that the president knowingly lied, etc.

Doesn't this comment suggest that the bloggers are the only ones with opinions are not under the tacit (or explicit) control of big business and government?

Everyone keeps coming out with this 'Bush worst president in US history' thing, and, well, it's rubbish, or at best an example of the recency illusion.

Bush is an incompetent twit of an MBA surrounded by variously incompetent, venal and insane crazies: but he's not the worst president in US history, I'd say.

Who is? I nominate James Buchanan, who was probably instrumental in the utterly odious Dred Scott decision, engaged in acts of economic insanity which make Bush look almost reasonable, and, oh yes, there's that little Civil War too. He didn't help much there, and he was the one in the best position to.

Bush has managed a lot of things. He hasn't managed to lose a third of the country and a quarter of the army to secession while actively promoting slavery. For that, we have to go to Buchanan.

Buchanan didn't break two countries. Bush is worse, IMO.

Nix, give it up -- just about everyone here thinks the Idiot-in-Chief IS the worst president we've ever had.

Having worked for the government through 5 different administrations, I can tell you the current one is the worst, IMVHO.

Bush is going to leave office with the US military stuck in two endless wars in Asia. In addition, the United States is not going to be able to avoid having to deal with the suppurating mess that is Somalia. I don't know if that makes him the worst president ever but I suspect that Incitatus might have done a better job.

Bush is MUCH worse... he lost us most of the world, and has actively pursued policies that keeps a large part of it's populations in virtual slavery.

Also remember that Bush's actions have had a deleterious impact on one helluva lot more people than Buchanan's did, population growth being what it is.

Nix: While I have no love for Buchanan, and I certainly hold that he's in the running (and four years ago the race wasn' close), when we condemn him ahead of Bush we have something which is hard to factor into the question at the moment.

Time.

A hundred years from now, who will have done more damage?

Yes, we are still reaping the fruits of the Civil War, but that's because we've not plowed under the crops of slavery. The War was going to happen, the question was when, and we can't know that it wasn't going to be worse if it happened later (none of which excuses Buchanan's willingness to let the slave states secede; uncontested)

Buchanan was part of Dred Scott, ok. We have years (probably decades) to see what comes of the court that Bush built. Alito and Roberts are young men, and seem to be absolutely without scruple in putting agenda before law (not that I think any justice is a paragon of perfectly objective reading of the law; even in the context of their times, but these two, coupled to Scalia; and a lesser degree Thomas are horrid beyond expectation, and my expectations were pretty horrid).

Buchanan wasn't part of a systematic attempt to derail the system Bush, and Rove, et. al, are (at which the competence of this crowd has not been truly seen; though it seems they have been doing yeoman's work, and the recent court decision on "Voter ID" may prove to be as bad as Dred Scott, in the long run: perhaps worse).

I think, if anything, the rececny argument is in Bush's favor, because we have yet to see how many of the things he's done will come back to haunt us (the debt, the broken military, tattered repuation, screwed economy, strained alliances, toppled place [and the instability that leads to... we used to be able to posture, and people would listen... now?] the spread of nukes to Pakistan; the greenlight to India to make all it wants [one of the several violations of the NPT, not the least of which is the attitude toward Iran] an abandoned peace process in the Middle East, the list runs on but I've not the brain at the moment to keep it organised).

So while the jury is still out, I think the Bush is a serious contender; and may claim the title.

Lori Coulson @#4:

Nix, give it up -- just about everyone here thinks the Idiot-in-Chief IS the worst president we've ever had.

I dunno...I sort of lean toward Buchanan, too, but Bush still has time to get us into a war with Iran, so time will tell. In any case, I don't think there's any reason to shut down debate about it.

Fragano:
Or Barney the dog.

Point of information: When I said four years ago the race wasn't close, Buchanan was well ahead of Bush for worst president ever.

I don't doubt that the smear campaign against McClellan is in full swing, but calling Clarke a part of it seems a bit weird. He's not dismissing the book as lies or left-wing propaganda; he's dismissing it as "too little, too late".

Undoubtedly there's some self-interest in his statement - he cites his own book as an example of a more timely publication - but I find that to be a reasonable criticism all the same. And I can't say I particularly feel like defending McClellan in any case.

Rove's comments, of course, are textbook smears. But then, he basically wrote the textbook.

Bush may not be THE worst President ever, but he's certainly in the top three.

Darth @ #12: Re-read the original post and quote; it's not saying that Clarke is part of the smear campaign, it quotes Clarke as commenting on the latest smear campaign, and pointing out that it's all the same things said about his book.

It is a little strange that he would come out with this now. As one of the commentators on CNN said last night doesn't anyone resign on principle anymore?

What strikes me about the title is that even in his bridge-burning tell-all, Scotty McClellan can't be completely honest -- it's Washington's "culture of deception," not the GOP's or the Bush Administration's. Despite the fact that there is no one to be blamed for the endless deceptions but the Republican Party and their supporters across the country who cheered them every step of the way (until they started losing), he's already playing the angle that Republicans and conservatives are pure and good until "Washington" exerts its corrupting influence.

John L #13: At some point, the rankings aren't too interesting. How do you compare the president of the US in the 1850s with the president in the 1800s with the president in 1920 with the president now? They live in completely different worlds, so different that their jobs are also completely different. Like the job of the president of Harvard University now and in 1880, or the job of the CEO of AT&T now and in 1950, or the job of pope now and in 1800.

I have no idea how you'd rank him. It seems to me that he's been the worst president of my lifetime, but I will admit I could just be wrong, there--every president has different circumstances to deal with, and who can say how well Clinton or Reagan or Johnson would have done with this set of circumstances?

Terry Karney @ 8: Alito's decision this week on retaliation shows a startling respect for precedent over agenda, so we'll just have to see how that plays out.

albatross @ 17: Not sure how those presidents would have done under these circumstances (or Presidents Gore, Kerry, Buchanan or Nader), but there's a good chance any one of them wouldn't have hurtled headfirst into a misadventure in Iraq; some might even have acknowledged the case for climate change a few years earlier.

Historians vs. George W. Bush (2004)

Rolling Stone's 'The Worst President in History?' (2006).

These articles both address whether or not Bush is worse than Buchanan. To reflexively rubbish the idea that Bush could be the worst president ever is, at best, meta-rubbish.

As Mary Dell wrote, Bush hasn't finished backing the truck over us after running us down, so we don't know what his final score will be. On top of which, I personally do not give one toasty damn if Bush is the worst or second worst, or what. He's quite bad enough to leave us in deep slime for decades to come. Maybe he could have caused more damage to the US and the world; let's not give him ideas about how go out with a real bang.

And it's not like there'll be no more damage after next Inauguration Day, and we just have to clean up what he did in his eight years. As several people pointed out, the Supremes will be reaming us for decades to come. In addition, the military General Corps has been gutted of many competent, honorable officers, replaced by political generals and opportunists. The top levels of several Cabinet level departments, among them Defense, Justice, Interior, HUD, and Education have been replaced by neocon-agenda-driven hacks, and many important agencies, including much of the security community and what little scientific advisorship there was have been perverted. It's going to take more than a new administration with a list of backers to dole out the loot to, to straighten that mess out, and the hacks will continue trashing things until they're removed.

albatross@#17: who can say how well Clinton or Reagan or Johnson would have done with this set of circumstances?

I think it's safe to say that any one of the three (yes, even Reagan) would have done better, if only because it would hardly be possible for someone to have done worse.

All the Buchanan arguments are domestic. If you're in the vast majority of the world that's not the USA, Bush wins hands down.

With Snott McClellan, as with G.W.Bush and James Buchanan, a lot of how you rate their successes and failures lies with how deep the damage goes, and what their motivation was.

Buchanan was a pinheaded dolt with little, if any, idea how bad his ideas were, but he was not (as far as I can determine) intentionally setting out to destroy the country.

The same cannot be said for G.W., and what's more there is significant evidence that G.W. is doing so to profit himself and his coterie of friends and supporters.

Buchanan was a man of his times, if a wrongheaded one, and his suppot for the Dred Scott decision underlines that. Bush ... not so much so. The vast majority of his actions and decisions are clearly in opposition to the ideas and will of the American people, and generally the people of the world, and he had the opportunity (and responsibility) to know that, and did his own thing anyway.

Buchanan came close to destroying the country. Bush is capable of destroying the world, and seems eager to do so.

Snott, on the other hand, is just looking to profit from his evil deeds. NOT a book I'm gonna buy.

I noticed that the Bush-buddies' responses often had a "well, if he didn't like us, why did he become press secretary? Why didn't he say anything then?"

As if changing your mind upon learning new facts is a strange and novel idea. Loyalty must mean you never get to update your knowledge about a person.

It's like if a person got divorced and friends of the ex said "if you think that there's significant problems, why did you get married?" Because you learn things after that you didn't know at the time?

Bruce @20: As I said earlier, I've been with the Federal Government for 5 Presidential administrations. It's not quite as bad as you are painting it with regard to the agencies of the Executive Branch.

The Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate staff will resign as of January 20, 2009. They will be replaced by the new Administration over the next 2-3 months.

Those who rose to high position under Bush, but not high enough to resign will be expected to tow the new line. Those that don't, and who are "career conditional" will find that they are not eligible to become "career" i.e., permanent, Federal employees when they reach the end of their three year conditional period. (That is, if they manage to avoid prosecution...)

Those who cannot be dismissed in that manner will find themselves moved sideways, into positions where they can do no harm -- many of these will look for other jobs.

Now, the Supreme Court has me worried...

The biggest issues of our time are all, directly or indirectly, environmental issues. Real solutions to the major envronmental problems will require concerted and enlightened applications of science and technology.

Bush has, by far, the worst environmental record of any president in U.S. history. His has also been the worst of any modern administration on science/tech/R&D. His administration has been actively hostile to science, almost across the board.

And we have not even mentioned the liberties taken with the Constitution.

Reporting in again on the MSM (or, at least, the Chris Matthews corner of it)...

On the one hand, almost his entire show was devoted to McClellan's book. Much outrage and anger. Like, get a clue... but at least he's knocking the crap out of the Bush Administration.

On the other hand, David Gregory, former White House correspondent for NBC, was incredibly dismissive of McClellan's point that the infamous "liberal media" let the country down by not pushing back against the Bush propaganda campaign. Gregory sez, "Yes, we did."

To be fair, Gregory did do some pushing, and sassed back to McClellan and other flaks. And to be further fair, I think the info was out there if the American public, in all its snowy-white innocence, had had any interest in not getting behind the Iraq war in the way it did.

But still, for Gregory to pretend the MSM didn't cheerlead this thing is just silly. Or, at the very least, self-serving.

ARGH, that's "toe" the line.

First post woke the verse daemon....

Old man liar, that old man liar
He just keeps smearing, that old man liar.
He just keeps smearing along!

=====
Abortion and family planning were LEGAL when Buchanan was President, he didn't insist on dooming women to bear children at the risk of their lives, from e.g. die from difficult pregnancy or beaten to death by irate relatives or the impregnator, or merely kicked out pennilessly and without support to probably become a prostitute if surviving the experience of disowning....

Ah, the sound of rats leaving a sinking ship...

Michael@27: Sadly, I don't think Gregory's attitude is atypical. Most of the media figures who either failed to call the Bush Administration on their obvious lies, or worse, cheered those who advocated for war and ridiculed those who didn't still do not appear to have any understanding that they did anything wrong. Take this tidbit highlighted by Atrios, for example -- I understand that tone doesn't convey well in text, but the reporter can't even grasp that the comment is mocking journalists for their failure to do their jobs.

But more to the point, why should they accept how wrong they were? The fact remains that people who were tragically wrong about war and almost everything else still get invited on TV as foreign policy experts, and people who called it correctly are rarely seen.

Clifton @14: You're absolutely right; I misread it. Thanks.

So, how many ex-Schmuck-misadministration appartchiks and operatives and/or otherwise originally loyal Republicans or Ferengi-sucking-up-to-the-Boss and mostly appointed for their political affiliations types, are now in one or more states of: (oops, need to include Repuke current and former members of Congress.... note the latest one on the scandal sheet with the mistress....)

a) having written a book in or imminently in print critical of the Misadministration,

b) fired and in the doghouse or scapegoated and also no longer part of the Misadministration's hierarchy

c) in jail for malfeasance, fraud, sticky fingers, bribery, taking bribes, morals charges, etc. (or as least out of office based on morals charges.... ) etc.

Has anyone been keeping track?

Fie on George Bush, Fie!
Fie on Karl Rove, Fie!
Eight years they've burned the Constitution,
While they piss into pulp the Bill of Rights,
Eight years of lying to the public,
Hell they have wrought, wrong wars they've fought

Oh fie on George Bush, fie.
Fie, Fie, Fie, Fie Fie!

[need to run... more is percolating which may or may not appear... )

P J Evans #10:

Barney the dog never held any public office, though. Incitatus was consul.

every president has different circumstances to deal with, and who can say how well Clinton or Reagan or Johnson would have done with this set of circumstances?

I don't think any of them could fail to do better, if dropped into the current mess--but none of them would have gotten into the current mess to begin with. Most of Bush's bad circumstances he made himself.

Could anyone name any other president who, given the attack of 9/11, would have had as his first reaction, "Let's invade Iraq!"

Terry Karney@8

Note that Buchanan was NOT responsible for the Dred Scott decision. The decision was handed down on March 6, 1857. Which was only two days into the Buchanan administration.

As far as the question about the worst president: it's Bush. There's no one even close. For me, one key point is that Bush had MUCH more favorable circumstances than Buchanan. Basically, Buchanan was unable to meet a nearly impossible challenge. Bush, on the other hand, had an unusually favorable situation. And STILL managed to make a huge mess of things.

And I don't think any previous U.S. president had the same sort of toxic mix of arrogance, utter incompetence (at anything other than getting his way), and corruption.

#37: Now, now. We don't know if that was Bush's first reaction.

My guess as to what he was thinking was "Damn, now I'll never know how the goat story ended."

Or, kidding aside, "What would Cheney do?"

I point out that Johnson did put himself in a similar mess; he turned up the heat under a simmering land war in Asia, causing it to boil over and kill quite a few more Americans than in Iraq and probably a lot more Vietnamese than Bush has killed Iraquis. And he wouldn't draw down or try to negotiate his way out because of his own ego (as evidenced by the telephone tapes released recently). Moreover, he tried to do it all on credit while pushing up spending on the "Great Society" social agenda (though the amount of the debt in terms of percentage of GNP wasn't as bad as Bush has done).

As far as I can tell, Johnson's motives were vanity and pride, rather than greed and power-seeking (Johnson had had extensive political power for decades). So he was nowhere near the criminal that Bush is. But definitely a bad President.

One of my friends had to live through the Katrina debacle (you can read his story here).

Setting aside everything that could/should have been done to strengthen the levees well before Katrina was even a weather front with a bad attitude, the post-hurricane actions (or lack thereof) by the Bush Misadministration mean I think the whole lot of them should be strung up by the short hairs. He absolutely gets my vote for Worst President in History.

While I haven't read or heard much of the criticism of the McClellan book, most of what I've heard or read aren't actually refuting the accusations, but instead are trying to simply dismiss it all as "silly" or "just like one of those blogs."

#42 Steve Buchheit: ...most of what I've heard or read aren't actually refuting the accusations, but instead are trying to simply dismiss it all as "silly" or "just like one of those blogs."

Olbermann did a nice routine running clips of the White House Smear Machine's talking points. "Puzzled". "Sad". "Not the Scott I knew". Etc.

They're not angry. They're just vewy, vewy huwt. Oh, and they'd love to find him a nice room down there to the HooHoo Hotel.

Michael Weholt @ 43

There must be some way to classify Scott McClellan as an enemy combatant and whisk him away to Gitmo. Our boys just aren't trying hard enough; they've been able to hold completely innocent people for years, and McClellan sure as hell isn't innocent.

I believe Shrub is also on record as the first president to ever goad our enemies to attack us.

"bring it on" cause I got Secret Service protection.

It's like the president decided to act out a Photoshop contest in real life.

Re: #37

Could anyone name any other president who, given the attack of 9/11, would have had as his first reaction, "Let's invade Iraq!"

Well, who was president when the Maine exploded? I'd nominate him.

Katrina was a disaster of horrific magnitude, greater than anything in American history. I got to see it all from ground zero. The civilian agencies seem to fumble the ball badly, and the military agencies did a magnificent job--Coast Guard especially. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the disaster, it's hard to say if any administration could have handled it well. I certainly don't have the personal experience to compare handling of disasters, and don't want to. Living through one Katrina was enough.

On the other hand, Louisiana's own incompetent politicians didn't help. Compare our idiot former governor and our indecisive mayor with the governor of Mississippi and the respective rate of recovery in both states....

bring it on was not a good day for me. I almost threw something at the television. I know a swore and stalked out of the main lobby of Walter Reed, which is where I was when I saw/heard it first.

In all fairness to William McKinley, he pretty much had to be dragged into the Spanish-American War kicking and screaming, although the Hearst-Pulitzer-Teddy Roosevelt team was only to happy to do so.

That doesn't make the imperialism any prettier, of course.

#37 Unfair, Mr Macdonald! 9/11 was a handy excuse to use for what the neocons were looking for an excuse on whatever flimsy pretext they could make or invent...

#47: I don't think we can place the blame for New Orleans solely on the mayor and governor, when it is the Federal Government's mandate to set policy for hurricane responses (under disaster responses, which falls under FEMA's bailiwick) and most especially after the Bush Government version of FEMA notified all the states that there were New! Improved! Rules! about what to do when disaster strikes, and then failed to provide even a modicum of assistance in a timely manner.

(stops to take a breath)

I had the PDF files from New Orleans and from Baton Rouge and from FEMA, on my computer that crashed, and they were pretty damning. When states are told that the Feds are in control, they tend to listen to that directive. I'm sure no one now would make that mistake with respect to this administration.

There were a lot of factors in the disaster that was Katrina, and many of them can be traced back to the One In Charge, the Great Decider, the Compassionate Conservative himself. He's the head of the Government, after all.

Redshift #31:

The same thing is true of reporters and pundits more generally. There appears to be no consequence to getting all the important facts wrong, the analysis massively wrong, etc. The important thing is sounding good and being entertaining, which plenty of folks can do. Or sounding authoritiative and informed, despite your deep and embarrassing ignorance.

The only way that you can see Buchanan as worse than Bush is to ignore the specific effect of the President.

Sure, the country was in worse shape 4 years after Buchanan was sworn in than it will be... let's not tempt fate: than it is now, 7+ years after GWB was sworn. The question is what did the Chief Executive contribute to that?

We need, in other words, a slightly more complex analytical tool than just "are you/we better off than you/we were four years ago?".

I suggest we take a page from Sabermetrics and talk about "value over replacement player", or "wins above replacement".

Buchanan did a terrible job -- in a situation that was already terrible. You'd have to be a genius to have fixed that one; heck, if Lincoln had won in 1860 anyway, whoever was in charge 1856-1860 would look rotten, since the South would still probably have seceded.

But Bush? Almost everything that has gone wrong in the last few years was either directly his doing (e.g. Iraq), or made radically worse by his involvement. Replace him with an average President and things would be wildly better than they are now.

(To say nothing of replacing him with the person who actually won the 2000 election.)

Bush is the Worst President Ever, not because the country took the biggest fall on his watch, but because every fall we took was far more directly his fault.

All your reality base are belong to us!

Ginger #51:

It sure looks to me like Katrina was the result of an overlap--nonfunctional local government, nonfunctional state government, and nonfunctional federal government. In better-run places, hurricanes have caused lots of damage, but not been nearly so horrible a disaster. Wasn't it the year before Katrina that several major hurricanes hit in Florida?

The real sticking point, to me, is the fact that it all happened several years after 9/11. The great fear which justified police state measures at home and an empire abroad was Islamic terrorists with nukes or other horrible weapons. If Al Qaida had managed to set off a Hiroshima-sized nuke in some random US city, what would the federal response have looked like? We saw the answer with Katrina.

Remember: A terrorist attack with WMDs was the justification for invading Iraq. It was the fear that won acceptance of massive domestic surveillance. It was, God forgive us, the argument that convinced a lot of otherwise good people to remain silent while we started torturing prisoners. But it wasn't enough of a threat for anyone to bother actually getting ready to deal with the aftermath of such an attack.

#20 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) ::: (view all by) ::: May 28, 2008, 05:17 PM:

"As Mary Dell wrote, Bush hasn't finished backing the truck over us after running us down, so we don't know what his final score will be. "

"And it's not like there'll be no more damage after next Inauguration Day, and we just have to clean up what he did in his eight years."

Two comments:

1) Eight years would be enough to make a good start on that clean-up, *without* massive GOP/elite MSM/corporate crony opposition. Which we'll have, so we'll certainly still be net negative after 8 years.

2) There's a whole legion (as in 'my name is') of mid-level criminals from this administration who have learned very well that the penalty for rampant criminality is nada, so long as you're a Republican, barring very bad luck or grossly poor judgement. 8 years from now they'll be high-level scum in the next GOP administration, *starting* their crimes from the level achieved by the Bush administration. They'll be able to reach new levels of evil, barring some unforeseen circumstances.

I'm pleased that McClellan has written the book, but I'm no way going to pay $25 for it. (Thank God for a good local library system...) I just don't want to give the man my money. He may have buyer's remorse now, but his indictment of the WH press corps, while undoubtedly deserved, rings a bit hollow. Yes, the WH press corps, with some exceptions, were sycophantic twits, but McClellan was the guy standing up there feeding them lies.

James, #37: Let's not forget that the Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11. We'd have been at war in Iraq anyhow -- the attack just gave him a convenient and popular excuse.

#35
You mean Barney hasn't been appointed to any official position - yet? There's probably one listed in one of those memos in Cheney's safe. (He'd probably do as good a job as Incitatus, although you certainly couldn't describe his, um, output as horse puckey.)

Didn't Bush turn down foreign help after Katrina? And the formaldehyde-outgassing FEMA trailers were definitely a federal issue.

Sorry, no respect for Scott McClellan, who knew that he was out there telling lies every day.

I always figured that we wouldn't know for sure if Bush was the Worst President Ever because the WPE is the one that it takes the country the longest to recover from, and it's unlikely we'll recover from Bush in our lifetimes.

On Bush:
I don't recall the name of the speech writer from which Bush drew shortly after 9/11. But I do recall that speech writer promising us Henry V, but we wound up with Richard III.

To tell you the truth I often thought up until the saber rattling against Iran, that the man had to be a paid agent of Iran. There was no other explanation to me.

Lizzy @ #57, there was a suggestion floating around post-Watergate that I remember all too well: "Don't buy books from crooks." The idea was to keep the Liddys, Hunts, MacGruders and yes, Nixons from getting wealthy by telling their stories.

P J Evans #59: He would certainly provide dogged leadership.

Gng ftr Bsh, t ths pnt, s lk chwng t th ffcrs nd cptn f th Ttnc s th lf bts r bng lwrd nt th s.

Sr, t mght fl gd. Bt wht's th pnt, prcsly?

Wht's dn, s dn. 'm nw mr cncrnd wth th fct tht th bst th Dmcrtc Prty cld cm p wth n 2008 s Brck bm nd Hllry Clntn.

h dr....

t's dntty pltcs vrss dntty pltcs, nd nc gn wll fnd myslf n Nvmbr, pwng thrgh my vtr pmphlt tryng t fgr t whch bscr 3rd prty hs th mst ntrstng pltfrm, whn th prty 'd rlly wnt t vt fr s dng ll thy cn (pprntly) t ls t McCn.

nd n, d nt g lng wth th d tht th Dmcrts "wn" my vt jst bcs thy'r nt (gg) Rpblcns. 'v gn 3rd prty bfr, n spt f my mjrty-Dmcrt trck rcrd n th bth. wll mst lkly d s gn ths yr. dn't blv n th "hld yr ns" styl f vtng; t's why w'r stck wth Dmb (Dmcrts) nd Dmbr (Rpblcns) s r nly tw "bg" chcs n th frst plc!

s Bsh th "wrst vr"? s thrs hv ntd, w mght nd cntry r mr bfr w cn rlly gg.

M, 'm mr cncrnd wth wht's gn wrng (gng wrng) wth Dmcrts. t s clrly p t th Dmcrtc Prty t fx lt f wht hs bn brkn, nd dn't hv mch fth t ths pnt n th Dmcrts dng vry gd jb, vn wth th Wht Hs nd bth th Snt nd th Cngrss n Dmcrtc hnds.

gss ths s hw ntllgnt ppl cn nd d rrv t th plc f pthy, nd st t hm n Nvmbr whn thy shld b pnchng bllt.

'm nt thr. Nt yt. Bt gdnss, smtms fl vry, vry cls.

Clarke's right, some of the very things "they" were saying about him are now being said about McClellan. But Clarke's being kind, because the "they" he refers to included Scotty himself.

It shouldn't surprise Scotty that they're running these plays on him. He helped write the playbook.

Higgledy piggledy
Scotty McClellan wrote
Tell-all about all the
Reasons we hate

George Bush, who recently
Monomaniacally
Screwed us all over --
But wrote years too late.

This quote piece from Amanda Marcotte at TPM Cafe sums it up perfectly:

We see this loop in a lot of areas---liberals are condemned for smarty-pants behavior simply by being in the right, even if we do it without a hint of smarty-pants attitude. Conservative policies gain steam out of spite. When everything goes to hell, liberals are quietly allowed to have been right, so long as we don't gloat about it and perhaps self-flagellate a little for being smart enough to get it right in the first place.

Isn't this exactly what is going on here? Everyone knows that the Bush White House was lying through its teeth to lead us into war, but God forbid we acknowledge the foresight of those who pointed it out at the time, those elitist smartypants. It's pure identity politics--Rove's "He sounds just like those leftie bloggers!" is no more than a shameless attempt to tie McClellan to those nerdy, elitist bloggers who everyone has already agreed can be safely ignored.

#68 Isn't this exactly what is going on here?

Nope! I'm gloating.

#65 I guess this is how intelligent people can and do arrive at the place of apathy, and sit at home in November when they should be punching a ballot.

Nope, again! I'm not going to sit at home, because sitting at home gives us McCain. And I'm not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate (no matter how virtous), because, again, that gives us McCain.

Anything other than voting for the Democrat rewards Bush and the Republicans. Intelligent people won't do that.

Buchanan received care of a nation with a festering wound, and proved unable to apply yet another band-aid of the sort that had held the nation together, sort of, for the past decades, while leaving the wound to fester under an inadequate dressing.

Bush received care of a healthy, powerful nation, and then went out and found an iron mine, forged the steel, crafted the knife, and inflicted a massive stab in the back.

By any standard, Bush was worse.

Jms,

ctlly, knw mr thn fw ntllgnt ppl wh r plnnng t d prcsly tht: sty hm.

rlz tht th ld rgmnt, " vt fr 3rd prty, r nn-vt, s th sm s vt fr th Rpblcns!" ppls hr.

Bt 'v nvr thght tht rgmnt hld mch wtr, bcs t's sd by bth sds t ln vtrs p lng rtfcl dlgcl fncs tht wld nt xst f w hd mr rbst smll-prty systm n th .S. tht cld ct th Dmcrts nd Rpblcns dwn t sz.

My tk s ths: s lng s thr "bg" prty cn rly n hrdng vtrs nt th bth sng th "Vt fr s, r y tmtclly vt fr thm!," mntlty, nthr prty hs mch ncntv t chng.

Whn lk t Rpblcns vrss Dmcrts, dn't s Bd vrss Gd. s Prtty Bd vrss Smwht Bd. nd 'm jst nt wllng t thrw my vts t Smwht Bd smply bcs t mght(?) d n th ffrt gnst Prtty Bd.

t's lk f wlk nt bfft nd s tbl wth nly tw knds f fd, nthr n f whch lk. D jst grmbl nd tk plt nd hlp myslf t th lst ndsrbl chc?

N. wlk wy, nd tk my bsnss lswhr.

t's my rght s dscrnng cnsmr, jst s t's my rght s dscrnng vtr.

#71 Sten: Actually, I know more than a few intelligent people who are planning to do precisely that: stay home.... No. I walk away, and take my business elsewhere....It's my right as a discerning consumer, just as it's my right as a discerning voter.

This is simple, sulking, self-destructive laziness.

If you object to both parties, vote for the one that is the least worst in your view and in the meantime start your own third-party. This is what is so crap about Nader. He sits around on his ass for four years, then runs for President.

The solution to the "Two Party Problem" isn't staying home and sulking. The solution is getting off your ass and building a viable third party from the ground up, meanwhile voting for the least worst of the Demos or the Repubs until your new third party is worthy and able of wielding real political power. The rest is just self-indulgent, self-important whining.

In the hope of averting an extended visit from the Great Floating Two-Party Flamewar: "HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst" (2008).

I just love it that the only remaining argument is over whether Bush is the worst president of all time or just the worst president in living memory.

Sten @ 71:

One might argue that your ability to compare eight years of Bush to a decision about what to have for lunch indicates a certain amount of ivory tower detachment in your world view. Clearly you've spent a good bit of time considering your rights--perhaps you might take a few moments to meditate on what responsibilities you might have towards your fellow diners.

FungiFromYuggoth @ 73... Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

Sten@65: trying to figure out which obscure 3rd party has the most interesting platform

I've been meaning to write a generic, short, and hopefully convincing, little paper as to why voting 3rd party in the US doesn't do what most people think it does. Apparently, I have a deadline now.

Oh, someone might have asked this already, but did any other president play dressup in military clothes and then appear at a military base and declare "mission accomplished" before the occupation even started? I still say Jr.->worst evah.

albatross @55: Yes, it was a multi-level SNAFU. My point here is the Governor of Louisiana was restricted in her response, because of the FEMA regulations and the Federal mandate. If we didn't have a Federal government, she would have been solely responsible for the lack of State action. In disaster situations, there is a tug of war between state responsibility and federal responsibility. She got stonewalled and didn't know how to get around it. Nagin and his personnel didn't plan for the worst, and then didn't think their way out of the box. FEMA compounded this with their lack of proper planning and lack of responsibility on-site, and their bloated inefficient bureaucracy, and their incompetent leadership.

Louisiana is not your usual state. It has a history of government corruption, even in New Orleans (or is that especially?). [Digression: When I lived in Baton Rouge, I was startled by a story about a police officer in NOLA who had committed a crime (robbery with a fatality) and then came back to the crime scene in uniform. Sadly, there's hundreds of these stories in NOLA.] Louisiana needs strong personalities in its leadership positions, or else nothing gets done. Fast Eddie Edwards was extremely corrupt, but things got done. He knew how to make people happy, because keeping people happy kept him in the Governor's House (where he could play poker with his cronies who lost to him on purpose).

Anyway, my point is, the Federal Government had a big responsibility to its people in LA, and it failed -- no matter what Blanco didn't do or Nagin didn't plan for, it was ultimately the Feds who failed everyone.

Bush is going to leave office with the US military stuck in two endless wars in Asia.

Fool! That's only the most famous of the classic blunders!

(Although, to be fair, as far as I can recall Bush has so far avoided going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.)

Greg London at #45 writes:

> I believe Shrub is also on record as the first president to ever goad our enemies to attack us.

> "bring it on"

Minor spoilers for Michael Swanwick's excellent 'The Dragons of Babel':
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At one point they smear blood onto the lips of a great stone titan to hear it prophesy. It tastes the blood and speaks, foretelling war and famine, collapse and despair and rains of blood... and finishes with "Bring it on!"

Oh, the resonance! Swanwick rocks.

Srry, ppl, cn't g lng wth t. cn't by nt th cncpt tht nn-spprt f th Bg Tw s smhw dstrctv, lzy, r vry twr.

By tht lgc, ll th Dmcrts vr hv t d s b jst lttl bt bttr thn th Rpblcns, t rn r vts. Nt rmrkbly bttr. Nt fntstclly bttr. Jst bttr by tny mnt, nd thn w'r stck wth, "Wll, t lst thy'r nt Rpblcns, nd tht's gd ngh fr m!"

nd nthng chngs.

Rght nw th mjrty f r lctd ldrs n D.C. r thr, nt bcs thy'r gd ldrs, bt bcs thy'r gd t gttng lctd. Why s McCn th Rpblcn mn? Wll, bcs t's hs trn. Why s Clntn tryng t b th Dmcrtc wmn? Wll, bcs sh thnks t's hr trn t. nd bm s stlng bth thr thndr by rnnng n th rhtrc f, "Ths tm t's 'r' trn!" Nvrmnd wh 'r' mght b. t cld b vrybdy. t cld b nbdy. bm s tryng s hrd t b th ltmt 21st cntry pplst.

Bt ds rw pplsm ql rw ldrshp?

'm nt sr w'v sn rl ldr n th Wht Hs n lng tm.

m nt sr w s mrcns wnt rl ldr.

thnk s lng s w kp prppng p th Bg Tw systm, w'll kp gttng Prsdnts (nd thr lctd ffcls) wh r n ffc fr ll srts f rsns tht hv nthng t d wth hw wll thy ld, r gvrn, r rprsnt s s cnsttnts.

Prhps ths s th wy t's jst lwys gng t b? Crtnly thr r n sgns tht nyn r nythng s gng t stp p nd chng t. Prt trd n 1992 nd hndd th Wht Hs t Clntn. Ndr trd nd hndd th Wht Hs t Bsh. r s th rhtrc gs.

Bt why ds t ncssrly fllw tht nyn wh spprtd Prt, r Ndr, r ny 3rd cnddt, s smhw t flt fr xrcsng thr rght t pck bynd th Bg Tw?

Th ntd Stts ws nt fndd s tht Rpblcns nd Dmcrts cld wg n ndlss bxng mtch t th xpns f th ctzns.

nd s bd s th Bsh yrs hv bn, fr lngg tht sys, "H s th wrst!" bcs t's bn my xprnc tht whn y g rnd syng y'v ht rck bttm, t cn't gt ny crppr, th nvrs fnds wy t shw y tht, ys, t cn ndd gt hck f lt crppr. Smtms n hrry.

Prhps m jst trd f th "prty" systm t l. thnk prt f th rsn w nvr s th bst knds f ppl rnnng fr ffc, s bcs t gt lctd ths dys y prctclly hv t hv Bg Tw bckng f y wnt t rs t ny pstn f prmnnc, r cnsqnc. W hv hw mny scntsts, dctrs, tchrs, schlrs; thnkng mn nd wmn wh wn't g nr pltcl ffc bcs thy dn't wnt th hssl nd hdch f hvng t 'ply' wth th Bg Tw, nr d thy wsh t s thmslvs nd thr frnds nd thr fmls drggd thrgh th md by n gr md.

S myb m slkng, f w mst s tht wrd.

Bt thnk hv gd rsn t slk.

thnk ths cntry nds ts smrtst, bst ppl t n frnt, pttng s bck nt snd pths.

Bt th smrtst, bst ppl dn't wnt t gt t n frnt, bcs f th wy w'v llwd r pltcl systm t vlv. t's systm nqly hstl t ndpndnc, s vtr r pltcn.

Sten, speaking as someone who voted third-party in 2000: please stop trying to derail this thread. This thread is not all about you.

Paul A. @78: I think that is because on matters of death, Bush is on the same side of the line as the resident Sicilian.

And as bad as the Bush years have been, I fear language that says, "He is the worst!" because it's been my experience that when you go around saying you've hit rock bottom, it can't get any crappier, the universe finds a way to show you that, yes, it can indeed get a heck of a lot crappier. Sometimes in a hurry.

As far as considering Shrub the worst is concerned - no one is saying he's the worst possible leader. Rather, it is that he is the worst, thus far, of the particular subset of leaders which have held the US Presidency.

And it is necessary to realize that he is really that bad, so as to recognize the scope of the problem that needs to be cleaned up. Someone who thinks he's a great guy who is just misunderstood,[1] so that in 100 years history will show how great he was, is going to be incapable of seeing and therefore addressing the problems left in his wake.

[1] The logic that someone who has created problems so massive it takes a century to clean them up enough so that they look good, is actually good, boggles my mind.

Fng,

Vry wll thn. t smd lk gd tm t pnt t prblms wth th tw-prty systm. Sms nbdy s mch ntrstd, s ws wrng.

.
.
.

Whch llstrts my pnt?

=^/

James D. Macdonald @ 69: "Nope! I'm gloating."

And good on you! It's really about time for America to figure out that electing people who know what they're talking about isn't necessarily a bad thing. Refraining from gloating really didn't succeed at that.

(I am reminded of the West Wing episode about Bartlett's presidential debate: "Well, all the polls said that he was going to be perceived as elitist and conscending no matter what he did. So we figured, might as well get some good, elitist punches in." Or something.)

Ursula L @ 70: Cake! Internets! You win it all.

I tried to write that comment several times, and failed. The words out of my mouth, except better.

Sten @ 71: "When I look at Republicans versus Democrats, I don't see Bad versus Good. I see Pretty Bad versus Somewhat Bad. And I'm just not willing to throw my votes to Somewhat Bad simply because it might(?) aid in the effort against Pretty Bad."

Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. Are we even talking about the same Democratic Party? Are you seeing the candidates who are each pulling more primary voters than the presumptive Republican candidate? Did you notice the new activist groups, pumping money out to elect more and better Democrats? Have you heard about the new 50-state infrastructure going up? Are you seeing the nomination fight where every single Democrat had a nation-wide health care plan? Have you noticed the campaign that's pulling out youth voters in record numbers, that's blowing the competition out of the water with just small-donor contributions? Sure, one of them is suspiciously hawkish towards Iran, and iffy on Iraq, but did you notice how she's losing?

I'll grant you the buffet analogy. Fine, whatever. But even granting the case, that's simply not what's going on right now. The Democrats are set to push the national discourse substantially to the left for the forseeable future, on issues ranging from healthcare to foreign policy to education to alternative energy. I don't care where you stand on the liberal spectrum--you could be a blood-red Communist, or you could be Jim Webb, and you STILL ought to be excited about what's going on right now in the Democratic Party.

Your rap was a lot more persuasive back in 2000.

Paul A #78: As I recall, the classic blunder was 'a land war in Asia'. George is involved in two, including Afghanistan which has managed to baffle the Tsars, the British Raj, and the Soviets.

Terry @8: Prolonged applause is all that seems relevant here. Serious contender for worst president, sure, but to a degree I concur with later commenters that comparison is probably impossible in the end. Worst president in living memory, certainly.

Sharon@22: Agreed, and as a subject rather than a citizen I had to put up with the Queen's PM licking Bush's feet for years, so I don't like that much. But presidents are, alas, elected for their citizens, not the world, so should be judged foremost on their effect on their citizens. (I wish this was not so.)

Carl@23: There's one consolation: if Bush tries to destroy the world, on past form, he'll screw it up. However, he isn't aiming to destroy the world: he's aiming to benefit himself and a small coterie, as you pointed out, so he might just succeed :/

Paula @33: Interesting. Long-running administrations tend to burn through their best people: is this a sort of dark mirror of that?

Stephen@53: That's a killer argument. I consider my point refuted. I learned a lot, though, so my usual strategy of talking as if I *know* what I'm talking about (especially when I don't) is confirmed! :)

James @69: `Anything other than voting for the Democrat rewards Bush and the Republicans' says as much as anything about what is wrong with the US electoral system. There's a lot of things you can call an electoral system like that, but 'democracy' isn't one of them.

"They're not people. They're Democrats!"
- a presumed Republican in The Day The Earth Stood Still

Nix #86: The various British Nationality Acts since 1948 have legally altered the meaning of 'British subject' Citizens of the United Kingdom are no longer mere subjects.

Sten:

Just FWIW, we've had a few flamewars about third party voting around here. Probably the majority (but far from unanimous) opinion seems to be that voting for third parties is bad, though since I'm one of the minority who thinks it can be perfectly sensible in many cases, I'm probably the wrong guy to make their arguments for them.

One thing that strikes me about your comments, though, is that you're responding to the smarminess of politics and politicians with a sort of resignation--not so much saying "I want to build a different party to take over from the Republicans" or "I want to turn the Democratic party into the kind of party it should be," but rather "A pox on both their houses; there's not much point being involved given the lousy kind of people who get elected."

Now, that last attitude might be sensible, but it has a cost. If the good people all disengage from politics because it's too dirty and ugly, politics isn't going to go away--in fact, it's likely to become even dirtier and uglier.

The other side of this is that neither party is entitled to anyone's vote. All kinds of partisans make some kind of argument as though they are--if you're black and vote Republican, you're an "Uncle Tom"; if you're a woman, you're Hillary's; if you're an evangelical Christian, your vote belongs to the Republicans, and you'd be betraying them by voting for a Democrat. And so on.

The parties encourage this belief because it keeps them from having to do anything for people whose votes they "own." Democrats running cities, states, and the federal government "own" the votes of blacks. So they can pretty much ignore issues that are important to blacks--where are they gonna do? Vote for Republicans? Similarly, the Republicans "own" the votes of evangelical Christians. So they must pay all kinds of lip service to those guys, but they need not do much to further their agenda--why bother? They've already got those votes.

Sten @83
Fungi,
Very well then. It seemed like a good time to point out problems with the two-party system. Seems nobody is much interested, so I was wrong.

As someone who is generally a proponent of a multi-party system, dislikes (to a greater or lesser extent) both the Democrats and the Republicans (for some reasons that are the same, and some reasons that are different, for each party), and has argued your position, some time ago...

...really, you don't need to go there. You have fallen into one of the three classic blunders of Making Light (the first is being a troll, sockpuppet or astroturfer. The second is gnu control.) which is election strategies, voting tactics, and 2-party versus multi-party systems and debating the merits of same.

This has been discussed. ad nauseum, on Making Light, on its predecessor, and on rec.arts.sf.fandom, which many of us frequented Back In The Day, (and some still). It is something that some people here have very polarized and extreme opinions on, and are unlikely - nay, in some cases unwilling to the point of impossibility - to be moved or swayed on. It tends to generate much heat, and not much light anymore, at least here.

It's not that we're not necessarily interested. It's that we've seen the argument again and again, and watched it spiral into giant sparks (if not outright flames) again and again.

Nix @86: There's a lot of things you can call an electoral system like that, but 'democracy' isn't one of them.

I think your definition of 'democracy' is much more like what folks call 'both-sidism'. A democracy does not have to provide voters with at least two reasonably good choices. It's nice when that can happen, but there's no guarantee. A democracy is only as good as the members of each party make it.

At this time, we have one major party that is unusually corrupt and incompetent, and happens to be led by the worst president in American history. There is another party that happens to be unusually clean, at this time, and is gearing up to fix things. The choice is very clear.

However, I'm not sure I can agree with Jim that intelligent people will do the right thing. My experience, especially lately, is that people use their intelligence to justify what they have already decided based on their emotions, prejudices, and imagined self-interests. Also, as much as we value intelligence, what we really need is wisdom.

Fragano @35 Incitatus was consul.

Was he? I seem to recall that he was designated consul for a future year but never took office, either due to Caligula's death, or because it was actually a bizarre but pointed political maneuver in Caligula's feud with the senate. Depends on how mad you think Caligula was.

Either way, thanks to Bujold we at least know how he would have voted.

And Fragano again @85 - assuming we aren't using Tamerlane and Genghis Khan as models for victory in Afghanistan, has anyone considered Alexander the Great's solution?

The problem I have is not with voting for third parties, but with voting for third parties at the Presidential level, when the third party is otherwise politically ineffective.

To have an effective third party, it needs to start at the local level, electing people who can get experience, work with the major parties on issues in common, and develop an effective organizational power.

A party that works primarily to run Presidential candidates, without the organizational support to back them up, isn't a potentially effective third party. "President" is not an entry-level job title, and a president that doesn't have party connections with anyone in Congress is almost certainly going to be useless, or worse.

Even if the answer to "Is this candidate working for changes I approve of?" is "Yes", it doesn't do much good if the answer to "Will this candidate be able to implement the changes I want if elected?" is "No." And without doing the work to establish a political base in the states and in Congress, the answer to that question for a third-party Presidential candidate will almost always be "No."

If you want to support third parties, then go to their organizational meetings, and when they're talking about running someone for President, ask what they're doing to ensure that the President has effective support in Congress if elected. If they think that electing a President, alone, will somehow bring about the changes they want, then find a more realistic third-party, or work to change their attitudes and methods.

In the meantime, don't let a the Republicans continue with the madness that has led us into the immoral mess we are in now.

I'm waiting for W's memoirs, and if it will come with a box of crayons.

92: And Fragano again @85 - assuming we aren't using Tamerlane and Genghis Khan as models for victory in Afghanistan, has anyone considered Alexander the Great's solution?

I've heard it suggested by historically-minded army officers, yes. Though this may just be because they've realised how attractive Afghan women are.

I think it might be tricky to make it mandatory (as Alexander did) but couldn't you encourage it? Say, with cash bonuses? Or, better, a stipend, paid annually as long as the couple remained in Afghanistan rather than moving back to the US? You'd have to get the American spouse to convert to Islam, too.

#71: I realize that the old argument, "A vote for a 3rd party, or a non-vote, is the same as a vote for the Republicans!" applies here.

But I've never thought that argument held much water, because it's used by both sides to line voters up along artificial ideological fences that would not exist if we had a more robust small-party system in the U.S. that could cut the Democrats and Republicans down to size.

This is kind of like saying "I know people say I should see a doctor about my sprained ankle. But that argument is used to funnel patients into primitive treatments that would not exist if we had medical nanobots capable of rebuilding damaged ligaments into healthy tissue."

If the existing political system doesn't represent everybody, things can be done to change that--building third parties from the ground up, starting with small local elections; advocating for instant runoff voting. In the meantime, we have to work with the political system as it exists now.

Neil Willcox #92: Depends on whether you trust Suetonius or not, I suppose. A quick check shows that Dio Cassius states that Caligula had promised to name Incitatus consul but didn't get around to it.

Caligula, at least, did not send his army out to try to occupy Mesopotamia.

Alexander's approach? Marry his officers to their women? Are you thinking in terms of a Bactrian kingdom to come, perhaps?

Ginger, or anyone else who might know about FEMA and LA:

I'd very much appreciate any information anyone can dig up about the feds limiting the local government's power or making it seem like it was unnecessary/unwise/difficult for the local government to plan independently.

I've a few conservative friends who have been waving the "Laws said that it was the state's responsibility" flag for so long that I started to believe it might have some validity. One of them even argued that it was illegal for FEMA to offer help until the Gov asked for it, and she didn't ask for it, so she didn't get it. I've been somewhat powerless to combat that kind of crap.

I can find plenty documentation on the failures of things, but very little on the legal/pseudo-legal implications of federal and state separation. Maybe I can google fu a bit stronger now, based on some of the information provided.

Bush wins easily because he's launched far and away the most direct attack on the actual concept of the United States with his arguments about executive power - from major issues like oversight and torture to minor things. We've had corrupt and incompetent presidents in the past but I can't think of a precedent for anyone directly asserting that the other two branches had no authority over him or that constitutional rights were only advisory.

Well, for the major third party groups, you've got Ralph Nader if you're a Green Party member, or Bob Barr if you're a Libertarian Party member.

Even if I was inclined against Obama because of a desire to see an end to the two party system, I'd go back to Obama because he's actually much better than either of those two.

My desire for voting for something approximating a decent human being overrides my desire to "send a message" to the two party system. Neither Barr nor Nader are decent human beings. Obama looks decent, despite some flaws.

Leah @ 98

She declared a state of emergency before Katrina hit. That should have been enough, in itself, to start things rolling.

However, this is the Bush maladministration, and we had Brownie running FEMA. I won't even mention George's actions (such as they were).

... if we had a more robust small-party system in the U.S. that could cut the Democrats and Republicans down to size.

And that, friend, is a might big if.

The United States was not founded so that Republicans and Democrats could wage an endless boxing match at the expense of the citizens.

But, given the Electorial College, that's what we have.

Not remarkably better. Not fantastically better. Just better by a tiny amount...

...which is, nevertheless, better.

If your buffet was the only buffet in the city, and the choice was one of those two dishes or death by starvation, which would you choose?

"However, I'm not sure I can agree with Jim that intelligent people will do the right thing. My experience, especially lately, is that people use their intelligence to justify what they have already decided based on their emotions, prejudices, and imagined self-interests. Also, as much as we value intelligence, what we really need is wisdom.

Holy Crap, TomB@91. You just blew my mind. That last sentence in particular... "As much as we value intelligence, what we really need is wisdom." I think I need that on a T-shirt. I’ve been involved in a lot of D&D talk lately, to the effect that there is a reason INT and WIS are two different stats, and wisdom is currently underused and underrated. I’ve also been doing a lot of thinking on how it is possible to sound intelligent even when arguing from entirely wrongheaded positions. Hell, I’ve even seen a crop of humorous articles intersecting D&D with politics.

But the idea that the majority of current political discussion is based on intelligence rather than wisdom is such a huge revelation, the kind of revelation that rings so true that you feel stupid for not thinking of it before.

I think we have to remember, as a country, that wisdom shouldn’t be a dump stat. It also occurs to me that wisdom is quite often the stat you use to resist being charmed by something very unpleasant.

On the subject of 'Land wars in Asia".

From Babylon 5's Ceremonies of Light and Dark;
Londo: Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.

Leah @98: I'll see if I can dig up the links to the PDFs. I lost all that information when my old computer died, so it may take some time. Actually, I just realized -- some of that might be in my LJ archive. I'll get back to you on that.

Leah #103:

I also liked your comment distinguishing wisdom from intelligence. In fact, one thing I'd say characterizes modern "serious" political coverage is a focus on intelligence (really, verbal quickness) to the exclusion of wisdom, and also to the exclusion of knowledge and character. Someone like Rush Limbaugh had a very successful career by being intelligent--verbally clever--without drawing much on wisdom or deep knowledge, and without much commitment to intellectual honesty. The presidential debates are pretty much cleverness-fests for the candidates[1]. "Serious" guys like Chris Matthews or Bob Schieffer or Tim Russert aren't going to give you wisdom, largely because that's not what reporters are good at, and probably also because it doesn't come through well on TV.

I think the same disease afflicts a lot of social sciences; it's particularly easy to see in economics at times, and also (IMO) easy to see in much of what comes out of black studies and womens' studies departments--clever, almost "theological" arguments, of