RK ARCHIVE - Another theory on the Bush v. Webb encounter

And here's another theory from another blog--Political Insider (PM - 11/30/2006 8:12:11 PM)

The Surprise Candidate
The 2008 Presidential race on the Democratic side has focused so far on the expected or aspirational candidates -- Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Obama, Kerry and others. But every Presidential campaign always includes a surprise candidate who, at some point in the race, shakes things up.
***
So who will it be in 2008? My guess is Jim Webb. Webb is not well suited to the manners of the U.S. Senate. And as his incident with Bush this week demonstrates, he's deadly serious about ending this war and if others aren't willing to stick out their neck on Iraq, he could feel compelled to do it himself. Plus, Mark Warner's exit from the race creates a vacuum for another Southern candidate to compete with John Edwards.
-- Dan Conley

I'm not sure what Political Insider is getting at, but he does see that Webb is willing to take chances and be bold.

And I think he's right in one respect. I think Webb will be the V.P. candidate if Hillary heads the ticket.

Bush's Comment (KevinR - 11/30/2006 8:16:21 PM)

As much as the Will article enraged me, I do not buy Josh's analysis for one second. Bush sought out Webb and made his comments based on one simple goal: to enhance his image as a 'good ole boy.' As we all know by now, this is President Bush's standard practice: villify his detractors from his bully pulpit (i.e. cut and runners) while playing the good ole boy in more private settings (i.e. nicknames and back slaps). Let's focus less on the conspiracy issues and more on: 1) the appropriateness of Webb's response; 2) the President's complete lack of tact in the matter; and 3) getting the boys home (not necessarily in that order).

RE: A slightly different take on the slightly different take . . . (JPTERP - 11/30/2006 8:20:57 PM)

My take is that G.W. Bush posed the initial question as a way of saying "I care about you on a personal level".

Of course, Jim Webb, being who he is, has no interest in being the president's buddy. It's strictly business.

The president didn't like that, so he tried to get in a little pissing contest. The Senator Elect would have none of it. And that was the end of it.

The Liberal Progressive also touched on another angle of this with a hat tip to the RTD. It does seem like someone at the White House is engaged in a little bit of character assasination. This is after all, it's M.O. in dealing with people that it views as threats.

http://www.timesdisp...

A slightly different take on the slightly different take on the.. (Kathy Gerber - 11/30/2006 9:08:43 PM)

slightly different take.

And I say this not to attack Bush, but rather to illustrate a possible dilemma for Webb.

What if: Bush was making an opening for wheeling and dealing.

G: How's your boy?
J: He's hanging in there, Mr. President. Thanks for asking. But I'm sure you can understand it's tough, sir.

[So far so good. Right? But what if Bush said something like this.]

G: I hear ya. It's tough on all of our fine young soldiers serving their country. I understand you've got some good ideas about supporting our troops. I'd really like to get together and talk about that .. and your boy. His name's Jimmy right?
J: Yes, Jim, Jr., Mr. President.
G: Well, we'll just have to get together - just the two of us - and we'll see what we can do about (wink) our troops.

argh --- maybe it's just me, but that's the worst case scenario I can think of.

RE: Skeptical (JPTERP - 11/30/2006 10:07:46 PM)

I think Webb gave Bush an opening with "We need to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President."

It was a little bit blunt, but Webb was respectful. G.W. wasn't interested in the opening.

Unfortunately, I don't think G.W. makes decisions on foreign policy without consulting Cheney or Condi. I don't mean this to be snarky--this is just one of the realities--and tragedies--of having a president whose 6 years of foreign policy experience all came while on the job as president.

If the script had dictated "talk" to Jim Webb about troops, G.W. would have found a way to get there.

Just a hunch of course.

The silver lining here is that there are GOP Senators who are closer to Jim Webb's viewpoint on the Iraq War than to G.W.'s. If the GOP contingent is unable to persuade G.W.; the Democrats should be able to swing enough GOPers to get to 60 votes and do whatever it is that they need to do. (I'm thinking something along the lines of Senator Warner's statement a month ago that the President "may need to seek additional authorization from the congress if our troops are in the middle of a civil war").

In the hypothetical scenario (Kathy Gerber - 11/30/2006 10:47:36 PM)

what ends up on the table is a preferential (safe) assignment for Jimmy's unit. It's a Sophie's Choice variant: Webb's son or the children and spouses of those who elected him to office. So moving the subject from Jimmy to the troops in general (them), Webb built a tall wall between himself and the remotest possibility of facing such an ethical dilemma.

Remember, Bush himself received preferential treatment of a different sort years ago.

"Literally" two different worlds (JPTERP - 12/1/2006 12:04:14 AM)

That sounds about right to me. Wow, that's disgusting.

G.W. was trying to do for Jim Webb and his son, what G.H.W did for G.W. Except Jim Webb was going to have none of it. The real deal indeed.

"We need to get 'them' out of Iraq."

Some added commentary at the Times Dispatch (LAS - 12/1/2006 1:53:21 AM)

which I like very much:

"I think even he (Bush) would probably understand that's a little bit over the line." (Webb) said the question was not an easy one to answer "when your son's in combat."

The newspaper also calls Webb "scrappy." I like that, too. I mean, his campaign song was 'Won't back down."

Need to snark on Will a little more (PM - 11/30/2006 8:32:26 PM)

from Alternative Hippo:

Of course Will distorted the record. Of course he ignored The Curse of the Shooter. Will is a Republican activist. Have we already forgotten this is the same guy who stole Carter’s debating materials, coached Reagan, then praised Reagan’s debating performance on air- keeping his role secret?
This is a guy who gets paid by the number of right-wing echoes he can create.

http://blog.althippo...

respectfully disagree with PM (bladerunner - 11/30/2006 8:52:50 PM)

Ain't no way Webb will play second fiddle to Hillary "Bottom Hands" Clinton. He might with someone else, but not with such a polarizing divider like her.

I do like the fact that he wasn't buying Bush's off the record attempt at starting up a conversation. I think perhaps Bush being the social imputant he is, was putting out feelers to see if Webb would bite. Webb knows what's up and will continue on his mission.

Insult (tbrewste - 11/30/2006 11:00:37 PM)

"How's your boy?" is an insult. First, Jim Webb's son Jimmy has a name. Unless Bush has distanced himself by viewing our troops as nameless, faceless victims of his blunders.

Next, Jimmy Webb, because he serves this country, is a man. More man than Bush, who lacks such distinguished service. Boy is an insult for any man willing to give his life for his country. Blantant disrespect!

"boy" (libra - 12/2/2006 12:27:44 AM)

I didn't come to US until '73, but my husband -- a Virginian born-and-bred -- told me that "boy" used to be the term Southerners used, to call all black males, irrespective of age. And that it was *definitely* meant to put them down, status-wise. So, when I heard of that exchange, that's what I understood "boy" to mean -- a put down, a pissin' contest -- even though Webb's not black. Afterall, it was a Southerner-to-Southerner exchange, and each would have been aware *precisely* of what was implied...

I agree with tbrewste; it was definitely meant as an insult, and that's even before the arguments tbrewste mentions are considered.

Pretty simple, Bush just got what he claims he espouses... (Caesonia - 11/30/2006 11:23:38 PM)

simple, down to earth, no nonsense talk. Now the pundits cry and whine about civility. Give me a break Mr Wills. Since when has the GOP EVER been civil in the last 14 years? Anybody who was a Republican with manners was ostracized and thrown out.

Don't like a taste of your own medicine Bush?

Never thought you did. Look what happens to toadies like G. Allen when someone finally talks to them in a smilar tune? They lose.

And now you have.

Do You Know What (Gordie - 12/1/2006 12:37:26 AM)

I am taking Jim Webb at his word. "This is a personal matter between me and my son". And "Bringing his son into the spot light puts him more at risk".
For this reason I would suggest we all stop talking about this issue.
We all know GW is a jerk from the time when he first trashed McCain's war record. He and the people who promote him have no honor or respect of others. What Rob wrote is probably close to what the game was, but I cannot give GW the credit for thinking it up.
One thing that has not even been mentioned is Jim was asst. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy. He roamed the halls of the White House well before GW, serving a different President. Now that he is in front of a half ass President does any one really expect him to have respect for the jerk, GW. As Jim said he has respect for the office and I believe he means that and only that.

Good Night, Good Luck and think about removing this post for the safety of those serving in combat.

It won't matter. (Reen - 12/1/2006 7:20:21 AM)

There are some 70 pages of comments to Will's article at Wapo.

And here's a snapshot of Daily Kos (how many daily readers are there now?) diaries.

Markos talks about it in the lead story:
http://www.dailykos....

Out of 8 rec'd diaries, 4 of them talk about this incident:

http://www.dailykos....
http://www.dailykos....
http://www.dailykos....
http://www.dailykos....

And while we're at it, DukieDem has a nice rec'd article.
David Gergen Enlightens

Another Bush Gaffe (middleagemom - 12/1/2006 1:29:55 AM)

It seems to me that Bush was trying to make "small talk" with Webb, by expressing concern for Webb's son in that fake, folksy manner of his. I'm not sure Bush's initial question was rude, just disingenuous. Webb's response was appropriate from his perspective -- Webb wanted to use the opportunity to press his case for leaving Iraq. His response was forceful, but still respectful. Bush's next comment, however, was the boorish one, in my view. By responding, "That's not what I asked. How's your boy?," Bush was trying to force Webb to keep the discussion on a level that Bush could handle. Bush had no desire actually to have a conversation with Webb; he just wanted Webb to mouth the same platitudes that everyone else says at cocktail parties: "I'm fine . . . What a nice party . . . Great food . . . ." If Bush did not want to engage in a real discussion with Webb, he shouldn't have started the conversation in the first place. Bush found out very quickly that Webb does not have a fake bone in his body.

People should remember that Bush has a history of social faux pas. Remember his inappropriate back-rubbing of the female German politician a few months ago (and remember the grossed out look on her face)?

I agree with you, OTOH, (LAS - 12/1/2006 1:58:45 AM)

I can also see it in the even-more nefarious light. In any case, Bush just found out that Webb is NOT going to play that game with him--he's not going to play ANY game with him.

Bush must have been a little shocked. I think very few people ever deny him anything. And, you know, this is a man who likes, expects and needs to have his you-know-what kissed at all times of the day.

Other's weigh in: (mkfox - 12/1/2006 7:23:01 AM)

The Nation: Two Cheers for Senator Webb

President Bush's war of choice has put Webb's son's in harm's way. Why shouldn't Webb refuse to shake that man's hand--or seek to be used in a photo-op?

Brent Budowsky: Outstanding: Jim Webb Is The Real Straight Talk Express of the Senate

Jim Webb is going to be outstanding, brilliant, spectacular, a sensational addition to the U.S. Senate. He charged into combat with bullets flying in his face, and emerged with medals on his chest. He knows how to win wars, when to fight wars, how to avoid wars, and why war is not made for cocktail party warriors or editorial board tea parties.

Bottom Line (Reen - 12/1/2006 8:12:51 AM)

There's much to learn from the pieces by George Will and Emmett Tyrell. They are attempting once again to take a minor incident as a starting point for a radical rewrite to push public perception in a place of their choosing.

The real attacks on Webb is not about parsing the conversation. The encounter itself is not such a big deal. Half of the real story is that Webb has been clear all along that he did not want his son in the spotlight and the Repos made sure that was exactly what happened.

Everyone understood that Webb wanted to remain low-key about Jimmy and they made damned sure the story was front and center. And George Will is just a tool who bent and broke all journalistic guidelines to do just that.

The other half of the story is that Repo writers are scrambling like mad to invent a negative persona for Jim Webb. The good news is that they are failing miserably. While there's some skew to the Wapo responses the outrage is genuine against these efforts is genuine, widespread and uprecendented.

Here's one of the comments:

Ive just read the first 1000 posts, covering the first 15 hours of comments. I counted posters, not posts, so that each poster counts only once, no matter how many posts he submits. This is how they broke down: favorable to the column, 41 posters neutral, 15 posters UN-favorable to the column, 738 posters undecipherable or off-topic, 7 posters. Categories not mutually exclusive. The ratio of unfavorable to favorable was 18 to 1.
By wreier | Dec 1, 2006 5:14:11 AM | Request Removal

That's some major pushback. This smear tactics are biting them in the ass.

RE: Agree (JPTERP - 12/1/2006 8:36:13 AM)

with your point in reference to Will and Tyrrell.

I wouldn't place too much value, however, on the Washington Post's comments section. It was reassuring to see 2,000 comments or so on the Post's website that are almost universally opposed, befuddled, or outraged by Will's comments. But there is a self-selecting bias at work concerning the Post's readership and whether or not a person posts a coment on the WaPost online edition. Probably not reflective of the population at large.

A lot of people are going to be indifferent to this story, but based on the days since the election--what with 4 or 5 pretty blatant hit pieces on Jim Webb--it's safe to say that this is going to be a busy next few months.

It was also reassuring to see a slightly right of center Virginia Pilot editorial board come out in support of Jim Webb. At the very least, the Senator Elect is going to help some publishers sell newspapers.

Reassuring (Reen - 12/1/2006 8:59:44 AM)

is a perfect description. While I totally agree with the self-selection, the volume and the percentages make the response something of an event or phenomenon as opposed to a poll.

And here's another "event." This Wapo article is an insider interview with Scott Howell from early 2006.

One paragraph:

Howell has a roster stacked with top-tier contests again in 2006. He will handle the television strategy for Talent's tough reelection bid against State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D), and he will serve as the media consultant for Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard's (R) challenge to Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D). In Minnesota, Howell will handle Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R) bid for the open Minnesota Senate seat, and down in Florida he is working for state CFO Tom Gallagher (R) gubernatorial campaign.

Every one of Howell's candidates there lost and Kilgore lost last year.

Another theory on the Bush v. Webb encounter

Comments