Thanks for stopping by, Joe. I don't know if I'm glad to hear that many conservatives knew that Bush wasn't intelligent, but supported him anyway. It seems pretty irresponsible. What qualities did they hope Bush had that would make up for his lack of intelligence?
2:59 AM, August 21, 2006
Anonymous said...
Hi Zach,
"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.
Well, I agree that for conservatives, you didn't really have any place to go in 2004 as far as the major candidates (Sullivan felt the same way). All the more reason to push for instant run-off voting. That would bring much more choice into our system, for both conservatives and liberals (and all manner of folk).
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.
6:03 AM, August 22, 2006
Anonymous said...
I agree that any of the previous six presidents would have done a better job since 9/11 than Bush 43(Okay, I'm not sure about Carter). 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.
I can see the appeal of instant runoff voting for some elections, but I'm at a loss to see how it could be used to improve Presidential elections in the U.S. Even setting aside the electoral college for a second, and pretending we're just going with a simple popular vote, I have a feeling that a hypothetical 2004 race between Kerry, Bush and a hypothetical "real conservative" candidate would have resulted looking something like this hypothetical example. With "Andrew" being Bush, "Brian" being the conservative, and "Catherine" being Kerry. In this scenario, joe here would likely be one of the 12 voting in the second column. The reason IRV won't help Joe here is that his candidate doesn't survive round 1. I'm assuming the ranking of this hypothetical conservative behind Bush is accurate, because otherwise this candidate could theoretically have won the Republican primary.
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....
8:40 AM, August 22, 2006
Anonymous said...
Grishnash,
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.
7:17 PM, August 22, 2006
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: 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."I love it when my thoughts are echoed in the larger media world: 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.
posted by Zachary Drake at 11:37 PM on Aug 20, 2006
"Scarborough asks "Is Bush and Idiot?""
8 Comments -
There are many conservatives that were never under the illusion that Bush was intelligent.
My only hope was that he would have better handlers.
1:24 AM, August 21, 2006
Thanks for stopping by, Joe. I don't know if I'm glad to hear that many conservatives knew that Bush wasn't intelligent, but supported him anyway. It seems pretty irresponsible. What qualities did they hope Bush had that would make up for his lack of intelligence?
2:59 AM, August 21, 2006
Hi Zach,
"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.
5:52 AM, August 22, 2006
Well, I agree that for conservatives, you didn't really have any place to go in 2004 as far as the major candidates (Sullivan felt the same way). All the more reason to push for instant run-off voting. That would bring much more choice into our system, for both conservatives and liberals (and all manner of folk).
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.
6:03 AM, August 22, 2006
I agree that any of the previous six presidents would have done a better job since 9/11 than Bush 43(Okay, I'm not sure about Carter).
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.
8:21 AM, August 22, 2006
I can see the appeal of instant runoff voting for some elections, but I'm at a loss to see how it could be used to improve Presidential elections in the U.S. Even setting aside the electoral college for a second, and pretending we're just going with a simple popular vote, I have a feeling that a hypothetical 2004 race between Kerry, Bush and a hypothetical "real conservative" candidate would have resulted looking something like this hypothetical example. With "Andrew" being Bush, "Brian" being the conservative, and "Catherine" being Kerry. In this scenario, joe here would likely be one of the 12 voting in the second column. The reason IRV won't help Joe here is that his candidate doesn't survive round 1. I'm assuming the ranking of this hypothetical conservative behind Bush is accurate, because otherwise this candidate could theoretically have won the Republican primary.
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.
8:32 AM, August 22, 2006
joe said...
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....
8:40 AM, August 22, 2006
Grishnash,
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.
7:17 PM, August 22, 2006