Paul Krugman on George W. Bush and Mark Halperin Sitting in a Tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Paul Krugman writes:

On coming across: Why I’m not a proper political journalist:: In his op-ed today, Mark Halperin describes George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign as follows:

He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate.

Meanwhile, I didn’t do the up-close-and-personal stuff; I looked at what he actually said about policy. And from my point of view he “came across” as someone who lied, systematically and consistently, about taxes and Social Security. I did notice the cult of personality — but it scared me:

This suggests a terrible prospect. Soon we may have a president who lost the popular vote, who won the electoral vote only after bitter controversy, who needs to act with unprecedented humility and discretion to avoid ripping the country apart. But he will have surrounded himself with obsequious courtiers.

But you see, I’m just a shrill Bush-basher; we should leave judgments about character up to the professionals who thought Bush was a bluff, honest guy you’d like to have a beer with.

Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh Wagn'nagl Fhtagn!! Krugman Fhtagn!! KRUGMAN FHTAGN!!!!

---

One thing worthy of note. Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein's reaction to George W. Bush:

David Rubenstein: you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category...

That was the reaction of everybody not on Bush's payroll who has met Bush I have talked to--everybody except our elite Beltway press, that is.

Comments

[Ben Ross]

Yes, Halperin is bad, but not as bad as Friedman on the facing page:

>> To the extent that the surge in Iraq has worked, it’s largely because those Shiites and Sunnis ready to tolerate some mingling, some interaction, have risen up against those Shiites and Sunnis who want to just wipe out the other sect and any of their own who don’t agree.

Isn't "alliance of convenience" a more apt description than "risen up"?

>> Iran seems to have dialed down its support for Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq — which has been purging Sunnis and Shiites to prevent any mingling — because many ordinary Iraqi Shiites had become fed up with this pro-Iranian militia and had begun to blame Tehran.

Last I knew, it was the (since-renamed) SCIRI who were closest to Iran, not the Mahdi Army.

[howard]

i know that paul krugman has written many laudable things and he's a brilliant guy in general, but this may well be the single most perfect thing he's ever penned.

[Ginger Yellow]

I never cease to be amazed by the Village's utter lack of self-awareness, and Halperin's piece really is truly amazing.
"Maybe looking at candidates' public record would be a better way of figuring out if they'd be a good president than talking about their fundraisers! Who would have thought it?"

[tedb]

But Halperin has mastered the MSM's essential skill of finding balance where there is none. Thus both Clinton and Bush are failures as president; Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity equal Bush's eternal war and shredding of the Constitution.

[tedb]

My observation above illustrates the problem with reading blog entries in top-down order instead of chronologically. Sorry to have repeated a point Brad had already made in the Halperin post....

[Linkt]

I wonder if it ought to be "Cheney fhtagn".

[wood turtle]

Yes, I would like to have a beer with George W. Bush. And Mexican food.

[Jim]

Americans need to judge people far more by their history than they do. The reason they fail to do this, I submit, is their irrational belief in "redemption." The idea that one must not hold a person's past against him. If someone claims to have "changed" and become a "new person" they are all to eager to believe it. Fact is, most people deep down change very little. Bush has always been the original pampered playboy, Yalie cheer leader, failure in life guy. The idea that he changed was false and believing it has got the nation into the mess it is in.

[piotr]

What is truly puzzling is the title "analyst" following Halperin's signature. He deals with "impressions" not with analysis! Then again, the usage of the word "analyst" perhaps is different then the ethymology suggests. For example, "stock analyst" meant mindless cheerleader sifting news for reason to encourage folks to buy stocks they "analyzed".

But for a more traditional meaning of the word, how one can write "man of principle who surrounded himself [with] cult of personality"?

Next, the perennial "balance", failures of Clinton and Bush. Clinton presided over the nightmare of peace, prosperity and USA being actually popular around the globe, and by almost any account was an able administrator. But he had "appetites".

Give me narmal "appetites" and rid me of the reign of pathological sadists! That Bush had a cruel streak was documented already during 2000 campaign, and he clearly indulged himself afterwards.

Halperin ends with a conclusion that besides the ability to campaign we should try to predict the ability to govern. Characteristically, without any example or explanation "how". That would be too analytical.

[sglover]

"What is truly puzzling is the title "analyst" following Halperin's signature. He deals with "impressions" not with analysis!"

"Analyst" is to Beltway gasbags what "associate" or "team member" is retail sector wage slaves.