This morning I took a special schadenfreude glee when I came across an An 8 page New York Times Magazine report "The Final Days" by Peter Baker.
Paragraph 2 concerning the McCain/Bush feud:
A relationship fraught with bitter resentment, grudging respect and mutual dependence takes center stage this week as the Republican Party gathers in St. Paul to pass the mantle of leadership. As at that May photo opportunity in Phoenix, which followed a fund-raiser, Bush will be ushered out of the spotlight as quickly as possible — if not in 14 seconds, then not all that much longer. After an opening-night speech tomorrow, he will leave town with none of the celebratory rock-star attention Bill Clinton commanded at Al Gore’s convention and retreat to Camp David before McCain even arrives at the Xcel Energy Center for his coronation.
Much of the article is insider info about the out and out fraudulence of GOPolitics, and since many of you know the history of this attempt for a third Bush term, you might want to skim along until you get to pages 5-8, where "the future of Dubya" is pretty much outlined.
Page 8 touches on Bush's newfound combativeness versus reporters who have somewhat grown a spine.
As he wraps up his presidency, Bush has grown increasingly combative in defending his record on all fronts, unwilling to let others define him through their own prisms. He often quarrels with the premise of an interviewer’s question that casts his tenure in a way he does not agree with. When he conducted a series of sit-down sessions with foreign journalists before his last Middle East trip, he kept disputing their perception of reality.
"No, that’s not an accurate statement," he chided an Israeli reporter who said the president had waited seven years to become actively involved in the peace process.
"Well, I don’t think it’s an accurate description," he complained a half-hour later when an Arab reporter suggested that Lebanon’s embattled prime minister had been abandoned.
The worst President in US history is about to try to "correct the record"...
And while disclaiming any interest in legacy, the president has begun laying out what he seems to hope his will be. Speaking to an Egyptian interviewer in May, the president said: "I think history will say George Bush clearly saw the threats that keep the Middle East in turmoil and was willing to do something about it, was willing to lead and had this great faith in the capacity of democracies and great faith in the capacity of people to decide the fate of their countries and that the democracy movement gained impetus and gained movement in the Middle East." To a Thai journalist this month, he described his epitaph this way, "Somebody who took on tough challenges and didn’t shy away from doing what he thought was right."
Here is what I'm worried about, what the hell he's going to do with all that newfound time on his hands.
That, at least, will be the case he makes aided by the future George W. Bush Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University and a planned freedom institute. Bush’s advisers say he intends to use the institute as a catalyst for democracy movements around the world, inviting prominent dissidents and activists for conferences or fellowships. Although they say he does not plan to travel the world intervening in foreign disputes as Jimmy Carter does or sponsoring health initiatives as Bill Clinton does, he hopes his institute will encourage opposition leaders in places like Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, Iran and other repressive states that he focused on during his administration.
Beyond the library, Bush plans to write a book and is settling on a ghostwriter. During a private gathering for House Republican leaders in the White House residence this summer, he mused about using the book to set the record straight as he sees it. "He has a number of pivotal points in his presidency that he’s willing to sit down and reflect on," Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House minority whip, told me afterward. "He believes that history is on his side. And if it’s not, he’s never going to know."
On another front, we have all been looking for cracks in the McCain facade, I found one intriguing discovery in the "Deseret News" announcement of the Palin nomination.
There were over 480 comments, and by my measure, pro versus anti Palin sentiment was splitting 50/50. I skipped ahead to page 7 of the comments (the more recent ones), and really liked the tone of THIS:
McCain chose hail-Mary politics over country with this choice. Instead of choosing someone ready to step in and save our country, he chose someone he hoped would be ready to step in and save a few votes for him to save his campaign.
Maybe this can serve as a bit of an open thread.
I found the Krauthammer "suicide by McCain" article, but not many other RW pundits coming out against the pick.
Have you?
If so, please tell us.