Posted on 10/25/2004 6:30:06 AM PDT by finnman69
"But we also know much more about his liabilities: a tendency to overstudy issues, procrastinate and avoid hard choices; a willingness to be swayed by conflicting advice; an awkwardness in dealing with colleagues and staff; and a frequent impression that decisions are being guided by opportunism rather than firm beliefs. "
"Instead, what we have are two examples of what Charles O. Jones, the presidential scholar who has ties to both the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the Brookings Institution, says are archetypes reflecting their dissimilar histories.
Bush is the classic business-government executive, measuring his day in decisions made and confident as any CEO could hope to be in both his choice of senior associates and his course of action. But as Jones points out, a business executive who misjudges a plant manager or invests in the wrong product can damage a company -- and its stock price -- but not wreck a nation by refusing to see the error of his ways.
Kerry is, in Jones's phrase, a classic backbench senator, a man who has found his rewards in picking out a few issues to explore and in being noted for the way he talks about them. Such senators do not aspire to leadership posts or committee chairmanships, nor are they noted for the bills they pass. For them, government is a largely verbal arena, not one measured by concrete results.
As a rule, Americans have preferred -- and elected -- executives, rather than legislators; governors (or generals), rather than backbench senators. Former California governor Ronald Reagan easily defeated former senator Walter Mondale; Bill Clinton did the same to Bob Dole. "
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
is WaPO smelling the blood in the water?
Indeed. Sounds F'n has left the yapping class pretty much disgusted. It'd be interesting to know what, exactly, he has done to deserve their contempt. Is it just that he's so transparently an opportunist? Is it his arrogance and patronizing manner? Is it his relentless avoidance of real interaction with the media?
Or, more basically, is it because W is a man, and John F'n Kerry is a wussy dork?
I understand that the WP came out in favor of Kerry. Hmm.
I think WaPo kept its elite credentials with the endorsement, but they've run this Broder column and the stinging story by Woodward about Kerry's avoiding a sit down with BW. WaPo's board knows that these pieces will be seen by a lot more people than read its editorial. Drudge has had Woodward's piece up for two days and Broder is syndicated. WaPo is playing both sides and I think they're tilting against Kerry.
already today couric and now WAPO...the 'rats are fleeing the sinking swiftboat and will leave the horse stranded -- i guess he'll spend this christmas abandoned and forgotten up in cambodia, with nothing left to do but conference call with his UN security council buddies...
Im thinking the Goose hunt photo op did not endear Kerry among the chattering class.
I Hope he brings his lovely bride to Cambodia with him.
Broder is TWP's token "conservative" editorial writer.
I'm thinking that hilarious "pool report" on the goose hunt is not the only such report circulating amongst the "grassroots media."
I think there's probably also a running joke among them about F'n's incessant "sporting goods photo ops." You could land him in Antarctica and you'd probably see some half-frozen little league team all lined up, wathching Kerry mishandle their curling equipment....
I did not even finish reading your post and I had a vision of Kerry at a curling photo op. LOL!
They could at least mention his miserable choice of a running mate. Under a Kerry administration, if terrorists bomb the UN, Edwards becomes president. As attacks on America go, that's a twofer.
I think they realize Kerry is going to lose. Liberals know that it invalidates them and in their tiny little minds he should have had this wrapped up. The number one sin in democrat politics is losing.
This might be the most lukewarm endorsement of a Dem Presidential candidate I've ever seen from the ComPost. Of course they have to endorse him because if they didn't the D.C. Beltway commies that make up most of their readership would be up in arms, but you can tell that their hearts really aren't in it at all. I think they're far more grounded in reality than they were in years past and can sense that he's a loser.
Pull back and get some perspective.
There is the Democratic Party, to which Democrats in general must be loyal, therefore they must publicly support Kerry, give their endorsements, etc.
But the money and power in the Democratic Party is controlled by former President Clinton and Senator Clinton, and the good Senator has real ambitions. It is not in the interests of the Clintons to see an actual Kerry victory, since it will mean their loss of control of the central institutions of the Democratic Party. And it's not in the interest of all of their allies who run those institutions either.
So, you've got a whole set of interested persons at the very core of the Democratic Party, starting with Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and the moneymen, who lose their jobs and influence if Kerry wins, but who keep their jobs and influence, and get to stand behind an exciting candidate (Senator Clinton) for the next four years if Kerry loses.
Meanwhile, the Bush boy has four years to finish the war and can't run for re-election anyway, leaving the field open for Hillary in 2008, and letting the Democrats prepare for an election on domestic policy, which is where they prefer to govern anyway.
The final act, this week, is for Bill Clinton to dutifully stand up for the Party's nominee in a "swing" state that's likely to go for Kerry anyway, Pennsylvania, allowing the Clinton aura to be claimed as the source of the Kerry win there. Hillary will be in Florida, meeting the party officials, stumping for "the Party", and giving them a first look at the leader of the Democratic Party post Kerry. Finally, the media who are aligned with the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party will take a realistic look, see that Kerry is not going to win, and start writing editorials and lukewarm endorsements that protect their party credentials while preparing the faithful for the impending loss.
It's not really a conspiracy either. Bill Clinton was President, and Hillary Clinton is a success as a Senator. They control the Party because they won elections and are popular. And no Democrat likes to lose. Kerry is taking the party off a cliff, and Democrats don't like that any more than Republicans would if it were happening to them.
The difference between Kerry and the Clintons will be seen after the election. Kerry has been an obstructionist on the war. Senator Clinton has supported the President on the war in the important votes in the Senate. The Clintons want Bush to WIN the war so we can get back to domestic politics. Kerry and the Vietnam yippies are lost in a weird time warp.
Hillary will be formidable in 2008.
And this week's media spin on Kerry, which will be negative, a pre-post-mortem, will be the first indication of that power for Election 2008.
Dear Right_in_Virginia,
I don't think anyone pretends that David Broder is a conservative writer, even by Washington Post standards. For token conservatives, the Washington Post has George Will (almost sorta used to be one) and Charles Krauthammer (is some days, not so much on others).
David Broder is considered the "dean" of Washington Post columnists. Translation: Because of seniority, he no longer has to make sense.
sitetest
Classic liberalism. Talking about the problem = doing something about the problem.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.