Michael Bérubé - American Airspace

Thank you, Heathers

Writing in Slate, Bruce Reed reminds us that thanks to Clinton and Gore’s wonky, do-good “reinventing government” initiative, FEMA was transformed from “a dumping ground for political hacks” to a competent, responsive agency. The head of FEMA was of course James Lee Witt. As Reed notes, Bush paid the Clinton Administration a rare compliment in his first presidential debate with Gore, and Gore replied in kind:

First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. And I agree, it works extremely well now.

Reed then goes on to write:

That debate moment is remembered more for Al Gore’s faulty claim moments later that he, too, had visited those fires in Texas with Witt. Gore had been to disasters with Witt, but not that one, and the Bush campaign spun the exchange to persuade the press that Gore was somehow a serial exaggerator.

Kudos to Reed for recalling that sorry moment—but wait, something’s not quite right here. Check that hyperlink on “serial exaggerator”: it doesn’t take you to the 2000 Bush/Cheney campaign apparatus. It takes you, instead, to one of the unofficial outposts of the 2000 Bush/Cheney campaign apparatus, Mickey Kaus’s column in Slate. Further along in that column, Mickey, the Father of Modern Blogging, wrote,

It’s as if Gore were told that whatever he did at the debate he shouldn’t hop up and down on one foot and he’d gone and hopped up and down on one foot. It’s as if Gary Hart had gone home with yet another babe after the Donna Rice incident! Put another way, the question isn’t whether Gore’s a liar and whether that’s worse than Bush being dim; it’s whether Gore’s lying shows that, in some respects, he’s a bit dim too.

OK, so let’s get this straight. It’s October 2000, and we have two candidates for President. One is a bit of a stiff, who rolls his eyes and sighs in the first debate, and misremembers travelling to Texas with James Lee Witt this one time even though he’d accompanied Witt on seventeen other occasions. (This might be a good time to ask how Cheney spent his time during Katrina, don’t you think?) The other is a liar and an blustering boob, who, when he is eventually handed the reins of government by the most egregious act of judicial activism in our time, appoints a campaign contributor/ horse whisperer to manage FEMA, thereby restoring to the agency the corruption and cronyism of his father’s era. (And not just any horse whisperer, mind you! An incompetent horse whisperer who was pushed out of his horse-whispering job because he was a “total disaster.” Give that guy a disaster-management position!) And Kaus—like the rest of the national media—jumps all over the competent, wonky candidate for his “fib.”

Don’t you remember those crazy days, folks? Gore’s claim about James Lee Witt was treated like a matter of national security—almost as if he’d started a disastrous war on false pretenses, or worse, diddled a White House intern. The question of which candidate would do a better job with FEMA just wasn’t important enough for most of our press to cover.

Thank you, Mickey. Thank you, Ceci Connolly. Thank you, all you “fifteen-year-old Heathers” who covered the 2000 campaign. I thank you, Al Gore thanks you, your country thanks you, the people of New Orleans thank you.

NOTE: This blog will hereafter refer to Michael Brown as the Incompetent Horse Whisperer. And as the Bush Administration prepares to blame the New Orleans disaster on Lynndie England, this blog will refer to the Dauphin as President Katrina. Following a suggestion from Randy Paul in yesterday’s comments, Chertoff will hereafter be known as the Devil. And we’re definitely going to call Lt. Gen. Russel Honore the John Wayne Dude.

ADDENDUM: Just to be clear about this—the point about FEMA and Witt is not an example of 20/20 hindsight. It is an example of precisely what we progressive Democrats said in 2000 when we were told that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore. We admitted that Gore was a neoliberal free-trade shill and a DLC guy who would be disappointing, annoying, or simply infuriating on any number of issues domestic and foreign. But we insisted that the real difference between the two would be felt in the vast machinery of presidential appointments and regulatory agencies, from the NLRB to FEMA. We were kinda right about that, I think.

Posted by on 09/05 at 09:01 AM

Michael wrote: “We admitted that Gore was a neoliberal free-trade shill and a DLC guy who would be disappointing, annoying, or simply infuriating on any number of issues domestic and foreign. But we insisted that the real difference between the two would be felt in the vast machinery of presidential appointments and regulatory agencies, from the NLRB to FEMA. We were kinda right about that, I think.”

But, specifically, did any of us think the Dauphin would be so extraordinarily incompetent? Bush The First was not incompetent no matter what other negative adjectives we can use to describe him and his administration. And his son, the Dauphin, had a decent record in Texas in terms of competence.

Dilulo (spelling?) was also right when he said the Dauphin’s brain was taken over by Mayberry Machiavellis who didn’t care about anything except catering to a far right base and turning EVERYTHING into a political zero-sum game. And the saddest thing is, the Arrogant Jerk--Dauphin is not descriptive enough in this instance--was able to get more votes than Kerry in 2004 (insert favorite conspiracy theory here).

Well, maybe people (certainly some of the CNN and even FoxNews reporters) are starting to understand that there is a reason Americans once voted for FDR and the Kennedys, including Teddy.

Posted by Mitchell Freedman on 09/05 at 12:00 PM
There’s a certain disconnect here, Michael, between your indictment and your sentence (i.e., the Addendum).

You are of course entirely correct about the execrable performance of the media in 2000, which was to a great extent repeated in 2004.

The question is, what do you do about it? Seems to me that there are at least two choices. The more difficult, if preferable choice, would be to reform this media. In the longrun this will be necessary, but it will be very difficult. To the extent that our MSM has been shaped by public policy, the Democrats have been enthusiastic cheerleaders for such measures as the Telecommunications Act of 1994 that helped create the kind of corporate media concentration that, I believe, lies at the heart of the problem.

The second obvious choice is to stop whining, accept that our media are useless Heathers, and outplay the GOP. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the Democrats have manifestly failed to do that.

But rather than exploring either of these things, you end with an only-slightly-veiled attack on Nader. I guess I’d respond by saying that...First, most Nader supporters I knew did not think that there was no meaningful difference between Bush and Gore, but that Gore was sufficiently bad that we needed something else instead. Gore was part of an administration that destroyed our already too thin social safety net, pursued trade policies written by and for multinational CEOs, proposed the aforementioned Telecommunications Act of 1994 that helped create the media that did so much to do him in, pioneered the policy of “regime change” in Iraq, and so forth. I think you are absolutely right to say that one of the distinguishing differences between Bush and Gore was competence. But I don’t think we need a more competent version of this administration. Secondly, a large majority of Nader voters were in states decided by more than 10 points. The number of Nader voters in swing states was actually quite small. (Interestingly, the right has wasted no energy attacking Patrick Buchanan, whose votes in NM cost Bush that state in 2000). Thirdly, despite the shortcomings of his campaign, Gore won the election, but lost the post-election fight. A large measure of that was the deus ex machina of the SCOTUS, but Gore and Lieberman contributed mightily to blowing whatever chance they had, by not callling for a statewide recount, blindly accepting all military ballots, failing to call for a challenge when the Electoral College votes were counted, and, finally, (along with the rest of the Democratic Party) not treating Bush as an illegitimate president in January, 2001.

To my mind, the single biggest mistake that many Greens and Nader himself made in 2000 (and that Nader, but I’m happy to say not the Greens, repeated in 2004) was assuming that the Democratic Party would respond positively to electoral pressure from its left. The Democrats are far too committed to their center-right direction to be pulled leftward and are too wedded to the belief that they own by right all votes to the left of the GOP. They also would much rather find scapegoats for their electoral losses than learn from their own mistakes.

Posted by on 09/05 at 12:07 PM
I’ve been thinking a lot about Gore recently, and where our country would be if he were the President--I believe that his response to 9-11 would have been to invest our money into infrastructure security improvements, rather than invading Iraq, which would have caused the Right to castigate him relentlessly for a lack of ‘leadership,’ but which would have been infinitely more effective than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ facade that we’ve been stuck with…

I’m not saying that Gore would have been a great President, but there’s no doubt (except in the political minds of the idealogue Right) that he was extremely competent--the disasters in both Gulfs painfully illustrate the difference between competency and ideology…

unfortunately, there are too many people in this country who look at politics like it is Pro Wrestling or Nascar--they like their guy because he fills out his costume so well, talks tough, and drives a flashy car--unlike sports, however, government is about more than who you ‘like’--competency really does matter.

funny, you don’t hear any more talk about competence from this White House--mainly, because they don’t have anything to stand on in this area, due in large part to their ideological litmus tests, which is really just a fancy phrase for ‘cronyism.’

Posted by on 09/05 at 12:14 PM
Michael, although calling Chertoff the Devil has its sulphuric charm, I think Mr. Burns is more appropriate. Seldom has any living person resembeld a cartoon villain so well. Or lived up to the spirit of that character. Please consider the change.

Posted by on 09/05 at 12:20 PM
David,

We can’t be too sure a President Gore would not have gone into Iraq. Gore was very close to Marty Peretz of the New Republic. If you go back to the first week or so after 9/11/01, you’ll find they were clamoring to go after Iraq. With the structure of the right wing commentary in corporate owned media dominating any debate, I hestiate to conclude Gore would also have not gone into Iraq, though he would have done it with less lies, wouldn’t have fired Shinseki and may even have used the crime against this nation regarding 9/11 and pushed for a draft--and he’d have likely been a one term president if the Republican leadership repeated their performance from the Bosnia crisis under Clinton and undermining a president during a time of war.

If anyone is still unsure my skepticism is warranted, please remember how LBJ went into Vietnam--with dread and political realism that turned out to be disasterous for him, his administration and our nation--and especially the Vietnamese people.

A final point: Let’s also not confuse the post-2000 hibernation Gore, with his new found populism and stridency on behalf of the common folks, and the corporate shill Gore of the pre-2000 election who was still best buds with the odious Marty Peretz and the whole “corporate free trade” crowd of Republican-Lites.

Posted by Mitchell Freedman on 09/05 at 12:33 PM
There was a lot more to the media’s wilding of Gore in 2000 than Heatherism. In few, they couldn’t get Clinton, so they destroyed Gore in order to vindicate their Clinton reporting; i.e., they could spin a Gore defeat as the public finally coming to their senses about Clinton.

But the media’s Clinton obsession was as much institutional as personal or political. Fearful of competition from the nascent internet, they bet heavily on the Whitewater scandal. And when they crapped out on that one, they went “double or nothing” on each succeeding tale proffered by the right. And so their certainty that Clinton was corrupt might have been similarly institutional: i.e., either Clinton really is this Bluebeard, or our reporting is totally unreliable.

But you are right, Michael, about the unseriousness of it all. It really was just a game to them. They had no conception of how real lives would be affected by their reporting.

Posted by on 09/05 at 12:35 PM
Actually, I think Nader voters were far less culpable in all this than were the mass media—and, of course, the Supreme Court. Just for the record. So let’s give the rote Nader-defenses a rest already. Please. The consideration about what happens to regulatory agencies under either Gore or Bush was a good consideration to consider, simple as that. And nothing could be more revealing about the press’s essential unseriousness than their failure to ask the real question about Bush, Gore, and FEMA.

Posted by on 09/05 at 12:46 PM
Agreed, Michael.

I think we must unite and put pressure on Democratic Congressmen and Senators to file articles of impeachment.

See: my MF Blog post this morning “Investigate? No, impeach.” The more we learn, the more the phrase “criminal negligence” becomes applicable. This is truly about a lack of competence and the lies these people tell to cover up their incompetence--and worse, about a level of callousness toward our own fellow citizens that is breathtaking.

Posted by mitchell freedman on 09/05 at 01:05 PM
Criminal negligence—I think that’s just about right. And I believe it’s considered to be even worse, in some cultures, than consensual extramarital sex.

Posted by on 09/05 at 01:15 PM
Sorry, Michael, for seeing Nader bashing where none was intended. I’m happy to put away the Nader defenses. I was delivering them in the spirit of turning the conversation away from Nader. So if you’re fine with that, let’s just do so.

Posted by on 09/05 at 01:16 PM
Michael,
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but Gore DID go down to those Texas fires… with James Lee Witt’s ASSISTANT!

That’s right! Gore accompanied Witt to all kinds of other things. But his memory failed him with regard to the Texas fires - he forgot that although he was there, he was there with Witt’s ASSISTANT.

And the media pounded him for about a week for this trivial honest error!!!!!!!!

SOURCE: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100604.html

Posted by on 09/05 at 01:37 PM
I suggest an alternative term for Mr. Brown: the Horse Mumbler.

Posted by Arthur D. Hlavaty on 09/05 at 02:09 PM
fair enough, Mitchell--I was not suggesting that Al Gore was the answer (full disclosure: living in New York, I voted for Nader, as a vote of protest against the limited choices that the two-party system has left us with)

my larger point is that despite his shortcomings in many areas, by and large, Al Gore took his role in government seriously, and was pretty competent in his role, thus, though he may not have prevented any of this from happening, it’s a good bet that he would not have done nearly as bad of a job in leading this country into the ditch.

Posted by on 09/05 at 02:49 PM
As to your larger point, David, AGREED!!

Now, let’s find some Congressmen and Senators to file the impeachment papers! Onward and upward…

Posted by Mitchell Freedman on 09/05 at 03:17 PM
impeachment? c’mon, it’s not like Bu$h did anything *really* wrong, like getting a bj from an intern;>

Posted by on 09/05 at 03:29 PM
Well, just think how much worse things would be if the grown-ups weren’t in charge.

Posted by on 09/05 at 04:17 PM
Mickey Kaus is the father of modern blogging? Who’s the mother? A lamprey?

Posted by on 09/05 at 06:14 PM
Mickey Kaus is the father of modern blogging? Who’s the mother? A lamprey?

No, actually, Camille Paglia—according to Camille Paglia. This was after she invented television.

Posted by Michael on 09/05 at 11:38 PM
"Michael, although calling Chertoff the Devil has its sulphuric charm, I think Mr. Burns is more appropriate. Seldom has any living person resembeld a cartoon villain so well. Or lived up to the spirit of that character. Please consider the change. “

No way. Chertoff looks just like Moloch from “The Watchmen” comics. Besides, Mr. Burns is based on the devil anyway.

Posted by on 09/06 at 09:56 AM
Michael--
Oh, well. Paglia, Kaus, the lamprey...what’s the difference, really? All such delightful contrarians.

Posted by on 09/06 at 07:33 PM

Next entry: Bush: Major Rescue Operations are Over

Previous entry: Chertoff: Feds Surprised by "Perfect Storm"

<< Back to main

Thank you, Heathers

These Comments Are Aware of All Your Sublime and Funky Internet Traditions

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries

Syndicate