IVINS

Time mag, Dec 17, 2000, Molly Ivins

Yes, We'll Survive One of Bush's sassiest Texas critics gives two cheers for her old nemesis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My fellow Democrats: Do not flee to Canada yet! George W. Bush is not stupid, and he is not mean.

O.K., he's not the brightest porch light on the block. Get over it. I frankly don't expect much from him; neither do you; and that's the best thing he has going for him. If he so much as clears a matchbox, we'll all fall back in wonder. Think how pleasantly surprised we're going to be when we discover George W. is, as he has been all his life, sort of adequate. Not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but he'll do.

It is polite, not to mention patriotic, to fall in line behind a new President and kind of give him a send-off cheer. Despite the awkward circumstances, I'm for giving W. the old hip-hip. Besides, as Tolstoy once titled a short story, God Sees the Truth, But Waits.

It is true that Bush has difficulty expressing himself in the English language. On the other hand, you can usually tell what he meant to say. His daddy was often perfectly impenetrable, and we survived. W. is highly unlikely ever to throw up on the Prime Minister of Japan, have an affair with an intern or declare war on Grenada.

Bush is a little vague on a lot of things. Yes, we are looking at a steep learning curve. The worst moment of the 36-day Long Count was probably when Bush, attempting to "look presidential," held a mock Cabinet meeting, in the course of which he observed in an appallingly chipper manner, "There are issues in Israel right now that I'm looking forward to hearing about."

Sorry to remind you of that, as it may prompt you once more to consider decamping to what W. called "our most important neighbor to the north." What I want to argue seriously here is that we have evidence that W. Bush learns, he learns fast, and then he is Not Bad. He has a consistent pattern of searching out father figures as mentors in each field he's tried, and he's always selected good ones. In Texas he chose (or was chosen by; let's keep that open) lieutenant governor Bob Bullock, one of the shrewdest s.o.b.s who ever walked. Let's just say that if Bush had studied politics under Lyndon Johnson or Machiavelli, he couldn't have done better. Dick Cheney is apparently the new mentor, and I'm favorably impressed, certainly by Cheney's demeanor; one worries because his voting record is so nutsoid.

Here is the great unanswerable question: Exactly how ideologically right wing is George W. Bush? You can find evidence suggesting he is and suggesting he isn't. You can find a lot of evidence that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. When Bush started out as Governor of Texas, many of his appointments were enough to make your hair hurt, especially on the environment, and he tried to sell some policy ideas that were flatly ridiculous — privatizing welfare, privatizing pollution control. As soon as he realized they weren't going to fly, he dropped them. He became markedly more pragmatic, and in what I consider the single finest stand he ever took, in 1997 he fought like a Trojan for what was actually a Democratic plan to make taxes fairer, specifically in an effort to pay for public schools. He lost. Bush couldn't deliver his own party on that one. But anyone who wants to write him off as a disengaged part-timer should know he was so fully involved in that fight, he could have been a floor manager the way he was twisting arms, calling in favors, busting balls, the entire panoply of power plays. He and Bullock were a helluva team. It's just real hard to beat the lobby in Texas.

Because W. Bush is not terribly interested in public policy, what we've often seen in Texas is staff-driven policy. And I am not that impressed with the staff. To my certain knowledge, one politically costly and inhumane veto was prompted by a staff member so ignorant of the actual conditions the guy should have been summarily fired. (This happened to be on providing legal counsel for poor folks accused of crimes: our state has a system so miserable we actually execute innocent people.) The staff member was such a fool that his entire argument depended upon reactions from Houston judges, who get their campaign contributions from the current system. You can't count on Bush to see through a thing like that. But he can learn, and if there's anything that will rivet your attention, it's the challenges of the presidency. I think that when W. Bush is there, he's paying attention, he's heard the arguments (short form please, attention span not that long), and he is Not Bad.

I could be wrong, of course, and if Bush's first nomination to the Supreme Court is Edith Jones (who recently held that if your lawyer sleeps through your trial, at least you had one, so what the hell difference does it make?), run for the border; Canada is our most important neighbor to the north.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 18, 2000

Answers

I think that those on the left who simply see GW Bush as a stupid, pampered daddy's boy will, as Ms. Ivins says, discover that he is far smarter than that.

But GW has all the marks of someone who does not read. It appears to me he is either dyslexic or he hates to read and simply refuses to do more than the absolute minimum. GW seems to have all the standard strengths of someone who relies on other sources of information than the printed word. He listens well. He understands people. He is active and direct.

GW also has the weaknesses that come with illiteracy. He is not good with abstractions. His horizons are limited to his immediate experiences. He is not articulate. The depth of his knowledge is limited in any subject matter where reading is required - like history or science. He may have some serious feelings of inadequacy around these limitations, making him easy to intimidate when he gets into unfamiliar territory.

If anything, GW has had to rely heavily on his above average intelligence to compensate for his dyslexia by developing workarounds - rather like the blind person whose hearing becomes more acute.

My overall impression of GW is that he is moderately capable, very likable, genuinely sincere and brings some excellent qualities to the job. But he had better develop some damn brilliant workarounds for his liabilities or he could be in over his head. If GW can't measure up, we'll soon see heavy infighting among his top advisors to see who gets to run the country while GW is out doing photo ops.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 18, 2000.

There are thinkers on the left, Brian, who prove one can be erudite and exceptionally well read... and also terribly wrong. While I doubt Bush can find a literary reference beyond Louis L'Amour, he has shown a willingness to surround himself with capable people. Like the CEO of a major company, the president only modestly important. His staff and political appointments will be doing the pick-and- shovel work of governance.

Even so, most of his time will be spent wrangling with a balanced congress and an inside-the-beltway bureacracy built on some 40 years of democratic legislative initiatives. I doubt Jefferson reincarnate could manage much during the next four years.

As an aside, I think you overstep when you describe Bush as illiterate. I would love to hear something other than your armchair speculation as to Bush having a complete inability to read.

Unlike you or I, Bush has served as governor of a state larger than many countries. We can quibble about his success in Texas, but he has a slightly stronger resume than Clinton did in '92. Personally, I admire a devotion to reading... but I hardly consider it the most important qualification for president.

The intellectuals of the left will spend the next four years pouncing on every grammatical misstep of Bush with the same diligence they ignored Clinton's behaviors. Shame.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 18, 2000.

Brian M.

Can't read?? Eh? Did I hear right? As a friend to the north of the great Excited States I would be conserned with such a concept. Come to think of it Reagan wasn't much of a scholar either.

Dick Cheney seems to be running the show, sharp, connections in Washington that goes way back, he will be setting more policy than one would think is common for a second in command.

Within the mandate of the new US boss with be Canadian water exports. The pressure that comes along to sway that issue will determine how friendly Bush will be with his best buds up north here. This will be a very devisive problem as Canadians on the west coast think it will be a test of the NAFTA agreement that will be fought tooth and nail so as not to let the door be opened to the "US hordes".

It is my view that the US has squandered this vital resource and it is only a matter of time till the topic of "clear gold" will come up.

It is my opinion that Dick Cheney will be the driving force behind conteractions toward Canada if we don't agree to the "solution".

Of course there is also the matter of Arts and Cultural issues that are important, but it would be hard to convey that problem to someone that doesn't read.

But it is the enviormental situation that I see as the greatest hazzard between the two Countries. The water problem is only one such example, the north another (couldn't imagine Bush understanding the fragility of the north and cross border issues up there). Texas sounds like a hell hole in some aspects specially if one is more of a "bush person" like myself.

None the less Big W is welcome to my igloo for blubber and wiskey, step into the outhouse and watch his piss freeze and go to a Hockey game so he can study how Canadian warfare is carried out :o)

Good luck G. W. Bush

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 18, 2000.

Brian, defending you in advance---some people might mistake your remark on dyslexia to be critical. I'm not sure that dyslexia is diagnosable over the TV but if Dubya is dyslexic then I know you'd agree that he has a disability and not a character defect or an intelligence deficit. But yes, workarounds would be needed and are possible.

How important is it that our President be an intellect? I believe it is important but not more important than character, courage, commonsense, leadership ability, congeniality, consensus building skills, physical stamina and a dozen more. If articulate intellectuality was all that was required then the election would have featured Wm F Buckley vs Gore Vidal. Gag.

BTW, Dubya has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. He can't be too illiterate.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 18, 2000.

If George Bush is dyslexic, he is in good company---

Famous People with the Gift of Dyslexia

Blessed with Dyslexia

Symptoms of Dyslexia

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 19, 2000.

Notice that JFK had dyslexia. Maybe that is why he had so much vigah.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 19, 2000.

I don't know if it's dyslexia, but I remember in an interview a few months ago, he did say he had a problem expressing himself (no sh!t, Sherlock). Whether there is something underlying that is responsible for that, I don't know.

IMO, we have two "saving graces" the coming four years: (a) a very tight Congress (well, two years for this one; then we'll see); and, (b) the prospect of Dick Cheney as President (in so many ways, so much worse than the prospect of President Dan Quayle was). {{{{{shudder}}}}}

Barring that, I hear Costa Rica is nice; if you don't bother the CIA, they won't bother you ;-) (<---joke alert)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 19, 2000.

CORRECTION: I, personally, did not see the interview. This was related to me by someone who did. Sorry about that.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 19, 2000.

I do not understand your apprehension about Cheney. The man strikes me as reasonably competent.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 19, 2000.

Patricia,

I'm slow this morning. Are you saying that you think Cheney is pretty ok or he is as bad as Quayle?--

---he prospect of Dick Cheney as President (in so many ways, so much worse than the prospect of President Dan Quayle was). {{{{{shudder}}}}}

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 19, 2000.

Cherri--

The pictures are funny. I started a thread on Mollyo's column yesterday. The comments complement some of those here.

htt p://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 19, 2000.

Not a fan of him, Lars; not at all (not that the "apparent intelligence level" compares with Quayle; not even in the same galaxy). But, in the Spirit of the Season, I will go no further than that :-)

(Have more coffee; never underestimate the power of caffeine.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 19, 2000.