Welcome Aboard, Chief
by matt at 12:30 pm on March 31st, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Podium SpinDisillusionment is a bitch, innit?
In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.
[...]
Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.
He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway†mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.
“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,†he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.â€
[...]
He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power.
It only took eight years for Dowd to realize that Bush & Co. were 150% full of shit. That’s impressive coming from one of the (supposedly) great political minds of our generation. And what is Dowd doing to correct the errors of his ways?
Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,†arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.
“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,†Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.â€
Smashing. His road to redemption consists of an unpublished op-ed and a Times interview that ran on the least read day of the week. Lean back, Matt Dowd’s on a mission.
“It’s almost like you fall in love,†he said. “I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy’s personality — he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration.â€
[...]
“When you fall in love like that,†he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ â€
Nullus. Also Battered Voter Syndrome and Battered Citizen Syndrome.
While all of this is certainly news, the most interesting part came via quotes from camp counselor to the President, Dan Bartlett and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace:
Wallace: “Everyone is going to reflect on the good and the bad, and everything in between, in their own way. And I certainly respect the way he’s doing it — these are his true thoughts from a deeply personal place.â€
Bartlett: “Do we know our critics will try to use this to their advantage? Yes. Is that perfect? No. But you can respectfully disagree with someone who has been supportive of you.â€
Is Wallace suggesting that everyone else who disagrees with the Administration is being disingenuous? Does Bartlett, given the way the White House has dealt with dissent, mean to say that prior support is a precondition to respect? Given what Wallace and Bartlett do for a living – communications – the answer is obviously yes.
So what’s Dowd going to do with himself now that he realizes his part in the decline of this country?
“I wouldn’t be surprised if I wasn’t walking around in Africa or South America doing something that was like mission work.â€
Perfect. Don’t let the door hit you.
sarabeth wrote:
For those who may not remember right away what role Dowd played in the Bush campaigns, Dowd (a former Democratic consultant) was the director of polling and media planning for the 2000 campaign and the chief campaign strategist for the 2004 campaign.
Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 1:19 pm ¶
Programmer wrote:
Also worth noting is that this asshole saw the light only when his son was deployed to Iraq.
Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 6:18 pm ¶
matt wrote:
seriously. there were so many moving parts on this interview that i ran out of steam.
Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 6:30 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I think it’s great that Dowd has repented.
He should now be encouraged to consume himself with guilt at what he hath wrought. May it drive him to drink. Or worse. Much much worse
Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 6:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
no.
how about self-flagellation? or maxing out donations to each and every democrat running for office at the federal level?
Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 6:51 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
money should never be allowed to buy anyone salvation
Posted 01 Apr 2007 at 9:08 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I’d say his son getting shipped to Iraq is karma enough for him. Too bad it took something like that to open his eyes, but as a father myself, I can think of nothing worse than to have one of my kids in harm’s way.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:04 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
there are a heck of a lot of parents who can think of something worse.
not to have one of their kids. period.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:20 am ¶
sac wrote:
True, and having a kid in Iraq increases the likelihood of that happening by quite a bit, unfortunately, so I still think karma slapped him upside the head.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:29 am ¶
matt wrote:
i think we have a different definition of karma.
karma would be dowd himself getting mobilized. or somehow going so broke that he would have to contend with the regime of stratification he helped empower. let him have to declare bankruptcy and find out how compassionate it is now. let him have to navigate the healthcare system sans insurance.
i’ve been thinking a lot about this over the last few days because it’s just so pathetic. assuming that bush actually received a few more votes in florida in 2000, dowd could have easily been the margin. same goes for ohio in 2004. the same could be said for any number of bush aides, but the fact remains that dowd – if he’s worth a shit as a political operative – was probably worth enough votes to swing it. wonder what he has to say about that…
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:38 am ¶
sac wrote:
I would gladly suffer any of those setbacks rather than having one of my kids go to war, so again, I think he got his. It’s hard to understand if you don’t have kids, I guess, but your own suffering is of no consequence compared to your kids’ suffering.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
matt wrote:
considering how many lives he’s at least marginally responsible for adversely affecting, i don’t know why we should be limiting his comeuppance to his offspring.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:56 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
is it so hard to see that it’s his kid getting it, not him?
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 9:56 am ¶
sac wrote:
They’re both getting it. But if it were me, I would gladly take one of my sons’ place in war. So if you’re asking me which would be worse, me going or one of my kids, then I would say the latter. If Dowd has any love for his kids, then I would bet he’d feel the same way.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 11:47 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
karma is when you pay for your actions.
the point is not what you would consider worse. the point is that if your kid is sent to war and dies, he paid, not you.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 12:11 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Different ways of paying, I think. This is kind of pointless, though.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
when did that ever stop you?
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 12:42 pm ¶
sac wrote:
When I faced the great abyss that is your obstinance. It’s humbling.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It seems his son has not yet been deployed to Iraq, but “he’s going to be deploying to Iraq” as per Dana Perino.
It also seems, once again as per Dana Perino, that:
– the prospect of his son being deployed to Iraq has skewed Dowd’s judgment and that’s the only reason the dude said what he did
– or maybe not the only reason; he was also unhinged by the fact that “the Congress is not fully backing the troops”
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 1:57 pm ¶
sac wrote:
But you have to admit, Perino is hot.
Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 2:25 pm ¶