Dowd Speaks Out

-

dowd.jpg
At long last, a member of President Bush’s inner circle has publicly “broken up” with him. Matthew Dowd, who was inspired by Bush’s style as Texas governor, switched parties and took a high-ranking post on the Bush-Cheney communications team. Six years later, he’s a Bush supporter no more.
I doubt Dowd’s public defection will be the last. Bush ran for the presidency with a huge tent approach. That tent has shrunk considerably. It has no room for moderates and little room for even traditional Reagan or Eisenhower conservatives. More will follow.
Powell, Richard Armitage, Paul O’Neill all left the administration frustrated and disillusioned, but Dowd is the first member of Bush’s political team to take that route or air his differences so publicly. In his interview with the New York Times, he paints Bush as out of touch and unwilling to entertain any diversity of viewpoints. It’s well worth a read.
Iraq particularly troubles him, as did, I’m glad to report, Bush’s renomination of John Bolton. One particularly interesting tidbit from the interview:

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.

The slow bleed continues.
— Scott Paul

Comments

66 comments on “Dowd Speaks Out

  1. Pissed Off American says:

    I gotta chuckle here. If anyone is curious why MP is so sympathetic to these right wing assholes that are now claiming moral epiphanies, all they need do is search back to MP’s original postings from when he first arrived at this blog.

    Reply

  2. yahaddasayit says:

    If I get on that couch, I am going to fall asleep, Socrates. But I’ll tape it for later if you actually go somewhere.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    Yahada says: “There may be allowance for those “wrong” …
    I’m not talking about an “allowance.” But I do think there are other choices besides stupidity and being a good German.

    Reply

  4. Swan says:

    OT
    See the latest post on my blog.
    There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media’s (specifically Time magazine’s) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html
    What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?
    It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

    Reply

  5. Ticia says:

    “Why Struggle for Impeachment?” posted today at my blog.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    Sirota writes: “I say this is pathetic because touting an opponent for saying something inoffensive one in a hundred times projects a deep insecurity and lack of self-confidence. We tell the world that we feel we need lunatics like George Will, right-wing operatives like Matt Dowd or self-important, lazy intellectual lightweights like Joe Klein to validate our positions, even though our positions are valid on the merits.”
    I mostly agree with Sirota, but not with this. First, it’s a good thing when your opponents come to hold your view on XYZ. How could it not be–Sirota doesn’t say.
    Second, Sirota doesn’t show why saying Will is right about XYZ projects “insecurity.” Progressives don’t need Will to validate their views–but saying that Will agrees with progressive on XYZ and presumably has departed from conservative views, at least in this case, should be taken as a sign of victory in the war of ideas. A sign that the better team won.
    Third, Sirota’s views may be fine in pundit-land where snark and counter-snark rule. But progressives who care about changing the country’s direction need to keep in mind that millions of voters agree with Will (just to use him for ease of example), and it is indeed a victory when someone from that side is driven to endorse a key point in our plank.
    In other words, it is Will who is doing the praising. And he should be praised for seeing the light.

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    I go with David Sirota on Dowd:
    “In reading the New York Times report about President Bush’s top strategist Matt Dowd now criticizing Bush, three thoughts came to mind that have been bugging me for quite a while. Here they are, as I want to get them off my chest:
    1. I’m tired of Republicans believing that, after destroying the country, all they have to say is “sorry” or “I didn’t know Bush was such a right winger” and all should be forgiven. Matt Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist, is the latest guy pulling this nonsense, though certainly not the first
    2. Political elites who cite personal interactions with the real world as justification for their sudden reversals on issues are not sympathetic figures. On the contrary, they only reinforce how out of touch the ruling class really is. This happens all the time, whether it is a right-wing, budget-cutting politician who suddenly becomes a passionate crusader against a disease when his family member contracts it, or whether it is a Vice President who decides that the one repudiation of his party’s right-wing will be on gay issues, now that America knows his daughter is gay.
    3. The knee-jerk cheering by progressives when right-wing lunatics, famous Republican Party operatives and assorted out-of-touch Washington pundits once in a while say something accurate is pathetic and worse, counterproductive.
    Continues at:
    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/6518

    Reply

  8. yahaddasayit says:

    I already covered that “wrong” reason above. And I reached the same conclusion. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, blankets the earth.
    There may be allowance for those “wrong” regarding choosing war with Iraq as having just about no regard for humanity. I must wrestle with that a little more.

    Reply

  9. SmellaRat says:

    rotten to the core

    Reply

  10. MP says:

    Yahada says: “Whoever couldn’t, wouldn’t, didn’t see through that cheap display of propaganda and lies pre-invasion Iraq, was either stupid or a “good german”. ‘
    I also allow for the possibility that they were just…wrong.
    Disastrously so, obviously.

    Reply

  11. David N says:

    Marky:
    I’ve got the solution to that:
    Call technical fouls for unsportsmanlike conduct on both Bush and Cheney, and expel them from the game.
    Which is just about enough of that metaphor . . . .

    Reply

  12. karenk says:

    Dowd’s lesson learned -love is not only blind, it’s deaf and dumb as well.
    He’s real quick on the draw too:
    “In his interview with the New York Times, he paints Bush as out of touch and unwilling to entertain any diversity of viewpoints”
    Ya think???

    Reply

  13. yahaddasayit says:

    MP,
    Whatever you were attempting to say in your “…got it right from the get go…” paragraph draws a somewhat different opinion from me. Whoever couldn’t, wouldn’t, didn’t see through that cheap display of propaganda and lies pre-invasion Iraq, was either stupid or a “good german”. They are so lost that I hope they are never in position to even be a crossing guard.

    Reply

  14. Marky says:

    David N, a few years ago I timed the last “two minutes” of an NBA basketball game. Those “two minutes” took 20 minutes to get played out.
    God knows how long the last 21 months of Bush’s Presidency will seem.

    Reply

  15. Brown says:

    WE HAVE just seen members of Britain’s Royal Navy — trained military personnel — publicly confessing to Iranian allegations that they violated Iran’s territorial waters. If the British Government is to be believed, these allegations are false. Yet the “confessions” were made after only a few days of what appears to be relatively benign captivity.
    At the same time, we are asked to believe that David Hicks has made a “full and free” confession to acts that were not illegal at the time he committed them, after five years of deprivation of his most basic human rights, and in the face of the worst kind of show trial.
    Something here just doesn’t add up.
    Phillip Brown, Chadstone

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    And we know that nothing will be done.
    For one, very familiar, reason.
    Money.
    Get the connection, to just about everything that we discuss in this forum?
    Posted by David N at April 2, 2007 01:46 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yep. Absolutely. And add in ego.

    Reply

  17. Marky says:

    The White House is saying, in not so many words, that Dowd doesn’t support the war because his son is at risk fighting in Iraq; hence, we should disregard Dowd’s views. Lovely, and typical.

    Reply

  18. David N says:

    One thing I have learned in my reading about the history and process of science is that one very productive method of advancing understanding is to make connections between phenomena that were previously thought to have no such connections.
    Which is by way of explaining why I bring the following up:
    In this morning’s post, there is a long article about the fact that the NCAA national championship and semifinal games have been dissapointing in the last ten years or so. The skills of the players — with a few exceptions — have deteriorated (many of the best players skip college entirely, and many of the rest spend less than four years there). The huge domes have bothered the players by putting them in an unfamiliar and uncomfortable environment. And the extra time outs and half times imposed by the television networks have disrupted the flow of the game.
    The conclusion of the article was revealing. We know what the problems are. We know how to fix them. And we know that nothing will be done.
    For one, very familiar, reason.
    Money.
    Get the connection, to just about everything that we discuss in this forum?

    Reply

  19. Chesire11 says:

    Sorry, but Dowd’s cynical attempt at rehabilitating himself leaves me unimpressed. Two years after playing a key role in Bush/Cheney’s re-election bid, he reveals that he had his doubts even as he wallowed in the muck of character assassination – too bad he conveniently ignored those doubts when they ran afoul of his paycheck and prestige. Sorry, but Monday morning mea culpas from political hacks who place personal and partisan gain over the good of the country don’t quite cut it with me.
    Dowd was fine with Bush’s fantasies of empire when other peoples’ fathers and children were dying and did his damnedest to keep the killing going, doing everything he could to discredit anyone who wanted to put the brakes on the bloodbath. Now that his own son is in harms way, he suddenly discovers that Kerry was right. We’re all supposed to suddenly be impressed with his public introspection and pity the poor tortured soul. Yeah, right! Too bad my neighbor had the bad luck to come home in a box last month before he could have had a chance to forgive the newly repentant Dowd. I guess that’s one death, Dowd can’t absolve himself of in this lifetime. Oh well, you can’t win ’em all, eh sport?
    What a pathetic little shit of a man. Dowd is precisely the sort of self dealing parasite that attaches itself to whatever center of power it can, sucking it dry then moving on to the next host. He is the embodiment of the political decay that afflicts this country. Of course, when the maggots abandon a carcass, it’s a pretty sure sign it’s been picked clean, so Dowd’s departure from the Bush reservation is probably a good sign for the rest of us.

    Reply

  20. MP says:

    Steve: Even the arriviste defectors are to be applauded. Every little bit helps. The ability to admit one was wrong is admirable, even if it is coming late in the day, and the ship is sinking.
    However, the fact that they were so wrong, and stayed wrong for so long, does say something about their judgement and how they make decisions and their courage to buck the tide.
    Going forward, we should remain wary of Mr. Dowd et al for this reason and encourage him and them to find employment in the private sector. It is entirely possible they are jumping ship now in order to preserve their employability on future ships of state.
    This should be guarded against unless we feel he has truly learned his lesson. For example, John Dean seems to have truly learned his lesson, IMO. Perhaps this is why he remains in the private sector, as far as I know.
    For some reason, I’m not particularly impressed by folks who “got it right” from the get go…unless they were in a position to do something about it…really do something about it…and did. Otherwise, they, too, took little risk in taking their stand.
    Howard Dean, I would say, actually took a risk with his early and unequivocal opposition to the war.

    Reply

  21. MP says:

    Steve: Even the arriviste defectors are to be applauded. Every little bit helps. The ability to admit one was wrong is admirable, even if it is coming late in the day, and the ship is sinking.
    However, the fact that they were so wrong, and stayed wrong for so long, does say something about their judgement and how they make decisions and their courage to buck the tide.
    Going forward, we should remain wary of Mr. Dowd et al for this reason and encourage him and them to find employment in the private sector. It is entirely possible they are jumping ship now in order to preserve their employability on future ships of state.
    This should be guarded against unless we feel he has truly learned his lesson. For example, John Dean seems to have truly learned his lesson, IMO. Perhaps this is why he remains in the private sector, as far as I know.
    For some reason, I’m not particularly impressed by folks who “got it right” from the get go…unless they were in a position to do something about it…really do something about it…and did. Otherwise, they, too, took little risk and taking their stand.
    Howard Dean, I would say, actually took a risk with his early and unequivocal opposition to the war.

    Reply

  22. Mike Conwell says:

    There was nuthin’ to love about George Bush in Texas. He was an embarrassment then, and all of the politico’s in Austin knew one thing. George W Bush had a name, his father’s name. And that was enough to run on.
    W spent his entire time in the governorship in Texas positioning himself to become President, while hiding behind the skirts of his twin daughters. You remember his press conferences where he kept repeating that his daughters didn’t want him to run, don’t ya?
    At the same time, his grooming team was bringing former high-ranking govt officials and RNC heavies through the back door of the governor’s mansion to assist in the educatin’ of boy George. (See Molly Ivin’s** book “Shrub”)
    He didn’t like to work hard, he didn’t like to think hard. He loved his morning run and only glanced at the morning papers.
    The only thing that Dowd should have “loved” about George Bush, the same thing that many Texas reporters loved about him. He was their ticket to the Big Show in D.C. Hitch your wagon to him and he’d take you far.
    Well apparently, much further than you ever wanted to go.
    Mike in Austin
    ** God Bless and Keep Molly Ivin

    Reply

  23. Marcia says:

    POA
    I read Dowd’s article before that of Scott Paul’s
    and had already formed an opinion, that said, I think Scott Paul’s post put this defection in perspective but did not heap praise on him. No one obliges us to read or post on this blog or any other. We are handed nothing, we click to get here and can openly express our disagreement.
    That radio talk show hosts are presented as pundits when they are rather verbal disc jockeys and that Thomas Friedman presides over the above is the result of press consolidation and money.
    Like many I rage to see what is happening just as I raged during the Vietnam war but this blog is not responsible for the state of the world. Steve gives his opinion form his optic as does Scott Paul and as we do.
    I never voted for Bush and was horrified to hear people saying he was a great leader but I am not naive enough to expect gratitude for being right, irritated or not. I simply regret the outcome of such disasterous policies and will do anything possible to restore observance of the Constitution and our rights..if that is still possible. I wonder.

    Reply

  24. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, Marcia, it is a bit irritating to see personages such as Dowd and Hagel get lauded here for deserting an obviously sinking ship, while the people that were smart enough not to get on board recieve nary a mention.
    There are Washington people out there that are willing to call a lie a lie, are calling for impeachment, do desire accountability. But we see the media and blogs such as this one ignoring those people, so they can use defections such as Dowd’s to continue to market the status quo. We are being handed two sides of the same coin, purposely and willfully.
    Really, Dowd’s defection is meaningless outside the sphere of his own conscience. He doesn’t determine policy, or affect it.

    Reply

  25. Marcia says:

    p.lukasiak
    I think you exaggerate the praise Scott Paul allotes to Dowd, even though I am sure Scott Paul is quite capable of defending himself I was surprised to see such an attack on him.
    I found his article informative and my own post concerned Dowd.
    Everyone is entitled to his opinion. It is when opinions are carried into acts, as in this administration by lies, misuse of the military and any underhanded method they can get away with that the line is crossed.

    Reply

  26. p.lukasiak says:

    “This current thread, where Steve seems to see Dowd’s disaffection as a positive sign is illustrative. Where Clemons sees a positive development, everyone else responds with sneers and anger. Dowd’s ‘conversion’ is openly mocked as insincere, dishonest or patently ineffective.”
    Scott Paul should have done a little research before creaming his pants over another Bush defection. Dowd is a professional political “consultant” who specializes in opposition research and “dirty tricks” — a guy who was front and center in the Bush/Rove machine’s polarization of this nation, including the demonization of anyone who dared question his policies.
    This is just an example of a rat abandoning a sinking ship — given Dowd’s history, his calls for “gentler” politics is rank hypocrisy, and Dowd should be called on it by big shots like Scott Paul, rather than just kissing Dowd’s butt.

    Reply

  27. Jerome Gaskins says:

    Is this your April ool’s prank?

    Reply

  28. Mullah Cimoc says:

    Mullah Cimoc say this war for teach ameriki man fear god, learn how to fighting for family and ummah, stop wicked.
    ameriki now just big sex pill partying and buy the refrigerator while aztec and maya take over all.
    this natural, this evolution, life too easy making the people so wicked, loving the torutre but hating the god.
    ameriki been humbled and probably more worse for coming as ameriki man become the homosexual. him cannot fight. and the woman becoming the slut accepitng the body of every man. this so wicked.

    Reply

  29. smallrat says:

    On reading the rest of the article it strikes how it seems that once caught red-handed the culprit professes his/her desire to wash their blood-stained hands in the troubled waters of Africa. Why is this I wonder?

    Reply

  30. bubba says:

    Screw Dowd. This is the asshat who did polling and then, based on that polling, told Bush to forget about governing from the middle and instead simple go batshit right and only cater to the base. The amount of damage this man has not just enabled but has himself caused is likely immeasureable. I honestly do not know how these wastes of human flesh sleep at night or live with themselves. And as expressed above, until they start spilling the beans and help bring the members od this sadministration to justice criminally, they can all go f*ck themselves.

    Reply

  31. steambomb says:

    ~~~~Steambomb:
    You left so much out!!!~~~~
    Yeah well… I got so depressed at number six I couldn’t go on.

    Reply

  32. David N says:

    Steambomb:
    You left so much out!!!
    How about the complete capitulation of the entire government to the service of Big Business and its desire for enconscionable profits that will ultimately destroy our entire economy?
    Allowing corporations to write laws meant to control them, and turning those laws into means of increasing their profits.
    Allowing corporations to take over the regulatory agencies that are supposed to restrain them, and allowing poisons in our foods, drugs, and pet foods.
    Ignoring real threats to the population, such as hurricanes, floods, and diseases, because preparing to deal with those threats will interfere with the profitability of their sponsors.
    Working to destroy the credibility of valid science, or even the very idea of the scientific enterprise, in the name of narrow religious fundamentalism.
    Working to destroy the foundation of our prosperity, namely the system of universal, public education, because an educated, skeptical population is less easily manipulated and mislead.
    Corrupting our system of justice and laws in the service of politics and corporate profits.
    Corrupting the news media in order to create a propaganda system that will purpetuate their illegal monopoly on the levers of power.
    And so much more.
    Goebel’s prediction is coming true, and what are we doing to stop it?

    Reply

  33. steambomb says:

    ~~~~Uniformly, even the formerly optimistic posters seem bleak and angry.~~~~
    You got that right. You’re damn right I am angry. I have watched for the last six years.
    1. My countries international credibility go into the shitter.
    2. A huge national debt that my children undoubtedly will have to pay off ammassed by a bunch of thieves giving out no bid contracts to their friends.
    3. Massive amounts of civilians in another country killed in my countries name for no good reason at all.
    4. Our constitution distorted and misused in evil ways to gain an authoritarian foothold and usurp our own civil liberties. When in fact it was the very same document that people who have circumvented it were sworn to uphold.
    5. Our economy masked with a false prosperity by an administration who hasn’t kept an economic team together for more than a year.
    6. An administration that uses a faux “war on terra” as a political crutch putting our military at risk by pushing it to a breaking point.
    So yes…. I am angry. Do you think I shouldn’t be angry?

    Reply

  34. Den Valdron says:

    Oh spare me. What account was Armitage going to give? That he was pleased and expectant? Nope. He was in it with the rest of them, he was a fellow traveller, whatever his personal differences.
    Y’know, the thing that surprises me on this and other threads is the complete and utter cynicism of the posters.
    Steve Clemons here is the perky voice of optimism, and his readership, to judge by the blog responses, simply is not buying it.
    Uniformly, even the formerly optimistic posters seem bleak and angry.
    This current thread, where Steve seems to see Dowd’s disaffection as a positive sign is illustrative. Where Clemons sees a positive development, everyone else responds with sneers and anger. Dowd’s ‘conversion’ is openly mocked as insincere, dishonest or patently ineffective.
    Boy is it bleak…
    Ladies and Gentlemen, when I find myself being forced into the role of ‘voice of cheer and optimism’, in even the most tentative way… we’re in trouble.

    Reply

  35. jsrutstein says:

    Sandy, I won’t dispute that Armitage (perhaps even Powell) believed an American-led military “solution” to Saddam was inevitable going back to the end of the first Gulf War. But if you look at the context of the outing of Valerie Plame and listen to Armitage’s own voice as he spoke to Woodward, I think it’s fair to conclude that the whole Administration and their outside enablers were still in “Mission Accomplished” mode. Of course, they all had the paranoid and “no honor among thieves” mentality, because Joe Wilson spoke out about their knowing all along that their precious WMD justification for the war [didn’t Wolfowitz call it the best or most marketable one?] was a lie. But the account of Armitage being surprised and unhappy that he was the source of Novak’s outing of Plame seemed a little genuine to me. Novak loosely used the term “operative” or whatever it was in the past, and this time he actually exposed a truly covert person.

    Reply

  36. Brigitte N. says:

    If these people would have turned their backs on Bush years earlier and spoken out–particularly during the build-up to the Iraq war, it could have made a difference. That’s particularly true for Colin Powell who was fully aware of the White House spin machine, the rejection of international convention, etc., etc. But he and others held on for dear life as long as they thought it was best for them.

    Reply

  37. Sandy says:

    jsrutstein characterizes Richard Armitage as:
    “Armitage I guess was simply riding his buddy Powell’s coattails. He stuck around after Powell fled, accomplishing little in the face of Bush’s giving Rumsfeld all the power that previously resided in the State Dept, the CIA, and the NSA. We can see how seriously Armitage took matters by his giggling gossiping to Woodward about Valerie Plame.”
    His “giggling gossiping”? “Simply riding his buddy Powell’s coattails”? Come on!
    Richard Armitage is one of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) neo-cons and far from the innocent light-weight you suggest.
    He, along with others, asked for War on Iraq in 1998 (ltr. to Bill Clinton).
    His “giggling gossiping” in fact, constitutes treason.
    He knew exactly what he was doing.

    Reply

  38. semper fubar says:

    Ha. Just another rat trying to scramble off the stinking, sinking ship he helped construct.
    I *hope* the Bush administration screws him over and smears him like they do everyone else who turns on them. We’d be a lot better off if his career is permanently destroyed so he can’t play the contrition card and resurface again to spread his brand of political poison somewhere else.
    Good riddance, Rat.

    Reply

  39. steambomb says:

    Something here strikes me as odd. And that is that anyone ANYONE that watched GWB prior to the 2000 election had to have some idea of how arrogant he is. Anyone who is in a presidential campaign that is standing on a stage calling a reporter an asshole is displaying extreme arrogance for all to see. I suppose Mr. Dowd was asleep for the few days that this was covered.

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    “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”
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Gawd!.. an unbalanced guy to begin with has a “calling” to restore balance?

    Reply

  41. Robert says:

    Too little too late. I have no respect for Mr. Dowd…if these guys are so smart, why couldn’t they see what millions others have known for years.

    Reply

  42. David N says:

    What I like is the way that Republicruds are able to take advantage of standards that they won’t hold anyone else to.
    Criminals don’t deserve the rights that the weak liberal judges have given them — unless they’re criminal Repubilicruds or CEO donors. Then, the idea has to be that they are held to the strict letter of the law, even when their culpability is widely recognonized.
    It is silly to talk about someone from the South being a former Democrat. That means nothing, because the Democratic party in the South was always conservative bigots, except for the few excepts, most of whom have been elected president.
    Saying that someone in Texas was once a Democrat says nothing about any change in that person’s character or beliefs. It just meant that the Nixon Southern Strategy worked, and they could get elected with the Republican label, and their resistance to intigration and civil rights rewarded.
    I agree with the rest of you. Unless Dowd — and the rest of the rats — go before a grand jury and both confess their sins and reveal the criminality of their confederates, they deserve to rot. They are just as guilty as the ones who have not sought absolution, and should be given the worst punishment they could ever imagine.
    They should be ignored.

    Reply

  43. David N says:

    What I like is the way that Republicruds are able to take advantage of standards that they won’t hold anyone else to.
    Criminals don’t deserve the rights that the weak liberal judges have given them — unless they’re criminal Repubilicruds or CEO donors. Then, the idea has to be that they are held to the strict letter of the law, even when their culpability is widely recognonized.
    It is silly to talk about someone from the South being a former Democrat. That means nothing, because the Democratic party in the South was always conservative bigots, except for the few excepts, most of whom have been elected president.
    Saying that someone in Texas was once a Democrat says nothing about any change in that person’s character or beliefs. It just meant that the Nixon Southern Strategy worked, and they could get elected with the Republican label, and their resistance to intigration and civil rights rewarded.
    I agree with the rest of you. Inless Dowd — and the rest of the rats — go before a grand jury and both confess their sins and reveal the criminality of their confederates, they deserve to rot. They are just as guilty as the ones who have not sought absolution, and should be given the worst punishment they could ever imagine.
    They should be ignored.

    Reply

  44. Dan Kervick says:

    Dear Passengers: We hope you enjoyed your cruise on the U.S.S. Sinking Ship!
    Rats: Please exit to the left.
    Drwoning Fools: Continue turning right.

    Reply

  45. Fonzie says:

    “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.
    Mr Dowd, you are screwed karmically.
    If you are incredibly lucky, you will be reborn in hell as a one-armed pecker washer in an extremely busy whore house whose clientel is sickly, dirty, and abusive to low lifes like you.
    Why?
    Mr Dowd, partly due to your actions, tens of thousands of people have been maimed and murdered and over $400+ billions have been spent for the sake of a burgeoning Islamic fundamentalist republic in Iraq, which will never recognize Israel, which will never become a true friend to the USA, which the USA will inevitably have to fight once its done training and equipping its army.
    Shame on you Mr Dowd!
    Shame on you Mr Dowd!

    Reply

  46. Den Valdron says:

    I don’t know. One of the few pleasures left to us as America goes down for the count is watching these snakes turn on each other. I certainly hope that Bush has enough juice left to permanently fuck Dowd’s career.
    In the end, there will be no good men in the Bush administration ready to take principled stands.
    The people who had things vaguely resembling principles, Ashcroft and Powell, are all long gone shortly after the first term.
    It’s all scoundrels and thugs now.
    The entertainment will be watching them stab each other.
    But let’s not waste a single second on the notion that any of these douchebags is worth an instant of respect.

    Reply

  47. Zathras says:

    It’s not unusual for political consultants to “fall in love” with politicians or for their passion to be powerfully communicated to the media and thence to the public. Election campaigns are, next to televised wars and natural disasters, the number one priority for an entertainment-oriented news media — and political consultants are the primary sources for every newspaper and television network’s campaign coverage.
    But campaigning today is a very specialized profession. Matthew Dowd’s own specialty was reading and interpreting public opinion polls, a skill tremendously useful to political campaigns but one that does little to develop judgment about the candidates one is working for. If Dowd’s infatuation with George Bush in the late 1990s sounds as if it had a somewhat superficial basis, well, it did.
    The political world today is full of Matthew Dowds: focused, specialized technicians with outsized influence, because the media that reports on campaigns uses them as their primary sources of information on the candidates. In Presidential politics this practice is the more common because most of the best funded and highly organized campaigns deliberately restrict media access to the candidate, the better for media coverage to reflect the high regard in which the candidate is held by those who work for him rather than reporters’ direct, unfiltered impressions. John McCain’s campaign, even now, is a conspicuous exception in this regard.
    The passion of Matthew Dowd for George Bush circa 1999 is replicated manyfold by campaign consultants working for the candidates running for President today. How many stories, columns, and televised commentaries about the passion aroused by Sen. Obama, of Rudolph Giuliani’s sterling leadership qualities, of the vast and unquestionably relevant experience Sen. Clinton gained as the President’s wife, rely in large measure on the testimony of people whose relationship to the candidate’s being covered is similar to Dowd’s with then-Governor Bush?
    It’s a question that answers itself if you think about it. The problem this presents is not just a matter of how close the media’s sources are to the candidates being covered. It has also to do with how trustworthy their judgment is — in other words, and regardless of their personal integrity, of whether they are in any position to convey an accurate sense of how good a President the candidate they work for might be.

    Reply

  48. Memekiller says:

    Wow. He’s got a lot to set right. It’s going to take the rest of his life to undo the bitterness and damage Bush’s supporters have brought upon our nation and our soul. I don’t think an entire lifetime will set right what he’s helped set wrong.

    Reply

  49. Pissed Off American says:

    Well. It seems Dowd has described a mulititude of executive policy decisions that led up to the desertion of his “love affair”. At no point in the article do we see him express any kind of moral indignation. To do so would implicate him in far too much participation in the pre-election campaign acts that were already foreshadowing what kind of slimey bastards were about to re-assume office. It would be interesting to know how much involvement Dowd had in the swiftboating efforts. And the Abu Ghraib scandal surfaced prior to the ’04 election, if I recall correctly. The way this Administration, immediately, dealt with it wasn’t an obvious scapegoating of the grunts? Yet Dowd still carried Bush’s banner.
    Its amazing watching these bastards jump ship, as if that will remove the stench of their own personal roles. When one of these equivicating weasels steps forward and hands Congress the FACTS that will enable the criminal indictment of Bush/Cheney, it is impossible for me to place much credence in their newfound sense of patriotism. We all KNOW that there are those out there in the possession of FACTS that would grease the wheels of accountability. Powell’s name jumps to mind.
    Dowd is acting in his own best interests. He wants to be able to hold his head up again, look people in the eyes. He might even pull it off. But Bush is still in the Oval Office. And Dowd played no small role in putting him there. He will have to live with that for the rest of his life.

    Reply

  50. rapier says:

    Dowd calling for “gentlenss” in politics is a nice touch. Cue the Ann Coulter tape. I’m assuming Dowd is sincere but I seriously doubt he would have “fallen in love” with Bush if such a juicy once in a lifetime career opprotunity wasn’t dangling along side his heart throb.
    Dowd was a Texas Democrat after all. By the late 90’s a pathetic and tragic breed of loser. He saw the wrighting on the wall in Texas, so he did the expedient thing. I’ll repeat, I do believe his emotions were genuine. He sold himself on the wonderfullness of the wise cracking potty mouthed know nothing eternal sophmore so he could make money and rub up againt power.
    I don’t think in Powell’s case he ever fell in love with Bush. It was simply about the money and the power and his role in it. The James Earl Jones of Foggy Bottom. Rarely has a man been able to endure such long term abject puplic humiliation and exit with his reputation basicly intact. A very weird thing.

    Reply

  51. jsrutstein says:

    David N, thanks for the correction. I had in my mind the National Security Advisor who may or may not be connected with the NSA. Rice was in that role before she went to State. Hadley’s there now, I think. In any event, it’s another important post that could be filled by a first-rate independent mind, but Bush went with people who just kept the seat warm and let Cheney and Rumsfeld give ALL the advice.

    Reply

  52. David N says:

    Remember the lies started even before day one.
    Bush has never been compassionate, and never a conservative. He has never fought for the little guy and never believed in American, only his own little mind.
    One small nit-picking correction for jsrutstein. The NSA is in the Defense Department. So when Rumsfeld ignored it, he was ignoring his own staff.
    Nothing surprising there . . .

    Reply

  53. Den Valdron says:

    Sadly, I’m rather less impressed. It’s nice that Dowd has broken ranks of course. But he’s hardly the first.
    Remember John Dilulio and his ‘Mayberry Machiavellli’ discussions? Remember Paul O’Neal, former Treasury Secretary.
    Remember how ferouciously the smear machine went after them? Remember the denunciations, the big freeze, the death threats? Remember how quickly and publicly they ate their words? Remember what happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Remember how J.H.Hatfield died? The Bush administration believes in punishing its enemies, and punishing them ferociously. It reserves its most violent ire for apostates.
    Dowd will be fed into a meat grinder. His career will be over. He will abjectly apologize. The media will accept his shredding, his career will be over and he will be broken and forgotten.
    And what is this “huge tent” approach comment? Jesus H. Christ, Steve, Bush may have run initially as a compassionate conservative, but he has run and staffed the most intensely narrow ideological administration in American history. Bush never ran a big tent. The Republicans were never inclusive.

    Reply

  54. Marcia says:

    “Are we sure this isn’t an April Fool’s gag?”
    Posted by fiat lux at April 1, 2007 10:03
    Whether it is or not there are times when everyday seems like April Fool’s Day!

    Reply

  55. fiat lux says:

    Are we sure this isn’t an April Fool’s gag?

    Reply

  56. profmarcus says:

    this part grabbed my attention…

    Reply

  57. Gary says:

    This is just the normal behavior of a certain type of conservative. He can see the desirable consequences of his action, but he is blind to the undesirable ones, no matter how clearly they are pointed out to him.
    When the consequences hit home (in this case: his son winds up in Iraq) he’ll say that nobody could have realized these consequences beforehand. No amount of “I told you so” will change his mind.
    This guy still feels that his past actions are justified. He hasn’t learned a thing, and he’ll jump in and help bring about the next disaster just as blindly as did with Bush.
    He’s a danger to himself and others.

    Reply

  58. Kaatje says:

    Dowd’s love affair with Bush proved the old saw that love is blind. Any discerning Texan could easily see through Bush’s cozy relationship with Bob Bullock and other Texas Democrats. Apparently Dowd was smitten while drinking beer out of Bush’s hat … the one that’s accompanied by no cattle.
    Next time, maybe Dowd and other Americans might want to consider some other quality besides besides beer-drinking companionship before falling in love with a political candidate. You reckon, pardner?

    Reply

  59. jsrutstein says:

    Powell never should have joined the GOP. I presume he thought the path to the top would have been clearer. He admitted, of course only after it was clearly proven wrong, that his critically important presentation to the U.N. was a mistake.
    Armitage I guess was simply riding his buddy Powell’s coattails. He stuck around after Powell fled, accomplishing little in the face of Bush’s giving Rumsfeld all the power that previously resided in the State Dept, the CIA, and the NSA. We can see how seriously Armitage took matters by his giggling gossiping to Woodward about Valerie Plame.
    O’Neill, like Armitage, followed his old buddies Rumsfeld and Cheney to the Administration. He, too, allowed the venerable Treasury Dept to be relegated to the back burner as the thieves masquerading as economists in the White House squandered to the rich the budget surplus Clinton left them.
    This is an important lesson to voters; watch carefully the type of people that wannabe Presidents listen to and surround themselves with. Superior candidates are the ones who aren’t afraid to subject their “vision” to a broad range of outspoken critics. And superior candidates for Cabinet posts and other senior staff positions don’t flock to Presidential candidates whose only qualification is their family name.

    Reply

  60. jimbo says:

    He’s shown incedibly poor judgment. If he plays his cards right he’ll become a successful media ‘Heather’ in no time.

    Reply

  61. Jim Ramsey says:

    OK. Let’s start the smear clock now. How long will it be before we hear about Mr. Dowd’s sexual preferences or practices or whatever.

    Reply

  62. liz says:

    I am curious as to how Mr. Dowd ever thought Bush was presidential material to begin with. Where is the judgement our nation requires in picking it’s leaders and why do we as Americans keep allowing lousy politicians to be shoved at us by ” parties”??Isn’t it about time to do away with parties and get an American interested in leading and restoring America???? It will obviously not be a Republican and doubtfully a Democrat…..but we do not need another divider sold as a uniter.

    Reply

  63. marky says:

    Dowd has a son serving in Iraq now. That is the main cause of his change of heart. Nothing wrong with that.. it just goes to show that SHARED sacrifice makes people think twice about going to war.
    You can bet that if one of the twins were in Iraq Bush would end the war tomorrow.

    Reply

  64. Marcia says:

    A majority of citizens in this country saw George Bush and voted for Gore. There were millions of people in the streets world-wide protesting the plan to invade Iraq.
    What great news… Matthew Dowd who says “he fell in love ” with Bush and switched to his team – back then – now, after six years of unprecedented breaches of the Constitution, lying, spying, torturing, warring sees the light. Had he seen Texas, rather than Bush’s style as Texas Governor reality might served as a candle in the dark.
    “Iraq particularly troubles him”…what sensitivity, the hundreds of thousands of dead are no longer troubled…war is ugly, a thing of blood and gut and despair that with “communication is presented as a costume ball on air craft carriers.
    Since Nixon all these “high-ranking officials posture, communicate and ascend to their “high-ranking posts, play games with young lives to test their theories and when these fail resign and are professors to the next generation of moths drawn to the flame.
    How can anything change when this has become a self perpetuating system. Those who held power and misused it are presented as yesterday’s wise men. Their wisdom value increases when they make public confessions, very probably the price of their conference tours as well.
    It is insulting to the intelligence that they imagine they will be applauded for removing their blinders, but now, as retired Generals, instead of fading away they go on TV.
    A slow bleed is not enough, amputation is required or gangrene will consume the entire body.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *