RSS Feed MenuI am reading Matt Latimer’s book, just out today, Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor. Two things struck me. First is confirmation of the portrait of George W. Bush that I painted in my Impostor book of a bully who cannot stand to be contradicted, who thinks he knows everything despite being grossly ignorant most of the time, and who browbeats those beneath him into agreeing with him.
Second is how different the Bush White House was from the Reagan White House where I worked. Reagan’s White House was a model of thoroughness, adherence to proper procedure, and respect for the office of the president. Bush’s White House seems amazingly slipshod, showing total disregard for all of the things that were important to Reagan in terms of how his administration functioned.
On the first point, I was struck by this paragraph as the author discusses his first session with Bush reviewing a draft speech he had written:
The president’s editing sessions went like this: he talked, you listened and scribbled furiously whatever he said. On occasion, he might ask a question. But usually he wasn’t too interested in the answer. Sometimes in the middle of your explaining something, if he felt he wasn’t getting what he wanted, he’d interrupt and say, ‘Okay, here’s what we need to do.’ This wasn’t a process that encouraged dialogue or pushback on an important point. This was George W. decisively telling you what he wanted to say, and you writing it down. Got it?
The problem with such a bullying method is that the president isn’t just some guy expressing a personal opinion when he speaks. If he were, then it would be perfectly appropriate for him to demand that his speechwriters wrote whatever he damn well told them to say. But the president of the United States speaks not just for himself, not just for his administration, but for the country as a whole. His words carry weight. Consequently, it is appalling to see him treating those words in such a cavalier manner.
Ronald Reagan, of course, was a trained actor, accustomed to reading dialogue written for him by others. Consequently, he had respect for those who wrote the words he spoke. Reagan was a great writer himself and would often edit his speeches. But he did it privately with an editing pen and usually for style, not substance. I think every Reagan speechwriter had enormous respect for Reagan’s contributions to his own speeches and, in turn, he respected his speechwriters and didn’t treat them like manual laborers, as Bush seems to have done.
Further evidence of Bush’s disdain for explaining himself in public forums can be found in this quote from Latimer’s book about reviewing Bush’s edits to a speech:
By about page five or so, the president started to get bored. You could see it in his face. So, naturally, that meant the speech was too long. By page six, without really reading the ending, he decided it needed to be cut down.
Then, after all this effort, Latimer tells us that Bush completely ignored the speech that had been written for him and ad-libbed some remarks.
One of the things that Latimer talks a lot about is the importance of the president’s mood, which appears to have gyrated wildly. Apparently, the best way to get on his good side was to pretend to be stupid so that Bush would seem like a genius by figuring out some simple point for himself.
Latimer says that national security adviser Stephen Hadley was very good at doing this:
Hadley was a master at handling the president. Though he was a very bright man, he liked to depict himself as the dumbest person in the room. He’d say things like, ‘Oh, Mr. President. I’m sure I’m completely wrong about this, but…’ or ‘I have to apologize, Mr. President, and feel free to calibrate me, but…’ This was the perfect way to talk to George W. Bush.
Later, Latimer talks about Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was in charge of Bush’s communications strategy toward the end of the administration. Latimer explains the way plans for speeches were developed:
Whenever we talked about an upcoming speech, Ed almost never said, ‘Let me think about it’ or ‘What do you guys think?’ He never said, ‘Let’s figure out what the message of the week is going to be.’ He usually just offered an instant reaction. The whole White House was like that–infatuated with decisiveness, dismissive of deliberation.
I have highlighted the last sentence because John DiIulio said almost exactly the same thing in a famous memo that formed the basis of an article in Esquire magazine early in the Bush administration. I can’t now find a copy of the memo on the web, but here is the article that was based on it.
I continue to believe that a great many of Bush’s screw-ups, most especially on Iraq, resulted from his personal style, which eventually permeated throughout his entire administration. It disdained facts and analysis and glorified decisiveness and action. “Shoot first and ask questions later” could have been its motto.
Originally published at Capital Gains and Games.
Jewels // Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Interesting that the “bully” that Bartlett describes seems strangely absent from David Frum’s book “The Right Man”. Frum describes the private President Bush as a controlled, confident man who was very aware of the thoughts and feelings of his team.
There was one incident described by Frum that involved some important project that had fallen vastly behind schedule. Bush brought the team into the office and gave them a long lecture. When he was through, he called the lowest ranked member of the team aside and spoke with him privately. He let the man know that he knew the blame didn’t lie with him, and proceeded to ask after the man’s wife and children. Hardly the actions of a bully.
In another passage from the same chapter, Frum describes a moment when, after listening to a round of compliments and praises from his staff about the state of affairs, Bush replied regretfully that people these days were far to eager to please him. That as governor, he could ask someone how they felt, and they would tell him.
I’m a little curious to know how it is that these accounts could contrast so vividly? Were messrs Bartlett and Latimer working for the same man as Frum? Was Frum dishonest in his description? Or is this a case of a couple of guys whose opinions were not given the serious weight that they thought was deserved?
Latimer: Bush 2008 Speeches Excuses for Taxpayers to Pick up Tab for Political Events // Sep 23, 2009 at 1:58 pm
[...] here for Bruce Bartlett’s first post reviewing Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less: Tales of a White [...]
balconesfault // Sep 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Were messrs Bartlett and Latimer working for the same man as Frum? Was Frum dishonest in his description?
There is plenty of evidence from multiple sources that Bush was a bully – more stories than worth going into here. At the same time, Bush clearly had/has a way of relating to certain people which generates fantastic loyalty, to the point where those individuals seem pretty willing to overlook any flaw, to shift the blame for any failure to others rather than pin it on W.
He didn’t get to be President simply because some very wealthy men decided to do what it would take to get him there, and because of his family name. In evaluating Bush, you have to always consider his innate talent for being the Big Man on Campus, the Frat House President, the guy in HS who everyone wanted to be on the right side of because being on the right side made you “in”, and being on the wrong side made you “out”. And Bush cultivated that by prizing loyalty to him above any special knowledge or talent or competency when filling his staff and cabinet (and trying to even do so to fill a Supreme Court slot).
sinz54 // Sep 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm
spartacusisnotdead: Maybe if Bush had been willing to listen to those with different opinions he would have gotten OBL at Tora Bora….
Rumsfeld made those decisions.
The CIA, hot on Osama’s tail near Tora Bora, sent an urgent request to Rumsfeld for thousands of U.S. troops to surround the place. For reasons that have never been made clear, Rumsfeld said no. Capture of Osama was to be left to the Northern Alliance. And we saw how well that turned out.
…. and he would have been willing to wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their job and tell him there are no WMD in Iraq.
At the very first emergency war meeting at Camp David, only 48 hours after the 9-11 attack, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told Bush that Saddam had to go. They didn’t condition that on finding WMD.
sdspringy // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Bacon, that description fits so accurately to Obam as well. How else could you end up with 37 Czars.
The big difference is of course Bush was not a minor league player when elected Pres. Obama’s rise is astonding only in the fact he is completely unqualified. Minor league state rep, 2 year Senator with no distinction and now Pres. In only 8 months his fall from both lefty grace and national grace beats even Carter.
Whether you read Camila at Salon or DailyKos the left’s disappointment is mounting even faster than the rights.
The fact that Bush has already generated so much ink from inside and outside the administration is mainly the result of the hught issues which literally exploded during his term in office. Many of Clinton’s insiders stated that they had the opportunity at those same issues for the acclaim that would have resulted from Clinton handling them. When in fact no matter the person, somebody will disagree with you decission and of course write a book explaining their position.
Especially when the book is critical, which of course would endear you to the good graces of the Main Stream Media and you would then receive their warm reviews.
Jim // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Spartacus:
Quick question, sparky. Do you think that oppression is wrong and should be fought? Or is “wait[ing] for the weapons inspectors to finish their job and tell him there are no WMD in Iraq” more important than freeing the people Saddam was terrorizing…..
Stunning. Just stunning. You’re a genuine credit to your name, pal.
balconesfault // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:55 pm
springy: MBacon, that description fits so accurately to Obam as well. How else could you end up with 37 Czars.
Ummm – first off, Wikipedia counts it at 32. Whic is apparently 1 more than Bush’s 31.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Although the reality is that Czar isn’t a real title. Obama hasn’t been calling his appointees that. The lazy media has, since it’s become a shorthand.
But really – how the hell does this tie in to Bush cultivating a cult of sycophancy in the White House … or an allegation that Obama is doing the same thing?
and for jim – it is not America’s job to drop a couple trillion and sacrifice a few thousand of our young men and women every time some asshat around the world is oppressing his people.
sdspringy // Sep 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Spartacus says:”you cannot cite any significant liberal calling any of these Obama critics racist.”
Spartacus may not be dead however he does appear computer illiterate. How else could you explain the inability to Google, “are Obama critics racist” and not come away with thousands of examples of people being referred to as racist for criticizing the Messiah.
Spartacus would like to narrow the field of critics but in fact every critic, in and outside of government, public servant and private citizen is a racist. ExPres. Carter thinks so, so does every Main Stream Media source, which have run numerous stories providing examples.
Sparty, better mount a charge in the opposite direction, this hill is too steep to assault.
balconesfault // Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm
and not come away with thousands of examples of people being referred to as racist for criticizing the Messiah.
You realize that the “Messiah” thing is pretty much a declaration that you don’t take Christianity seriously.
Meanwhile, there are lots of examples of people making patently racist attacks on Obama. Not a surprise that they get cited a lot.
agentprovocateur // Sep 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm
What will count in the end is the one undeniable fact, that Bush held two terms while Obama one.
So you have psychic powers? Do tell us all which stocks we should buy next week.
As far as Cheney, I think he and the dreaded neo-cons will be vindicated 10 or 20 years from now when the Middle East is no longer the fertile ground for extremism and instead is on a path of self-government.
You really believe that the invasion of Iraq will lead to that? I guess that magic ponies were found rather than WMD.
Do you think that oppression is wrong and should be fought?
So, when do we invade Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Sudan, among many other countries?
sdspringy // Sep 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Try as you might Bacon to deflect, Obama is turning out to be exactly as the Right imagined and a huge dissappointment for the Left. When the Left starts to criticize Obama will the term racist be used to describe them?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:13 am
Sinz @ #29,
The assertion that Rumsfield decided not to approve more troops does not relieve Bush of culpability for his decision not to ensure that the Afghan was adequately resourced and prepared to take advantage of an opportunity to capture OBL. I don’t know if Bush was advised to put more troops in Afghanistan or not, but if he wasn’t he should have fired his advisors for not giving him the right advice. However, we know for a fact that Bush Gen. Shinseki right after foolishly rejecting his advice to put 300,000-500,000 troops in Iraq.
With respect to Iraq, your reference to the recommendations of Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz to go to war in Iraq only proves my point. Bush, who was the ultimate decider, did not listen to those who advised to at least wait until after the inspectors had completed their jobs.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:14 am
I meant to say we know Bush fired Shinseki . . .
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:21 am
Jim asked: “Do you think that oppression is wrong and should be fought? Or is “wait[ing] for the weapons inspectors to finish their job and tell him there are no WMD in Iraq” more important than freeing the people Saddam was terrorizing…..”
Well, I think oppression is morally wrong, but Idon’t think all instances of oppression are worth the price America has had to predicatably pay to remove Saddam. And, policy makers of both Democratic and Republican administrations have consistently agreed with me. We did not go to war in Iraq to stop oppression and neither Bush nor any of his Democratic or Republican predecessors eever argued we should go to war there to stop Saddam’s long-running oppression.
If oppression is your prerequisite for sending American troops to war in a foreign land, then you are neither conservative nor wise.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 am
Sdspringy thinks that a google search that cites articles that discuss whether Obama’s critics are racist substantiates his initial claim that liberals will call anyone who criticizes Obama a racist.
You really should try to think this through on your own, but I’ll help you out anyway.
You said liberals will call anyone who criticizes Obama a racist. I provided many examples of people who have criticized Obama and have not been called racist. You then respond by referring to Google search results, none of which provide any evidence that any of the critics I listed have been called racist.
Seriously, this is not that difficult and you should be able to figure out that the things you’ve said – twice now – make absolutely no since whatsoever.
mlindroo // Sep 24, 2009 at 6:17 am
> The big difference is of course Bush was not a minor league player when elected Pres. Obama’s rise is
> astonding only in the fact he is completely unqualified. Minor league state rep, 2 year Senator with no
> distinction and now Pres.
This is highly debatable. I will agree that Obama does not have tons of experience, but he did prepare himself for the job well while with the U.S. senate by getting himself a place on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He lacks practical experience, true, but I think he did an impressive job during the 2008 campaign when he usually held his own in the debates against far more experienced candidates.
—
I would argue that Bush’s six years as Texas Governor aren’t much of a merit considering the limited powers of the office. But biographies such as Latimer’s clearly suggest lack of experience was not his major shortcoming as president: I think his personality(lack of curiosity, “faith based” decision making etc.) and choice of advisers had more to do with it.
> In only 8 months his fall from both lefty grace and national grace beats even Carter.
Well, I read the mainstream liberal blogs and I sense no major disappointment! “Politics is the art of the possible” and right now the blogosphere left seems quite confident that the Democrats will manage to pass some sort of health care reform by the end of the year, although it will not have all the features they would like.
—
Any presidency is like a long distance running contest. Even Reagan was unpopular while the economy was not in great shape, and this remains the main reason why Obama is “only” doing .500 right now. My guess is the 2010 midterms will resemble 1982, i.e. the party in power will be wildly unpopular because of the recession but the opposition will only make comparatively minor gains since they have no solution to the problem either. But we will see.
MARCU$
Jim // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:39 am
Spartacus:
Fine, but I think you should probably change your screen name to Jane Austen.
Jim // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:43 am
Agentprovocateur asks:
“So, when do we invade Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Sudan, among many other countries?”
I’m not saying I have the answer, but isn’t it a question at least worth discussing?