The Howard Gambit
A great sign of what a petty, stupid, immoral man George W. Bush is has been his treatment of the Obama family’s request that they be allowed to stay in Blair House for the two weeks before inauguration so that Sasha and Malia could start school on time. Bush turned them down, citing the need for Blair House to host a guest for one night, thus forcing the Obama’s into a hotel and causing various inconveniences to the people of Washington and to the taxpayer as security arrangements needed to be made.
Fittingly enough, it seems that there was no genuine guest scheduled to stay in Blair House. Rather, the Bush administration asked former Australian Prime Minister John Howard to stay at the place in order to give them a pretext to turn the Obamas down. Fittingly, from everything I’ve heard about Howard he and Bush are really two peas in a pod in terms of terrible policymaking.
104 Responses to “The Howard Gambit”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
This makes him immoral? Petty, maybe, but immoral?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Petty, yes.
Stupid? Come on it’s Bush.
Immoral? Not the best of illustrations, given the man’s resume.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Agree with the above commenters that this is certainly petty, but kind of a stretch to call it immoral.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Douchey.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Matt,
Did you offer your place to our lord savior Obama?
He who is without sin cast the first stone.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Asher, well, dishonesty is immoral. But mostly MattY was trying to say that this was a symptom of Bush’s overall immorality rather than a specifically immoral act.
I might add that MattY’s statements about Bush illustrate the evolution of “reasonable middle-of-the-road liberals” like MattY, Kevin Drum ,and Josh Marshall into people that simply can’t hold back their contempt for a person like Bush. Under normal cirucmstances, a Republican would get the “benefit of the doubt” from people with their temperments, but Bush out-and-out turned them into people with nothing but disdain for Bush and his crowd, and they’re more or less not shy about articulating it.
In fact, I’ve gotten to the point where I’m quite suspicious of the judgment of those who don’t articulate such contempt for Bush… as in, you have to be pretty naive, ignorant, or simply morally twisted not to write about Bush in the sort of words that MattY uses.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Al,
Obama lived in a studio. Besides the place had burned down.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Al,
Obama rented a studio apartment that was not exactly nice. It was described as “college dorm-like” and probably not big enough for four. And I don’t know D.C. well enough to comment on the neighborhood, but was told that it was not a great one from someone who’s opinion on these matters I would not necessary agree with — he tends to think that anything remotely “urban” is bad.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Howard got a pretty good comeuppance in the 2007 general elections. He didn’t just lose his majority – he lost his own seat to the Labour Party, which nominated a popular TV host-turned-politician. He’s about as popular in Oz now as Cheney is here.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The security implications of protecting a president elect and his family are much more serious than a simple senator. That is a huge factor in determining the places acceptable for the Obamas to stay in D.C.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
And here I got so snobby I forgot that Oz, like America, spells the word “l-a-b-o-r,” with no “u”.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
And of course Obama is now President Elect and not a Senator meaning that he has a full security detail and car convoys going back and forth all the time. so even if he had a 2 BDRM condo the neighbors don’t need to deal with secret service and press just so Bush can be an asshole.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
MattY was trying to say that this was a symptom of Bush’s overall immorality rather than a specifically immoral act.
So symptoms of immorality don’t have to be immoral themselves? What makes them symptoms of immorality, then?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Yet another brilliant combat ploy by Bu$hco. While people are spending hours screeching about Bush not letting the Obamas stay at Blair house – they’re giving away contracts, larding agencies with fundicrat incompetents, planting budget bombs, etc.
Unleash the WMDs – Weapons of Mass Distraction.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
No Bush-lover I, but this story seems a tiny bit fishy. Bush actually doesn’t seem petty in this way, and don’t outgoing presidents like to curry favor with incoming presidents? This seems like the equivalent of those stories about Clinton staffers trashing the White House before departing.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Post-nasal drip.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@Dave Weigel, nope, confusingly enough we spell the word as ‘labour’ and the political party as ‘labor’.
We like to have our cake and eat it too.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
11:So Bush, by making security more difficult, has marginally increased the danger to the lives of Obama & his family by this action.
Not petty, but immoral and possibly evil.
See Tyro, 7.2 & 7.3
January 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think the comparison is unkind to Howard, who was always forthright about what he was doing, and who always had to engage his critics directly in a parliamentary setting. Howard is perhaps more reactionary than Bush–all conservative, no compassion–but he put an option out there for the consideration of Australian voters, who liked it just fine until they didn’t.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Look, Bush is a pretty petty man. But of course this is not a Holiday Inn that Obama has been relegated to. He’s staying at the Hay Adams. http://www.hayadams.com/
January 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Tyro: great comment
MattY: Thanks for the great post. Just a thought – any chance that putting Obama in a hotel vs in Blair House is a way of stimulating the local DC economy? I’m tempted to make a drive to get a glimpse, and will probably drop ten bucks for coffee/sweets in the process.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
BTW, if Blair and Howard are to receive the Medal of Freedom (aka Medal of killing lots of brown people), where is Aznar’s?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Remember that this is the same crowd that made up stories of the Clintons removing the “W” from computer keyboards and other juvenilia.
Are you surprised?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Being an asshole is immoral in and of itself.
I don’t get why that’s so difficult for some of you to understand.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Well, this is ending as it started: with liberals like Matt simply making shit up. Matt, it isn’t polite to tell lies. It also isn’t polite to dis-invite someone because a better offer came along. It would be petty and stupid and impolite to tell a guest that he must move along because the president-elect would like a free place to stay.
The fact is that there were other events planned for Blair House during the time that the Obamas wanted to stay there, and that those uses were inconsistent. For example, the papers say that Laura Bush is hosting a long-scheduled event there tomorrow. Now I suppose those folks could be dis-invited as well, not being as important as the Obamas, but that too would be impolite.
There was no great inconvenience to the Obamas to stay in a hotel for a week. Also. there would have been no great disadvantage to the Obama daughters to start school a week late. It was a simple but unusual request that the Obamas made, and it wasn’t able to be accomodated. There’s nothing stupid or petty or immoral about the request or the denial. Matt’s lying on the other hand is stupid, petty and immoral.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Oh, Thomas. Is there *any* action of the morally and intellectually bankrupt, utterly repugnant Republicans that you won’t passionately defend?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Referring to this sort of thing as petty, stupid or immoral kind of misses the point. It’s not the act itself, it’s the fact that nobody said “We can’t do that”.
I’m not sure if this is the case in other countries, but American elites have figured out that they can crap all over the most basic concepts of dignity, courtesty, decorum and personal integrity…and no one will do a damn thing about it. Whether it’s Bush calling a reporter an a-hole and refusing to apologize for it, Cheney shooting a guy in the face and making the victim apologize to him or the finger-in-the-eye behavior of Blago and Burris, we no longer have the will to enforce standards of behavior on the rich and powerful unless they’ve actually broken a law…and oftentimes not even then.
Mike
January 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Adam, pointing out that someone is both lying and insisting that it’s petty to not be rude isn’t a defense. My god, is there any lie that you all won’t insist not be scrutinized?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
This is actually a big f-you from Bush to Obama. Howard had some very nasty stuff to say about Obama in 2007 (specifically, Howard said that Obama was al-Qaeda’s preferred candidate for the White House).
Full story here:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/theres-no-room-for-the-obamas-thanks-to-the-man-of-steal-20090107-7bzl.html
In an (unscientific) online poll of 1341 people from the same newspaper, 74% of voters thought that Howard should make way for Obama and go and stay somewhere else.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Look, Howard was as good a PM as Australia had for a long time. He rejuvenated Australian from a sleepy post-colonial backwater to the pre-eminent dominant power in the South Pacific. Now no-one, from Indonesia to Papua New Guinea, are free from some measure of deference to Australian position. Australian companies, and thus the Australian economy, have benefitted tremendously.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
And by the way, as of this moment, the Right Honourable John Howard is still a more senior figure in the Anglosphere than Barack Obama.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
This is all based on speculation by Margaret Carlson appearing on Countdown, as told by another Think Progress blogger. In other words, it’s a bunch of BS. Do you folks even read what’s linked in these posts?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
American elites have figured out that they can crap all over the most basic concepts of dignity, courtesty, decorum and personal integrity — and no one will do a damn thing about it.
Isn’t that, in some sense, the American dream? Wealth and power frees one from the constraints of the Old World and the dictums of behavior that go along with it. Being able to take such actions without consequence is a sign of your superiority in the hierarchy. And not only that, those several steps below you on the hierarchy will cheer you on because they hope to be like you someday.
And Al and Thomas– if you can’t get morally outraged about torture, I never expected you to get moral outraged about dishonesty and petty slights and insults. You had 8 years to be repulsed by Bush’s behavior– the sort of behavior that (hopefully) you were raised not to emulate. I didn’t expect you to change now.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Tyro, Matt is lying and insisting on petty slights and insults, just to people he deems less important than Obama. That’s rude. It’s also illiberal and inegalitarian. I expect you to be able to recognize dishonesty and petty slights and insults, but you’re busy partaking in them.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This is all based on speculation by Margaret Carlson appearing on Countdown, as told by another Think Progress blogger. In other words, it’s a bunch of BS. Do you folks even read what’s linked in these posts?
Did you even read the link? Let’s go to the tape:
“I reported…on December 11 and 12 that there were no foreign dignitaries booked into Blair House during that period of time.”
If there’s a more plausible explanation for what happened than Carlson’s speculation, I’d like to hear it.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“Asher, well, dishonesty is immoral. But mostly MattY was trying to say that this was a symptom of Bush’s overall immorality rather than a specifically immoral act.”
Maybe we should get Jennifer Palmieri out here to clarify what Matt was trying to say.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I know Tony Blair has had his moments, but has he really screwed up enough to deserve a Medal of Freedom?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
And by the way, as of this moment, the Right Honourable John Howard is still a more senior figure in the Anglosphere than Barack Obama.
Ah, yes, I remember pledging allegiance to the Anglosphere back in grade school.
Certainly, in Washington, any ex-Australian PM > any sitting senator and president-elect. How far does that fealty go in the Anglosphere, anyway? How about ex-finance ministers of Belize? Former magistrates of the Pitcairn Islands?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Most of us seem to be “wrong” in many ways that involve us burning in hell for all eternity, according to most conservatives.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Blair House has 119 rooms with 70,000 sqare feet of space. The White house also holds many functions while providing an easily securable living space for the first family. There is no reason Blair House could not do the same. It did so while Truman lived there during renovations at the White House.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
This also is more evidence for what I’ve believed for a long time – there is one basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals think conservatives are evil; conservatives think liberals are wrong.
This is so true.
Well, true in the sense that total bullshit generalizations are true.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
There was no great inconvenience to the Obamas to stay in a hotel for a week.
There is a great inconvenience to anyone who had to drive near Farragut North, especially at rush-hour. Much greater than the inconvenience of having to find an alternate locations (the Hay-Adams?) for a few parties.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
As if he needed to, Bush cements his position as Asshole-in-chief.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
This is all based on speculation by Margaret Carlson appearing on Countdown, as told by another Think Progress blogger.
Wrong. This is reporting. That doesn’t mean absolutely that it’s true, but it’s not just some rumor or speculation.
BTW, Blair House is not just one house – I believe it’s actually four townhouses. Other events being held there and the Obamas living there are not incompatible. The problem does seem to have been Howard. Yes, it’s a petty insult to Obama, and an insult to the US, IMO, since Howard’s in country to get a medal from Bush. No, the Hay-Adams is hardly Motel 6. Key word: petty.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
How about ex-finance ministers of Belize? Former magistrates of the Pitcairn Islands?
That the Right Honourable John Howard was a former head of government of a rather important nation and Barack Obama is, at this moment, still merely a very junior senator has never occurred you? President Bush, after all, is still in control if a hurricane were to hit tomorrow, until Inauguration Day.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Thomas, Al, the “disinvite” canard is disingenuous- Blair House has over 100 rooms and amenities like salons and florists on site. The idea that it couldn’t support the Obamas, the Howards, and Laura’s event all it at once is not credible.
Nor is it exactly rude to move Laura’s event- events like that are rearranged all the time, and if it were, say, hosted at the White House instead, I dare say most participants would consider it an upgrade.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“Barack Obama is, at this moment, still merely a very junior senator”
Actually, he’s not. Even if the post of “President-Elect” did not carry it’s own weight in terms of protocol and etiquette (And it DOES), Obama is no longer a Senator at all, and he’s certainly not a “very junior senator” as such a position doesn’t exist.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
President Bush, after all, is still in control if a hurricane were to hit tomorrow, until Inauguration Day.
And if that happened, Obama’s reaction, statements, and plans as a result of those events would still be a heck of a lot more important than Howard’s.
Look, I don’t see why Al and Thomas can’t just rejoice in knowing that Howard, an angry, insulting, petty man, is being used for an angry, insulting, an petty dig at Obama.
And Al, my original point was that MattY, Kevin, and Josh Marshall are precisely the sort of people willing to concede that a Republican might be merely wrong about one issue or another. But Bush was so bad that the inevitably conclusion by these people normally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt is that bush is out-and-out a bad person. And besides, wasn’t it Newt Gingrich that blamed Susan Smith drowning her children on liberals and wasn’t it the Republicans screaming that Obama was a terorist baby killer? Where do you crib your hackneyed, incorrect, ignorant maxims from? We know that YOU didn’t conclude that liberals think concservatives are evil vs. conservatives thinking liberals are wrong. You are merely, conservative-style, mindlessly parroting that quote from someone else… which is, I have to add, the way you found yourself mired in the mistake of becoming a Bush supporter in the first place.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“So, we should spend vast amounts of money reconfiguring Blair House”
Again, disingenuous. Blair House is already “configured” to protect incoming Presidents, that’s the role it’s served for decades.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Oh for God’s sake.
The professional staff of the White House and Blair house (the folks who have been working there for decades) know perfectly well that Blair House is the traditional residence of incoming presidents. It is their JOB to know this sort of thing as they are very big on protocol and history.
Therefore, one can logically conclude that the scheduling of Blair House for other minor events during the transition period was most likely done by White House political staff despite reminders/objections by the professional staff that Blair House is normally reserved for incoming presidents during that time period.
This is not some innocent scheduling error. The current White House deliberately scheduled events at Blair House during the time that it is normally set aside for incoming Presidents. This kind of thing doesn’t just happen by accident.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Of course it is credible.”
Based on the facts that I’ve seen, it isn’t. Perhaps there are more facts out there, but the fact that you won’t present them is telling. “Of course!” isn’t very useful evidence.
“But even if it isn’t, why do you want to keep Obama’s children awake all night while there is some huge party going on?”
I’ve seen no evidence that there’s going to be some huge party going on all night, though if there were, I would assume that a building with over 100 rooms that is made to accomodate incoming Presidents and foreign heads-of-state has pretty adequate sound-proofing. Moreover, a quick, kind word from the P-E would probably do a lot to calm down any noisy revelers.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This Obama worship is bizarre. He lives in a hotel for a month. Big freakin’ deal.
Bush stay at his ranch for his time when he was waiting to be President. What’s the big deal here?
January 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Did anyone else laugh at Stephen Myles (32)? I was sure it was somebody doing a parody of him.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Bush stayed*
January 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“The current White House deliberately scheduled events at Blair House during the time that it is normally set aside for incoming Presidents. This kind of thing doesn’t just happen by accident.”
To be fair, it’s my understanding that the Obamas asked to move in earlier than some previous First Families have. I still think it’s incredulous that they couldn’t be acomodated, but let’s keep the facts straight.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
President Bush, after all, is still in control if a hurricane were to hit tomorrow, until Inauguration Day.
Good god, man! Are you trying to give us all a heart attack? Given Bush’s record, a hurricane devastating the coast in January would be par for the course!
January 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The current White House deliberately scheduled events at Blair House during the time that it is normally set aside for incoming Presidents.
I don’t think that’s right. I think Obama wanted to come earlier than most Presidents-elect do because the family wanted the girls to start school when Sidwell resumes after the winter break. So the Bush people can be forgiven for having scheduled events at the Blair House during that time. But it certainly would have been a classy move to have accommodated the Obama’s at the Blair House, which is better able to handle the security arrangements than is, say, the Hay-Adams. The rooms in the Hay-Adams surely are nicer than those at the Blair House, but Pennsylvania Avenue is already closed to traffic, while the Secret Service has blocked several blocks near the hotel. Did I mention that this screws up traffic? It screws up traffic. It delays commutes. Even (especially?) for those of us who take the bus instead of drive. Whether or not it’s a dig at the Obamas, it’s a major inconvenience for many of us who live in the area, and one that could have been avoided.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“Bush stay at his ranch for his time when he was waiting to be President. What’s the big deal here?”
It’s probably got to do with the fact that Bush VOLUNTARILY stayed at his ranch, while the Obamas REQUESTED Blair House and were turned down for what appears to be increasingly ridiculous reasons.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
It’s amazing how everyone on here is an expert in scheduling inauguration events, event planning, and the logistics of Presidential transitions, in addition to health care, economics, defense policy, etc. Do you guys really believe that Bush, with everything else going on, deliberately scheduled events at the Blair House just to inconvenience the Obamas? If he wanted to inconvenience Obama, couldn’t he just continue to do what he is doing, like ruining the economy and destroying America’s reputation? Here is my guess at what happened:
Obama team: “We’d like to move in a little early at the Blair House. Is that okay?”
Bush team: “Actually, we scheduled a bunch of stupid events there during that time period and it would be a pain in the ass to switch them around.”
Obama team: “That’s okay, we’ll stay at this superfancy elite D.C. hotel instead. Peace out.”
Who thinks that this is a big deal at all? It was not worth a blog post.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“If he wanted to inconvenience Obama, couldn’t he just continue to do what he is doing, like ruining the economy and destroying America’s reputation?”
Well, as you said, he’s doing THAT, too, so maybe that’s evidence in favor of the idea that he’s trying to screw with Hopey.
“Who thinks that this is a big deal at all? It was not worth a blog post.”
Considering that this blog had a pretty big discussion yesterday about which Trek is the worst, I’m not sure a discussion here DOES mean anyone thinks this is a “big deal”. It’s the internet, homeslice, we’re gonna discuss minutia, too.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Can’t you see that causing traffic problems is just wrong, and not evil? Your liberal Manichean worldview saddens me.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
But if his staff trashes the White House that’s ok?
January 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Do you guys really believe that Bush, with everything else going on, deliberately scheduled events at the Blair House just to inconvenience the Obamas?
I’m not qualified to speak for the other commenters, but personally: yes, I believe he did.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
+1 to James Gary. Anyway, what does “with everything else going on” have to do with it? Is there any evidence that Bush has been spending any time on everything else going on?
January 7th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Why this is immoral: Its not about making Obama stay at the Hay Adams for a couple weeks. That’s petty, but not quite immoral.
Being petty at great expense to US taxpayers by require significant costs to secure the Hay Adams for a couple weeks? That’s immoral.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Did I mention that this screws up traffic? It screws up traffic. It delays commutes.
A feature, not a bug, from MY’s point of view.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Matt Weiner: I heard he’s been reading books. Does that count?
And let’s all take another few moments to remember this is all being done ‘on behalf’ of John Howard, a truly loathsome politician– who must feel right at home with G. W. Bush.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Matt, it’s a little late to start asking for evidence isn’t it? I mean, this all starts with Matt’s lying, so evidence is a bit beside the point.
Since evidence-free speculation is the order of the day, here goes: this shows how absolutely classless the Obamas are. I mean, they ask for an unprecedented favor, and complain that the former prime minister of a close ally be thrown out on the street so they can save a few bucks. All of this is obviously coming from the Obama family, since they’re the ones who made the request and the ones who are apparently angered by not getting their way, allies be damned.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
A feature, not a bug, from MY’s point of view.
Not re those of us who take the bus.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“Matt, it’s a little late to start asking for evidence isn’t it?”
Not at all, though given the kind of arguments the “Bush isn’t being petty!” brigade has been making in this thread, I understand why they’d desperately WISH that was the case.
But even if MattY was lying or engaging in “evidence-free speculation” (and neither one of those is really true- he said “seems”, which clearly indicates that it was speculation, and noted the Think Progress article as evidence), that doesn’t exclude the other side from using facts or evidence. In fact, if they actually wanted to PROVE their point rather than make juvenile swipes at MattY, they SHOULD use facts and evidence.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
To Thomas – #78. A fine example of evidence-free speculation.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
There is a great inconvenience to anyone who had to drive near Farragut North, especially at rush-hour. Much greater than the inconvenience of having to find an alternate locations (the Hay-Adams?) for a few parties.
– @DC Resident
Didn’t you get the memo? You shouldn’t be driving in the district anyway.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
To be clear…per Merriam-Webster:
Immoral
: not moral ; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.
… so, let’s take the golden rule as our traditionally held moral principles: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. By this standard, I think that Bush’s actions are immoral: he’s a lame duck and the invitation to Howard seems to come after the fact. It’s certainly un-gentlemanly, reminding us that, despite being born on third base, W. has no class.
And before you flame….when I was campaigning for Obama in Virginia, I’d say things like “According to the CW, conservatism conjures prudence, restraint, realism, and respect for limited government; “liberalism” conjures pie-in-the-sky, government-sponsored miracles. Well, today the tables are turned: the so-called conservatives have told us they can make miracles happen in the Middle East while desiring to legislate moral behavior at home. Both things go against this country’s isolationist and classic-liberal traditions, and I’m truly disappointed that Republicans have gone along with this agenda without question.” I am shocked by how gutless the Republicans have been over the past eight years. . . I truly expected better.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I almost fell out of my chair when I read a comment by Yinka Dare.
He inspired one of the best headlines in the history of newspapers in the (Newark) Star-Ledger:
“Yinka, you Stinka”
I don’t really care about this issue, but Bush sucks and Thomas is a moron.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I also went an entire season without an assist, despite getting plenty of minutes.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I have a theory about Al and friends on these comment threads. They are republican political operatives and the reason they come here is to generate and practice defending the talking points that will be used later on the cable shows, etc.
I mean, why get so excited about a dumb story like this one? Because this is exactly the kind of stuff the crap cable shows love to talk about, so they know they’re going to have to defend it.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
This is pretty thinly (based on Ms.Carlson’s feelings) sourced. We should be careful with the language.
But the original story said that Blair house was appalled. I find nothing appalling in the President-elect and his wife wanting to come in a couple of weeks early so that their kids can attend school. I don’t see any breach of etiquette in this fairly ordinary request.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
No comment on the Obama thing, but the last sentence about Howard being as bad as Bush on policy is really silly. Say what you will about Howard’s inaction on greenhouse gases, the man did leave Australia with zero public debt. That’s coming in handy at a time when large fiscal stimulus packages are in order.
Matthew wouldn’t agree, but Howard was also the guy who brought in restrictive gun control laws. they were controversial at the time, but there is really no argument at all about overturning them now.
And from Australia’s point of view, I think it’s arguable that his Iraq policy was largely correct one, given that Bush was going to war anyway. Australia got a lot of “strong ally” credit for going along with the US, without making very much of a sacrifice in terms of blood and treasure. Australia’s involvement in Iraq was mostly symbolic, but that wasn’t really recognized until the dustup with Obama in early 2007. I’d guess that if you polled Americans on who were the most reliable American allies, you’d see Australia doing pretty well, and that’s an important goal from an Australian foreign policy standpoint. It’s a small country in GDP and population terms, and they are never sure when they might need US assistance.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What I’d like to know is how did Larry David find the time to make “Curb Your Enthusiasm” AND run Australia?
An amazing man who probably deserves that goddamn medal.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
President Bush has been nothing if not classy and gracious during this transition. He even invited the execrable Jimmy Carter to the White House as per Obama’s request to have lunch with every living ex-President. This was after Bush’s gracious invitation to the Obamas immediately after the election, and the Bush Administration’s zealous inclusion of the Obama transition team in major policy events between the election and now.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“And from Australia’s point of view, I think it’s arguable that his Iraq policy was largely correct one, given that Bush was going to war anyway.”
Australia has had America’s back in every major war of the last hundred years. That’s a deliberate policy of making deposits in America’s emotional bank account.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
92. Agreed. The point is that Howard was following the conventional policy wisdom in Australia, and it seems to have worked out rather well. Matthew’s characterization of Howard as being as equally bumbling as Bush is a silly one. Here’s a case where Howard played Bush quite deftly. Note who is giving whom the medal.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
While I’m not a fan of Howard or his foreign policies (or his policies on asylum seekers or indigeneous Australians), it is unfair to label him as a pea in a pod with Bush. In particular, his economic and social policies were spectacularly more successful.
Net government debt was eliminated in 2005-06 after falling from a peak of 18.5 per cent of GDP in 1995-96 (just before Howard was first elected). The average net debt to GDP ratio in the OECD is around 45 per cent while for Australia it is below zero.
According to official (ABS) statistics, there has been no significant change in income inequality since the mid 1990s. Average real incomes rose by between 30 and 40 per cent across the whole income distribution between the middle of the 1990s and 2006. The unemployment rate fell from around 8.2% to 4.4% over his period of office.
Now some of this was due to good luck – the China and India boom helped Australian exports, employment and tax revenues – but the idea that his policies were similar to those of Bush flies in the face of evidence.
Essentially, Howard governed like a European conservative (a Christian Democrat). Add some height and weight and Howard looks remarkably like Helmut Kohl.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Three points. This was not an unprecedented request. Other incoming Presidents moved into Blair House before January 15th. Blair House is big and can accommodate more than one activity at a time. Blair House is inside the White House security perimeter. Having the Obama’s stay at Hay-Adams messes up local traffic and requires additional – expensive – security arrangements. The whole thing may not be “immoral” but it is stupid.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
What was the point of refusing the Obamas’ request to move into Blair House before January 15th? Let’s look at the negatives – the current President denies a reasonable request from the next President, the future First Family’s comfort and security is compromised, the effectiveness of the Secret Service’s job is complicated, the American taxpayer gets to pay extra for lodging and security when we already foot the bill for Blair House, the local populace gets inconvenienced and George and Laura Bush appear rude, petty and selfish. So what are the positives here – a foreign leader gets to spend the night and there are some previously booked receptions attended by who knows who. Sounds like an accurate metaphor for the whole Administration to me – lots of serious negatives and a few vaporous positives. So “What was the point?”.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Al claims that “ Liberals think conservatives are evil; conservatives think liberals are wrong.”
Personally, I think a fair number of conservatives are fear biters.
“Why does fear-biting happen?
A fear-biter bites because it’s his only way of expressing his extreme fear or panic, and his only way of telling his owner that he can’t handle the situation. Almost all cases of fear-biting are actually caused by well-meaning, but ill-advised, humans: they see what’s clearly a scared dog, and – intending to either comfort the dog or to show him that there’s ‘nothing to be afraid of’ – they approach too close, and push an already-anxious dog over the edge. . . When faced with a new situation or unfamiliar people, they do not react with the customary effortless confidence of a well-socialized, well-adjusted dog: instead, they become nervy and on edge. . . .
. . . How to cope with fear-biting
First of all, make sure your own attitude to the problem is realistic. While the behavior of a fearful dog can often be significantly ameliorated by careful training and acclimatization, on other occasions – and sometimes, despite your best efforts – a dog will remain fearful to the end of his days. You cannot force your dog to overcome his fear. Treatment requires patience, persistence, and consistency: rough treatment (anger, frustration, shouting, a take-no-prisoners approach) usually worsens the problem, because it increases the dog’s anxiety levels instead of decreasing them . . . What you can do is, firstly, build up your dog’s confidence, to reduce his overall anxiety and tension levels; and, secondly, pay close attention the cause of his fear, and work to desensitize him to it.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
It looks like a dick move from Bush. Since the S.O.P of the Bush presidency has been the dick move, when something from the Bush administration looks like a dick move, you have to believe that it is a dick move. Not immoral, just a dick move from a dick president.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:29 am
As an Australian (IN Australia), I beg to differ from the opinions re Howard of Yank-in-Oz’ and ‘Disinterested Observer’, (posts 93 and 94). From a foreign policy perspective, Howard’s policies were depressingly similar to Bush’s. Howard eventually became a very unpopular politician in Australia as a result. His lies, manipulation of the facts and outright racist propoganda during the ‘Tampa incident’ is one early example, and could easily have come straight out of the Cheney/Rovian playbook. And Howard as a European Conservative?
please.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Yank-in-Oz- said;
Matthew wouldn’t agree, but Howard was also the guy who brought in restrictive gun control laws. they were controversial at the time, but there is really no argument at all about overturning them now.
Sorry, here in Oz we’ve always had sensible and strong gun laws. Which ‘controversial’ and ‘restrictive’ new gun laws brought in by Howard are you referring to?
January 8th, 2009 at 12:52 am
YelenaVee
As an Australian also in Australia, I think that Yank-in Oz was talking about the post Port Arthur gun laws ” Our 1996 reforms were precipitated by the Port Arthur massacre, the 13th mass shooting in 15 years in which five or more victims died in places like Hoddle and Queen Streets in Melbourne and Strathfield Plaza. The central provisions of the reforms were the ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns, accompanied by gun amnesties and two national buybacks, which together saw some 820,000 guns destroyed. Because of their rapid firepower, semi-automatics are the guns of choice for those intent on killing many people quickly. John Howard introduced the reforms to prevent US-style mass killings, not primarily to prevent criminal or domestic gun homicides or gun suicides. In the 12 years since the law reforms, there have been no mass shootings.” http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080909-Speech-notes-that-Sarah-Palin-will-never-consult.html
And if you read what I wrote you will see that I was referring to were his economic and social welfare policies – not his foreign policies or immigration policies.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Howard is quite different to Bush. Howard was a vicious partisan who spent 12 years demonising every minority group he could but he was at least a technically competent administrator which is not something you could say for Bush.
Howard was also the ultimate ‘big government’ conservative – federal revenue as a % of GDP rose to is highest level ever under his watch. This was mainly as a result from record company tax intakes (from the resources boom) and a Goods and Services Tax (which he implemented in 1999).
January 8th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Disinterested observer is right; I was talking about the Port Arthur gun laws. On the foreign policy front, he deserves a bit of credit for an independent East Timor.
More than anyone probably wants to know:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/howardyears/.
Note the Warren Truss interview where he talks about how Howard stood up to the right on gun laws.
I’m not saying he was a great prime minister. But he was quite effective, and he got a lot of what he wanted done. Most of those changes will stick. Characterising him as a bumbling fool of the sort that Bush was is just silly.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I despise John Howard, but it’s unfair to characterise his policy making as being the same as Bush’s. Howard is not at all stupid like W, and he’s not an evil genius like Dick Cheney, he’s just a mean narrow-minded little man. All indications are that his financial management of the country was excellent, with Australia not yet in recession and perhaps avoiding it altogether. However Howard’s lack of action on the Kyoto Protocol, abysmally nasty treatment of asylum seekers, lying to the public on the children overboard affair, outrageous industrial relations reforms, and support for the illegal war in Iraq have earned him a seat at the right hand of the biggest thief and murderer ever to reside in the White House.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:03 am
yank-in-oz, it’s only good for Australia to be a strong ally of the U.S. when the U.S. is making good foreign policy. From 2001 the U.S. started making disastrous foreign policy, and John Howard stuck with him. There’s a reasonable case for saying that John Howard’s decisions encouraged the Bali bombing. If Australia needs American assistance, we’re already screwed. Australia is much more likely to need assistance BECAUSE of its American alliance. I guess at least if we hang out with the Yanks our troops get real combat experience.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:01 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:57 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Could you help me. Realize that true happiness lies within you. Waste no time and effort searching for peace and contentment and joy in the world outside. Remember that there is no happiness in having or in getting, but only in giving. Reach out. Share. Smile. Hug. Happiness is a perfume you cannot pour on others without getting a few drops on yourself.
I am from Finland and , too, and now am writing in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Full name – airline tickets online only here.”
Thank
Sandya.