Bob Dole doesn't like two-faced weasels

By Rick Morris

Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.

But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.

All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.

However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.

As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.

Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).

The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.

So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.

McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it

By Rick Morris

The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.

Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?

Probably. But not necessarily.

There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:

^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.

^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.

^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.

^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.

^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.

So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.

It's America's loss, not Fred's

By Rick Morris

Fair warning: Bitterness Alert!

Every four years, you always hear people whining about the choice for president. "I can't believe it's Bush and Kerry. Can't we do better than that?" Four years before that, people were appalled by the choice between Bush and Gore. And on and on it goes.

Almost invariably, though, this country generally has at least a decent chance to do better, but rejects it in favor of a flashier or better-funded empty suit. The USA blew it again today when Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. Hence, history will repeat itself later this year when people are crying about the pathetic choice foisted upon this nation by the Democrats and Republicans.

Fred had it all: he possessed common-sense ideas that have been validated over the decades, he took on volatile issues like entitlement reform, he was a solid communicator and he treated the American public with decency and respect and had the courage to ask the same in return. This country, and in particular the Republican Party and the conservative movement, chose instead to their everlasting shame to continue their pattern (broken only by Reagan) of foisting crappy mediocrities on this land of ours.

Some of my friends who are Republican insiders, including some members of The FDH Lounge family, believe in the "Jim Rome Scoreboard Theory of Politics." That is, if you're the last man standing, that you're the best man because you proved your worth by going through the gauntlet. Scoreboard!

I couldn't disagree more.

Fred Thompson was the best man and it is only a broken system that kept him from being able to break through the glass ceiling put on him by the jerks in the media and the political class. His failure is an INDICTMENT of our political system. This is one reason that, although I don't like it, I'm not as consumed with hatred for McCain-Feingold as my aforementioned friends. Granted, the law is unconstitutional and was a bad idea. But unlike my friends, I refuse to glorify the present system and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Winning a nomination by being the best at conspiring in smoke-filled rooms with party puppet-masters is the proven way to get ahead -- as the nominations of both political parties have shown over the past few decades. But it is nothing for our country to be proud of, as it is evidence that our democracy is broken. Now before any of my friends get the urge to go more-conservative-than-thou on me for appropriating the language of The Nation magazine for my critique, let me remind them that our Founding Fathers, whom we on the right respect greatly, did not intend for the pursuit of our nation's highest office to be just another game of casino capitalism.

Political pundits are now wondering where the Thompson support will end up now. As for me, I am disregarding early indications that Thompson will not make an endorsement and I anticipate that he will endorse John McCain -- and, given the prominent right-wingers (i.e. Gramm/Kemp/Coburn) who have recently surrounded McCain and figure to serve as his braintrust if elected president, I will probably give McCain my reluctant support as well.

I do want to beg any of my fellow Fred supporters, who have by definition been smart enough not to get hoodwinked by Say-Anything Mittens (rumor has it he's going around saying he's the only person who can get Axl Rose to release the Chinese Democracy album!) not to give into this vile fraud of a campaign at this late hour. Not only are Romney's convictions demonstrably only an inch deep, the rotten Romney campaign should pay a price for the whisper campaign waged about Fred's viability from Day One -- with the low point being the cancer-mongering put forth by one of their chief mouthpieces. This nation today suffered the loss of its best candidate for president -- let's not compound the error by awarding the GOP nomination to a denizen of the political gutter.

Decade's most influential people in the world

By Rick Morris

Since we passed the 3/4 mark of the decade a few months ago (to little fanfare), I hatched an idea for a blog post about the most influential sports figures of the decade, largely because I firmly believe that the individual befitting that award goes unmentioned by all. But it occurred to me that a list of the most influential people in the world as a whole would be interesting as well.

I'm basing these rankings on the amount of influence these individuals have had over the ways we live, the ways that society functions and the ways society will function in the future. These influences can be for good or ill -- influence is influence, after all.

First of all, I want to give honorable mention to Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, the founders of YouTube. When the history is finally written about the technological advances of our day, I'm convinced that they will be on a very short list of the most important innovators. While Internet video certainly existed before YouTube came about in 2005, it wasn't nearly as mainstream. The invention of this website dovetailed nicely with the explosion in various types of broadband availability and served as THE entity most important in developing video-on-demand on the Internet. Quite simply, Hurley, Chen and Karim created something that will affect the way we consume media far into the future.

5. (TIE) Vladimir Putin and Howard Dean. Surely, this is an odd couple if ever there was one! But since my rankings were only five-deep, I could not choose between them for the final spot.

Let's examine Putin first. For several decades leading up to the Nineties, the leader of the USSR would have had to make such a list. For example, could a Top Five of the Eighties have not included both Reagan and Gorbachev? Unlikely. But as the Soviet Union faded into history, it took with it its vast influence over the world. Russian President Boris Yeltsin would certainly not have made such a list in the Nineties, at the low ebb of power for that country in the last hundred years. But Putin's Russia has roared back with a vengeance this decade, taking advantage of openings caused by ramifications of American foreign policy mistakes. While Russia has asserted itself as a key player on the world stage, make no mistake, the means it has chosen will be a major cause of strife and a threat to free societies in the years to come. The old Soviet axis seems to be reconstituting in a way, as Putin gathers up any adversaries of the U.S. that he can find to befriend (Iran, Venezuela and to a certain extent China). Also, his regime is taking on disturbing fascist tendencies at home, as our blog post from August documented. Even after his term as president ends next year, Mad Vlad will continue pulling the strings in the Kremlin and the effects of just the actions he's already set in motion will already be extraordinarily far-reaching.

Now to Howard Dean, who emerged from complete obscurity as governor of the gay-friendly state of Vermont to become one of the most important American political figures of the last 50 years. While he's best-known nationally as a punchline with his infamous speech after the Iowa caucuses in 2004, Dean actually emerged from that election cycle as an enormous transforming figure in the political system. In the months following the end of the first phase of the war in Iraq, when George Bush was appearing in front of "Mission Accomplished" signs and the public was still savoring the heady feeling of having deposed Saddam Hussein, Dean rode his opposition to the war to the front of the pack in the Democratic presidential field. This was made possible in large part by Dean harnessing the nascent blog movement and the organizing power of the Internet to level the financial playing field with an absolute blizzard of small-time contributors. By combining grass-roots political practices with the technological possibilities of the Web, Dean managed to bring the antiwar movement into the mainstream and changed forever the ability of political insiders in both parties to dictate party nominations by fiat. Personally, I regard the former as a great negative and the latter as a great positive, but the far-reaching influence is undeniable and led to his selection as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

4. Osama bin Laden. I imagine that an explanation of bin Laden's influence in the 2000s needs little elaboration. The fact that he's not #1 on the list is certainly a measure of the extremely consequential presidency we've lived under for the last seven years. The phrase "9/11 changed everything" became a cliche long ago, but as I always say, cliches get to be cliches because they are true. OBL belongs on the list if for no other reasons than the fear he instilled by launching the first attack on the American mainland since the War of 1812 and the resulting security measures that followed -- and those factors are just the tip of the iceburg. There's certainly a spot waiting for bin Laden in Hades, but in the meantime, he resides both in the hinterlands of Pakistan and at #4 on our list of the decade's most influential people.

1. (TIE) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. For one man to trump bin Laden's influence this decade in the aftermath of 9/11 would have seemed unlikely, but three would have seemed preposterous! Yet, the style of governance in America the last seven years has made it so. Bush is, as he says, "The Decider," and must therefore be listed here as the man with the final word. But his chief deputies belong right with him for the directions they've successfully pushed for him to adopt, Cheney in foreign policy and Rove in domestic policy.

First, Cheney. He and his neoconservative fellow-travelers persuaded Bush to enter into war in Iraq. Effects of this conflict will be felt for decades. Most are negative, from the diminishing of our deterrent threat around the world to hostility stirred up in Arab countries to the trillions of dollars we are sending over there to the fact that the American people were able to turn against a war so quickly after 9/11. Cheney was the chief backer of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the successes of 2007 would never have occurred if Rumsfeld had not been forced out and the surge policy inserted in. The positive side of the ledger for Cheney is mostly in his rare forays into domestic policy, such as pushing Bush to pursue positive tax policies (leaving aside the disastrous spending ones).

Rove, while no longer in government, did more to shape Bush's theories on government than any other figure. Like the Clintons, he merged policy with politics in a crude manner. Unlike the Clintons, he was not quite so skilled at it. True, he helped Bush manage to slip across the finish line in 2004, although the jury is out about whether it could have been accomplished against a candidate better than the pathetic John Kerry. Rove's notion of "compassionate conservatism," a feel-good compilation of contradictory blather, became Bush's domestic governing philosophy and ultimately his political undoing along with the Iraq mess. Rove had greedy dreams of stitching together a Republican dynasty like the one in the early 1900s, but he sold the conservative soul to do so. From education (the horrific "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle and reprehensible sellout of poor kids by abandoning vouchers in the face of bullying from Ted Kennedy) to health care (burdening generations to come with the asinine Medicare prescription drug fiasco) to spending (completely condoned as long as Republicans were operating Congress and operating the old pork dispenser) to immigration (let the illegals flow in unchecked so that Big Business contributors can hire them for 10 cents per hour) to the basic issue of competence in government (Katrina, which in fairness was also victimized by state and local lack of government), the Rove/Bush philosophy of trying to build a permanent majority by being all things to all people did nothing but alienate the base. Their tone-deaf White House political apparatus was constantly a day late and a dollar short in answering Democratic attacks after the 2004 reelection campaign and led straight to the debacle of 2006. There would be no Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid were it not for the bumbling of this Republican trinity. Even as they fade into history, however, their legacy will loom strong for at least a quarter century. And that gives them a collective influence the likes of nobody else this decade.