Canceling the George and Bill Show

On the way to the Coretta Scott King funeral in Atlanta yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had a quick press briefing aboard Air Force One. A reporter asked about the visit the President and First Lady had with Bill and Hillary Clinton in the morning. McClellan responded:

“The President was visiting with President and Mrs. Clinton — President and Senator Clinton — and Secretary Jackson and Mrs. Jackson, and Secretary Rice. They were in the conference room together…. [T]hey had a good visit. The President is glad to have his brother traveling with us today.” (Laughter.)

Yes, the go-to joke within the Bush White House lately is to play up just how much the president loves Bill Clinton. Even during the State of the Union, Bush worked the material into his speech.

“We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad’s favorite people — me and President Clinton.” (Laughter.)

A couple of days before that, Bush jokingly referred to Bill Clinton as “my new brother” during an interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer. “I check in with Bill Clinton occasionally to see how he’s doing,” Bush said. “He says things that make it obvious to me that we’re kind of, you know, on the same wavelength with the job of the presidency.”

Yesterday, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed went so far as to say, “Dubya chats privately with Bubba about major issues facing the country.”

In one sense, I guess this should be flattering to Dems. Clinton remains the most powerful and popular Democrat in the nation, and the fact that Bush is going out of his way to embrace the former president — after being less than charitable towards him in the past — may strike some as a sign of progress.

But I’m not buying it.

To be sure, it’s nice to see Clinton and H.W. Bush, who’ve now worked together to raise funds for tsunami and hurricane victims, get along so well. The ex-presidents’ club is very small, and I imagine it’s enjoyable for a chief executive to be able to talk with someone who can relate to the similar pressures, burdens, and experiences.

But the constant references to Clinton from the current President Bush have taken on a forced, almost contrived feel. Why would Bush try so hard to remind everyone, as often as possible, about his close connections to Clinton?

I suspect it’s because Clinton has something that Bush doesn’t: high poll numbers. Last summer, an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked respondents, “Thinking back to when Bill Clinton was in office, would you say you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton handled his job as president?” A whopping 62% of Americans said they approved. At the time, the ABC/Post poll showed Bush’s support at 47%, a number which has dropped even lower since.

For Karl Rove & Co., the idea may be to boost Bush’s appeal beyond the far-right base. The president has practically labeled his Democratic critics tax-raising terrorist sympathizers, but Bush can’t be all bad if he’s hanging around with Clinton. Or so the theory goes.

If this is a strategy for Bush to get a bump in popularity, the Bush gang might want to look for a Plan B. The frequent Clinton references only serve to remind people of a time when we had a president who had the country on track — economically, militarily, fiscally, and diplomatically.

The Bush White House seems to enjoy the joke about Clinton being the president’s new sibling, but for many of us, the question will always be, “Why can’t you be more like your brother?”

Reminds me of Michael and Fredo.

  • I smelled sibling rivalry right away at the SOTU. It’s a back-handed slap at Bush 41 for preferring Clinton over Dubya.

  • The comparison that seems most apt to me comes from “The Road to Perdition”. In the movie, Tom Hanks plays a gangster named Mike Sullivan who works for Paul Newman’s mob moss, John Rooney. Rooney looks to Sullivan like a son and the two are very close. Of course, Rooney’s own son, also a gangster, is very jealous of their relationship and ends up stealing money from his own father and eventually forces the father to choose between the two.

    I’m sure those of you who have seen the movie can see the similarities between Rooney’s Son and W.

  • Has anyone ever seen a more pitiful person than W? Anytime you have someone who is completely controlled by others, what you have is a caricature of a man. This man has no soul of his own, so he tries to hitch a ride on Clinton, hoping some of it will rub off. Unfortunately, George is so used to having others define him that he will never be anything but a ghost of a human being. These people make me sick!

  • I saw this over at Huffpo, too. And a day or so ago
    another on Truthout. Sudden fame, CB. Hope
    it doesn’t spoil you. Well deserved though. I
    knew this was a high quality site when I found it last
    summer.

    Will be interesting to compare the comments.

    Warning – Huffpo is infested, absolutely infested
    with trolls. What if they discover The Carpetbagger
    Report? God, I hope not. They can really wreck
    the comments’ sections.

  • The frequent Clinton references only serve to remind people of a time when we had a president who had the country on track — economically, militarily, fiscally, and diplomatically.

    Don’t count on that necessarily happening all by itself. We should help “catapult the propaganda” there.

    No, I wouldn’t buy it either. Everything about Bush is political, and seems to come directly from his staff (ie Rove) rather than himself.

    If he’s really interested in what Clinton has to say now, it’s really too bad that Bush couldn’t have tapped his advice back in, say, 2001.

  • Query whether the frequent name dropping will cause some of Clinton’s mojo to rub off on W, or rather will serve as a constant reminder about how far we’ve traded down from the previous administration.

  • hark,

    Should the Huffpo trolls discover TCR, don’t worry: we’ll torch them with the truth and logic that they are so sheilded from in the Right-Wing-Noise-Machine. It’ll be like bugs on a zapper on a warm summer night…. zzzt!…. zzzt!…. zzzt! I’m just ichin’ to get the chance!! 🙂

  • I’m just ichin’ to get the chance!!

    Be careful what you wish for. Personally, I really value the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments section here and would be sad to see it ruined…

  • Re: the potential trolls.

    Please – be polite. I’d hate to see our own sink to their level of slander, non sequiter attacks, and general viciousness when we criticize the right-wing media for that crap. Take the Barack Obama road to John McCain’s, uh, crankiness. 😀 Debunk, criticize, but don’t degrade the debate further.

  • (Sorry, can’t edit.)

    If, at least, I can presume to ask that of my fellow commenters, of course. Thanks.

  • chaud and Rian,

    Of course the debate would be civilized on my… OUR… part. But, as Harry Truman said, “I just tell the truth about the Republicans, and they think that is Hell.” THAT is what I intend to do, to give them Hell by telling the truth about their beliefs; their “facts;” their argument and debate/forensics skills (or lack thereof); and specious statements — i.e., “bullshit” — will be called EVERY time, without exception. In short, they will know that they have ventured into a reality-based community!!

  • It is no more real than his “consultation” with the former Secretaries of State last month.

  • I’m kind of getting the impression that Bill Clinton has once again turned his charm onto a target and succeeded in breaking that target down.

    It’s not so much the fact that Clinton is both smarter and more of a policy wonk than Bush, than it is that Clinton can make his points clear to the far less subtle mind.

    But just remember, Bill Clinton’s charm is like diet soda. It goes down fine at first, but the after taste is pretty bad.

    But all in all, I think Bush’s fixation on Bill is driving his handlers to distraction 😉

  • as a democrat … well leftist type anyway, i think this overeliance on
    the image of clinton mostly generated from the bleeding to clinton’s
    image the good times of the 90s … not from anything the man
    specifically did is was overhyped, and perhaps 180 degrees wrong.

    There really is no “left” in this country any more and clinton
    contributed to that, while at the same time shining on the
    traditional minorities making them feel good. But do something?
    no.

    Then there is the fact that while Gore has been out at least
    making some comments, Clinton for the most part has remained
    silent. He supports Bush’s actions mostly, though he will not
    even say that… why …. your own answer … polls,

    he does not want his democratic base to see him for what he
    really is.

  • I wonder if it just boils down to “hold your friends close, and your enemies closer” for both Clinton and Bush…

    BTW, although I like Hillary and Bill, I don’t think Hillary will necessarily be the Dem nominee in 2008…I think Mark Warner may well prove to be the stronger candidate over the long run…and his pockets are plenty deep…

  • “I don’t think Hillary will necessarily be the Dem nominee in 2008…”

    I hope the Dem nominee is someone else. Like Warner, Clark, or Feingold, to name a few possibilities. I can’t see Hillary winning any states that didn’t go for Gore and Kerry, and that won’t be enough.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if millions of Republicans stayed home in 2008, but that won’t happen if Hillary is on the ballot.

  • “Brother Clinton” is getting very close to “Comrade Clinton”.
    “Homeland” is getting close to “Fatherland” or “Motherland”.
    “Democracy is on the march ” is morphing into “America Uber Alles”.
    Bush is morphing into a totalitarian state of mind and we are all along for the ride.

  • You really don’t want to invite the right-wing trollistas here. Take a look at what happened to Eric Muller when Glenn Reynolds sent some love his way. Glenn doesn’t allow comments at his place, but he has quite a following of thugs who descend upon sites he links to that do. The miscreants rush in with Rove’s talking points in one hand and the same old musty straw men in the other, oblivious to the fact that they are practically indistinguishable from each other, and turn up the volume. Looks like Eric had to shut comments down in fairly short order.

    I’ve lurked here a long time, and I’m glad to see such a worthy blog get more attention. But until it gets the readership it deserves, be careful of the fights you pick.

  • “There really is no “left” in this country any more and [C]linton contributed to that…” — brucek

    One might make the same point about conservatism in this country, or at least the kind that argues for less federal spending and a smaller, less intrusive government. I’m not sure Clinton intended to abandon the left, but after his wife’s health care proposal/debacle, when the left failed to stand up in strength to achieve universal coverage and future health care cost containment, I’m not sure what the Clinton’s owed to the left wing of their party.

  • KTinOhio,

    I hope the Dem nominee is someone else. Like Warner, Clark, or Feingold, to name a few possibilities. I can’t see Hillary winning any states that didn’t go for Gore and Kerry, and that won’t be enough.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if millions of Republicans stayed home in 2008, but that won’t happen if Hillary is on the ballot.

    100% agree. Plus, the fact of the matter is that Hillary just isn’t that liberal/progressive. Warner, Clark and Feingold are.

  • Comments are closed.