Gonzo and Billary

The long overdue resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was followed by a pro forma speech of regret by his Fearless Leader, President Bush. Bush said absolutely nothing about the obvious reasons for Gonzo's departure--his lying, his cluelessness, his badgering of an ailing John Ashcroft to help subvert the Bill of Rights--deciding instead to blame politics for the situation that brought his departure. Well, in a way he was right. It was politics that got him into the mess in the first place. Bush, still teetering in rhetorical ineptitude since Rove (purportedly) left the White House, was coming off his bizarre recasting of history by equating Iraq and Vietnam, not as awful morasses but as examples of the egregious bloodletting that would transpire once we abandon our mission there.

Nothing, of course, about the destruction and slaughter that ensued, in both cases, from our ill-advised adventuresome incursions, but let's let that pass. Bush's credibility among all but Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and the Veterans of Foreign Wars is at a laughably low level. As for Gonzo, the failure is emblematic of the basic problem undermining all of Bush's appointments. He has always valued loyalty over competence. Now loyalty, per se, is not an objectionable trait. The problem is that for a person to be unquestioningly loyal to an executive who is narrow, stubborn, totally devoid of historical sense, and a champion of ignorance means that the appointee must generally share those traits, or are able to cynically suppress them for venial political advantage. Ergo we have the Harriett Myers, the Brownies, the Gonzos, ad infinitum.

What an administration! Still sixteen months to go, and the economy is beginning to crumble along with our infrastructure.

Meanwhile a brief encounter I had with a neighbor clued me into a likely reality for 2008. It was a loud political discussion, but not because we disagreed (though we did), but because the other fellow was 80 per cent deaf, so we had to yell at each other across the lawn on wich we were walking our dogs. The old man initiated the talk, asking me who would be the 2008 President. It was a tough question--the field is certainly wide open--but in the end I posited that Barack would win, because he's the only fresh face to emerge from the pack, like Clinton and Carter, and most likely to generate popular excitement. The Old Man--I'll call him Dick, since that is his name--pooh-poohed me. So I challenged him, a Republican who has voiced objections about Bush, if he would ever vote for Hillary.

"I would vote for Hillary" he yelled at me, "Because it would be like voting for Bill Clinton." Apparently he'd forgiven Clinton his trespasses and is nostalgic for some return to competence.
I've understood that Hillary's not-so-secret asset, besides her penetrating intelligence, is her husband. It's hard to gauge how important Bill's presence will be in a general election. There are the hard-core conservative who hate them both no matter what, and they'd vote Republican anyway. Then there are the moderate Republicans who see Hillary as the most conservative of the Democrats, and the default choice because she would be the most defeatable Democrat if she won the nomination, and the least liberal if she were to ascend to the White House.

My acquaintance Dick is stodgy, half-witted and barely competent, and as such is a worthy representative of the American voter. If he wants to return to the ' 90s (and who doesn't, except for I-Phone users), then perhaps he reflects a larger emotional reservoir of nostalgia that could vault Hillary into office. Up to now I could not believe that our electorate was sophisticated enough to look beyond her gender. But if they believe that Bill is returning--just as many believed that Bush I would simply be a Reagan redux--then the Billary ticket could be very hard to beat.