Can Bush Push Mush? Another Legacy Leaving Opportunity Lost

For all the years I have followed Pakistani politics, from the inside as a student political leader, or from the outside as a media person, I have always been amazed by the huge number of historic opportunities squandered by Pakistan, Pakistanis and Pakistani generals, judges and politicians.

From the dictator Zia having an opportunity to clean up the country of corruption, to Benazir Bhutto doing something for womenkind and education, history was wasted. Ghulam Ishaq Khan was thrust into the role of President and blew a historic opportunity for him to be apolitical, and have a chance to be someone Pakistanis would remember as a hero.

Alas, once in power in most countries, and especially in Pakistan, elected and unelected heads of state, regardless of being 40 years old or 70, seem to live in the moment, for the moment, and moment by moment. Even the aged Ghulam Ishaq Khan did more to enrich his relatives, and play political games, than grab the incredible opportunity he had to become a new father figure in Pakistani history.

It is amazing that in Pakistan's 61 years, there is not a single head of state who has tried to, or left, a legacy good enough for Pakistanis to consider adding his (or her) photo on even a (now defunct) One Rupee note.

We now have a situation that is eerily similar to what we have seen before. A dictator, even more unpopular than Zia, is clinging to power, simply because one of the most unpopular American Presidents, ever, George W. Bush's grand foreign policy for the South Asian region is --- 'we stand by Musharraf.'

Perhaps Bush supports Mush because it ensures there is at least ONE President who is more unpopular than Bush himself is! But, jokes aside, even a tragic accident of history like George W. Bush is trying, belatedly and with no success, to spend the next 6 months trying to "leave a legacy."

I can easily say Musharraf is a far smarter and more cunning man than Bush ever was, or will be. But, one thing they both share in common besides the sound of their names - no understanding of how legacies are left.

They do not understanding that a legacy is not created by clinging to power, or failed ideas, but by doing things in the greater interest, things bigger than what even our biggest admirers could imagine us doing. Legacy and history smile on us when we do things even we could not imagine being selfless, brave and visionary enough to do. When we become bold enough to stop living for our own egos today, but to step aside now, so the future can look back on us with respect.

Alas, neither Bush, nor Mush, get the concept, which is why they are both close to each other in how history will not remember them. They are among the most unpopular, ineffective, and impeachable Presidents - though they rule over countries thousands of miles apart, and worlds apart in political, religious and social systems.

Three Blind Mice Or One Boring Politician?

A FaceBook friend of mine, Amanda Bateman, posted a comment on her profile page with an interesting premise - that the three leading anchors on regular TV, Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson (plus, one assumes, their networks) are biased against poor Senator John McCain.

Her brief posting, cutely titled, "Three Blind Mice", simply stated, "And the biased media continues...should we be surprised? Probably not."

That was followed by the following three URLs.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/07/17/network-anchors-join-obama-world-tour-little-coverage-mccain-travel

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/if_a_network_anchor_falls_in_t.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6274320


Not that the media does NOT have a bias. Of course it does. It always appears biased in favor of whoever you oppose! But I was amused to read the first link. So, I posted a follow up note to Ms. Bateman'sc comment.

I acknowledged that she did make a valid point. But I went on to say that it was amusing to read the first link and have a real pro-Republican blogger quote the... (gulp)... New York Times for an objective comment. :-)

I did not check that blog's previous postings to see what they may have to say about some opinions that Fox News Channel simply is a Republican Party propaganda machine.

This is not to defend the anchors Amanda criticized above, or their myopic lemming-like networks. But, let's not forget that, media bias not withstanding, the media reports things based on interestingness from the public's perspective.

So, Britney Spears' sister having a baby gets on the cover of People magazine but not, say, the Sudanese leader possibly being charged with genocide.

Is that particular choice a show of "bias" against black politicians or world leaders? Of course not - though I am sure some will want to think so. No. We have to look at other possible angles also.

Even my Republican friends, and objective conservative media professionals all admit, McCain has just not been a very interesting candidate or politician in a very long while. He is NOT good at thinking on his feet when an unfamiliar question is posed to him.

(See this video online of him totally lost and clueless http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/mccain_respect_contraception/ ).

He seems uncomfortable with his position. All he can do is appear "resolute" in sticking to the failed policy of the war in Iraq.

People immediately "accuse" me that I must be some extreme liberal, or Democrat, if I dare criticize anything about Republicans. But, in fact, I am a thorough independent.

Ironically, I had been a loud supporter of John McCain for President in 2000 and fully believe we would have been far better off as a nation having him, despite his somewhat loose-cannon personality, as President than the joke of the millennium George W. Bush that fate, and the Supreme Court, foisted on us.

(2004's re-election of George Bush is something Republicans and his voters have to take the blame for and know that history will judge their actions as the most destructive single influence starting America's decline in the world at a time it should have been getting far more loved, respected and emulated worldwide).

So, much that I supported McCain over Bush in 2000, and much that I respected him for being a war hero (as opposed to a war Zero like Bush), I cannot bring myself to support him for President of the United States in 2008. He has served his country ably, well, sincerely, and should be commended and respected for that. That alone is not reason to elect him President.

Does that mean, somehow, that Obama is the perfect candidate. Surely not. Obama can make mistakes, Hillary can still cause trouble enough for the Democracks -- sorry - Democrats to lose the election.

That means McCain can obviously not give up. But, just being a candidate does not a campaign make. He needs to smarten up. He has no momentum at present. He has no great ideas. He is sticking to bad ideas on Iraq. He is not exciting to the populace. Even worse, especially from the media perspective, he is just not interesting anymore.

That is what his campaign in disarray has to focus on. Try to make him be more exciting, interesting, and, yes, more creative and original than he is at present. Can it be done?

What do you think?

Rude Giuliani Out, Florida Voters Got This One Right

While Florida voters may have been the butt of many jokes for the last 8 years - that just happen to coincide with the George W. Bush presidency - at least the Republican primary voters got one thing right.

They brought to an end the implausible, and frankly, embarrassing, attempt of a third-rate politician like Rudy Giuliani to run for President.

Most people know where I stand on that, as I wrote less than one year ago.

Nothing can make up for the damage my Floridian friends did to the USA in enabling Bush to get selected by the Supreme Court. But at least the Republican voters in Florida sent Giuliani packing, back to New York.

Now he can go back to making money by cashing in on 9/11 some more.

Ideally, he and Kerik would both be cell-mates somewhere.

But that may only happen in some parallel universe somewhere else.

For now, Giuliani Out is the best piece of news for our nation.

Experience Of Counting On "Discounting Experience"

I pride myself on being quite a contrarian and try to be bluntly fair and balanced. That means I will often find people who fully agree with me on some issue, but will then do a full 180 degree turn when my logical approach exposes some pet cause of theirs.

On more than one occasion I have admired Charlie Cook's opinions, and find myself agreeing with him a lot in his regular column at GOVEXEC.COM.

I especially loved the latest topic he wrote about, called Discounting Experience. It talks of people falling and wanting to fall for marketing and hype in selecting Presidential candidates over experienced but less hyped ones.

But his million Dollar quote was about that pseudo-candidate Rude Giuliani - whose MANY ills, flaws and skeletons Cook does not even delve into. He simply sums it with the brilliant observation that "All told, Giuliani has more baggage than a Samsonite warehouse."

I salute Charlie Cook for calling it as it is and encourage you to read his analysis at GOVEXEC.

Yes, Giuliani did a decent job of fighting white collar crime, but he was a bigot (I have written about specific examples of his bigoted actions on my site even before the advent of "blogs" e.g. 9/22/2001 and even earlier), racist (many other media sources can list examples) and champion of corrupt cronies, on which a book could be written (and would probably be another way for that bald-corrupt crony of his ex NY cop Bernie Kerik and his equally unsavory mistress, publisher Judy Regan, to make money).

Giuliani's biggest skill - besides nepotism, where he could give George W. Bush a run for (our) money - is milking his happening to be Mayor of New York on 09/11. Its about time he let go of exploiting that tragedy.

So, are people really discounting experience, as Charlie thinks in his article, and I agree, or are they going for the best candidates? What do you think?