Bush Signs Off with Funny Joke at G8; Rove Praises Obama Campaign While Pundits Dispute Ideology; Dems Prepare to Roll Over Again

At the G8, Bush departs with one of his trademark kidding-on-the-square one liners:

President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: "Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter."

President Bush made the private joke in the summit’s closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would "seriously consider" a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. (Independent)

Haha!  That is a ‘funny’ ‘joke’!

In other news, Karl Rove praises Obama’s ‘brilliant ground game.’  He modestly refrains from using the word ‘Rovian,’ but that is clearly what he means.  After praising its brilliance, he says:

For a campaign that says it wants to end the politics of the Bush-Cheney years, the Obama for President effort has cribbed an awful lot from the Bush-Cheney playbooks of 2000 and 2004. (WSJ)

In addition to praise for Obama’s strategy, he offers some advice. (Psst! Don’t listen to him, Obama campaign! He’s Rovian.) 

But never mind his strategy. At The Washington Post, Dan Balz is finding Obama’s ideology hard to pinpoint.  He gently notes:

One factor in Obama’s success has been his ability to confound both left and right. But while that may be a measure of a skillful politician determined to win a general election, it has left unanswered important questions about his core principles and his presidential priorities. How well he answers them over the coming months will determine the outcome of his race against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Statements he has made over the past month have ignited a debate about who Obama is ideologically.

I.e., People are now wondering about that core: does he have one at all or is he just an empty shell with a hollow core that can be filled with whatever policies are most likely to win?

But Gail Collins takes up for him at The New York Times.  First of all, she says, people who misunderstood Obama just weren’t listening.  Well, she isn’t wrong there.  Second, of all, he does have an ideology:  his ideology is hating stupidity.

I take it she’s trying to say what John Cole said: that Obama is a centrist-pragmatist, and people might as well stop whining about it. The ‘Mmmm, come on, boys and girls, the Kool-Aid might still be delicious!’ tone of her argument is embarrassing, but I’m not saying that she’s wrong in substance. Here’s a quote so you can judge for yourself:

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

It’s not his fault that we missed the message — although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics” involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb. (NYT) (emphasis added)

If I understand her correctly, this is what she’s saying:  When he divided the baby in half like he did with FISA, he’s being antidumb. There’s his core principle! Those complaining weren’t listening!  Ed Kilgore agrees:  progressives were not listening.

So what gives? I honestly don’t know. I tend to agree with Gail Collins’ New York Times column today, which bluntly argues that progressives who accuse Obama of a "move to the center" weren’t paying sufficient attention to, or didn’t take seriously, his long-standing rhetoric about compromise and transpartisan politics.

So, Ms. Collins argues, stop already with the ‘withholding the love’!  In his ‘great Baracky way,’ he was always telling you he stands for compromise!  I doubt that this will cut much ice with progressives if he continues going down the road he’s going. They might have no choice to vote for him, but they’re not necessarily going to stop ‘withholding the love.’

Or maybe — as Dems who don’t like him argue — his ideology is simpler and more cynical:  WIN.  Even if so, he’s still better than McCain in my book.  McCain’s ideology is exactly that:  WIN. But McCain’s answerable to different constituents from Obama when it comes to appointing judges, vetoing legislation, and commanding the armed forces.  The people who will be riding Obama are different from the ones who will be riding McCain.  So whether Obama is a cynic who has been playing us, or just a hands-across-the-aisle pragmatist, it’s still Obama for me by a moonlight mile.

Hey, what do you know:  I’m a pragmatist too!

Speaking of dividing up the baby, Dems — fresh from helping the Republicans gut the 4th amendment — are gearing up to cave on offshore drilling. 

I mean, can you think of anything worse RIGHT NOW than $4 a gallon gas?  Never mind all those frowny-faced bad news bearers who warn that the effects of drilling will be delayed, and that the risk to the environment might far outweigh the risks.  We’re all just going to take those nasty sour old lemons and make lemonade!  (I personally am pinning all my hopes on those crude-oil defecating bugs the Times of London was telling us about).

After all, if you’re really worried about energy policy, just vote for John McCain.  With his super-hot magic plan (’approved’ by 300 economists!) to balance the budget by the simple formula of ‘restrain spending and give more tax breaks while privatizing social security,’ soon we’ll have enough money to buy a new eco-web or even maybe a whole new planet earth!