« Whoa! Car alarms just went off ... | Main | Appreciative geek moment ... »

February 19, 2005

With 'friends' like these ... the GW tapes

How would you feel if your 'old friend' secretly taped your private conversations against the day in the future when you might be a celebrity or person of power?

Well, say hello to Doug Wead.

As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality.

In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush's father, disclosed the tapes' existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them.

Obviously, this "old friend" is anything but, and his excuses for taping GW ...
Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes. ...

Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.

"I believe that, like him or not, he is going to be a huge historical figure," Mr. Wead said. "If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them, too."

... strain credulity. However, what is most interesting about this article that appears in the usually-hostile-to-GWBush NY Times is that the tapes so far revealed by Wead don't yield much in the way of scandal that the Bushate crowd will be able to exploit. Indeed, these tapes, made almost seven years ago show ...
The private Mr. Bush sounds remarkably similar in many ways to the public President Bush. Many of the taped comments foreshadow aspects of his presidency, including his opposition to both antigay language and recognizing same-sex marriage, his skepticism about the United Nations, his sense of moral purpose and his focus on cultivating conservative Christian voters.
This man on the tapes is not a sock-puppet of Cheney's nor Rove's, as charged by some. Nor is he the Machiavellain Bu$Hitler portrayed by others. George W. Bush is, by the NYTimes own admission, a WYSIWYG President.

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gays. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gays, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

Here we have in GW's own words reaffirmation that he is not out to "get" gays or that he operates from "homophobia" and is attempting to "strip gays" of rights. What we have is a restatement of much of non-left's view of gays -- that their personal lives are free to be lived as they like it, but when talk turns to same-sex marriage, a public POLITICAL policy non-leftists should be free to criticize such political policies without being labeled as "homophobes."

Mr. Wead's behavior in this instance is morally reprehensible, regardless of benevolent or malevolent motivations. This betrayal of trust is no small thing. I'm at least thankful that those who may have hoped to have their darkest suspicions about GW confirmed will leave empty-handed and bitterly disappointed.

crossposted at Redstate.org

Posted by Darleen at February 19, 2005 06:39 PM

Comments

I don't get it. To me the NY Times publishing this "secret" taping (and judging from the transcripts published by the NYTimes I hardly think they were secret) is only beneficial to W. They reinforce his "moderate" bullshit. I am way too cycnical to believe any of this and of course had the opposite reaction to this revelation and the fact that NYTimes got right in step and bought the story hook line and sinker.

I put this in the same catagory of the jouranlists they've paid off to parrot and promote their policies and who did not disclose they were paid. Not to mention this whole Jeff Gannon issue. Can you imagine if this had happened in the Clinton White House? OH MY GOD! I hope the Justice departement and the House and Senate's Judiciary Committees investigate how someone got into the White House Press Corp was next to the president every day ever passed the FBI or Secret Service background check - especially since Jeff Gannon wasn't even his REAL name.

Now that's news!

Posted by: Mieke at February 20, 2005 05:54 PM

Mieke

May I respectfully point out your obvious visceral reaction to GW is not rooted in reality.

Unless you believe these SEVEN YEAR OLD TAPES are part of some sort of Zionist/Nazi/Neocon Conspiracy cooked up by Prescott Bush and Arnold Schwartzenegger's Dad before GW was born then you have to accept them for what they are. GW is nearly the same in private as he is in public ... a damned real guy and not some "immoderate" monster you would EMOTIONALLY like him to be.

Second, when you calm down and actually find out the FACTS of the Guckert/Gannon thing (which means NOT reading the viscious gay-bashing at dKos, Atrios or the excerable Americablog) then come back and talk about it. I wrote my own view of this attempt to limit the First Amendment here. Make no mistake about this, Mieke. This is a deliberate attempt by Leftists to demand a LEGAL definition of who is/is not a "real" reporter and thus SHUT OUT people they disagree with.

Gannon GOT A DAY PASS, for crissakes NOT A HARD PASS. And if you don't know the difference, then you have better find out before spouting off.

And if you DO know and are still supporting the personal destruction of Jeff Gannon, I'm disappointed in you. I never figured you were one to agree with tactics worthy of Fred Phelps.

Posted by: Darleen at February 20, 2005 07:47 PM

First, the more important issue have ZERO problem with Gannon. He could have slept with a zebra last night, but I have a HUGE problem with the security detail that's supposed to be protecting the president or is participating in this charade.

My dear friend Nicole, a former big hitter/producer at FOX News in DC (and yes a Republican) wrote this to me:

"to me this is such an interesting story. There are 2 major bodies of organizations that credential reporters and producers in DC, one being the White House press org (not completely run by the WH, but a board of people mostly from the networks who decide) adn then there is the Congressional TV & Radio bd up on the Hill. The one at the Hill is known as being much more critical in letting people in for credentials, and at the height of the dot-come boom, would not let many online media groups or organizations get credentials for some time. It MAJORLY pisses me off when some fake press person gets a highly coveted credential when there are SO many in DC who are waiting their turn from legit groups. How this one went past the White house press organization, is beyond me. I have never in my experience known the board there to let the White House have a heavy hand in deciding who gets credentials, and who doesn't'. In my mind, this is as much the media's fault, as it is the White House's. Everyone who has a seat in that briefing room knows they are in a very special position, with so few spots for so many media members. Its almost like you are representing the group. YUCK."

Julie Davis, a reporter at The Sun of Baltimore and a member of that committee, said Gannon approached the group in April 2004 seeking a Capitol Hill credential for Talon News, but he was refused.

From Editor & Publisher "We asked for evidence that they were an independent news organization," Davis told E&P. "That they were not connected to a political organization, and they could not provide that, so we denied them their credential." She also said Talon News could not prove it carried paid advertising or paid circulation, two other criteria for approval."

No matter what you say there is no way you can convince me that this man worked for any kind of news organization and was worthy of one of the coveted passes. Yeah, he got a "day pass" but virtually every day. But more importantly the White House, hopefully was in on it, as part of their pay-journalists-to-regurgitate-our-message program (in his case apparently virtually word for word from WH press releasees), otherwise, if they didn't know he was using an alias, or anything about his background, I am very concerned about the security of our President (I mean that sincerely).

Not to mention, and I have to do more research on this because you know how it is on the web, but I have read numerous reports that Gannon has been subpoenaed for the "Novak affair".

Second, I was yanking your chain a bit. Your side always has these wild conspiracies about my side, when I read the report in the NYTimes today (it might actually have been front page on the LA Times, I can't remember which one I read this morning) I couldn't believe it was a front page story, and as I read the content I couldn't help rolling my eyes at these "secret" tape which put Bush in such an "honorable" self-aware light. Yeah - I really dislike him that much. I admit it.

Quick update: Ari Fleischer and McClellen talk about it with Editor and Publisher here Feb 18th:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808705

Sorry your vacation was so rain filled. Hopefully you had lots of time to snooze and read.

Posted by: Mieke at February 20, 2005 09:35 PM

That should have read "I have zero problem with Gannon".

This isn't about him at all. Who cares about him?

Posted by: Mieke at February 20, 2005 09:36 PM