And that was just the front end of Will's column, which all by itself should convince Atrios to declare him Wanker of the Day.

Apparently it's more important to courtiers like Will that people Make Nice to our 60-year-old Boy King than it is for the Boy King to actually have to confront the criticism of a man like Jim Webb. For we all know that, even if Webb had been sweet as molasses to Bush at that party, neither Webb nor anyone like him would have had a more 'appropriate' opportunity to offer any criticisms at a later time.

And this Making Nice is so important to Will that he'll lie about those who don't conform with his code.

But let's talk about the rest of Will's column, which starts:

Even before his studied truculence in response to the president's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in the Wall Street Journal that began this way:

"The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country."

Well.

And after that huffy grande dame-ish 'Well,' Will criticizes the quality of Webb's prose, his use of 'literally' and 'infinitely,' as well as the lack of precise definition of 'top tier,' anything to avoid having to take on Webb's argument head-on.

And this is from a guy who everybody pretends is one of the creme de la creme of pundits.

Will here resembles no one so much as the English teacher in Up the Down Staircase who, on receiving a love letter from a student, corrects it.

What a bozo.

If there's one thing we should learn by now its that these arch conservatives are authoritarian and paternalistic, and nothing gets their back up more than a sign of disrespect to their daddy.

A polite question about his son?

Give me a break! This is just the kind of point bloggers should be making.

Bush has put Webb's son in danger. His question is like a little kid asking, as he hangs a puppy by its hind legs out of a second-floor window, "How's your dog?"

The question was aggressive and abusive.

It's official. Milhous is now the wanker of the day, according to Atrios.

Look, Webb doesn't like the President and isn't interesting in making small talk with him. I think we all know people about whom we feel the same way. I don't see why anyone thinks this is a big deal. It's not like Bush is always courteous to people, from what I've read, heard, and seen.

Webb should have retorted, "How are your girls? I heard they got thrown out of Argentina recently. I happen to know of a country where they could desperately use a few more able-bodied young Americans."

George Will has numerous instances of journalistic dishonesty. Let's just add this one to the pile.

One wonders why Will would run to Bush's defense since Will's been pretty disrespectful toward Bush himself recently--at least in the Miss Manners terms set by the Beltway class. I think RT above has it exactly right. Will sees Webb as a potential populist critic of Will's beloved market forces. He's distorting this episode in what will turn out to be an extended effort to undermine Webb's credibility before the Senator builds any momentum and his probing questions go beyond Iraq and straight to the heart of the matter: the nasty nature of market forces in the modern world.

Did anyone else think it amusing that Will cautioned Webb that "people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves."  Given how full of himself Will is I suspect he doesn't appreciate competition as most sanctimonious wordsmith in Washington.

I haven't made up my mind about Webb yet.   I'm not from Virginia but I was curious when I read his op/ed in the WSJ and Billmon's post so I watched his interview on Meet the Press.  I remember thinking Webb communicates better in writing.  On MTP he looked very uncomfortable and almost ready to stroke out.

It is also amusing to see Webb being enshrined by so many on the left who are destined to be disappointed and who will eventually turn on him.  His Southern Scotch-Irishness is too antithetical to their worldview and his manner too brusque.  There's bound to be a falling out.

Good perspective.  I kind of wish the exchange hadn't been reported but since it was what I really want to know is whose face got redder during the exchange. 

I believe the Mr. Bush knew exactly why Mr. Webb avoided his "gestures," and that a more dignified president would have deferred with respect rather than demonstrated pissy contempt. To mask alpha-dog posturing as "concern" for Mr. Webb's "boy" is perhaps the most breathtaking illustration of Bush’s inability to grasp the gravity of war.

It is also amusing to see Webb being enshrined by so many on the left who are destined to be disappointed and who will eventually turn on him. His Southern Scotch-Irishness is too antithetical to their worldview and his manner too brusque. There's bound to be a falling out.

This lefty wouldn't care if Webb was a bloody English lord. Certainly Webb has had some less than appealing thoughts and his continuing admiration of Reagan is confusing to say the least.

What Webb is saying about the chasm between haves and have nots is in polar opposition to the amorphous middle class of Bill Clinton and all DLC'ers.

The middle class bull is stock in trade for even the like of Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown, who pretend to liberal credentials. It brands the speakers as Republican Lites while being styled as populists, of all things.

Gimme more, Jim, and use any damn accent you like. Hell I would even like what he was saying if he were Prince Charles though I might have to throw up.

Best, Terry

The question reflects the way the President plays dominance games. It's on a par with his handing people nicknames. The only way to effectively deal with people who play dominance games is to call them on it, as Webb did. The reference to Webb's Marine son as "your boy" is also a way of asserting alpha status.

It's particularly destructive to have someone in office who chooses substanceless dominance games. Most politicians, and all presidents, play these games in one way or another. Clinton's famous habit of doing crossword puzzles while being briefed was a dominance game. But it was a game that showed off his capacity for multi-tasking. Bush's dominance games are frat-boy games. He gets to do these things because he's president, not because he's the smartest guy in the room (Clinton) or the most politically savvy (Johnson) or the toughest (Nixon). He uses the presidency to advance his personal standing, rather than vice versa.

This is not a good thing. You see a different result of this in Maliki standing up the President. A competent president would not have allowed that to happen. If the meeting was politically impossible, any other president would not have tried to schedule it. Bush, OTHO, seems to think that because he is the decider and the strategeryist people will fall at his feet.

Webb didn't. Maliki didn't.

There's gonna be more of that as the duck gets lamer.

This middle-classer (growing up in the 90s) did well under Clinton. My friends on the lower end of the economic spectrum also did better than they were before Clinton took office. The reason why the Clintons enjoy strong support amongst African-Americans and Hispanics (groups disproportionately at the lower end of the ladder) is precisely because they were better after Clinton then they had ever been: incomes up, more going to college, more getting to save money. But of course, "Clinton and the DLC".

The left quadrant of bloggerspace needs to bombard the Washington Post ombudsman about this one. Go to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/deborah+howell/

Laney

As a Virginian who volunteered in the Webb campaign I would agree that there's much about Webb that may not sit well with mainstream progressives. But what is so appealing is his reasoned scepticism of authority that is mostly absent today from elected officials, and his resistance to the conventions that enable politics as usual. It would be unfortunate if that makes it impossible for him to be an effective member of Congress. But he has a dignified if sometimes brittle rebelliousness should make him a senator worth watching (and applauding) even as we disagree with his views.

Hasn't this got wierd echoes of David Broder's complaint about the "foul-mouthed bloggers" on the left...

The "lack of civility" argument is of course a rather pathetic and cowardly device to avoid saying - "I don't agree with what you stand for". Because that's all Will's argument amounts to.

But what really gets me is this. Webb has spent the last 6 months campaigning vociferously on an anti-Iraq platform. He arrives in Washington, and he confirms, in the face of the President, that his campaign wasn't some kind of bullsh*t political charade. It was real. The man really cares about what's happening in Iraq, and resents the appalling political leadership that got us to the where we are now. And he doesn't hide his feelings.

Yet George Will finds this offensive. The man is obviously drunk on kabuki-politics, and Webb's gonna put him into rehab. This could be a lot of fun.

Yes. The proper response to Webb's first answer, that he wanted to bring [all of ] them home, would have been, "I understand. I want that, too. I hope we can work together to achieve that."

Granted, there is a great deal of difference between Webb's wanting to start bringing them home NOW, and Bush's wanting to bring them back only after the "mission" is accomplished, but supposedly he DOES ultimately want to bring them back, so he should have been able to offer that much in the interest of civiity. But no, he's more interested in asserting that alpha-dog status, and he is apparently completely unable to be conciliatory.

As for George F. Will, well -- consider the source. 

I rated this up, only because I just don't see how it constitutes a zero rating. Certainly not a comment that needs to be censored. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

People who complain "Clinton and the DLC" do so not because of the economic success of the Clinton years, but because of DLCers like Marshall Wittmann and Will Marshall and their lectures about how unAmerican we dirty, filthy hippie liberals are...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I also did not think it warranted a zero and have rated it up. I'm surprised at the number of zeroes, though.

I am from Virginia. I was skeptical about Webb in the beginning, given his Republican background and some rather disturbing positions from the past, but he has grown on me, and I have come to think that this guy is the Real Deal. And he is not afraid of a fight, a trait that Washington Democrats are desperately in need of.

I didn't see his whole appearance on the last MTP, but if you thought he looked wooden and uncomfortable there, you should have seen him at the beginning of the Senate campaign -- he's actually loosened up a lot since then. But you're right -- this is not a guy who naturally comfortable talking. He's a doer. And if his words and personal interactions sometimes get him into hot water, I think it may simply be because he's a very straight shooter and says exactly what he thinks without trying to filter or soften it. He may have to learn to temper his candor, but for now it's rather refreshing in an era in which political leaders freely admit to lying and don't even bother to apologize for it.

One thing that really sold me on Webb was the conclusion (final four paragraphs) of this piece in The Nation. Sure, I expect that over the course of the next six years, there will be issues on which I disagree with Webb's position, but as long as he remains the sort of guy who is willing to do what he thinks is right regardless of how it might affect his political career, I think he can't go far wrong.

Thanks for the link and the comment.  As I said I haven't made up my mind yet because I don't feel I know enough yet to form an opinion about Webb.  The Nation article helps a lot particularly this paragraph which encapsulates my feelings very well.

As he came to political consciousness in the 1960s, Webb grew offended by the attitude civil rights activists--"liberal Yankees," in particular--took toward working-class whites in the South. "The fight over ending legal racial segregation," he writes in Born Fighting, "ended up demonizing people who had shared the same social and economic dilemma as the blacks themselves." The venom should have been directed, Webb believes, at the small class of wealthy Southern (and Northern) whites who had always controlled Dixie's economy and insured the continuation of Jim Crow.

I intend to read more especially Born Fighting.  I read Albion's Seed and James Leyburn's The Scotch-Irish, several years ago and really enjoyed them.

According to George Will, Babe Ruth hit his 60th home run after his 50th. The in-between was irrelevant. And the guy who served up #60 is responsible for all ten, in GWillieWorld.

As for whether Webb fits my liberal vision, no, he doesn't. But he's progressive in the sense that he won't ignore the plight of the working stiff. If all Southern conservative Dems mirrored that, instead of being DINOs, the party would never be in the minority again.

Kevin Hayden

It is well known that Webb refused to talk about his personal life during the election, neither his soldier son nor his pregnant Vietnamese third wife. The combat boots were enough.

So Webb got mad because Bush was pushing him on a question that everyone knew he would not answer. That was pretty rude on Bush's part. But I guess Bush was just unaware that Webb wouldn't answer, just like he is unaware of so much else in his world.

*******************************************

This is the first time I have ever heard that Webb wouldn't discuss his personal life during the campaign. I bet most people don't know that. It's also one thing to resolve not to discuss something during a campaign but to carry that through to a social situation? That's pretty weird. Especially a question as innocuous as this one.

I frankly don't think anyone can say much about this without hearing the tone in which the words were said.

I've read all of Webb's books and admired them. My family is Scotch-Irish from Arkansas like his and I particularly enjoyed "Born Fighting." I have to agree with a comment up-thread: I think a lot of progressives who see Webb as their hero today are going to be very disappointed down the line. His cultural values are 180 degrees from theirs and he's obviously not shy about propounding them no matter what anyone says.

You have to remember that this guy resigned as Sec Navy because Reagan wouldn't follow through on his committment to expand the Navy to 600 ships. Be prepared for some long faces on the Democratic Left over the next six years.

ABrod said:

Will you guys get a frikking life!

Webb made the first snide comment by not responding to a polite question about his son (and instead taking the opporutnity to address contoversial issue (at least to Bush) of getting out of Iraq). Bush returned it with a snide retort of his own.

Bullshit.
Dictionary.com:
"Snide: derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner..."

So just how was Webb's first comment derogatory in any way? Are you saying that its inherently disrespectful to express an opinion contrary to the President's policies?

Wow? Journalistic misbehavior?

Give me a break.

This is the kind of junk that gives blogging a bad name.

So good blogging means making excuses for journalistic misbehavior?

-Dave Adams-

There are two aspects to this I think are being overlooked, and each point is clearly related to the other.

1) Webb as a parent, not just a Senator Elect.

There are people with children and spouses in serving in Iraq, who are just plain fed-up with the pandering of this administration. On PBS News Hour in August 2005, they did an interview with the Ohio parents of a marine who died in Iraq. If you recall 20 marines from the same unit died that month.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/ohio_8-09.html

The thing that struck me was that the father was able to take that his son had to serve, and might have to die, but was furious that W. and his minions were not doing anything to adjust to a changing war!

2) Webb, as politician, clearly understands the power image. Had W. gotten the answer to his question, the anecdote would be shopped around to FOX and Mathews so they could paint the President as a Hawk with a Heart. As a former Secretary of the Navy, and Soldier, I know this point was not lost on Webb. However, as I parent being asked/invited to parade his own anxiety for the gain of a total chicken hawk proved too much.

Official Washington, Will included, is too caught up in their own morass to recognize that Webb spoke as an American father, not Senator!

Perhaps the W. could have gotten more cooperation had he returned to Iraq for yet another surprise Thanksgiving dinner.

Jim Webb we salute you! Mission Accomplished!

One thought.

Does the thought of President Bush walking up to a parent of serviceman currently in Iraq and asking him "how is your Boy" seem just a little sinister?

Is this Texas Oil Mafia code for "vote my way or your son is going to be walking point in Ramadi for his whole tour"?

Amen.

I am a huge baseball fan, and four pages of Will's writing on baseball almost made me give it up for life.

What's really rich are Will's comments about civilty in Washington.What did the Republican stooge say when Rasputin,...er Cheney,was dropping the F-bomb in the Senate?

I don't get it. If Bush's question is considered polite so was Webb's response. Webb wants to get the troops out of Iraq. So does George Bush. In fact, it is the official policy of the United States to get them home as soon as possible.

If Bush's reported follow-up is accurate, *that* was the first rude thing said by either one. And it isn't at all out of character for Shrub. How anyone can defend that is mind boggling.

And we're surprised because...?

George Will has made a career out of being the pre-Ann Coulter Ann Coulter.

The MSM editors always seem to give their big name columnists free rein to distort. It's a slippery slope that quickly leads downhill to Fox News and right-wing talk radio.

I don't think 0 ratings get censored based on their rating, although I agree that 0 should be reserved for the most trollish comments.

The members of our armed forces are not "boys." They may have gone over to Iraq as "boys" but (if they are male)they most assuredly now are "men." Then again, it's not surprising that a President who has been more concerned to maintain tax cuts for the uber-wealthy than to supply these "boys" adequately is patronizing toward them.

A buck says W also did his offensive 'lean-in-too-close' when he asked about the 'boy.'

I'm not gauging the tone of anything. An earlier post implied that Bush asked a civil question and Webb's answer was rude. All I'm saying is that if anyone considers Bush's question polite then Webb's answer must be, too. He only stated what Bush has said a hundred times: he wants the troops to come home. The person who first spoke rudely was Bush. That should be obvious if the reports are accurate.

I do not recall the algorithm, but if some number of trusted users apply a zero, the comment vanishes from the screen of untrusted users and from trusted users who choose not to view zeroed comments. The rule of the road here is that zero is reserved for trolls and spam. There's an unfortunate tendency for some people to rate a post zero for political content. I didn't think the post was particularly thoughtful or informative, but it didn't drop to the level of troll.

I'm tired of people getting down on Bush for this little flap. It is just more of the guy's straight-talking, no-nonsense style. "Just the facts, ma'am."

"I didn't ask about what happens to teen pregnancy rates in the absence of mandatory sexual education, I asked how we can remove sex ed from Texas schools."

"I didn't ask if it would be easier to secure Iraq with 300-400,000 troops, I asked if we could roll over the Iraqi military with 100,000."

"I didn't ask about a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, I asked for another Arnold Palmer."

Do you think he was trying to stick the knife into Webb, or do you think this is just how he talks to people these days?

Look, Will's point was about respecting the office, and he's defending the least "presidential" holder of the office since Andrew Jackson. A properly presidential opener should have been to thank Webb for his son's service.

Without video, we have to draw on all we know about Bush to supply his tone and intent. His proclivity toward the snide and vindictive, and the universal knowledge and acceptance of this as a fair cop to his character is what is behind the universal disgust with Will's journalistic dishonesty. Without Bush's snotty rejoinder, his opener could be taken for his typical-fake downhome Texas crudeness. For Will to leave out the key piece of the exchange "That's not what I asked you," is worthy of the blogswarm it's gotten.

It's a very Nixonian attutude Will brings to his work; well, if the President does it, it's Presidential, I guess.

I think Tester, Sanders and Webb may be able to avoid the Senate Syndrome, bringing the total up to five, with Feingold and Leahy in the group.

Senate Syndrome? Herd of sheep?

From years ago, Alexander Cockburn's raging against Bernie Sanders as a sellout still rings in my ears. I suspect not many would qualify for Cockburn's blessing but it was still rather ironic considering Cockburn has been generally labeled a socialist. My impression of Cockburn's actual leanings are very much that of a rather eccentric Jeffersonian.

Tester's appeal to the effervescent middle class puts him in sharp contrast with Webb but Tester's stirring attack on the Patriot Act should thrill anyone with the slightest liberal pretensions.

Indeed it is good to have some strong independent voices but what about Byron Dorgan? A mixed record but man oh man is he a hawk on fair trade. Don't hear much about him but he seems to be a bit of a maverick to me from what little I know.

Best, Terry

Sam, are you implying that Ann stole George's Adam's Apple?

Neoboho