I'm glad to see that Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty is at the top of the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. It's a very well-written book, and a very very impressive piece of work.
It's also interesting that so very little of it has been challenged--by anybody. George W. Bush has said that he wasn't clueless on the issues O'Neill wanted to talk to him about, but that he merely found O'Neill boring (which isn't really a challenge). Mitch Daniels has said that George W. Bush knows more about and is more engaged in policy than Ronald Reagan was--which also does not contradict O'Neill's assessment that in a meeting Bush is like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." Alan Greenspan has pseudo-denied quotes attributed to him by saying that while it is rare for his and Paul O'Neill's recollections to differ, in this case they do (but he does not say how their recollections differ).
And it is hard to read something like Suskind's account of the November 26, 2002 meeting of NEC principals and political staff without George W. Bush without concluding that George W. Bush does indeed act remarkably clueless: he does remind one of a blind man in a room full of deaf people.
For this reason it is important to register that Suskind's sources for this and other meetings are orders of magnitude better than the sources for the usual Bob Woodward-type book, in which all meetings have Woodward's principal source looking like a true genius. Suskind has shorthand transcripts.
And that, I think, is the real reason that administration has challenged only one thing (that I am aware of) in The Price of Loyalty--this line: George W. Bush: "Are you proposing we accelerate all the tax cuts, or just for those in the middle? Won't the top-rate people benefit the most from eliminating the double taxation of dividends? Didn't we already give them a break at the top?" For some reason people inside the administration are willing to claim that this and only this in The Price of Loyalty simply did not happen.
Posted by DeLong at February 16, 2004 08:39 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postNever underestimate the power of denial.
Posted by: Alan on February 16, 2004 08:47 PMThank you for your approval of the book despite your disapproval of O'Neill as an economist.
I too am very glad and reassured by the sale of this book. Let's hope that these numbers are more important than the Daytona 500 numbers are reputed to be.
About the detail ("this and only this") where insiders claim that O'Neill is fabricating --who are they and what do they stand on? O'Neill has documents (19,000), some of which must support his contention.
Must be great to have these guys as insiders though as the book is a thorough condemnation of Bush with or without 'this'.
The other "debate" surrounding the book, IIRC, was Larry Lindsey's WSJ Op-Ed.
Did the Good Professor issue a rebuttal? If so, I missed it.
Posted by: praktike on February 16, 2004 09:56 PMThe sad part is that Bush is being surrounded by so many other scandals that O'Neil's allegations simply aren't getting play in the media any more. The WMD, AWOL, and somewhat the Budget have been the stories of late.
Is there a limit to the amount of scandal the media can focus on? Seems to me that O'Neil's book proves their is.
http://balta.blogspot.com
Posted by: Balta on February 16, 2004 11:02 PMI totally agree: a fascinating and clear account, highly readable and very informative. Glad to see it at the top of the best-seller list.
Posted by: BayMike on February 17, 2004 05:48 AM"[The]administration has challenged only one thing (that I am aware of) in The Price of Loyalty--this line: George W. Bush: 'Are you proposing we accelerate all the tax cuts, or just for those in the middle? Won't the top-rate people benefit the most from eliminating the double taxation of dividends? Didn't we already give them a break at the top?'"
Well, you've got to admit that the line sounds out of character for this president . . .
Ah-ha! Didn't I say that it would be the reported Bush quotes that would make trouble?
I don't know if it sounds like him or not. I've never subscribed to the notion that the current Pres is stupid, so I don't doubt that he could make an alert and correct observation about something of intense and genuine interest. And the true incidence of the tax cuts would certainly be a subject of intense and genuine interest -probably to him and certainly to his staff, so perhaps he picked up some scuttlebutt.
I think it will be very interesting to see his reaction to the following line of questioning:
1. Is quote "XXXX" accurate? Did you say it?
2. Well, then, what did you say, or what is your line of thinking on that?
He will have to do this for a number of doozy quotes.
Now that the admin has admitted that their social welfare reform proposal will cost money, his "What are you talking about?" response to O'Neill's comment about SS reform transition costs is a candidate.
Forsan miseros meliora sequentur - For those in misery perhaps better things will follow. (Virgil)
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet - A timid dog barks more violently than it bites. (Curtius Rufus)
Fac ut gaudeam - Make my day
Sane ego te vocavi. Forsitan capedictum tuum desit - I did call. Maybe your answering machine is broken
Potes currere sed te occulere non potes - You can run, but you can't hide