Let's Bash Georges
George Will is taking well-earned lumps for Dowdifying the George Bush side of the Bush-Webb showdown. Greg Sargent of TPM Cafe spotted Will's use of the Dowdifier; David Weigel of Reason joins in.
Ann Althouse finds a different reason to disagree with George Will:
I don't think Webb has quickly picked up the Washington style. I think he's got the novelist's style, and he's his own hero Senator in a novel about Washington. And, what immense fun this is going to be!
I think both Bush and Webb behaved badly, but I don't have particularly high expectations (or hopes) for Webb.
MORE: Hot Air merits a read and a laugh.

Let's see the story begins with Webb accepting an invitation to a WH reception and admittedly trying to avoid the President.......It continues with him trying to politicize a conversation the President began with a conventional and kind personal question,"How's your boy?"
Will may have Dowdified the exchange a bit, but the fact remains --Webb is a standout boor in a city already increasingly distinguished by incivility.
If he hates the President this much, he should have politely declined the invitation.
Posted by: clarice | November 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Clarice,
Declining the invitation isn't a practical option. I don't understand how anyone thinks it is. As an analogy...If you dislike the President of the local Chamber of Commerce you don't then decide to swear off all Chamber of Commerce functions. You go to those things because it helps your business not to pay homage to the President. Webb went to that function because his job as a Senator required him to go. You can hate Webb as much as he hates Bush but you are being obtuse if you think Webb had much choice about attending the event.
Posted by: Blue Neponset | November 30, 2006 at 11:48 AM
He can dislike him all he wants, but he should quit the pretension of "looking forward to working with the President and his Administration."
There was nothing rude about the question or the way it was asked. Would it really have killed him to just answer the question he was asked without turning it into some sort of political statement?
Posted by: PaulinAz | November 30, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Blue, of course he could decline, citing a prior commitment. To go to the reception, avoid the president, pointedly refuse to have his photo taken with Bush and to respond to a civil question so rudely was far worse than declining.
Trust me on this..I can't imagine how anyone could be in this city so long and not be aware of the social conventions. He is a bull in a china shop and Althouse is right--he will be fodder for a lot of stories unless he mends his ways.
(If you have never seen "Advise and Consent", I suggest you get that old movie and watch it. Or read the book. Things have changed a great deal in D.C. in the decades since it was written, but not the social conventions so well-described there. )
Posted by: clarice | November 30, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Washington D.C. does not have its own social conventions. Anyone who thinks that has been there too long. This kind of thing happens every day in every part of the Country. If you have never had to attend a function hosted by someone you didn't like/respect then you are luckier than you know.
Posted by: Blue Neponset | November 30, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Actually, I did not see a problem with Bush's behavior. But I do condone Webb's attitude, response, and behavior. Webb's is most definitely a one-termer.
Posted by: lurker | November 30, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Wel, Blue, I must inform you you are wrong. For the same reason one addresses a sworn enemy as "The distinguished gentleman from..." on the floor of Congress or one refers to a political opponent as "my friend..", one does not attend a reception at the WH, avoid the president, refuse to take a photo with him, and then respond with political invective to a conventional and decent inquiry about one's child.
You sound like a member of what we call the "Dem fight club"..and I wish you the same success they had in the last election and will surely have in the next two years.
Posted by: clarice | November 30, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Webb is a breadth of fresh air, imagine being invited to the White House, meeting the President and having the Commander in Chief inquire about one of his soldiers in the field, your son, fighting Americas war on terrorism.
Webb did what any Senator who met Lincoln, FDR, Truman or Eisenhower would do.
At least now we Virginias can look forward to many years of good relations between our Senator and the White House in order to get things accomplished that benefit our State!!
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Would Webb respond the same way to a John Kerry question about his son since Kerry actually voted for the war and Bush is simply implementing the national will as expressed by our representatives?
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Yeah right, I have never had to pretend I like someone I do business with. That only happens in DC.
Also, anyone who calls the opposing political party the "sworn enemy" should think twice before accusing others of hyper-partisanship.
Posted by: Blue Neponset | November 30, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Whether Webb likes it or not, his son volunteered to fight this war and is serving voluntarily in Iraq. He also voluntarily is serving as Bush with his CINC. Sounds like Webb has no trust in his sons decisions.
Unless, Kerry is right, and the son was too stupid or lazy and Daddy wouldn't bail him out, and he ended up stuck in Iraq.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Clarice,
Great comment. I was struck by the same point. If Webb wanted to avoid the symbology of appearing next to the President, he should also have considered avoiding the appearance at the White House.
After all, it isn't the first, second, third, or thirtieth time he's been to that building for a social/political function.
I'm afraid I cannot understand Blue's analogy to a Chamber of Commerce reception. If you can't appear friendly, you lose the respect you sought to keep by attending. Heck, I dislike my mayor, but I speak politely to her and shake her hand when I run into her at City Hall.
Posted by: Walter | November 30, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Oh puh-leeze Clarice.
How does one apply the social conventions of "this town" to Dead Eye Dick Cheney's telling Senator Leahy to "F*** yourself" on the floor of the Senate? It's not exactly beating a Senator unconscious with a cane, but it is a bit further removed from polite conversation than "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President."
Posted by: TexasToast | November 30, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Hey Blue:
""We need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush.."
Howard Dean
You started it!
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Good manners are a must in Washington D.C. Decorum cannot be stressed enough. Today's headlines regarding the exchange is proof of that. Is this the hard-core image Webb wants to display from the get-go.? I hope not-it will be a long 6 years if this is going to be his modus operandi.
Posted by: maryrose | November 30, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Webb, quite simply, doesn't have any patience for bullsh!t. This will cause him some difficulties in a town built out of the stuff.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 30, 2006 at 12:52 PM
TT, I think what one whispers in private to an opponent and what one says publicly is the key.
(See my comment on TM's last post to see how a gentleman best plants a shiv.)
Posted by: clarice | November 30, 2006 at 12:53 PM
TT sys: How does one apply the social conventions of "this town" to Dead Eye Dick Cheney's telling Senator Leahy to "F*** yourself.""
Not hard to figure out TT, Leahy was being a disingenuos liar and Cheney didn't want to play nice with a back stabbing B-llshitter. And as far as I know, Cheney didn't then go running to the press to give them an interview on how he stood up to the big bad Leahy.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:54 PM
TT,
I suppose, if I wanted to distinguish the two, I'd look to see if one occured at work in a heated conversation after Mr. Dead-eye was accused of corruption by Mr. Deadhead (actually a compliment in my book, but YMMV) and the other took place in the host's home at a party given by him.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Walter | November 30, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Last time I checked, Webb and Bush hadn't been dealing with each other on a daily basis as a Senator and VP. This was Webbs first meeting with the Commander in Chief, his sons ultimate boss. Since when is the well being of the troops under his command none of the Commanders business??
Can Webb please explain why the Commander should not care about how his soldiers are doing?
Would James Webb, as President, tell parents of soldiers at war that come up to him and tell them how their son is doing....THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS?
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:58 PM
"At least now we Virginias....." So sorry to tell you, Virginias, there is no Santa Claus. Webb's going to be the turd in the punchbowl.
Seems way mean to call Will's column "Dowdified". Although he's taken a turn to the left lately, his little toenail has more writing talent than an army of Dowds. "Men at Work", well outside his area of expertise, may be the best sports book ever.
Posted by: Larry | November 30, 2006 at 12:59 PM
I guess Webb thinks their just cannon fodder and Commanders should have no concern for their well being.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Leahy: "How's your girl doing?"
Cheney: "F$%& yourself."
Bush: "You write about child porn"
Webb: "I want them out of Iraq, Mr. President"
Posted by: hit and run | November 30, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Any report of the exchange would blur the line between fact and fiction.
Attempting Tom's patented penetrating method of analysis, let's look at this.
Did the reporter hear the dialogue? No? Well, let's roll the tape, or at least have a look at the transcript. No? Hmmm.
I guess somebody would have had to tell the reporter what "happened", then. I wonder who?
In any case, I guess we have to treat this the way it's presented, as a straight story, don't we?
Well, I just went through the supermarket checkout last night, and I admit, I couldn't resist treating the leads shouting at me in line as straight stories...for two seconds. I admit it was fun.
Posted by: rrk | November 30, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Webb's political response to a pleasentry probably ticked off Bush, who, at this point in his presidency, figures he's getting it from all sides. This wasn't the place for a remark like Webb's.
Washington is a little short on civility these days from both sides, and has been for a very long time. (Maybe it never was. The good old days, as I understand them, died some time in the 60s. Maybe they weren't so good.) But it is disturbing to see the tactics of Crossfire make its way to the White House receiving line.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | November 30, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Webb is a boor. I did NOT vote for him. I think I'm going to have my own bumper sticker made, so I can proclaim it wherever I go. Maybe I can have it embroidered on my jeans.
Posted by: SunnyDay | November 30, 2006 at 01:08 PM
"...the tactics of Crossfire..." Alas, I remember the days before Buchanan revealed his inner bigot and Kinsley went totally nuts. The discourse could get heated, but for the most part, remain in good humor. Sorta like JOM.
Posted by: Larry | November 30, 2006 at 01:13 PM
SunnyDay: Webb is a boor
No, Webb is a total macaca.
There. I said it. You know you were thinking it. Every one of you.
Speaking truth to power. That's what I do.
Posted by: hit and run | November 30, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Larry:
remain in good humor. Sorta like JOM.
Let me be the first to admit that I only engage in bad humor.
Posted by: hit and run | November 30, 2006 at 01:18 PM
From the hotair link Tom added on:
He’s going to be “a vast source of amusement” in the Senate, says Tyrrell. I want him to look Harry Reid in the eye at the first meeting and say, “Look, pizza-face - Jim Webb doesn’t take orders from anyone.”
And I still want Webb to look John Kerry in the eye - and now also Charles Rangel - and say, "You wanna say that to my face?" in response to their publicly stated views of military personnel.
Posted by: hit and run | November 30, 2006 at 01:29 PM
Hit, I didn't mean all the humor was good. :)
Posted by: Larry | November 30, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Oops! Sorry, Run. Didn't mean to leave you out.
Posted by: Larry | November 30, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Tom - I'm not sure what you object to in Bush's behavior. Bush asked a conventional question and Webb got nasty. looking for a fight. What do you think Bush should have done at that point?
Posted by: Jim Miller | November 30, 2006 at 01:42 PM
"""Webb, quite simply, doesn't have any patience for bullsh!t."""
What CRAP!
Webb was the only one slinging the Bull.
He goes to the invited party at the White House, just to snub the guy who invited him.
Webb was pulling a complete BS. If he didn't want to talk to Bush, he could have stayed home.
Last time I checked, when you get an invite to someones house, you at least have the decency to meet them, shake their hand, thank them for the invitation, etc.
The idea that Webb is the one that doesn't stand for BS, is BS, he was the Bullshiiter
grand standing with the media.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 01:43 PM
HandR
You are cracking me up today. I just laughed out loud in my office at work.
" Look pizza-face-Jim Webb doesn't take orders from anyone" and
"Jim Webb is a macaca"-classic comments for the day.
I still wonder minus the "macaca" comment how Allen would have fared in the election.
Posted by: maryrose | November 30, 2006 at 01:44 PM
Webb ought to be on his knees thanking Bush for sending his son to Iraq. If his son wasn't in the war, we would be talking about Senator Allen.
Webb could have kept his son out of the service or out of the war, but that wouldn't have gotten him a Senate seat. Perhaps Webb is exhibiting a bit of outward hostility that he should be using on himself.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 01:47 PM
God save us if that ever happened.
Posted by: Xrlq | November 30, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Funny, when Webb was asked about his son by Tim Russert or out on the campaign trail, he didn't get all huffy and mean about answering. He never said it was personal.
In fact, Bush probably was worried about Webbs sons' feet since Jim Webb wore his sons combat boots throughout the whole campaign.
Now Webb wants no one to ask about his son, after spending an entire campaign sticking his sons boots in our faces?
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 01:53 PM
"""Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, ... """
I guess the Secret Service won't be letting Webb have any private conversations with the President.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 01:55 PM
You know if I was invited to a reception with John Kerry and Ted Kennedy I'd have a hell of a time being any nicer than Webb, and I'm pretty sure I would feel compelled to go.
However, one would hope that better people than I get elected to the senate.
Posted by: Jane | November 30, 2006 at 01:57 PM
"sticking his son's boots in our faces" Classic comment number 3. Hypocritical if you ask me. He can use his son's service during the campaign but not toanswer a polite inquiry of the President. Assign Webb Jr. to Baghdad until Webb apologises.
Posted by: maryrose | November 30, 2006 at 01:58 PM
I have read the Will column and the TPM response. I was hard pressed to figure out the Dowdifying and had to go thru it again to see it.
Will is giving an overview of the conversation, not quoting it sentence for sentence and of the sentences he uses, he isn't altering any of them. I have read Maureen Dowd and George Will is no Maureen Dowd.
Posted by: CAL | November 30, 2006 at 02:01 PM
I wondered why the WaPo was working so hard to get this nutter elected. Now I know..lots of amusing stories in the wings.
Posted by: clarice | November 30, 2006 at 02:04 PM
Bush asked a conventional question and Webb got nasty. looking for a fight.
That's the way I see it, too. The idea that Webb was provoked by the question is hard to feature. Further, Will's "dowdification" is a shortened one-paragraph version of the incident (with a handy link in the middle to the longer). And if it's "journalistic dishonesty" for Will to leave out a clause in his quote, what should we call Sargent's leaving out the link in his?
Taranto was typically pithy:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 30, 2006 at 02:05 PM
I have read Maureen Dowd and George Will is no Maureen Dowd.
Greatful for small favors.
Is there any woman on the planet more passive aggressive than Maureen Dowd?
Posted by: Jane | November 30, 2006 at 02:05 PM
A commenter I read on another site suggest that President Bush should of said well since you won't tell me I guess tomorrow the Commander in Chief will have to put in a person to person call to your son to find out.
Posted by: SlimGuy | November 30, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Perhaps Bush could set his son up with some better housing, meals, R&R, etc. then the other troops.
Anything to make Daddy happy.
Posted by: anonymous | November 30, 2006 at 02:35 PM
Jane:
Maureen Dowd passive-aggressive?
I say aggressive-aggressive. She definitely needs a man to vent her frustrations on. She considers herself the bee's knees when it comes to journalistic opinion writing. You now have to pay to read her. I think I'll pass.
Posted by: maryrose | November 30, 2006 at 02:37 PM
Jim Webb wore his sons combat boots throughout the whole campaign.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President"
"them" = "boots"?
Posted by: hit and run | November 30, 2006 at 02:38 PM
In addition to just plain crappy manners, Webb also acted like a sore winner. He won't be an interesting, funny character for the next 6 years. He will be a total jerk.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | November 30, 2006 at 02:59 PM