From Library Journal
The presidential speechwriter who gave us the phrase axis of evil offers this insider's view of George W.'s first 600 days.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Review
“George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man.” --from The Right Man, by David Frum
From the Inside Flap
The Right Manis the first inside account of a historic year in the Bush White House, by the presidential speechwriter credited with the phrase axis of evil. David Frum helped make international headlines when President George W. Bush s 2002 State of the Union address linked international terrorists to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But that was only one moment during a crucial time in American history, when a president, an administration, and a country were transformed.
Frum worked with President Bush in the Oval Office, traveled with him aboard Air Force One, and studied him closely at meetings and events. He describes how Bush thinks what this conservative president believes about religion, race, the environment, Jews, Muslims, and America s future. Frum takes us behind the scenes of one of the most secretive administrations in recent history, with revealing portraits of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Condoleezza Rice, and many others. Most significant, he tells the story of the transformation of George W. Bush: how a president whose administration began in uncertainty became one of the most decisive, successful, and popular leaders of our time.
Before becoming a White House speechwriter, David Frum was a highly regarded author of books and political commentary and an influential voice on the pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard. His commentary has been described by William F. Buckley as the most refreshing ideological experience in a generation. Now, in The Right Man, we see Frum as a front-row observer and participant. Not since Peggy Noonan s account of her time in the Reagan White House has an insider portrayed a sitting president with such precision, verve, honest admiration, and insight.
The Right Man will command international attention for its thoughtful account of George W. Bush in the midst of his greatest challenge. It will be an essential reference for anyone seeking to understand who our president really is and how he is likely to lead us in the future.
From the Back Cover
“George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man.” --from The Right Man, by David Frum
About the Author
David Frum is the author of Dead Right, praised by Frank Rich of The New York Times as “the smartest book written from the inside about the American conservative movement” and by Peggy Noonan as “not just a great book—but a classic.” Frum’s 1996 collection of essays, What’s Right, prompted The Wall Street Journal to dub him “one of the leading political commentators of his generation.” His history of the 1970s, How We Got Here, was described by the National Review as “an audacious act of revisionism, written in a voice and style so original it deserves to be called revolutionary.” He received a simultaneous B.A. and M.A. in history from Yale University in 1982. He was appointed visiting lecturer in history at Yale in 1986; in 1987 he earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a contributing editor to the National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and he has written regularly for The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Weekly Standard, and Canada’s National Post. He is a contributor to National Public Radio’s Morning Edition. From January 2001 to February 2002, he was a special assistant to President Bush for economic speechwriting. He lives in Washington, D.C., with his wife, journalist and novelist Danielle Crittenden Frum, and their three children. He can be reached via the Internet at www.davidfrum.com.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
1
Into the Mess
Missed you at Bible study."
Those were, quite literally, the very first words I heard spoken inside the Bush White House. I had just stepped through the side door to the West Wing?not the front door you see on television, the one the marine guard in red-striped pants opens for congressmen and ambassadors, but the staff door, which is one floor down and a little to the side. I had been invited into the West Wing to have breakfast in the mess with Michael Gerson, George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and the principal author of the inaugural address Bush had delivered just five days before. The reproach about missing Bible study was directed to Gerson, not to me. Even so, it made me twitch. It had been a month since Gerson had asked me to consider joining the new administration's speechwriting staff. Today we were to discuss the proposition in earnest over breakfast in the White House mess. The news that this was a White House where attendance at Bible study was, if not compulsory, not quite uncompulsory, either, was disconcerting to a non-Christian like me.
My appointment that morning had been scheduled for 8:10. Not 8:00, not 8:15, but 8:10?my first introduction to the White House habit of parceling the day into five-minute increments. I already knew enough about the new administration to know that I had better arrive exactly on time.
The mess is a windowless suite of wood-paneled rooms decorated with nautical prints and old brass shipfittings. As Gerson spoke about the job, I found myself fingering the blue-bordered paper menu, trying not to gawk at the room as if I were Gerson's third cousin from Des Moines. I had to keep my attention focused on the business at hand: explaining to him the reasons why I believed I was unsuited to the job he was offering me.
I had no connection to the Bush campaign or the Bush family. I had no experience in government and little of political campaigns. I had never written a speech for anyone other than myself. And I had been only a moderately enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush. True, I had preferred Bush to John McCain in the primaries; the whole point of the McCain campaign had seemed to be to vex and annoy conservative Republicans like me. But like many even within the Republican party, I was not excited by Bush. No, it was worse than that: I strongly doubted that he was the right man for the job.
Although people who met Bush individually or in small groups claimed to be highly impressed by him, on television he did not look like a man ready to be president. The late-night comedians and Bush's Democratic opponents had an easy explanation for Bush's awkwardness: stupidity. David Letterman offered these top ten headlines from a George W. Bush presidency: president fails in shoe-tying bid and america held hostage: day 16 of president's head stuck in banister. Jay Leno called Bush-Cheney the "Wizard of Oz ticket": "One needs a heart, the other needs a brain." Saturday Night Live depicted Bush as a party-hearty frat boy interested only in "huntin' and executin'," who responded to tough debate questions with a good-natured "Pass." Slate magazine published a daily digest of Bush's verbal gaffes; former Clinton aide Paul Begala used one of those gaffes for the title of his anti-Bush book: "Is Our Children Learning?"
Bush cheerfully replied that his critics "misunderestimated" him, and Bush's supporters explained that their man's stumbles and malapropisms were signs of nervousness, not ignorance. That was not a whole lot more encouraging: For a president, nerves are even more indispensable than brains. It is important that a president be in command of his words. It is essential that he be in command of himself.
My fellow conservatives did not worry that the candidate was too dumb; they worried that his campaign was too clever. Bush had borrowed a maneuver from Dick Morris: He ran almost as hard against his own party as he did against the other. In the space of a single week in October 1999, Bush accused congressional Republicans of "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" and complained in a major address in New York City that too often "my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah"?Slouching Towards Gomorrah being the title of a recent best-selling book by conservative hero Robert Bork.
Bush described himself as a "compassionate conservative," which sounded less like a philosophy than a marketing slogan: Love conservatism but hate arguing about abortion? Try our new compassionate conservatism?great ideological taste, now with less controversy. Conservatives disliked the "compassionate conservative" label in the same way that people on the Left would dislike it if a Democratic candidate for president called himself a "patriotic liberal."
In August, I traveled up to Philadelphia to hear Bush speak to the Republican national convention. I was filing three reports a day for three different newspapers, and I think I witnessed every event, media event, and pseudoevent over the convention's four-day span. It was pretty disheartening. The same metal detectors that inspected for bombs and guns seemed also to have been calibrated to block out ideas?not merely conservative ideas, but any ideas. Instead, the delegates heard from a professional wrestler, watched a pep rally by inner-city schoolchildren, and listened in prime time to the testimony of a woman who had lost a sister to breast cancer. In the evenings, the convention showcased minorities, women, and heartwarming anecdotes, all seemingly intended to prove that Newt Gingrich's GOP had been remade into as soft a box of caramels as ever melted inside a glove compartment.
By the time Bush himself came to the rostrum to speak, I was as ready to scoff as any of the cynical journalists in the press boxes. When he finished, I was wobbled. The speech was not only very good, it was very smart?and not smart in the disturbing way that the campaign had been smart, but smart in an interesting way, even a promising way.
Bush's first challenge was to explain why voters should vote against incumbents after eight years of prosperity. The Democrats had lost in 1984 and 1988 by denying that the prosperity of the 1980s was real. Bush avoided that mistake. He acknowledged the prosperity?and then changed the subject to the moral failings of the people who had presided over it. "For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill. But America's way is the rising road."
Bush found a way to identify with his baby boom generation without boasting or condemning. "My generation tested limits?and our country, in some ways, is better for it. Women are now treated more equally. Racial progress has been steady, if still too slow. We are learning to protect the natural world around us. We will continue this progress, and we will not turn back. At times, we lost our way. But we are coming home." Conservatives had attacked the baby boomers for producing Bill Clinton; Bush sorrowfully reproached Clinton for betraying the boomers. "Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose."
Then Bush did something truly ingenious. He took his greatest personal vulnerability?his reputation for wildness?and used it to cancel his party's greatest vulnerability?its image as a claque of moralistic Church Ladies. "I believe in a God who calls us, not to judge our neighbors, but to love them. I believe in grace, because I have seen it; in peace, because I have felt it; in forgiveness, because I have needed it."
Altogether, a superb performance. But was it wholly convincing? Everyone knew Bush hadn't written his words. Whose voice were we really hearing?
The 2000 election was the messiest and most nerve-racking in 125 years. Bush's reinvention of the Republican Party did not quite work. He lost the popular vote by half a million ballots and had to be carried over the finish line by the U.S. Supreme Court. To put that in perspective, remember that we call the 2000 election "the closest in history" only because Bush was declared the winner in the end. If the recount had gone the other way?if Gore had somehow found the five-hundred-plus votes he needed to carry Florida?Gore's margin over Bush would actually have been larger than Kennedy's over Nixon in 1960.
In the elections of the nineteenth century, at least three presidents received fewer votes than their main opponent.* But it has been a long time since it last happened, and in the meantime, the country's attitudes toward voting and democracy have changed dramatically. Bush arrived in office politically crippled.
On one of my first trips with Bush after I joined his staff, I fell into conversation with a local Republican activist, a woman in her early forties who had quit a high-powered job to stay home with her children. Somehow she had failed to obtain a ticket to the event at which Bush was speaking. I was able to persuade the Secret Service to let her through. "Thank you," she said, "I wanted so badly to see my president." She had summed up Bush's dilemma in two words. To half the country, he was "my president." To the other half, he was not the president at all.
The lines that divided those two halves from each other were not mainly lines of race. (Although Bush lost the black vote overwhelmingly, he won a smaller share of the white vote than his father did in 1988.) Nor were they lines of class. (The large majority of Americans who described themselves to exit pollsters as "middle class" divided their votes between Bush and Gore almost exactly equally.) They were lines defined by family status and religious observance. Bush beat Gore by fifteen points among ma...
