Hail to the "Educator-in-Chief"

In last night's 60 Minutes interview with Scott Pelley, Dubya inexplicably labeled himself as the "Educator-in-Chief." Of course when he said this, I immediately went into convulsions–just like that one time I attempted to watch Desperate Housewives– but luckily I have Tivo, so I was able to rewind and listen again:

Pelley: "How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?"
Dubya: "Uh, I, um, I'm gonna have to keep explaining, that's why I'm doing this interview with you. Scott, sometimes you're the Commander-in-Chief, sometimes you're the Educator-in-Chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war."

I couldn't imagine a poorer choice of words for a man with such a well-documented and much-maligned history involving anything considered edumacational. But then I used "the Google" and discovered that Dubya referenced the same term in an interview with Charlie Gibson last September. I remember watching that interview, but I also remember my ears beginning to bleed at one point, so you'll have to excuse me if I missed anything else noteworthy.

However, I did manage to catch the sparkle of a few other choice nuggets in the Pelley interview. When asked if he'd seen the Zapruder- YouTube-inspired video of the Saddam Hussein execution, Dubya appeared quite disturbed and disgusted, despite personally signing off on one-hundred fifty-two executions in his six-year term as governor of Texas, albeit the majority of which were of the more ethical humane accepted variety.

Dubya also said that he deserves responsibility for any mistakes that have been made in regard to Iraq, claiming that he doesn't want the blame to be placed on the military. Beyond hoping to appear ingenuous, it was a thinly veiled attempt to insinuate that the military was at some point thought to deserve blame. To imply that troops could possibly be considered to be at fault is to imply that Dubya's detractors–namely the Democrats–would prefer to blame the heavily-armored body rather than the head (albeit a very capable head that went on to name itself Educator-in-Chief–no small feat).

At this point, I began to think that if he has indeed finally accepted responsibility–and even blame–then perhaps he would consider stepping down? (Of course thinking was my first mistake, for which I accept all responsibility, but I refuse to step down from my self-appointed post as...whatever it is that I am. But let me continue in thought, as I often do.)

I'm reminded of Home Depot's recently ousted CEO, Bob Nardelli. The role of President is similar to a glorified CEO, and Dubya is likewise quite similar to Nardelli. While Nardelli was a gifted college football player, Dubya was famously known as a star athlete the managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Nardelli was passed over for the top post at General Electric, and Dubya was passed over by the American people for Al Gore. Both Nardelli and Dubya were appointed to their highest positions in December 2000 while subject to great public scrutiny. During Nardelli's tenure, Home Depot's profits more than doubled from $2.6 billion to $5.2 billion, but the company's stock plummeted fifty-nine cents (nearly a dime a year!!), from $40.75 a share to an embarrassing $40.16. Meanwhile, Dubya's approval ratings have fallen from a high in the upper eighties to a balmy low thirties range.

On the other hand, maybe the guy deserves a break because really, how many jobs does he have? Let's see, there's Chief of State, Chief Executive, can't forget Chief Diplomat, Commander-in-Chief, Chief Legislator, of course Chief of Party, and Chief Guardian of the Economy. That's more Chiefs than in the board room of Hard Rock! (crickets...) I think he's also the executioner executor of the Constitution or something like that; that should put the count at eight. And of course he's got to look out for all his cronies...that's a full-time job. Oh, and then he donned the cape as The Decider, so I think we're up to double-digits. And now, Educator-in-Chief, too?

While I'm no expert on economics politics anything, it seems that while both Nardelli and Dubya have had varied, debatable success, they've both also failed to meet expectations and keep their own promises. The key difference is that Nardelli has resigned from his post, having received $210 million in severance pay in addition to the $125 million-plus that he made in his six years at the helm. Which makes you wonder, what would Dubya walk away with under similar conditions?

On second thought, maybe we ought to just let him keep his job(s). How can we afford not to?