Do We Really Want a Bowler-in-Chief? Remember Nixon!

Elizabeth Edwards' op-ed in The New York Times today aptly holds the title, "Bowling 1, Health Care 0," as it criticizes the media obsession with Barack Obama's bowling form and score during the past three weeks. My research shows that while cable news gasbags such as Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, and the entire Fox crew, were the worst offenders, the Times itself has carried dozens of references to "bowling-gate" in its news pages and blog entries.

Maureen Dowd even had to run an embarrassing correction after she alleged that Obama had improperly accepted the donation of bowling shoes from Sen. Bob Casey, when it was the other way around. Today she refers, again, to the "bowling debacle." Please, stop this woman before she kills again.

Scarborough, of course, said Americans wanted a real macho man in the White House, perhaps forgetting his unceasing attacks on Bill Clinton's mannish behavior in office. Matthews suggested that Obama was "prissy."

But all you need to say is: Which president was the most avid bowler? And, of course, the answer is: Richard Nixon. He even paid $400 out of his own pocket to lease automatic pin-setters and during Watergate went down the basement to roll off some tension.

Actually, a search of the historical record finds that the infamous White House bowling alley -- sometimes two alleys -- dates back to the Truman administration. But Truman (now known as a suitably tough guy) hated bowling. I've found the only photo of him bowling, which was published on the cover of Kegler magazine. Sure enough, he was wearing a tie, the very look for which Obama earned much mocking. Truman was also a lefty (I mean, lefthanded).

Truman even wore a vest!

You won't find many references to bowling when examining the lives of other "manly" presidents since, including JFK, LBJ (couldn't even golf), Reagan, and Poppy Bush. Who was the biggest bowling advocate near the top? Dan Quayle.

Nixon and Quayle. That is really something to aspire to.

In fact, the pair who might have done more bowling at the White House than anyone weren't even males. They were Lady Bird Johnson and Muriel Humphrey, who tried to do it every week.

Of course, many presidents have golfed, but are you really going to tell me that this "sport" is more macho than driving the lane in basketball -- which Obama happens to be good at? The Obama/Tiger Woods analogies only go so far, thank god.

Greg Mitchell is author of the new book So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, which has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald, Arianna H and others, and features a preface by Bruce Springsteen. He is a former all-star high school bowler.

Comments

[Dunnage]

Ya, but did Truman bowl a 37?

[mamacat]

Basketball is more popular anyway.

[AC500]

I'd take a bowler-in-chief over a liar-in-chief any day.

[Gibbons]

Another thing did you ever try to dribble one of those balls.

[Thorn]

Howdy, racist!

[irishgawdess]

Greg, it's interesting that you clarified "Truman was also a lefty (I mean, lefthanded)." Most of us would intrinsically know that you meant "lefthanded" due to the context of the article (you have to pick up the bowling ball up with your *hand*.)

Those looking for any evidence to cast aspersions on an individual would cherry pick it, take it out of context, and turn it into a sound bite.

Was that just a little tongue-in-cheek on your part?

[Thorn]

You should hit your knees and thank the media heavens for the bowling story. Everyone who's in the tank for Obama (e.g., everyone on MSNBC) uses this pathetically fake "story" to prove that they're treating his candidacy with any balance. I'm actually stunned that you would use the term "bowling-gate."

[appleknocker]

The question in my mind is: why did Obama go out of his way to demonstrate that he had never bowled before? What was he thinking?

[Durango]

I'll bet even Walter Sobchak might be prone to gutterballs with all the cameras and attention focused on him.

Jesus on the other hand would eat it up.

[burnt]

Yes... as well as Clinton's claim of superior bowling skills and he challenge to a bowl-off and her dismal bowling performance on the Ellen DeGeneres fluff show. The point of Elizabeth's eviscerating editorial piece on the state of the MSM deserved more prominence in your post. Perhaps you missed the point on purpose... perhaps it's just Sunday morning.

There are many important and pressing issues that need to be addressed with substance for the electorate to digest... now... yesterday... three months ago.... 7 years ago. But your post is just a little bit more of the same... light and non-filling to be sure, but what we need most desperately is substance.

Elizabeth's post just as easily could have used the number of bullets reported whizzing by Clinton's head on the tarmac as her example. Bad bowler... bad liar... both remove focus from the issues.

alienated in Seattle

[irishgawdess]

We need to hear from the candidates on the substantive issues! Until we get that info from them, doesn't really matter what the media has to say. Of course, we do need the media to truthfully report it afterwards.

[grendl]

The issue isn't whether or not this country wants a president who bowls.

Bowling is a pretty low brow idiotic sport. As Bill Maher said I want a president whose better than me ( read elitist ) But it was Barack's attempt which presented this metaphor of someone undertaking a task he couldn't handle, out of a sense of sheer optimism that opened his campaign to further attacks about his naivete and inexperience.

People are right, bowling has nothing to do with governing this nation whatsoever. But it suggests the mindset of an individual who either thinks he can do anything or is trying to show he's a regular guy. Like Flounder in animal house walking up to the poker playing group of Deltas at a frat party and asking "hey are you guys playing cards".

It was political clumsiness. And what was the point of doing it? It's insulting to people who actually do know how to bowl that he thinks its that easy, and to those who think its a dumb game, myself included, it was a ridiculous thing to attempt in the first place. In a shirt and a tie no less. If you're going to try something do it all the way, and show a respect for the sport many blue collars play, or don't do it at all.

[grendl]

And by the way to the Obama supporters who don't think the bowling op was a stupid move, you're not being very objective about your candidate. The notion that he can do no wrong is ridiculous, as it clearly shows he can. So can Hillary, and John McCain.

The way to make these candidate's smarter is to point out their mistakes. Nixon learned the hard way looks count for a lot in the political arena, after debating JFK. Of course he had no problem beating candidate's less photogenic with thinning air subsequently. This isn't only about issues, it's a beauty contest to see who is politically more graceful when put under the glare of the international spotlight, and who breaks out in a flopsweat, like Albert Brooks in " Broadcast News". Sure he might be delivering eloquent words, but if he looks like he's being crushed in an industrial vice, then his ability to handle pressure comes into question.

And Barack had that look in the last debate. He can take the criticism. The job necessitates it, and we deserve a president who can.

[Countess]

The dumbing down of the American media and public is the only reason that Hillary Clinton is still alive in this campaign. She feeds on the stupidity of her supporters who remain faithful despite her increasingly right wing campaign and these people are supposed to be democrats. I guess they have decided that since they cannot beat the far right they may as well join them.

[Gibbons]

Your comment is sure to win a lot of them over to Obama"s side

[irishgawdess]

Countess, I agree with you on "the dumbing down of the American media." Unfortunately, that's also happened in our educational system; people don't always pick up on the fact that it's important to know how to think critically. If that's how you leave high school, the chances of being able to see various points of view objectively are pretty low. Instead, it's easier to exclude anybody who thinks differently than you do. Hence, the fearfulness many feel when their world view is threatened. Or the anger many Americans feel over Rev. Wright's statements. Americans *aren't* taught the truth about our history, just the view through the rose-colored glasses. He upset the apple cart on what we know to be "true", however, he was absolutely right to call the American government a terrorist. One only has to research what happened to the Native Americans over the past 300 years to know it's true. As Winston Churchill said, and he should know about Great Britain's, "History is written by the victors," and our history has been whitewashed.

[bgregs]

Yeah, this makes about as much sense as the "Which candidate would you have a beer with?" from back in 2000. And for what it's worth, I'd have MUCH rather sat down in a bar with Gore, and picked his brain while he drank WHATEVER!!