dragging out the scapegoats

[Jasper Fidget]

Listening to somebody speak of Bush making some decision the other day, I
was momentarily nudged into thinking (later reclassified as fantasizing)
that Bush is himself fully in charge of and fully directing the US.  I admit
that those moments were somewhat terrifying.  I would love to believe that
GW is actually quite smart despite his obvious (and nationally embarrassing)
language deficiencies; I would love to know *how* to acquire this belief.
But I realized that so far--from election campaign to the present--I've been
assuming Bush is a sort of political mask for the group of unquestionably
smart men and women behind him (not excluding his wife and family to whom I
attribute motivation at least).  It is that group I've imagined making all
the serious decisions, and it is in that group I've placed my faith for
recovery and future.  Somehow I guess I also assumed that everybody else
thought similarly.

I admit that my problem with GWB does originate from his ineloquence.  It
implies--to me anyway, and I may very well be a nutcase--that he hasn't
spent much time *reading*, hasn't gained much of a relationship with
language through books.  This in turn implies a lack of curiosity, a lack of
imagination, and a lack of any desire to solve problems on his own by
hunting down his own answers or developing his own tools for constructing
answers (or beliefs for that matter).  The way such a person succeeds all
the way to the White House must be in his sponge-like ability (itself
extraordinary) to adopt and live the answers, convictions, and beliefs of
others.  I see GW therefore as our first *committee* presidency, less a
puppet than a vessel, or a chorus, and I feel much more comfortable with
that.

Than again, he may just get freaked out by cameras.

Jasper Fidget

>
>
> glthompson wrote:
> >
> > Terrance wrote:
> >
> > > Bashing Bush for his language skills is easy, but
> > > demonstrating, with solid facts and good argument, that Bush is not a
> > > smart man
> > > or that his policies are stupid is not so easy.
> > >
> > > It's easy to call the man a box or rocks. It's not so easy to
> > > critique his foreign policy.
> > >
> > > The devil is in the details, in the facts, not in the marbles in the
> > > president's mouth.
> > >
> > > I still contend that Bush is a very smart man. I don't buy into the TV
> > > stereotypes and propaganda from the Left. He's smart.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, that would be propaganda from the Right. In case you hadn't
noticed,
> > the Left doesn't have much role these days in the distribution of
propaganda
> > (e.g., Fox News, "We report. You decide" indeed, or the newly
right-tilting
> > "Hire Rush Limbaugh" CNN).
>
> No, it's propaganda from the Left. And if the Left had no voice we
> wouldn't be having this debate. I'm not sure why you have provided these
> examples, CNN and Fox, unless you are suggesting that the Nation's TV
> Networks have moved to the Right. This seems to be the case. However,
> the Left is still very vocal and very influential given the
> circumstances.
>
> My complaint is that the Left has peddled the notion that Bush is a
> stupid man. Moreover, what the Left continues to argue is that Bush in
> not an articulate man and is therefore a stupid man. What  I have argued
> is that his difficulties with language are not indicative of a lack of
> intelligence and that the Left should step up to the plate and attack
> policy and stop trying to convince people that Bush's tongue-tied
> statements are proof that he is a stupid person.

[...]