Is Dubya running his own show?

February 5, 2001 11:07 AM

Is Dubya running his own show? GWB came to talk to Congressional Democrats at their retreat and got a key portion of an executive order he just signed wrong, according to some Representatives. Was it a simple misunderstanding or did he just sign something that a handler put in front of him?
posted by norm (41 comments total)

Was it a simple misunderstanding or did he just sign something that a handler put in front of him?

It's just that, well, he's an idiot.
posted by Karl at 11:15 AM on February 5, 2001

psst! Mr. Bush! That's your cue!!
posted by hijinx at 11:15 AM on February 5, 2001

Democrats take opportunity to criticise president, capitalising on long-standing (played out) stupidity meme.

The news here is what, exactly?
posted by Dreama at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2001

They can't keep this guy hidden for the next four years and hope his flaks can cover for him all the time.

Reagan was born to ad-lib and could work from a script, so his handlers usually didn't have to worry too much, but the spinmeisters are going to have a much more difficult row to hoe with Shrub.
posted by briank at 11:41 AM on February 5, 2001

The news here, Dreama, is that the President of the United States is signing executive orders without understanding what they say. How hard is that to understand? And the fact you're bored with hearing how stupid the man is doesn't make it any less true--or less frightening. Certainly, if Clinton's penis was a matter of vital interest for 8+ years, surely the fact that Bush is incompetent is more than a minor character flaw.
posted by jpoulos at 12:05 PM on February 5, 2001

not to mention that the question the rep from CA asked was an extremely valid and important question. she and the rest of the american public deserved a staight answer from bush instead of what i suspect is the ol' playing dumb routine to get out of answering a tough question.

i do give bush credit for making the effort to take questions from the democrats, but if he can't give substantial answers to the questions asked of him them what is the point besides an empty photo op?
posted by saralovering at 12:17 PM on February 5, 2001

The important message here is that 47% percent of Americans voted for an idiot. They did that, quite frankly, because many of them are idiots and wanted a president they could either a) identify with, or b) say that they were smarter than.

The choice -- after being run through the media filter which distorts everything -- was for either a competent but ethically challenged robot candidate [Gore], or an incompetent but ethical-sounding robot candidate [Bush]. After 8 years of the previous model (operating under the name of Bill Clinton), the public (or at least the electoral college) selected the latter.

posted by darren at 12:23 PM on February 5, 2001

(Or at least the Supreme Court.)
posted by nicwolff at 12:51 PM on February 5, 2001

The important message here is that 47% percent of Americans voted for an idiot. They did that, quite frankly, because many of them are idiots and wanted a president they could either a) identify with, or b) say that they were smarter than.

Well, I would imagine that lots of people voted for Bush because they agree with the Republican Party's policies. Not me, I was a Gore voter... but I'm sure there are still *some* people out there who vote based on issues. (At least I hope so.)
posted by Tin Man at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2001

Speaking of played out, I'm tired of the meme meme.
posted by jragon at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2001

The impression I got during the election was that a lot of people really were choosing Bush because he seemed like a nice guy. Didn't we always hear voters saying how Dubya seemed like a regular guy you could go out an have a beer with? Sure lots of people voted for him because they thought they agreed with his politics, but lots of other seemed to just be concerned with his amiability.
posted by owen at 1:39 PM on February 5, 2001

It sounds to me, having read the article, that if anyone was confused about the Bush initiatives, it was Nancy Pelosi. The funding and de-funding of these foreign groups has very little to do with the domestic outreach plans, and for Pelosi to confuse - or distort - them in her question didn't deserve any more response than she got.

Of course, there were no reporters in the room, so this all comes from second-hand accounts anyway.
posted by mikewas at 1:44 PM on February 5, 2001

Mikewas, these are international outreach plans that he cut. And then he gets all "compassionate" and funds outreach programs. So we want outreach programs that are religious, and not ones that administer abortion. See who's running the show? Not Bush apparently.

posted by mblandi at 1:55 PM on February 5, 2001

mikewas, the two programs have alot to do with eachother. They're both funded by your tax dollars. So, by picking and choosing which programs to fund with our money, Bush is making his biases very clear.
posted by Neb at 2:20 PM on February 5, 2001

Unfortunately, since he is president, he's allowed to do that.
posted by crunchland at 3:21 PM on February 5, 2001

That means there is an idiot in the White House due to the actions of a fairly small fraction of the population.
No, the other voters (or non) are just as responsible.
It would have taken just a little bit of effort on the part of the people who didn't vote to prevent that.
Right.
"When trains of thought collide..."
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:00 PM on February 5, 2001

Is there any reason to believe the people who did not vote, would vote differently statistically from the people who did? It would seem like with nearly 50% of the eligible population pulling the lever, you could expect mirror results if the rest showed up. No?
posted by thirteen at 4:34 PM on February 5, 2001

It would seem like with nearly 50% of the eligible population pulling the lever, you could expect mirror results if the rest showed up. No?

No. That 50% wasn't a random sample. It was a self-selecting sample, just like those phone-in TV 'polls'. So, even though half of the population is a much bigger self-selecting sample than usual, you still can't draw any such inference. Even though it's likely that the general trend would have been roughly similar to that seen in the 50% who voted, there would probably have been a slight difference of a percentage point or two (or three, or four) one way or the other - and in an election this close that would have made all the difference.
posted by rory at 4:50 PM on February 5, 2001

Cheney must have blinked.
posted by Carrie at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2001

It seemed to me that during the Florida debacle it was Jim Baker calling the shots, and based on W's previous foreign policy knowledge (insert gaffe here) it's not much of a stretch to believe that it's the Colin, Condi, and Cheney show. So does he do his own domestic policy, or is there someone else we should meet?

This isn't inspiring much confidence when I was trying to give him a chance.

posted by norm at 7:27 PM on February 5, 2001

Not sure if this'll make you feel any better, Norm, but Molly Ivins has a wry account of domestic policy Bush-style. (Courtesy of Backup Brain).
posted by leo at 8:18 PM on February 5, 2001

The news here, Dreama, is that the President of the United States is signing executive orders without understanding what they say.

No, jpoulos, the news here is that an obscure Rep from California has put a particular spin on an exchange that plays neatly into an oft-repeated theme but at it's base is nothing but interpretation. Independent of Pelosi's claim, there is no evidence that Bush was confused about anything. Give me video, give me corroboration from some other source (IOW, not another Dem rep) and then it gains merit. But otherwise, it's just a rumour being trolled out from an agenda'ed source that's being lapped up for no other reason than because it reinforces the liberal Dem belief structure.
posted by Dreama at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2001

Dreama, these aren't some Democratic hacks on talk radio out there, we're talking about members of the House of Representatives. Surely you don't believe this was just "made up?"

Talk about paranoia.

posted by norm at 9:17 PM on February 5, 2001

there really isn't a reason to believe they would have voted differently.

Excuse me? Of course there is. If you vote for a certain candidate and I don't vote, does that necessarily mean that I would have voted for the same candidate as you? No; you can't deduce anything about how I would have voted from your vote. (FWIW, I'm not a US citizen; I'm speaking hypothetically.)

Okay, we're talking about big aggregations of voters here and so the broad trends would be roughly similar, but in an election that came down to a handful of votes, a minor difference in the way those other people would have voted (if they'd voted) could have delivered a completely different result.

That's why we have elections and not just random-sample polls to determine who gets to be President; all samples have a capacity for error in predicting the preferences of the total population, and for something as important as a presidential election that's considered unacceptable.

Unfortunately this is somewhat undone by coupling it with a system of voluntary voting, but at least one can reasonably argue that anyone who gave a damn had the opportunity to vote. All you can really infer from the results is that about 25% of Americans wanted Bush on polling day, about 25% wanted Gore on polling day, and about 50% were so indifferent or unconcerned that they couldn't be bothered to haul their asses down to a polling booth to vote one way or the other. There is a difference between those positions. You shouldn't assume that those 'unknowns' would have voted exactly the same way as those who were committed enough to go and vote. Particularly not down to that last handful of voters who made all the difference in Florida.
posted by rory at 11:43 PM on February 5, 2001

I think we should test the hypothesis that there is no Republican hypocrisy in banning any and all funds going to overseas groups that in addition to the funded activity also spend money on abortion lobbying or abortion eduction ... and supporting domestic organizations with federal funding even if in addition to the funded activity they also spend money on proselytizing and other religious activities. Actually, I'm certain it will soon be tested. The legal question is, why does abortion taint every activity of a non-profit, while religion does not?

I see the neocons and libertarians here making every effort to portray this as a "Bush is dumb" story. That may be what the media have picked up on, perhaps it is a meme, but it is not. It is a serious philosophical and political question, and I hope that the Democrats continue to hammer the GOP on it. The Executive Order on funding for overseas NGOs is all but certain to presage further attempts to encroach on federal funding for domestic NGOs that also, by supporting women seeking abortions, offering information, or partnered with a lobbying arm for abortion rights, have the same structural issue. Fund the other activities, the Republicans say, and you subsidize abortion.

No, this is not a minor issue, and nobody should be distracted by the arm-waving. I didn't read it as "Bush didn't know what his EO said", though that may be inferred. I read it as "Without his thinktank around, Bush had trouble articulating the ins and outs of Chinese walls in NGOs and religious organizations and why one is OK and the other isn't."
posted by dhartung at 12:39 AM on February 6, 2001

You are right, Dan, that there's a legitimate issue here. But that issue is not what this thread has been about. Starting from the very first response, it's been "Bush is dumb, Bush is dumb," followed by "Bush voters are dumb, Bush voters are dumb." So obviously those of us on the right are going to focus in on the hate speech. If you can turn this into a legit discussion of the underlying issue, more power to you. But judging from the above, I think you're going to have a tough time of it.
posted by aaron at 1:42 AM on February 6, 2001

Indeed -- so long as the left is willing to buy into the rhetoric without even thinking about whether or not it has any foundation, don't expect those of us on the other side of the spectrum to try to hold a reasoned discussion on the issues. It proves pointless when the only thing that can be said in response is "You just don't want to admit that your guy's dumb." or allegations that we're paranoid.
posted by Dreama at 7:03 AM on February 6, 2001

In somewhat related news, the new Gallup poll came out today; Bush's approval rating is 57%. ... The feelings of the people that do not vote are meaningless.

If that's the case, why are you quoting his approval rating?

So obviously those of us on the right are going to focus in on the hate speech.

Calling Bush dumb is "hate speech"?

posted by rcade at 7:37 AM on February 6, 2001

Ok, to clarify my paranoia comment, it seems pretty out there to claim that a bunch of Representatives would make up a story like that and not one would say, "oh, no, it was a serious policy disagreement." I'll buy that one or two present could be hacks; I'll buy that one or two would make something up to make the president look bad. But I'm not so cynical as to think that a whole roomful of Congressional Representatives could witness an event like that and all agree to the conspiracy to make up an event like that. If the same sort of thing happened with Bill Clinton at a Republican caucus, I'd believe the Republicans.
posted by norm at 7:57 AM on February 6, 2001

It's a little amusing to see the GOP cry foul over "Bush is dumb" jokes after eight years of endless Clinton dick jokes.
posted by Skot at 8:06 AM on February 6, 2001

I think that the point that Dreama and Aaron were making was that this thread did not need to descend into "Bush is dumb" rants. Indeed, Norm's original post was not, "That Bush guy's a stupid hoser, eh?", but rather a legitimate question of who is running the show.

Whatever our political views may be, we don't need to discuss Bush's intelligence every time there is a thread about him.

posted by Avogadro at 8:26 AM on February 6, 2001

So obviously those of us on the right are going to focus in on the hate speech.

It's amazing how thin-skined conservatives can be (when it's their ox being gored). If calling someone -- particularly a public figure -- "dumb" is your definition of "hate speech", you've got a couple of problems which even Metafilter can't help you with. Oh, by the way, Bush is dumb.
posted by leo at 8:43 AM on February 6, 2001

...and Gore is a liar, and the other Bush is a wimp, Clinton's a coward, Dole is old, Reagan is senile, Carter was a sugar cookie whose ass my mother could kick. Dukakis was... what the hell was he? Ford could not stand up, Nixon strangled babies every morning with his breakfast. I am sure it goes back to Washington.

It only hurts when it is your guy or gal. The tag will only hurt Bush if he lives up to it (as Clinton did).
posted by thirteen at 8:56 AM on February 6, 2001

So now instead of posts about how Bush and his voters are dumb, we're going to have posts about how Bush and his voters are thin-skinned whiners. Yay fun.

Certainly, if Clinton's penis was a matter of vital interest for 8+ years, surely the fact that Bush is incompetent is more than a minor character flaw.

Clinton's penis was a topic not because it was a character flaw but because it may have made him a criminal. Perjury and sexual harrassment are a far cry from being a bit confused about what you signed.

Bush is dumb. And? This has become as much of a catchphrase and basis for jokes as the whole "whassup?" crap. Debating about politics involves arguing about actual political points, not name-calling and taunting like school children.

And I think it's kind of obvious that taunting is what aaron meant when he said "hate speech".
posted by crushed at 9:40 AM on February 6, 2001

Bush's intelligence is a topic because he's running the show. In addition, there's nothing "obvious" that calling him an imbecile is the equivalent of "hate speech" -- not now, not ever. As a general observation, all I can say is, my, what great delicacy and sensitivity the conservatives of this world are showing all of a sudden. Where was the condemnation, the whining, and all the talk about "hate speech" back in the days of "Slick Willy"?
posted by leo at 10:08 AM on February 6, 2001

I don't think it's necessarily true that Bush is dumb. It's probably more likely that he's intellectually lazy. The man seems capable of carrying on a conversation... he just doesn't seem to care about the details.

It's not that he can't think -- it's that he won't think.

(Doesn't that sound like something a teacher would write on a report card?)
posted by Tin Man at 11:07 AM on February 6, 2001

My memory might be going on me, but I seem to remember a lot of condemnation and whining in slick willy days.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:12 PM on February 6, 2001

there's nothing "obvious" that calling him an imbecile is the equivalent of "hate speech"

I didn't say it was the equivalent, I said that's what aaron meant when he used the phrase "hate speech". Or at least that's what I took it to mean.

The point is that some of us, both Democrats and Republicans, would like to be able to have a political topic be handled in a more mature fashion than every post being a slightly varied version of the phrase "Bush is stupid."

norm asked a legit question and got the response "It's just that, well, he's an idiot." When you've got several threads a day full of posts like that it gets old very quickly.

If Bush isn't even clear on what he's signing (which may very well be the case) then his intelligence and beliefs may have very little to do with anything. If someone is simply giving Bush documents to sign, or not letting him read them fully, then it may be that person whom we need to worry about.

That probably sounds paranoid, and I'm pretty sure this case was just a misunderstanding, but it is possible.
posted by crushed at 2:44 PM on February 6, 2001