Replies

Bush thinks he has a mandate from God (scary to all non-religious people)

None of those folks like him to begin with--in fact they hate him viscerally. But they are a minority.

Bush frets about his place in history (sounds like legacy, doesn't it?)

I didn't read it as fretting about his legacy. I read it as a reasonable acknowledgment that history is going to judge his actions. Just because Clinton sullied the idea of leaving a legacy, it doesn't mean the real thing is bad. I think the President has a very balanced perspective on this, and frankly, I think the reporter reported it accurately.

Bush is inflexible with the war plan (of course we know that the war plan itself is flexible, but this is an item to cause doubt in those who don't know that)

It says clearly in the article that he is willing to change if it is necessary, but that he believes the plan is going fine. Again, I think that is reasonable and accurate.

Bush doesn't joke and is sarcastic with staffers (makes him sound mean)

I think most every person reading this is going to come away with a picture of a normally very jovial man dealing with very serious times in a very serious way. A positive, in my view.

Bush is obsessed with following the war (makes him sound like Lyndon Johnson)

Again, I see a portrait of a man who is very much engaged in his job as Commander-in Chief. I don't smell a hint of Lyndon Johnson.

Amazing that two people who both support the President can read the same article and come away with such different perspectives on it.

Oh well, it's on the street now anyhow.

I agree with Miss Marple. Particularly about the first part of the piece. In the first couple of paragraphs there are several negative comments - his stubborness, his sarcasm, his fretting - and almost all of what can be read as negative is unsourced and unquoted; the author's spin or interpretation of what all those staffers and friends actually said.

Anytime a writer makes a direct statement (his sarcastic remarks to staffers, for instance) without specifically quoting, specifically sourcing the statement, or giving specific examples, the writer is guilty of shoddy work. If I remember correctly, in an article chock full of various assertions, only two sources are quoted - and none of the direct quotes can legitimately be viewed as negative commentary. All of what I see as negative is vaguely attributed to "many staffers" or "friends" - lazy, sloppy journalism....but it helps paint the picture USA Today is trying to build.

Watch for subsequent articles that continue to build on the hints and markers laid in this seemingly benign piece.

I have two sisters who are Catholic, and a brother and a sister who are not church-attenders. One Catholic and one non-religious voted for Bush...the other two for Gore. All are inclined to support President Bush on the war.

However, I can tell you right now that if they thought this "mandate from God" idea was the truth, they would think he was two bricks shy of a full load.

It is a great mistake to think that all non-religious people are democrats. I can think of quite a few commentators who are conservatives who are not particularly religious.

I understand your thinking, but you apparently have little contact with folks who are in the middle on politics. Phrases like this make them nervous, regardless of how we see things.

Bush thinks he has a mandate from God (scary to all non-religious people)
None of those folks like him to begin with--in fact they hate him viscerally. But they are a minority.

I am not "religious", and I do not hate him. I worked for his election and believe he is one of the finest presidents we will ever have. Sometimes ya'll sound a bit arrogant.