Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The trouble with incurious George
St. Petersburg Times ^ | September 28, 2003 | Bill Maxwell

Posted on 09/29/2003 1:40:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

With only 13 months to go until the next presidential election, Americans who voted for George W. Bush the first time around need to start facing the cold, hard truth about their man.

And what is that truth? First, the newest poll numbers.

An AOL poll asked: "Who should lead the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States, the United Nations, (or) the Iraqis?" The results should be sobering for the president and his supporters. Of the nearly 2-million respondents, 29 percent said the United States; 37 percent, the U.N.; 33 percent, the Iraqis.

According to a Pew Research Center for the People & and the Press poll, 49 percent of Americans want the president to focus more on the slumping economy and disappearing jobs and less on Iraq. Other polls that asked the same question report similar results.

As to the president's approval rating, Republicans and others who voted for Bush should be worried. Again, half of Americans approve of Bush's performance, the smallest percentage of his tenure, according to an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll and a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.

On the one hand, Bush's falling star is remarkable given the high numbers the president enjoyed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and during the first weeks following the quick military campaign in Iraq.

On the other hand - which is the main point of this column - no one should be surprised at Bush's eroding standing.

The Man from Texas is not up to the job. I wrote as much before he was "elected," and I reiterate it now. This issue is more important now than ever because the nation faces problems like never before. Spinning the evidence will hurt the nation.

During the first eight months of Bush's first term, handlers struggled to find a way to make the president look presidential and up to the challenge of governing the world's only superpower. The nation saw Bush whiling away the month of August at his Texas ranch, his staff trying to lend significance to the mundane.

Then, the World Trade Center came down and the Pentagon was hit. Bush was suddenly anointed with relevance and meaning. His presidency was transformed by catastrophe and chance.

Going to war against the Taliban was an easy call, as was deposing the Iraqi dictator. Anyone can win with the United States military at his command. Only now is Bush's real leadership ability being tested. The U.S. military per se - no matter who the commander in chief - is very good at destroying other armies. That is its function.

But after the bombs have stopped falling, then what?

Bush is now in the "then what?" stage of his presidency. And, with regard to the war in Iraq, the picture is ugly. How to put Iraq back together? How to govern without bombs? How to communicate with and serve the vanquished?

George W. Bush's biggest problem is that he never knew much about the world around him, and he still does not know much. All of his life, he has been known as a person who does not read, who does not travel unless forced to do so.

Note part of a recent New York Times editorial describing Bush's manner of informing himself:

"As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines' but "rarely read the stories.' The people who brief him on current events encounter many of the newsmakers personally, he said, and in any case "probably read the news themselves.' . . . During the Iraq invasion, when the rest of the nation was glued to TV, Mr. Bush's spokesman claimed that his boss had barely glanced at the pictures of what was going on . . . it is worrisome when one of the most incurious men ever to occupy the White House takes pains to insist that he gets his information on what the world is saying only in predigested bits from his appointees."

Anyone who listens seriously to the president speak surely has to wonder what on earth is going on. Will he ever utter something close to a spontaneous insight: a piece of wisdom that gives a little order to life, that moves us to see matters in a new way?

Many of us expect and want our president to be smarter than the rest of us. We want a president who reads voraciously, who may write a book without a ghostwriter, who loves to travel, who can synthesize disparate schools of thought and chunks of information to form a sensible view of reality. We have had such presidents, even during my lifetime.

November 2004 is fast approaching, and we need to start taking full measure of the man in the White House. We need to face the cold, hard truth about our president and ask ourselves if he is the man we want to lead the nation for another four years. For now, at least, the poll numbers are trying to tell us something.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: leadership; polls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: WillowyDame
reading is the most nourising thing you can do for fun. it enriches your brain and broadens understanding of the world.

Oh please.... If the President is able to read anything in the morning paper that he doesn't already KNOW, there is a major problem. How long has it been since you read anything in the morning rag that you hadn't read already on FR the day before?
41 posted on 09/29/2003 8:21:12 AM PDT by cspackler (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RLK
When you look in Bush's eyes, nobody's home.

Your blind spots are about as large as you ego. Everything else gets smaller from there.

42 posted on 09/29/2003 8:29:27 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Uh-huh.
43 posted on 09/29/2003 8:31:27 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Well, just like most Democrats, your response for your reasoning for why President Bush should not be re-elected, is fluff. Absolutely nothing of any value. Have you ever really looked President Bush, in the eyes, for real? NOT on TV, but in person?
44 posted on 09/29/2003 8:56:45 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Your blind spots are about as large as you ego. Everything else gets smaller from there.

-------------------------

As a commedian you might make it playing low class bars with drunken patrons ready to laugh at anything. As a political analyst your content leave musch to be desired. Who writes your material, Ann Richards or Maureen Doud?

45 posted on 09/29/2003 9:02:05 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
St. Petersburg Times

Who cares what a newspaper from the provinces of Russia has to say?

46 posted on 09/29/2003 9:04:52 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Well, just like most Democrats, your response for your reasoning for why President Bush should not be re-elected, is fluff....

-------------------------

I'm not a Democrat and a president who says it is America's obligation to share its wealth with the world, and who also encourages a de facto invasion across our borders is no Republican.

47 posted on 09/29/2003 9:06:20 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Anyone can win with the United States military at his command.

Johnson, Carter and Clinton couldn't.

48 posted on 09/29/2003 9:07:42 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
I'm not a Democrat and a president who says it is America's obligation to share its wealth with the world, and who also encourages a de facto invasion across our borders is no Republican.

You are absolutely correct. Bill Clinton was a Democrat.

49 posted on 09/29/2003 9:39:00 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
LOL! Bill Maxwell is from New York, btw. I don't know how long he's lived in Florida or what awful thing we did to deserve him here...
50 posted on 09/29/2003 9:57:59 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WillowyDame
"As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines' but "rarely read the stories.' that comment really worried me. how can bush not read current events and more?

Contrary to what you might have read, Bush does actually read books from time to time, though he clearly is a man who prefers physical activity. We also need to keep in mind that he's a pretty busy guy.

As far as reading the newspapers, 90% of them are controlled by people who hate his guts. Would you waste a lot of your personal time reading about what a terrible person you are?

51 posted on 09/29/2003 10:08:08 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RLK
IF you keep working hard you might one day get 2%, instead of the current .05%, of the American people to agree with your assisine word belch.
52 posted on 09/29/2003 10:09:29 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ohioman; Miss Marple; UCANSEE2; Cincinatus' Wife; Consort
For the record, it took me less than 5 minutes this morning to capture, what I feel, is the essence or the esteemed RLK's political analysis: a visceral envy of George W. Bush.

I went to the website that he is archived on, and clicked on the first article. After a few brief moments, I ran across the "Bush=Chamberlain" comparison. Call me a simple-minded dolt (my teenagers refer to me as Daddysaurus Rex), but I intuitively knew that the writer was not a BushBot.

Which leads me to fond memories of my college days, and one in particular. It was my junior year, and thanks to the core curriculum 'imposed' by those nasty Jesuits, I was forced to take 18 hours of theology and philosophy. As it turned out, those were among the most important of the 140+ hours that I took at Gonzaga.

In this particular philosophy class, there were 14 students, of which all but two were studying for the priesthood. I felt entirely out of my element, especially after our first assignment, a two-page typed analysis of Wittgenstein's Blue and Black Books. My brain was black and blue after finishing the book report.

To my utter shock, I earned an A- on that report, even my analysis was 180 degrees from that offered by the rest of the class.

When I approached the teacher (Fr. Gerry Kohls, SJ), he said, "in philosophy, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Besides, philosophy is nothing but a bunch of bull$hit, anyway."

Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of that class. Thanks, Gerry. Rest in peace.

53 posted on 09/29/2003 10:38:14 AM PDT by Night Hides Not
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not
My apologies for not editing...I meant to say

Wittgenstein's Blue and Brown Books.

To my utter shock, I earned an A- on that report, even though my analysis was 180 degrees from that offered by the rest of the class.

54 posted on 09/29/2003 10:46:22 AM PDT by Night Hides Not
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
This sentence, "As for newspapers, Mr. Bush said, "I glance at the headlines' but "rarely read the stories.' ticked off a memory of what I once read about Lincoln. Asked if he read the newspapers, he responded, "No, why should I? I know more than they do."

What these bobo reporters don't seem to realize is that insofar as political, intelligence and such information is concerned, the President is always more knowledgeable than those who don't see the reports that come across his desk.

55 posted on 09/29/2003 10:47:10 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
i guess you are right!

but i still say no more interviews!

just brings more trouble!!

i still think reading can be done just for FUN.

i agree that he should not read the mean stuff said written about him. even i hurt sometimes when i read them and i am not related to him.

56 posted on 09/29/2003 10:57:19 AM PDT by WillowyDame (BUSH 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
IF you keep working hard you might one day get 2%, instead of the current .05%, of the American people to agree with your assisine word belch.

----------------------------

Perhaps you should look at the results of the last presidential election. Bush, running against a moronic Owlgore lost the popular vote. The public was disgusted with both parties and produced a low turnout. The vote was, none of the above. Nowhere in this do I read .o5%. We were handed two stooges by the leftist media that was setting us up for Hillary. You are a patsy defending one of the stooges, thinking you are doing something and you are.

You people want to believe you haven't been had. You are at the stage where you will say anything, overlook anything, or deny anything in your attempts to believe. You have it in your heads that anyone who won't say just anything, won't overlook anything, won't deny anything and everything, is a supporter of the democraps or the socialists. That isn't the way mature reality works.

While a few naive goofs with high school mentalities cheer on the bombing of a few ragheads, Bush is destroying this nation with his refusal to refute Islam, with his complicity in tolerating, if not promoting, an invasion over our borders financed by our social service system, with his globalistic view that Americans should be drafted into servitude od the economic and cultural deficiencies of other countries, and so forth.

57 posted on 09/29/2003 11:01:01 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RLK
In other words, you think Bush has not been tough enough. When it comes to illegal immigration and refuting Islam, I can agree with you. However, if your advice were followed, we would certainly have a democarp in the Whithouse in '04. You know that would be considered as a victory by our enemies. In other words, Bush is our best REALISTIC hope. If I were a terrorist, I would vote democrat.
58 posted on 09/29/2003 11:09:06 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
George Bush is focused on national security not on his next election.

Well, he does seem to squeeze out enough time to explode the Federal budget, approve huge big-spending giveaway sprees to buy votes and make the government bigger and dumber on a daily basis.

He's totally focused on his next election.

59 posted on 09/29/2003 11:13:22 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
one of the most incurious men ever to occupy the White House

Considering where the curiosity of his predecessor got him, I'm more than contented, no, I'm delighted, to have a man as my president who does not need to nose around where he shouldn't be and can instead make firm decisions on where the nation needs to be. These reporters are so venomous they can't even think straight anymore.

60 posted on 09/29/2003 11:18:40 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson