Bushism
Posted August 6th, 2004 @ 08:49am by Erik J. Barzeski
This is exactly the kind of thing I think that I hate most about President Bush:
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
I don't like that we have a President who can't say "nuclear" properly, or one who can't get the "fool me once" quote right. I think that, among many other things, the President of our country should be an established public speaker. Clinton Charisma might be a bit too much, but at least the man could speak. So could Reagan and Kennedy (John F., not the lameass Ted). Nixon could deliver a speech.
Yes, it's easy to get what the President meant to say - that we never stop thinking too. But that's not what he said. This isn't near enough to get me to change my vote, but I'm with everyone who despises that our President can't seem concentrate for five seconds at a time while delivering a speech.
Donate Life
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 9:11am #
Dude, if you'd done as much blow as Bush you couldn't concentrate for five seconds either. [/sarcasm]
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 10:15am #
I like that Bush is a genuine, plain-spoken man. With that comes a few mistakes from time to time. I don't like slippery, word-parsing pols who sound like they're speaking on the witness stand, trying not to lie but also not tell the whole truth...
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 10:41am #
Bush isn't plain spoken. His speeches are as slippery as any other politician's. They are only differentiated from other politician's speeches by their syllabic complexity, or lack-thereof. The spin that Karl Rove & Co have put on Bush's lack of effort on the public speaking front is that he's a "plain spoken" politician. After all, Americans don't usually appreciate lack of effort. They cannot exactly admit that he just doesn't bother to improve his skills in this area because he doesn't care or simply does not want to.
The whole "nuclear" pronunciation fiasco does not bother me too much. If you've ever heard a Brit pronounce aluminum, you'll understand why. Seeing that English is truly their native tongue, I figure I'll let the "nuclear" thing slide. It's worth pointing out though that Rove & Co explicitly told Bush to keep pronouncing the word that way. It would make him appear plain-spoken.
In the Rove & Co Dictionary, plain-spoken is the positive spinster term for an "inability or unwillingness to strive for excellence in the public speaking domain". Traditionally, Americans reward excellence and frown upon mediocrity -- especially when it's self-inflicted. It's amazing just how much these same Americans who pride themselves on propping up traditional values and such are willing to let things slide when it's good ol' plain-spoken W. There's no reason that Bush, given the amount of practice he has already had, should not speak rather well. So, he either does not care about speaking well, or he is unwilling to improve his current abilities.
I would have loved to see Bush confront the British Parliament back when he visited the UK. The contrast in communication skill level between Bush and the MPs would have proven once and for all that Bush is not plain-spoken but rather, just incapable.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 10:44am #
Paul, begin using a valid email address or I'll begin deleting or blocking your comments. If you're worried about spambots, supply a domain name like "http://apple.com/" or something. It completely masks your email address to robots or spiders.
Furthermore, "Aluminium" is as accepted as "Aluminum." The different pronunciation in that case is correct for their spelling of the word.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 10:50am #
Your partly wrong. The reason most people who don't like Bush is that:
if you disagree with him you must be a terrorist… or at least hate the country and wish to destroy it…if you disagree with him or offer him an opposing view you must be wrong it you might infect his mind with unholy thoughts…
So basically he is unwilling or incapable of learning… in the sense that he doesn't really care to expand beyond his current understanding. He ran as a uniter yet he seems to run away from any concept of inclusion or acceptance of varying ideas, methodologies or solutions.
Some say that's a stick to your guns strong leader… other just say that's a mark of a fool. Add that with his inabilities to form coherent thoughts well… you get the idea.
I on the other hand just think he's fun of empty promises and full of one-dimensional moral beliefs. I also feel part of his speaking come from his cold calculated moves guanine and plainspoken, just like those photo-op hay bails… okay maybe the hay bails are fake but when you hear Bush speak "off the cuff" the bumbling buffoon is no where to be found. I also feel he's the first the sling the mud yet whine once he's criticized. Bush ran on under the banner of "I'm uniter, not a divider". With I will admit was a great slogan after the phony scandal laden Clinton years… but where did the division start… who was on the attack? In my mind the Republicans… the Halliburton 1988 mess was far worse than White Water… which lead to Monica… (for some interesting reading do a google search for ted olson Arkansas… or click my name).
That's my take, my view something that I am entitled to… I don't offer any of my above comments as fact.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 11:00am #
Samual, next time you wish to criticize someone for their public speaking skills, perhaps your own typed grammar and spelling could improve. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, and would take your comments at face value, but when you're criticizing someone for having poor grammar or pronunciation, please take care to mind your own grammar and spelling. It only makes sense.
Furthermore, you really can't say "The reason most people who don't like Bush" [sic] and then say "I don't offer any of my above comments as fact."
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 11:08am #
Erik, I'm curious. What possible redeeming quality does Bush have that makes you want to vote for him?
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 12:44pm #
So basically he is unwilling or incapable of learning…
How much quality time have you spent with the man, Sam? It must have been a lot, right? To justify coming up with such a specific opinion of him, I mean?
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 12:50pm #
What's so funny about Bushisms is that, considering his performance, he could be saying what he actually means.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 12:56pm #
Erik,
I registered with TypeKey. I'll refrain from posting if you find my comments annoying.
Kevin,
Your question to Erik has got me thinking. In my opinion, people admire politicians the way they are attracted to romantic mates. Have you ever asked a person who their ideal mate is, or what they look for in a mate, only to compare these thoughts with their past and present partners? More often than not in my experience, I find that the two do not match -- they are often off by quite a margin. I don't believe this is because these people just can't find a mate that fits the bill either. I don't mean this in a negative sense, but I think much of our minds work in quite an irrational way and to attempt to rationalize some of the thought processes is futile. I've given up asking people why they like certain politicians just like I've given up asking people what they look for in a romantic partner. As far as I'm concerned, quite a large reason for their attraction will never be rationally explained. After all, how do you enumerate something that is fundamentally indiscrete? Some people just tend toward being attracted to a certain personality, and they would do so regardless of that person's actions.
I'm sure the same can be said about why Bush's personality just rubs me the wrong way. I could rattle off a dozen reasons why I dislike Bush, but the fact remains that I disliked him from the get-go, before most of those dozen reasons came about in his presidency. I don't believe I align myself politically with any current party. Indeed, Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't rile me up the way this Bush does.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 1:33pm #
Tomas Jogin hits the nail. Period.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 5:00pm #
What's so funny about Bushisms is that, considering his performance, he could be saying what he actually means.
"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 5:13pm #
I'm far from perfect and I will be the first to admit it... and my writing style is far from perfect. I'm neither a writer nor a public speaker or even a poet, I tend to quickly type out my thoughts and ideas and proof them at a later time, when I have time. In such an informal free flowing medium the cherished content should the ideas, thought and dialog not style. If you have a hard time understanding my true intentions, then maybe I should run for office:
Icky `04 cause it's plainly Icky 🙂
To Jeff... I offer up this clarification. I haven't spent any time with him nor do I have to form my opinion of the man. I know this; he doesn't like to read newspapers. I believe I heard (sound bite) him say it "clouds his judgment". Clouds it from what?
If you surround yourself with like-minded people chances are you will very seldom get a dissenting analysis of some subject matter; where dissention produces a comprehensive analysis. Now if you finish my thought past the ellipsis in my remarks, my comments where not direct towards his intellectual aptitude but his curiosity. To answer my own question, I would venture to guess he doesn't like to have his vision clouded with curiosity. To me that is a key component to learning, lack of curiosity shows tunnel vision and a total contempt to anyone outside the neoconservative movement. To be fair on that last point he does seem to pay some lip service to those with similar views.
I whole heartily believe in the separations of powers; checks and balances is a vital key to a healthy and efficient republic. Which I might add this administration fails to appreciate. Equally important is the symbiotic relationship between the government and the media, not necessarily the mass media (see the link on my name for such an instance). We should expect and demand that the media not only criticizes the powers that be, hopefully in a constructive manner, but powers should also accept criticism. I also believe the press should have the ability to ask the President direct questions and receive a direct answer and not some one message response. The in the current political climate we lack all three; mass media is partially culpability.
I wasn't criticizing his public speaking style nor skills, I think Erik did a fairly good job at that himself. I see no reason why I, of all people should pile on or beat a dead horse. My comments, why people don't like Bush, where solely based on my observations, which are in no way scientific. I collected my pseudo-evidence based on a collection of conversations, which I used to form my hypothesis.
Back the main point. If I had to choose between a non-curious well rounded public speaker or a curious yet bumbling public speaker... I'll pick the latter each time. Yes I would like a President who can take my thoughts and sentiments and magical state them in some profound manner. However I don't consider that should necessarily be required, but inevitably it is. As Erik so gracefully indicate if your message can so easily get lost amongst the words if you don't have a fluid delivery. So maybe Bush does have some curiosity, maybe he doesn’t have tunnel vision and maybe he does care about views outside the neoconservative movement. I just don't see them. That's my problem with Bush, and when you get down to it that why I most people don't like Bush. The Bushism just gives you something laugh at, cry at and just shake you head and wonder.
To sum it up in Bush Sr. isms
Losing your messenger to your words, bad.
Lack of curiosity, very bad.
Well spoken, good.
Curiosity, very good.
Number of people who read this comment can be found if you take all the words from this posting and multiple that by chance I will vote for Bush in `04"
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 5:31pm #
Since when did "curiosity" (a quality not readily quantified, I might add) become a barometer for effective leadership? (Icky says since Bush took office.) Since when did "public speaking" become a criteria for leadership? (Since television.) Since when could anyone say with a straight face that the media isn't critical of Bush? (Since Icky did it.) Since when was it appropriate to form policy based on daily changes to public opinion polls (the quote about newspapers refers to polls and commentary thereon)? Not now or ever!
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 7:47pm #
My broken essay, part 3.
Mitch you missed the point…
I never implied, at least I hope not, that curiosity is barometer for effective leadership. Just because I have little faith in Bush as a leader and I find his curiosity skills lacking doesnt make 1 + 1 = 11. Just because if all things where equal I would prefer a curious yet bumbling public speaker to a non-curious well rounded public speaker doesnt make 2 + 2 = 22. As I alluded to in my last post I really don't think public speaking should be a mark of an effective leader, even if it is inevitably necessary for the very reason Mitch pointed out, Television. We the people, yes we the people, have short attention spans, and yes we the people as a nation are problem less curious than we should be. We the people television land found Kennedy a better debater than the attentive radio world and with that the 20-second sound bite lives on. I too live in that tv world… and for better or worse thats what we have. Would you not agree that when you lack a comprehensive analysis of any subject you miss half the picture (see name link for example)? Would you not agree if you surround yourself with like-minded people you're surrounded by "yes men"? Would you not agree lack of curiosity is akin to wearing blinders you know one thing and thats straight a head?
First off the "liberal" media has been far kinder to Bush since he took office than the "liberal" media was to Clinton… but far harsher than the "liberal" media was to his daddy. And Fox is well fox. So he's in the middle of the critical scope… but the media hasn't pursed many stories that lack some visual to spoon-feed us during the evening news.
As for point two, your right we live in Republic not a Democracy. I'm slightly puzzled on one small point. When did our right-winged neo-conservative friends decide reading a newspaper meant you where following some public opinion poll? Yes it can gauge the public sentiments. However it does something more powerful. Reading a paper informs you about the world we live in, the real world. It shares real word concerns, and not the concerns you extrapolate from a focus group.
I really don't care to argue this anymore… I was just simple posting my observations on why the progressives don't care for Bush. Instead I get attacked… funny.
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 9:28pm #
That's one of those myths that comes up from time to time. Like the myth that Al Gore said he invented the Internet.
The White House runs its own news clipping service. Every day, all the members of the senior staff get a stapled, xeroxed booklet of news clippings from all the major papers around the country. The President reads it over breakfast. I've read that he also reads the Post from cover to cover, and that he reads the Sunday Times.
Tell us more about this parallel universe you inhabit. Yours is the one where Spock wears a goatee, right?
Posted 06 Aug 2004 at 10:01pm #
I got a whole calendar of Bushism's... one reason I'd want him to be in office another four years is the continuance of stupid stuff he'll say. :p But as the year progresses, the calendar gets shorter. 🙁
Ok... on second thought... not really, they'll still probably print them regardless of if he's President or not!
Posted 07 Aug 2004 at 12:50pm #
Since democracy was once founded in Greece.
Posted 07 Aug 2004 at 1:27pm #
The myth?
Thats what Bush said… take it as you will… taken from 9-22-03 interview on FOX.
Now the flip-flop.
From Leno 5.19.04 (via whitehouse.gov)
Now these comments I do offer up as fact.
Posted 07 Aug 2004 at 2:17pm #
"Since democracy was once founded in Greece."
Booga,
No. Look at the United States of America. Think about how many poor orators were president before the advent of television. Being a well-spoken orator has always been an asset, but never a requirement until television.
Posted 08 Aug 2004 at 10:04pm #
"This isn't near enough to get me to change my vote [away from Bush]"...
Apparently, neither is transforming the largest surplus ever into the largest deficit ever -- nor working against states
rights -- nor using a spurious war to channel public money to certain corporations -- nor using 9/11 to further his own agenda while breeding terrorism and cynicism.
I wonder -- what would make you change your vote?
Silvio Levy
Posted 26 Oct 2004 at 3:06pm #
Bushisms are funny because they reveal an irony.
The most powerful man in the world, is an idiot. How our standards have changed, through all the talk of progress, see how our leaders have degenrated.
Once they were Gods, then they were heroes, now they are a pair of puppets.
Posted 21 Feb 2005 at 10:17pm #
I agree with your POV. I don't see how he made it to presidency, are the American public dim-witted?
" What I believe- I believe i will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe I believe is right."
This is basically a cumbersome way of say 'I will do whatever I want'. Only, with Bush, it's with repetition and incorrect syntax. He reminds me of a 6 year old girl writing a diary. "...and then we went to the zoo and then ...and then...but then....so then..." etc
why did you americans re-elect him. WHY?
well, I could say more, but it'll be inappropriate.
Posted 12 Jun 2006 at 2:50am #
"Shit talkin' Man" George Bush's real theme songe and title. GW's best public blunders and Bushisms
Heavy metal politics fighting the power through free speech and aggressive music. I personally likr blasting this track in car when I pull up next to Bush supporters.
go to http://www.myspace.com.thechronicunderground