Faith in the President

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:28 am

The revised landscape in Washington makes it worth reflecting on what changed over the last couple of years. A willingness to allow God to run the nation directly, by the look of it. Rupert Cornwell's article in this morning's Independent prompted me to go back to go back to Ron Suskind's New York Times opinion piece of October 17, 2004 for a few quotes about the mind of the President.

He quoted Bruce Bartlett, a treasury official for the first President Bush. "Just in the past few months," Bartlett said, "I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do [...] This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them... This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts, he truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence."

Suskind quotes Joe Biden telling a story about the president. "I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad," he began, "and I was telling the president of my many concerns". Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. "'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?"' Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. "I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!"'

This passage is the bit that Rupert Cornwell mentioned in passing, though. I'm pleased that I looked back and read it in full:In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend - but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [...]

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:51 am

Interesting post Spot

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:58 am

"...And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

I believe I've seen this theory in action. Quite often.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:04 am

I don't think Bush is a moron. I think he oversimplifies and tends to be reactive and impulsive..Since he apparently had issues with alcohol earlier in his life I am not surprised at this...These traits are common in the "addicitive personality". He also surrounded himself with like minded advisors (with the sole exception of Colin Powell) which is a dangerous thing for a president to do.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:02 pm

And neither do I think he's a moron, and nor do Rupert Cornwell or Ron Suskind, from the look of it. I do think he had nothing to do with his choice of advisors though. I think he was selected as the front-man for the entire administration and he's acted as such ever since. I don't think he has the slightest say in what policy decisions are made - he's the presenter, not the writer, much less the producer or shareholder.

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:12 pm

spot;455257 wrote: And neither do I think he's a moron, and nor do Rupert Cornwell or Ron Suskind, from the look of it. I do think he had nothing to do with his choice of advisors though. I think he was selected as the front-man for the entire administration and he's acted as such ever since. I don't think he has the slightest say in what policy decisions are made - he's the presenter, not the writer, much less the producer or shareholder.
I thought that was the same for all U.S.Presidents

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:16 pm

Uncle Kram;455269 wrote: I thought that was the same for all U.S.PresidentsHow far back do you want to go? Nixon was his own man, surely, as were Ford and Carter.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:38 pm

spot;455257 wrote: And neither do I think he's a moron, and nor do Rupert Cornwell or Ron Suskind, from the look of it. I do think he had nothing to do with his choice of advisors though. I think he was selected as the front-man for the entire administration and he's acted as such ever since. I don't think he has the slightest say in what policy decisions are made - he's the presenter, not the writer, much less the producer or shareholder.

Wasn't implying you thought that, it's a common view held by many people over actually. His relavent political experience was as Governor of Texas and he was very good at forging coalitions with the democrats at that time. He was a complete novice at foreign affairs six years and this was a huge reason in selecting Cheney as his VP. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the main architects of US foreign policy without a doubt and Cheney in particular wanted to invade Iraq. It's to bad he followed the advice of the neocons and decided on an all or nothing strategy with the democrats and indeed the rest of the world.

Just curious why do you think he had nothing to do with the choice of his advisors? Many of them like Carl Rove went all the way back to his days in Texas. A lot of the postitions were also filled as rewards for political favors garnered on the way to the White House but he still approved them. As Uncle says very few presidents are the actual architects of their policies, however, some have had more expertise in foreign affairs than others and have been more involved crafting policies. Nixon and Daddy Bush come to mind...

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:39 pm

spot;455257 wrote: And neither do I think he's a moron, and nor do Rupert Cornwell or Ron Suskind, from the look of it. I do think he had nothing to do with his choice of advisors though. I think he was selected as the front-man for the entire administration and he's acted as such ever since. I don't think he has the slightest say in what policy decisions are made - he's the presenter, not the writer, much less the producer or shareholder.

Bush said he is "The Decider" He gets word from God in his sleep I think and he acts on it. He does surround himself with people who think like him or act as though they do. But yes, he does foolow a script most of the time and when he ad libs, they all worry.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:10 pm

i would know next to nothing about the current politics if i did not follow these threads. thanks for all the info. guys.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:22 pm

Thanks for bumping this to the front or else I wouldn't have seen it.

I don't know why more people haven't joined this thread, it's a valid topic.

I imagine many of our past presidents had a certain amount of faith and probably looked to their faith to help guide them in decisions. I actually don't find that troublesome. But what is different about Bush doing it? Is it because he's so rabid about religion? So public with it? I have NO faith in him. I never have and now I have even less if that's possible. I find his idea of spreading christianity to be a very scary thing. The guy is a danger. Power+religion=yikes! I have no faith in him for other reasons as well but since we're discussing his religious bend I'll stick with that too.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:23 pm

guppy, get outside of these threads for info. Don't believe everything you read here.....or in any one place for that matter.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:25 pm

Adam Zapple;463565 wrote: guppy, get outside of these threads for info. Don't believe everything you read here.....or in any one place for that matter.

Thinks az. i read all the threads. take in what info i find relevant and let the rest go. actually, in a few days i couldn't tell you any of it anyway. i just find some of the facts presented on the president and his cabinet interesting.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:30 pm

I actually find a certain amount of comfort in the idea of a president having a strong faith. I also voted for bush, which makes me the enemy in some's eyes, but oh well. If presented with the same candidates again I'd make the same choice.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:32 pm

Mystery;463570 wrote: I actually find a certain amount of comfort in the idea of a president having a strong faith. I also voted for bush, which makes me the enemy in some's eyes, but oh well. If presented with the same candidates again I'd make the same choice.

I voted for him too. he was the lesser of two evils to me. ........and, like you, i would vote the same way again.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:09 pm

guppy;463571 wrote: I voted for him too. he was the lesser of two evils to me. ........and, like you, i would vote the same way again.

Exactly the way I see it

Bush has his flaws, but what president, or politician for that matter, doesn't?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:55 pm

Faith in the President

no thank you

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:05 pm

Nomad;469123 wrote: Faith in the President

no thank you

That quite simply sums it up!