Bush's gaffes

Yeah, I agree, give poor Gord a brake.

Good catch, David. What a non-story this is. It shows how there are certain topics that are considered "safe," part of the official narrative. Usually there's some sort of grounding for it, as in the Bush gaffes stories, but sometimes there's not, as the Vanity Fair article about the 2000 campaign points out.

The one that I'll find personally offensive for the rest of my life is the way that Adm. Stockdale is remembered by many as some sort of buffoon. Granted, he looked terrible in his first debate. There's no way around that. But he was about as courageous and accomplished a human being as you'll ever find. Shouldn't that have factored into coverage somehow?

And, as you point out, we get this foolishness instead of, say, discussions of how Bush was received by most Australians, or how America's image abroad has changed in the past decade.

Ugh.

I agree. What were we talking about, again?

Actually, "Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day" was one of me and my siblings favorite childhood books. We still use the term "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day" on a pretty regular basis.

As Heraldblog states, these stories are important, especially juxtaposed with your prior post on Bush's lack of humility. He is seen, and rightly so, the world over as being not only a warmonger but also as being not very smart. That is not a good combination of qualities, and the voters should be reminded of that fact at every opportunity so we don't repeat that mistake.

It used to be that we elected the best and the brightest to represent us. A candidate's intelligence - knowledge of history and world affairs, economics, the US Constitution, and so on - should be given greater weight than "hmmm...would I like to have a beer with this guy?"

Too many of the President's assorted other failures are a product of his insular world view, which was on display in Sydney.

Hi Doug,

That's a good point. I'd bet that almost every one of us has made plenty of verbal gaffes like that; I know I do. And yes, a leader's real mistakes and the real successes should be the main focus instead of little miscues. Which makes me ask myself why I took such delight in reading about Bush's little mistakes here. After all, I'm a Texan, was here when Bush was governor, knew he was a lunkhead back then. Maybe Bush just reminds me of my dad. Perhaps I'd better grab a cigar and re-read some Freud.

I'm joking, Doug, but just a little. You did give me something to think about.

And again I also agree with Heraldblog. Bush does seem to have a quite limited and indeed black-and-white view of the world and its goings-on. It seems to me that he's had only 2 periods of success in his various careers. As Texas' governor, he had very limited responsibility. The real leader of the state is the Lt. Gov. who, under Bush, was a Democrat. And Bush was quite liked by many who saw him as affable and harmless.

His other main success was in buying part of the Texas Rangers baseball club and reaping substantial rewards as his investment grew. Now, some say that he bought in with some under-the-table dealings but the point is he made a nice fortune. How? By doing nothing. He let those who knew the business run the team while he enjoyed the games.

So the two periods in his career which are viewed as successes are when he was a figurehead, friendly but not too bright, someone who could cash in on his dad's connections to help the team. Will history judge Bush's worst mistake as President to be surrounding himself with the wrong people?