In regards to George W. Bush, I think the man has a tremendously appealing 'surface' personality, that he is gifted with a deceiving charm and fairly good looks, but there is no real substance or depth to him. I can't help feeling his wealth, family linage, and just sheer luck have contributed considerably to his accomplishments, what realistically few there are. He is not and never will be the quality of President, that Ronald Reagan was. On the other hand, I think that Laura Bush stands out as one of the most beautiful, talented, charming and intelligent First Ladies we have ever had. She is not as sharp edged, cold, and calculated as Hilary Clinton, nor as vain and selfish as Nancy Reagan. I'd even say she out shines Jackie Kennedy. Considering that I loved, admired and respected Jackie, that makes this a rare compliment.
[note: see link below for the author of the following statement]
The problem for Bush is that his kind of world view leads to failure and disaster as surely as anything. By being so rigid, he is unable to adapt and trust. So when failure comes, it comes quickly and without mercy. By being unable to accept error, criticism or dissent, he is unable to make adjustments in his plans. That kind of weakness becomes a target for his enemies, who give him rigid targets and then sweep across in flexible feats of ledgedemain. Does anyone think Bush could survive a debate with Saddam Hussein, forget Howard Dean or Wesley Clark, men who can recall facts from the top of their heads? Bill Clinton would gut him like a catfish before a church social.
As long as Bush is kept in a tightly regulated world, he can function. Once that world is disrupted, he becomes disoriented and prone to bullying and wildly inappropriate behavior, like trying to bully senators. Polticially, some politicians, FDR, even more so Harry Truman, become stronger in office. As they gain confidence and knowledge, they take more calculated risks. Bush grows weaker, more beset by dissention and opposition. Unable to understand, much less comphrend other world views, he can only react with anger. Which is why he personalized the conflict with the French. It wasn't about legitimate concerns, but people thwarting his will and his plans. Bush takes the greatest risk for the most minimal gain. Massive tax cuts for small possible job gains, invading a country peripheral to both the war on terror and middle east conflict, who's resolution will not bring great change.
Bush has failed his entire life. His anger and resentment comes from a lack of truly independent success. I would watch for a serious, public explosion around November 7th. As his father, in that quiet, WASP way, undermines his son in the most public way possible, by honoring a man who called him a liar once and will do so again while praising his father
. Bush has felt humiliated by his father his entire life, now, this is the crowing insult to a lifetime of perceived slights and insults, which exist nowhere but in his head. If the Iraqi resistance reads the Guardian, and they do, they will be planning a major attack for that time, counting on an angry, disoriented Bush to do something completely counterproductive. " -so said Steve at.. Steve Gilliard's Blog >