Bush and His People

James Fallows wrote a lengthy article in the July/August issue of The Atlantic entitled "When George Meets John" which discussed the relative debating skills of George Bush and John Kerry. The article prompted a letter to the editor from Anne Carpenter which rather brilliantly captures the essence of Bush.

The whole of James Fallows's article on Bush and Kerry's debate styles was interesting, but one comment jumped out at me: "[Bush] has rarely been interested in the details of any policy matter, believing that he 'has people' who can master the subject for him." What further proof is needed that Bush's policy decisions are based on whatever his "people" choose to tell him? Naturally they will tell him whatever (and only whatever) supports their own agendas.

Although, as Mary Beth Rogers says in the Fallows article, his "ability to stick to his message and repeat it" might be "remarkable," it implies to me that he doesn't know enough to answer questions that go beyond the text he has been given by his "people." I suspect that his "widely noted lack of eloquence" is due to his understandable insecurity. If the ideas he is expressing are not his ideas, based on his own knowledge and decision-making, then he can only repeat by rote what he has rehearsed.

Bush's lack of interest in details gives unprecedented power to his advisers (read "puppeteers")—in this case the extremists of the military/industrial/religious-right coalition who are currently running the White House, the country, and, if they have their way, the world. We need an independent thinker in the Oval Office.

Agreed. Bush scares me quite a bit, but not nearly as much as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft. His unwavering loyalty to those three, and others, is reason enough to vote him out of office.