Observations on Bushisms

[stonehearted]

Published on Thursday, November 28, 2002 by the Toronto Star

 

Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Author

Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms

 

by Murray Whyte

 

When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on

a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W.

Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize

wasn't entirely amusing.

 

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own

collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth

about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world.

He's not a moron at all - on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean

Chrétien agree.

 

But according to Miller, he's no friend. "I did initially intend it to be a

funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the

transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and

communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.

 

"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a

sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an

inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled

manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is

what a lot of people miss."

 

Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide

personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion

currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in

fact, simply an idiot.

 

If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In

studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern

emerging.

 

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when

he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.

 

"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine,"

Miller said.

 

"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or

idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

 

While Miller's book has been praised for its eloquence" and "playful use of

language," it has enraged Bush supporters.

 

Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans - his approval rating hovers at

near 80 percent - was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11

terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language

of retribution was clear.

 

It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the

Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after

a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating

at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not

seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one

term in office.

 

But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato"

is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.

 

At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of

his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam

Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush

was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me

twice, shame on me. What came out was the following:

 

"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool

me - can't get fooled again!"

 

Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.

 

"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry'

and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.

 

"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to

save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is

absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

 

If what Miller says is true - and it would take more than just observations

to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.

 

By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just

folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.

 

This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says:

Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a

regular, imperfect Joe.

 

But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides -

imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the

"folks" he's been designed to appeal to.

 

An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.

 

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as

saying.

 

"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put

food on your family's table' - it's because he doesn't care about people who

can't put food on the table," Miller says.

 

So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes

on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller

contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to

him.

 

"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about

democracy, he can't do it," he said.

 

This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says -

not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge! in

the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.

 

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're

very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him

anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."

 

Miller, without question, is a man with a mission - and laughter isn't it.

 

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and

death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

 

[Streetstraw]

SOTU: Bush Makes a Strong Case on Iraq

Commentary by John Dickerson for TIME.com

 

(Jan. 28) -- George Bush gave two speeches tonight: one on his domestic agenda and another on his plan for confronting Saddam Hussein. The first has already been forgotten. Many may remember the second as marking the first time they knew we were going to war.

 

State of the Union Speeches are usually as much about the way a president delivers his remarks as they are about the remarks themselves. The theater is usually not very good. President's rouge up their plans, but the long list of programs and calls to grand action often feel as hollow as the many standing ovations.

 

Tonight, when George Bush talked about Iraq there was only a lone cough. There didn't need to be the phony interruptions for applause and Bush didn't try to goose the audience into giving them. He put forward a powerful indictment without clinking his spurs too much or leaning on his holster.

 

The speech was dead serious, and without lapses into the occasional I'm-looking-at-you-seriously-now furrow. It did not contain a single wisecrack; Bush stowed his famous snicker even during the entry glad-handing. He was a long way from the president who joked about his legitimacy in his first visit to that well of the House.

 

Beyond the simple theatrics and straight delivery, Bush made news too. He charged that "thousands" of Iraqis were engaged in efforts to thwart inspectors and he made good on Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz's claim that the Iraqis had infiltrated the weapons inspection teams. He charged that Saddam is intimidating scientists and replacing them with imposters when the U.N. teams come knocking. If this stands up, these two charges may become the ones that tip the country and the U.N. Security Council fully in favor of U.S. military action against Saddam. Or, if Secretary of State Powell is unable to prove Bush's claims in his trip to the U.N. next week the new allegations may seem like desperate attempts to come up with any dirt that will work and undo the support the president rallied tonight.

 

Before the first Gulf War, President Bush compared Saddam to Hitler to help explain him. Tonight, his son did a version of the same, putting forward a graphic litany of the Iraqi dictator's abuses: " electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape." This was an abbreviated version of stories that have animated the president for months, according to White House officials. These are the tales that Bush tells in the private meetings. This barbarism is why, advisers say, Bush is so insistent, as he said in his speech: "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

 

The press is obsessed with the Iraq question and the country does want to hear what George Bush has planned for healthcare and the economy. In many polls, people say that the economy concerns them more than Iraq or the war on terror. But watching George Bush's body language and the way the speech developed shows that it isn't just the Washington media that is heavily focused on Iraq.

 

Bush's case for his domestic programs seemed dutiful compared to his pitch against Saddam. Martial speeches are just easier than ones about tax and healthcare policy, but he toured through his domestic agenda quickly — from plans to spur production of hydrogen-powered automobiles to fostering healthy forests — getting his legs under himself only for his discussion of faith based initiatives. His plan for removing taxes on dividends is failing. Members of both parties oppose it and all he did was essentially re-read the talking points. Bush can be evangelical when talking about education. When he sold his first $1.3 trillion tax cut he became animated talking about single mothers trying to support a family. There was none of that tonight.

 

The president appeared to tear up when he talked about his $15 billion AIDS initiative and again, when he promised "free people will set the course of history." (Memo to the TV producer of future speeches: don't focus on Tom Ridge for half a minute when the president is working his way through one of the most passionate parts of his speech.)

 

For a president who is best when focusing on one task, the split in Bush's speech tonight raises the old issues about his administration's ability to multi-task. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time," says a senior White House official. But senior officials also joke that the administration has Attention Deficit Disorder and can't stay on message when it comes to domestic programs. In addition to his bold growth package, Bush is also taking on a substantial $400 billion reorganization of Medicare based on the politically charged strategy of inducing seniors into more cost effective plans by offering a prescription drug benefit. It's a big gamble and one that will require constant presidential tending. Even allies expect the program to get nowhere in Congress, winding up like Bush's plan for Social Security private accounts which he pushed in the 2000 campaign but which merited only a single sentence tonight.

 

Issue overload hampered Bush's economic pitch last year and there are signs it will again. Last week, twice, when President Bush tried to draw headlines and attention to his growth package, he trumped himself by making more news with his remarks on Iraq. One aide was so focused on proving that the public supported the president's policy towards Saddam Hussein, he was willing to get off message about the economy. "The Iraq numbers are fine," he said, "it's the numbers on the economy that worry us." Tonight, Bush did more to help the first than to fix the second.

=========

If President Select Bush was veggy & really ready to introduce 6-speed hydrogen-powered cars already in use in Europe, which is way ahead of Amerikan in every pious, progressive category, bar none, I'd enthusiastically support him.

Destructive TamoguN Fogs may attract some; u know who u r.

[stonehearted]

Streestraw writes: If President Select Bush was veggy & really ready to introduce 6-speed hydrogen-powered cars already in use in Europe, which is way ahead of Amerikan in every pious, progressive category, bar none, I'd enthusiastically support him.

 

Those are big enough "ifs" to make it purely hypothetical, considering the depth of his ties to the beef industry and the petroleum industry. Guess what's for dinner at W's house: most likely not basmati rice, panir sabji, kachoris, rasamalai and halava.