Bush - "Without a Doubt" NY Times Mag.

[troutman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...ner=rssuserland

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''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.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''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. . . .


Blogs,

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36308

http://www.38ludlow.com/lemonblog/

It takes a very profoundly thorough look at the Bush presidency and the trend toward faith-based decision-making over analytical decision-making. Its really rather freightening. Keep in mind, Suskind is not a partisan hack. He was the senior national-affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000. Despite the White House's demonization of him following his co-authoring of the Paul O'Neill book last year. He is a straight shooting journalist.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Damn you Trout! I was going to post this. A great read. One that should scare the snot out of anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader. Lights are on but... we won't be fooled again!

[calculoso]

Damn is that a long article. I'll have to read it fully later.

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?'''

Biden said that 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!'''

If all that Bush has is instincts then he's a fool. Gut instincts sometimes do work, and if backed up with real facts and reason are great things. They are also things that can sometimes backfire big time. I am going to presume that he does have more than just instincts guiding him.... If not, he wouldn't have made it this far, no matter how much money he has.

Can he do better? Sure. Can Kerry do better? Debatable. Is there someone out there who can do better than both of them? One can only hope.

[octothorp]

Powerful stuff. Great read. Good to hear an honest discussion of the role that faith plays in Bush's life and decision-making policy. That Bartlett quote though, is one of the harshest things I've heard said about him. I wonder if he's right about the possibility of civil war within the republican party if Bush wins.

[Bertuzzied]

Ugh. Thank God. I thought the "without a doubt" referred to a Bush win! :unsure:

[Bingo]

Yikes tough choice for Americans!

A guy that won't listen to opinions of others, versus a guy that can't stick an opinion of his own!

Interesting read ... scary if completely true, though one has to wonder (and yes I wonder about Kerry attack pieces too) how much is ideology and how much is good honest truth. Probably a little of both.

[Five-hole]

You know, Bingo, I'm not so sure the fact that Kerry can't stick to an opinion is a bad thing. I know you were just making light of the situation, but this is a sentiment that is repeated all over the place. Are opinions not supposed to change? Can they not be malleable in the light of new facts rising to the surface? Can they not change based on the will of the people and current events? In my opinion, a stiff, uncompromising, near-zealot-minded leader is far worse than one that "flip-flops". It shows that he understands that not all issues are just black and white, yes-or-no questions. The world is far more complex than a zeal-minded attitude can possibly comprehend and compensate for.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Oct 19 2004, 09:24 PM
You know, Bingo, I'm not so sure the fact that Kerry can't stick to an opinion is a bad thing. I know you were just making light of the situation, but this is a sentiment that is repeated all over the place. Are opinions not supposed to change? Can they not be malleable in the light of new facts rising to the surface? Can they not change based on the will of the people and current events? In my opinion, a stiff, uncompromising, near-zealot-minded leader is far worse than one that "flip-flops". It shows that he understands that not all issues are just black and white, yes-or-no questions. The world is far more complex than a zeal-minded attitude can possibly comprehend and compensate for.

Well that's certainly a pro-Kerry way of looking at things.

I guess the other side of the coin could go something like ... a country needs a leader that is strong in his convictions and refuses to bail out when the going gets tough and his opinion polls are down. Someone that licks his finger and puts it up to see the direction of the wind isn't showing wisdom due to changing information, he's showing that he wants to be elected above all else.

The former is a leader, the latter a politician.

Bottom line though? I don't think your or my example extreme are fair ... both are over cooked as the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[RougeUnderoos]

Bush was reported to have said, ''I trust God speaks through me.''

These are the words of a crazy person. A deranged person thinks this way. If you think god speaks through you, you are crazy. Period.

I know I know, I selected a certain line out of 10 page article, but it's not the Enquirer. He probably did say it.

The whole "Jesus Aura" that Bush tries to quilt himself in is so truly ridiculous it's hard to believe. He's had this idiotic religious theme going on for 4 years and really, the people that buy it are just stupid. Granted, "stupid" is a harsh word, but they are extra-stupid. He works it both ways for these dummies -- he says he asks himself "What Would Jesus Do?" and then carries out his pre-emptive strikes. I'm not a theoligian but I know Jesus was not into pre-emptive strikes, and I'm quite sure he would look askance at the entire concept of "collateral damage".

Bingo said:
Someone that licks his finger and puts it up to see the direction of the wind isn't showing wisdom due to changing information, he's showing that he wants to be elected above all else.

Fair enough. But someone who licked his finger and put it up 3 years ago and 1) thought it was god's breath blowing on his finger, not the wind and 2) made a collossal blunder... is not a better choice

[Cowperson]

This is probably the fundamental (sic) reason I think Bush has to go, at least for me, the separation of church and state.

Although I support the conflict in Iraq, I said before the war started that Bush had to go in 2004 and that was before we even knew who the Democratic candidate would be. In fact, the war is about the only policy Bush has that I agree with.

The way to guarantee freedom of religion is to ensure it stays out of government.

As to divisions in the Republican party, its only relevant if you think someone from the Christian Right will beat out Rudy Giuliani or some other such candidate in 2008. Even if Bush wins, its probably a shorter term issue.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Kind of on the topic of Bush's religious fervor, Pat Robertson was on Paula Zahn last night (probably my favorite CNN personality). It was pretty scary to listen to him talk about how God tells him stuff like how Bush is chosen to win this election. Anyway, even he wishes GW would own up to some mistakes and admit fallibility. Pretty interesting that an absolute crackpot like Robertson is concerned with Bush's unjustified self-assurance.

[troutman]

The transcript from Paula Zahn (Bill Maher was also a guest):

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...19/pzn.01.html

ZAHN: When you said: "The lord has just blessed him. I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and come out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad. God picks him up, because he's a man of prayer and God is blessing him."

Are you suggesting that God wants George W. Bush to win?

ROBERTSON: Well, I just think -- he loves him. I mean, George Bush is a man of prayer. He talks to the lord. He tries to get his direction from the lord.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 20 2004, 02:23 PM
Kind of on the topic of Bush's religious fervor, Pat Robertson was on Paula Zahn last night (probably my favorite CNN personality). It was pretty scary to listen to him talk about how God tells him stuff like how Bush is chosen to win this election. Anyway, even he wishes GW would own up to some mistakes and admit fallibility. Pretty interesting that an absolute crackpot like Robertson is concerned with Bush's unjustified self-assurance.

I saw that and I agree guys like Pat Robertson are scary individuals.

He believes it though. And that's scarier still.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

To be honest I think it's somewhat insulting to even minded religious people to make statements like he's crazy, etc, because he has faith. That's not fair. A person can be deeply religious, put faith in prayor, and still make rational decisions. If the decisions aren't rational then there's your issue, not the fact that he drops the name God from time to time.

Take Schilling after last night's game ... he said something like "God pitched through me tonight. In game one I had nothing, tonight it was God".

Would I have said that? Nope. But do I assume Schilling is crazy because he did? Not at all. The man believes, and that belief has driven him to become one of the game's best pitchers. More power to him.

[dangler22]

With all due respect Curt Schilling isn't making decisons that concern the fate of a nation or even the world based on gut instincts and faith.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 20 2004, 08:29 AM
To be honest I think it's somewhat insulting to even minded religious people to make statements like he's crazy, etc, because he has faith. That's not fair. A person can be deeply religious, put faith in prayor, and still make rational decisions. If the decisions aren't rational then there's your issue, not the fact that he drops the name God from time to time.

Take Schilling after last night's game ... he said something like "God pitched through me tonight. In game one I had nothing, tonight it was God".

Would I have said that? Nope. But do I assume Schilling is crazy because he did? Not at all. The man believes, and that belief has driven him to become one of the game's best pitchers. More power to him.

There's a huge difference in someone checking with their God (or their faith, or their conscience, whatever), after using a legitimate decision-making process, and someone just using that same voice to replace any other sort of decision-making process.
In the article, you have people saying that Bush was overruling logic and the advice of other people, based on faith, on a gut sense. This would be like Schilling not bothering to watch any game film, and not listening to his pitching coach, and then getting up and throwing a fastball every time, because he has confidence in his fastball. It's like Kerry said during one of the Presidential debates--just because you're certain doesn't mean you're right.

Use all the tools available, talk to everyone who might be an expert on the subject, keep an open mind, and decide what the best decision is. Then check with your faith. If that voice clearly tells you that you're making the wrong decision, then don't do it--that's what most leaders do.

[Bingo]

Says this article ...

Look guys, if this article is 100% correct then yes there is a problem. But to see a New York Times article (the bastion for Manhatton left) suggest that Bush is an autocratic fool? You'll excuse me if I take that with a grain of salt.

A quick look around the net shows the author to be a very left leaning person with a clear focus on Bush.

That doesn't discount his views, facts or opinions, but it does suggest to me that it can't be taken as 100% accurate as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 20 2004, 09:29 AM
To be honest I think it's somewhat insulting to even minded religious people to make statements like he's crazy, etc, because he has faith. That's not fair. A person can be deeply religious, put faith in prayor, and still make rational decisions. If the decisions aren't rational then there's your issue, not the fact that he drops the name God from time to time.

Take Schilling after last night's game ... he said something like "God pitched through me tonight. In game one I had nothing, tonight it was God".

Would I have said that? Nope. But do I assume Schilling is crazy because he did? Not at all. The man believes, and that belief has driven him to become one of the game's best pitchers. More power to him.

Bingo said:

To be honest I think it's somewhat insulting to even minded religious people to make statements like he's crazy, etc, because he has faith. That's not fair.

It shouldn't be insulting to even-minded religious people. It's not an even-minded concept. He claims to be ruling by divine right and he's acting like Joan of Arc (without the whole "success" part).

It's delusional. I can respect faith and prayer and the whole 9 yards, but if someone tells me god is directly guiding their actions, well, that's just nonsense. The nutcases on the other side of this whole "War on Terror" believe exactly the same thing.

Curt Schilling and the rest of the bunch have performed a miracle and turned me into a baseball fan again. All that prayer after playing a game bugs me though. That is what should be insulting to religious people -- that these guys are on national tv saying "yeah, god spoke through my left arm and I got the guy to swing on that low and away fastball". I guess god wasn't working in that other guy's best interest, eh? God was playing for the BoSox last night? He picked sides against the religious guys on the other team and all those people in the stands. I'll admit, "crazy" is a harsh word. Maybe "wacky" is a better word. It's wacky to think that way.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 20 2004, 03:29 PM
To be honest I think it's somewhat insulting to even minded religious people to make statements like he's crazy, etc, because he has faith. That's not fair. A person can be deeply religious, put faith in prayor, and still make rational decisions. If the decisions aren't rational then there's your issue, not the fact that he drops the name God from time to time.

A few things.

Is it not height of hypocracy then to condem nations who are theologies?

Also, would you be comfortable if someone who were Jewish were using their religious beliefs to guide the nation? Or how about if David Koresh were President?

Personally I am not comfortable knowing that the President of the United States, the supreme commander of the most powerful military in the world, thinks he is appointed by God and that he has been spoken to by Him. The fact that George Bush belongs to a faction of the Christian movement which believes in the Book fo Revelation and that we are living in the finals days (End Days) of the world, and that he admits that is his "base" for his "gut decisions", well that doesn't sit right. In fact, that should scare the hell out of most people as this guy has the means to bring about End Days. Faith can be a good thing. But faith is not a proper response to complex issues that affect billions of people.

[Bingo]

Lanny if you were 100% dead on with your assessment I'd be with you, scared to death.

But that's just a take, and it isn't founded, and frankly I think it's blown way out of proportion.

I know I won't get you to agree with me, and that's fine, but any straight answer I've seen him give on the subject hasn't worried me in the least. It's the behind the scenes stuff that liberals seem to have that has people like you worried.

Are there direct quotes that back these things up? I'm not daring you to find them, as I'll look to. I just don't remember anything first hand.