Mr. Bush harnesses ''facts,'' both true and false

[host]

Do you agree that Bush conducts his presidency as if he believes "that reality is not about facts?" If you agree, can you vote for Bush in spite of this, and
why or why not? Or, is Kristoff's opinion of Bush inaccurate?

In today's NY Times, Nicholas Kristof write an op-ed piece titled
"Pants on Fire?" He comes to this conclusion about an excerpt from
Bush's autobiography, concerning the story in the second quote box
below:

The current president's hyped version of the incident reflects his casual relationship with truth. Like President Ronald Reagan, reality to him is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths: Mom and Dad are loving grandparents, Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and so on. To clarify those overarching realities, Mr. Bush harnesses "facts," both true and false.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Pants on Fire?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/opinion/27kristof.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/opinion/27kristof.html</a>

Published: October 27, 2004

Whenever I say that President Bush isn't a liar, Democrats hurl thunderbolts at me. And when I say Mr. Bush isn't truthful, Republicans erupt like Mount St. Helens.

So what do I mean?

Let me offer an example - not from Iraq but from Mr. Bush's autobiography. In it, he tells a charming little story involving his daughters in 1988, on the eve of the presidential debate between his father and Michael Dukakis:

"One night, Laura and I were out of town campaigning, and Barbara and Jenna spent the night at the vice presidential mansion. Dad had spent the day preparing for a debate with Michael Dukakis. Unfortunately, Barbara lost her sleeping companion, Spikey, her favorite stuffed dog. She complained loudly that she could not sleep without Spikey, so 'Gampy,' better known as Vice President Bush, spent much of the night before his debate searching the house and grounds of the vice presidential residence, flashlight in hand, on a mission to find Spikey. Finally, he did, and Barbara slept soundly. I don't know if my dad ever went to sleep that night."

It's a heartwarming tale of family values. And while it's not malicious enough to count as a lie, it's laced with falsehoods.

We know that because Mr. Bush's mother wrote about the same incident much earlier, in 1990, in "Millie's Book," nominally written by her dog. For starters, the episode occurred when the girls were five and a half, in 1987, a year before the presidential debate.

What's more, "Millie's Book" says that Spikey was a cat, not a dog. And instead of searching all night and finally finding Spikey, Vice President Bush gave up, grumbling: "I have work to do. What am I doing searching for a stuffed animal outdoors in the dark?" Anyway, little Barbara had already fallen asleep with another stuffed animal. Spikey turned up the next day behind the curtains.

[Irishsean]

Whats the odds his "Autobiography" was actually written by himself? Political figures generally don't take the time to do any of this type of stuff themselves. Even the flap a few months back about Kerry owning a AK-47 was attributed to a staffer filling out information he didn't know to be true.

And who really cares about the little stuff like this? It's a cheap joke story that'll get bandied about at social functions, its not like the fate of the world rests on the identity of a stuffed animal. ;-P

[host]

Originally Posted by Irishsean

Whats the odds his "Autobiography" was actually written by himself? Political figures generally don't take the time to do any of this type of stuff themselves. Even the flap a few months back about Kerry owning a AK-47 was attributed to a staffer filling out information he didn't know to be true.

And who really cares about the little stuff like this? It's a cheap joke story that'll get bandied about at social functions, its not like the fate of the world rests on the identity of a stuffed animal. ;-P

So, you disagree that Bush conducts his presidency as if he believes "that reality is not about facts?"

[roachboy]

i dont see any basis for disagreeing with this assessment.
the only thing that surprises me is that the columnist felt it necessary to route this "revelation" through the heartwarming story.
you can reach the same conclusion by thinking about how the chirsitan fundamentalist elements in bush's thinking intertwine with the discourse he espouses.
you can reach the same conclusion by thinking about the almost total lack of a descriptive dimension, or any real historical sense, in contemporary conservative discourse in general.
you can reach the same conclusion by juxtaposing bush's version of nationalism with a more comprehensive view of globalizing capitalism--there seems to be an inverse relation between the extent to which the latter will defunctionalize the nation-state and the insistence in conservative discourse on the nation as endowed with an eternal essence.
it seems obvious.

[Irishsean]

Originally Posted by host

So, you disagree that Bush conducts his presidency as if he believes "that reality is not about facts?"

If your position is "Bush conducts his presidency as if he believes "that reality is not about facts,"" why don't you post something valid or thought provoking about the presidency? Not base your entire argument on an insipid story about looking for a lost stuffed animal that has no relevance to the political forum. The evidence you provide doesn't jive with your position as it doesn't relate in the slightest amount to the presidency.

[roachboy]

um--in defense of the premise here, it is both valid and thought-provoking.
these qualities are not contingent upon whether you happen to like it or not.
as i tried to point out, i think it gets quickly to a basic problems with bush as president and as organizing signifer within an ideology.
not quite sure how much more of either quality you want.

[Irishsean]

I'm just confused as to why this in the politics forum. One could argue that it concerns a political figure, however it has nothing to do with politics. It has the relevance of an interview from bush stating he prefers lucky charms, while an interview with his wife reveals he in fact prefers boo berry.While intriguing, it doesn't prove that his "Presidency" is based on lies, as it has no basis or even the slightest tie to his presidency.

[roachboy]

no but it does point to a particular kind of argumentation that bush prefers personally, and that you see mirrorred in the discourse in which he is both an element and a participant.

it is the kind of argument that is the problem.
and you will note that i wondered earlier why this point, which i think could be interesting, is made in the column cited across the gooffball "heartwarming" story.
if the thread stalls because of the story, then so be it.
but i think that would be to miss the point.

[Rodney]

I lift this quote from another site:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/olpeace_sep02.html

"For the first talking point you might mention Rumsfeld's recent quote of Churchill that "Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies.

"Actually, Churchill's actual quote was "Once you tell a lie, you need to create a whole bodyguard of lies to protect it.""

And herein lies the difference between Bush and Truth. Churchill flat-out understood that a lie was a lie, and led to more lies. The Bush administration thinks that you can and should tell endless lies to protect anything that you think is true, _without reassessing your truth again real-world situations. It's like continuing to believe in Santa Claus after a helicopter visit to the North Pole. "Maybe he's invisible." "Maybe it's an underwater city." "He's only here if you really believe." Are these even lies, or just the flailings of calcified minds who won't let go of their precious preconceptions. We all know people like that. Too bad one of them is president -- and has made a virtue out of being thoughtlessly rigid.

[Mephisto2]

No fan of Bush here, but I'm with Irishsean on this one.

Attacking Bush because of some indescrepancy over a story about a stuffed animal is pretty vacuous.

There are plenty of real reasons to disagree with or criticise the current Administration. Let's leave Spikey where he is... behind the curtains.


Mr Mephisto