Kaus has the best take, seeing it from both sides. First, we might expect the Bush administration to pay greater respect to privacy issues in the future. Secondly, with revelations like these, Bush's approval rating will probably soar. Was Clinton afraid to inhale because of the impact it would have on *children*?

Classic Karl Rove tactics- divert attention away from a damaging issue (in this case Mister Guckert) and release a red herring for the press to chase. If you'll remember, these tapes were released by a longtime friend and confidant of Dubyas, and he now states he will destroy or hand over the rest of the tapes out of respect for the presidency. Bush comes out smelling like a rose, seen sacrificing the truth for the sake of the children!

Too bad millions (or at least a few hundred thousand) remain in prison for the same crimes our commander in chief committed, but still doesn't have the stones to admit. That goes for Clinton also.

Nothing is funnier than to read about a self deluded politician over stating his affect on kids.

What self respecting teenager would ever look to George W. Bush for his/her cues on marijuana?

If Bush's behavior is so influential, then we should be seeing 7th graders across America torturing their classmates for their lunch money then loaning it back to them at 200% interest.

> Classic Karl Rove tactics-

He's a genius! An *EVIL* genius! With his unblinking eye for weakness and hesitation in adversaries, he subtly manipulates events and twists perceptions.... Etc.

Presumably you must credit Rove as mastermind, else you'd have to admit that Bush has his own skills.

Bush is an idiot- you've heard his inability to answer even the most simple questions. He is totally incapable of any free discourse, as evidenced by his unwillingness to ever participate in an unscripted conversation.

> Bush is an idiot-

Less than a generation ago, we went through this with Reagan. His adversaries were so eager to belittle him with their freeze-dried appraisals that they squatted motionless on the path.
So history deftly carted itself around them, pausing only to humiliate them politically. It's happening again, less than a generation later. What gives? I have a theory, and thanks for asking.

The human heart is endlessly needy. A big need is the impulse to look down on others. Life is shitty, and the soul medicates itself by entertaining the perception that whatever one's own faults, at least one is doing better than this or that neighbor. Popular metrics include beauty, money, race, and faith. Today we're talking about brains.

I've posted links about it here repeatedly, but it's important to understand that people who do well in school tend to go through life thinking that they ought to be running the shop. And yet they don't: Bill Gates could probably have sailed through Harvard to graduation as a part-time student, but even as a teenager he had bigger fish to fry. There are things in life more important --and more rewarding-- than making the schoolmarm proud of you. But if that's what you're good at, and how you've been well-rewarded over twenty years of education, you might not see it that way.

Most voters understand this. They voted for Clinton despite his Rhodes scholarship, not because of it. Without his hillbilly background and his comfort in churches (white, black, rural and urban) he'd never have been elected.

Remember the 2002 Vanity Fair cover with the national security team on the cover? It was a room full of toothy, brainiac sharks: Tenet, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice... And there was the President, smiling mildly, with his suit jacket open and his fingers in his pockets, revealing the silly Texas belt buckle. It betokened an allegiance no more noble, but not any less, than most of the social ties which bind us.

Many of Dubya's adversaries (like Reagan's) are throwing grade-school sugar fits in the corner of the room, flapping their arms and sputtering "He's STUPID! He just IS! He's STUPID, and I'm not going to let you tell me otherwise!" And yet/and so, his victories stack ever higher.

I suspect your disconnect from the American voter happened on the day you decided that "discourse" was a skill presidents needed. Or that ANYONE needed, for that matter. When voters see the belt buckle, they know Dubya is a guy they could talk to: Whether he chooses to get bitch-slapped by dickless wigracks like Sam Donaldson is his own business.

> He is totally incapable...

Stop it. You sound like a Valley girl.

-"his victories stack even higher."

Are you talking about the body bags or the federal deficit?

Death and taxes scare you more than others, who doubt the righteousness of your sensitivity. History is making its way around you.

Perhaps. But I do not claim sensitivity delivered via cruise missiles.

Death and taxes yadda yadda yadda.... you used to be able to stay on topic Crid and make a point. Taxes are a necessity, and I do not fear them or even cringe at them- they are the cost of living in a civilized society. Most of the social programme cuts made these days are of a false economy in nature. I have no problem paying for an education or even a modest free meal to those less fortunate. The whole fear of death thing is just Crid on the soapbox ranting away, blah blah blah. But then, you state "who needs discourse?"

Enlighten me about these great victories- maybe I am off base.

Here Crid, smoke this.

You claim Bush is a fool, I discuss this in some detail, you suddenly talk death and taxes, and yet I've derailed the topic?

Listen, I'm a lifelong Democrat. My seniors in the party would want me to make this request: Keep on keepin' on, just like Gladys Knight. Keep imagining the things you hate are all in the person of this one guy or his campaign manager. Keep telling yourself that the majority of his voters are foolish, or cold-hearted and sinister.

As it happens, this is what Karl Rove would ask of you as well. Your attentions, as focused, are not an obstacle.

An aside-

Just saw "The Motorcycle Diaries". Highest recommendation! Four stars!! A Masterpiece!

Be happy for this moment, for this moment is your life. - Omar Khayyam

"You claim Bush is a fool, I discuss this in some detail, you suddenly talk death and taxes, and yet I've derailed the topic?"

Crid - from what I read, you did bring it up.

Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment. Bush is no idiot. He's no genius, but becoming president is more about connecting with the masses than understanding deToqueville.

EC

Cridland writes:

You claim Bush is a fool, I discuss this in some detail, you suddenly talk death and taxes, and yet I've derailed the topic?

You tactics would do Karl Rove proud, Crid. You claimed he fears death and taxes, and when he defends himself against the accusation, you accuse him of derailing the topic? You're worse than disingenuous. You're dishonest. Exactly the type of thing Karl Rove does.

The president does need to connect with the masses, but also with other world leaders on an equal footing.

I still claim Bush is a fool, as evidenced by his "victory" at the NATO summit this week. The media is presenting this trip as a fence mending mission with Europe, where our mutual cooperation is paramount and the world is coming together to unite for a democratic Iraq.

Our presidents job is to go to these other world leaders, representing America, and achieve the best deal possible.

The results were this: While America continues to spend $4.5 BILLION a month on Iraq, the 26 participating countries of NATO will send approximately $6 MILLION for all of 2005. That turns out to be about 1 hours contribution to the security, rebuilding, and training of Iraq in 2005.

The amount NATO pledged is less than the cost of airfare and security for Bush on this 1 trip. Now, does that sound like effective leadership to anybody out there?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=NATO%20Summit%20Glance

> you did bring it up.

I brought up Bush's stupidity.

> You're worse than disingenuous.
> You're dishonest.

Well, Meeee-oowww!

> I still claim Bush is a fool...

Yeah, but you don't mean it.

NATO is over. In ten years the office space will house a bunch of manicurists. This administration has rightfully acknowledged that Europe has nothing to contribute to the global war on terror either in terms of political will or military power. They're too distracted with the burgeoning technocracies of the EU and their own influx of badly-assimilating immigrants to be of any use as partners elsewhere.

The media are wrong: Mutual cooperation with Europe is anything but "paramount." It's between four and forty years too late for them to start working towards a democratic Iraq.

Let Jacques play his little translation games during toasts at the state dinners... Bush goes over there and says basically nothing, becuase there's nothing to say. We don't want much from them, except that their culprits in Oil-For-Food be fully prosecuted.

So NATO is over, the president does not need to be a communicator, Europe has nothing to contribute to the war on terror, and life is shitty.

Whenever I try to see you point of view, I get crosseyed and my nose bleeds profusely.