Someone needs to tell him it's not how many books you read...
(WSJ) Karl Rove describes his book reading contests with (still) President Bush.
Two thoughts: 1) Certainly this is part of "the legacy project," trying to rewrite what we know about this President, but, seriously, the Wall Street Journal gives 5 inches on its editorial page so Karl Rove can tell me how many books Bush has read?
2) I think the fact that Bush counts and measures his books read for competition, even down to calculating pages, typeface, and page size, says more about this president than Karl Rove intends.
(This is really pretty unbelievable. Imagine being a historian a hundred years from now and coming across Harding's chief political operative writing a national column talking about reading contests and how many books Harding read...)
Two thoughts: 1) Certainly this is part of "the legacy project," trying to rewrite what we know about this President, but, seriously, the Wall Street Journal gives 5 inches on its editorial page so Karl Rove can tell me how many books Bush has read?
2) I think the fact that Bush counts and measures his books read for competition, even down to calculating pages, typeface, and page size, says more about this president than Karl Rove intends.
(This is really pretty unbelievable. Imagine being a historian a hundred years from now and coming across Harding's chief political operative writing a national column talking about reading contests and how many books Harding read...)
posted by mikevotes at
7:05 AM
7 Comments:
I remember in Fourth Grade there was a reading contest, kinda like a walkathon where people pledged so much money for each book you read.
If you asked me the day after, I couldn't tell you anything about the books.
By
mikevotes, at 7:16 AM
...no, he's a smart president. he is, really. I swear.
By
r8r, at 7:52 AM
See. He reads.
No word on whether his lips move....
By
mikevotes, at 8:01 AM
Another peak into the curiously twisted world of GWB... Another "What the F...!" moment when you realize you're talking about the most powerful man on the earth (at least in his ability to cause death, destruction and global instability).
Yes, this is very much another example of GWBs 10-year-old emotional maturity. It reminds me of the kid who brags about writing a 1000 word essay that's replete with repetitions, preposition and conjunctions; makes absolutely no sense; and is little more than a random string of words separated by arbitrary punctuation. Sure, it met the 1000 word requirement, but... (Then again, I could just point you to one of my comment posts! lol)
Despite the Bush Legacy and Myth Creation Project, I cannot imagine any legitimate historians buying into this schmaltzy delusion-fest. I expect this is for the Know Nothing and denizens of the echo chamber
By
-epm, at 8:33 AM
First, definitely most powerful man.
And, I agree. I often get that proud schoolboy image of Bush when he smiles after speaking a particularly significant line. Kind of an "I did it."
And, no, historians will not be snowed by this, although I think he'll be portrayed as smarter than he currently is. I think the big slam will not be on the mental engine of his mind, but the complete lack of intellectual curiosity and determination to "go with his gut" rather than dig for facts.
And I''m thinking that "the legacy project" is simply an effort to shape all these end of term retrospectives right now, figuring they'll be the starting point for historians.
By
mikevotes, at 10:31 AM
epm wrote:
I expect this is for the Know Nothing and denizens of the echo chamber.
I completely agree.
We have seen the repeated assertion that "in 50 years Bush will be regarded as a great President". Even if that is true (and who could possibly know that?), that still means that for the next 50 years Bush will remain a liability to his Party.
Mike wrote:
And I'm thinking that "the legacy project" is simply an effort to shape all these end of term retrospectives right now, figuring they'll be the starting point for historians.
That's certainly the hope, but you have to consider that, once the Decider is out of office, there will be a wave of "tell-all" books and interviews from ex-cronies.
Republicans no longer have "carrots" to dangle nor "sticks" to brandish after the Inauguration. Many of these "Brownies" are merely political opportunists who will try to salvage their own reputations at the expense of the Bush "legacy".
By
Todd Dugdale , at 12:09 PM
I gotta say, the retrospectives thus far aren't rewashing this presidency too much. Admittedly, they're not including everything, but that's mainly a space and time constraint.
To some degree, they're rewriting post9-11 as more heroic, skipping the fact that Bush was AWOL for almost the day, and neglecting the degree to which he ceded control to Cheney, but, broadly, they're painting negative and at least mentioning the question of whether he was the worst president ever.
Generally, legacy is defined by those pro-administration stalwarts who keep fighting long after everyone else has ceased to care. To some degree the neocons might carry that, but they've been so discredited.... Who out there with credibility is going to be speaking for Bush in 4, 8, 12 years.
I guess that's why he had to turn his library into a Bush supporting think tank.
By
mikevotes, at 1:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home