How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people? And yet somehow he does. Where's Sigmund Freud when you need him?—Kevin Drum

It's not like he's surrounded himself with people who are really all that much smarter than he is.

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

This is the great mystery of our times, isn't it? I think Jeff II has part of the answer. I also think that what they're really loyal to is an ideology - which Bush just happens to represent for the moment.

How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

I'm not surprised liberals like Kevin Drum would ask such a question why so many Americans support George W Bush. His fanatical hatred of Bush blinds him to the answer that people support Bush's conservative values especially after years of philandering by liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton. Liberals will continue to lose elections so long as they persist in their angry hatred of Bush.

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?
And the central mystery of the Democrats is how Bush managed to get elected twice. Aren't you glad Bush is just is mediocre man-child?

I see the Dems have come out with their new strategery paper. You guys are going to have a hard time retaking government with material like that.

Jeff II got part of it

and worship of Ignorance

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

For the immediate circle around him, ummm, what is that five-letter word that rhymes with 'honey?'

These people have learned to never, ever bite the hand that feeds them.

This is the reason I despise an aristocracy in place of a meritocracy - the elevation of mediocrity.

As Alek said, the people outside Bush's immediate circle project their ideology onto Bush. They are loyal to their ideology and mistakenly think Bush personifies their ideology.

How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

It's easy Kevin. The White House is like a frat house. Bush is the older frat boy and his advisers follow his lead, because in their eyes, he's cool.

One day they'll leave and look back wondering why the hell they let that dimwit give them wedgies all the damn time. Until then, we all suffer.

It's so funny to watch Kevin Drum, the classic underachiever, whine about Bush-the-dummy being president.

This comes from a guy who lives off his wife's salary, plays tennis several times a week with other rich white people, and takes digital pictures of cats.

conspiracy nut >"...managed to get elected twice..."

Wrong !!!

Appointed once and, maybe, elected once

Stick to the facts (I know it is real difficult for those of you in the Bush Handlers, Inc. Cult but how about actually trying)

details of Florida 2000

"...We don't have news, we have stories inspired by current events..." - Stirling Newberry

This is the reason I despise an aristocracy in place of a meritocracy - the elevation of mediocrity.

Tripp, thanks for bringing this up. It's a little off topic, but I've been wondering to myself why I'm not going to vote for Hillary if she runs. I think we need to put the whole idea of political dynasties to bed, no matter how painful it may be in the short term. We need to send a message to Hillary and to Jeb that we want to live in a meritocracy, not a monarchy.

The post by Kevin is pathetic. Our presidents are human beings, not gods. Most have had incredible quirks and failings of a myriad sort. Bush is no different than the others.

The post says more about the boredom someone without power has to face. It reminds me of a famous saying of an Italian politician, Giulio Andreotti, who always managed to get re-elected even though he was a favorite target of so many:

"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha."

Which means (loosely translated), power deranges those who don't have it.

:: sigh ::
Just calm down, everyone.

The Bush White House probably has all kinds of factions and backstabbing, but you never hear about it because the message control is so good.

This is the mistake people always make about Bush- he is not some kind of God that inspires undying loyalty. But his press machine makes it look that way and he has a habit of hiring people who value money and job security over their own ambitions.

Hiring ambitious people would make it really obvious that Bush has a lot of shortcomings- this is probably one of the reasons no one in Bushland pushed to make Rudy Giuliani Homeland Security secretary. Rudy running around looking competent would not only boost his own Presidential chances but it would make Bush look really inarticulate by comparision.

Of course everyone at the White House is dreamy for Bush. Like all dysfunctional companies run by idiot sons, all the really talented people get fired or learn to work elsewhere.

If Bush was really the second coming of Reagan, there should be job application lines around the block to get in filled by ambitious young people. The fact that there are key posts at departments like TREASURY and STATE unfilled for years tells you what you need to know. Remember- they could all be filled by John Bolton types. Yet, they are begging for applicants.

I'm not surprised liberals like Kevin Drum would ask such a question why so many Americans support George W Bush. Posted by: Al

Not such a mystery, though I never would have put the number of Americans being dumb as stumps at 35-38%. I believe 10-15% has been the historic number. The additional 20% or so reflects in part, I'm sure, the Right's hatred of public education and their nearly three decade effort now of trying to end it all together. Al is clearly the result of the success of this campaign to date.

conspiracy nut wrote: And the central mystery of the Democrats is how Bush managed to get elected twice.

No mystery at all about that: by lying, cheating and stealing. That's the only way Republicans can win national elections.

I think they stick around in hopes of getting one of those spiffy nick names he gives out instead of trying to remember real names.

Really how can people defend over and over this failed human being? A person who exibits this much cluelessness should not be protected and encouraged, but shown the exit so the adults can fix the mess he makes.

You know the saying: First-rate leaders hire first-rate staffs; second-rate leaders hire third-rate staffs.

Appointed once and, maybe, elected once
Appointed? I see you forget that the FL Supreme Court overturned its lower courts, only to get slapped down 9-0 then 7-2. The only court that ruled in your favor was the FL Supreme Court. Appointed isn't the word you're looking for.

And Secular
Apparently, nobody has any evidence of lying, cheating and stealing; so whatever evidence you're sitting on: get it out in the open so we can make use of it!

They're not loyal to Bush -- they're loyal to power.

How does GWB inspire such loyalty?

It's the power of money and connections. Not since JFK (or FDR) have we had a President who was directly, as a matter of birth and upbringing, part of a huge family/culture of wealth and power. He doesn't have to be smart, he doesn't have to be polite, he doesn't even have to be mature.

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people? And yet somehow he does. Where's Sigmund Freud when you need him?

That's something I've always wondered. Previous rulers who built a cult of personality around them usually at least had some sort of personality or at least achievements to base it on, whereas Bush seems lacking in both. Hitler really was charismatic and a war hero, and was himself responsible for building up the Nazi Party; Stalin was an outsize psychopath who seized power from among the most vicious and ruthless men in power; Mao led the revolution against the KMT; Castro overthrew Batista, etc. Whatever their many faults, most of these men had at least some backstory of courage and sacrifice, of personal achievement in the face of great odds, that they could build their legend on.

In contrast, Bush has...what? Desertion from the TANG, a string of failed business ventures and bailouts from his Daddy's rich friends, a history of cocaine and alcohol abuse, and, as president, falling down on the job of protecing America from the worst act of mass murder in its history. In short, a spoiled, petulant, psychologically remote man who has a history of being rescued by others from his own spectacular failures and so has never had to learn to confront reality, a bully who is so unsure of his own worth that he must demean others in order to gain some brief flicker of superiority.

Is it precisely because Bush is such an empty vessel of a man, such a blank slate, that his supporters can ascribe whatever virtues they desire onto him? Is it because he has no real stable personality of his own that his sycophants can see whatever they want to in him?

How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

Because his family is a nexus of power in this country, and especially now that he is President, he is an avenue to power for some. They invest loyalty with the hope of getting payed some sort of dividend at some point.

Even if he himself is somewhat impotent, didn't earn the position, his backers who put him there have a lot of power, and he is an avenue to that power.

"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha."

I think I like the original Latin better:

Irrumpo te.

That's "F you!" for those of you who didn't suffer two years of Publius and Secunda.

Our presidents are human beings, not gods. Most have had incredible quirks and failings of a myriad sort. Bush is no different than the others. Posted by: JohnFH

In all due respect John, fuck you!

Bush isn't allowed to have "quirks" or too many "failings of a myriad sort" (which is really bad sentence construction, but I'll kick you in the nuts on that one later) because he's the president of the most powerful and, for better and worse, most important nation in history. And he's failed miserably at this job.

Failing to heed terror threats is not a quirk, but it is an enormous personal failing.

Deciding to wage war on a country that was no threat at all to the U.S. or even any of our allies is not a quirk, but it is an enormous personal failing.

Not having the first fucking clue about economics or any other domestic policy area, and surrounding yourself with people that may be even more incompetent than you are is not a quirk, but it is an enormous personal failing.

Bush can't go on Oprah in the fall of 2009, cry and ask forgiveness for this. He ought to be, at the very least, in jail.

The Bush White House probably has all kinds of factions and backstabbing, but you never hear about it because the message control is so good.

There have been a number of former Bush officials who have trashed the president after leaving from Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke to Andrew Natios recently. For some reason these people drop down the memory hole and the MSM goes back to the "fiercely loyal" meme. If these guys had been from a democratic administration there would have been an endless series of stories about White House "disaray and infighting".

Stefan: Is it because he has no real stable personality of his own that his sycophants can see whatever they want to in him?

Chauncey Gardner!

But this is less a reflection on Card than it is on Bush.

Still, it brings up so many questions about Card, and why he stayed in such a demeaning position. Did he think his career would implode if he left? Did his image of himself as a man of loyalty require his sticking it out? Were there some money issues involved in staying? (I'm ruling out a Waylon Smithers-style crush.) Did he keep telling himself that every humiliation was unintentional or unimportant, or something he'd imagined?

It's like watching some woman finally walk out of a bad marriage.

But women who do that, after a refractory period, often wracked with long-denied anger, frequently grow in ways you wouldn't have expected--which I think is why ex-Bush staffers are so often critical of the administration.

It'll be interesting to see what Card does in the next year.

There have been a number of former Bush officials who have trashed the president after leaving from Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke to Andrew Natios recently. For some reason these people drop down the memory hole and the MSM goes back to the "fiercely loyal" meme. If these guys had been from a democratic administration there would have been an endless series of stories about White House "disaray and infighting".

Excellent point.

How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

It's enough to make me believe in God so long as God's name is Satan.

I still think the Religeous Right has flogged Bush as the antiClinton (who was the subject of the 'slick Willie'campaign) so hard that morons fall for what their preacher (on radio, especially) tell them. He's a faithful husband, he's bornagain, he believes in the 'Left Behind' eschatology.
Kevin Phillips might be right on this one. This sort of thing is not heard or felt in most urban areas outside of a marginalized church community.

How appropriate to have a comment from the frozen tundra regarding the Mafioso Andreotti.

Oh, shucks and bedamn, the Court of Appeals said that the statute had run on the Mafia ties. And the same court overturned his murder conviction.

Why didn't you also post his quote about why he alligned himself to so many corrupt individuals?
His reply was that "Trees need manure to grow".

Hmmm, Aspens need their roots and a whole lot of manure has been dumped at 1600 for the Twig to try to become a shrub. Must be a lot of Hemlocks growing there.

We can allow at least one of them to speak for himself -- Karl Rove, who upon meeting the callow youth that was GWB in his wastrel years (I mean the years where he was wasting ONLY his own life)...
Well. let's let ol' Karl tell us in his own words (as quoted in the Nicholas Lemann New Yorker profile of May 12 2003):
"I can literally remember what he was wearing: an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, bulletins, complete with the-in Texas you see it a lot-one of the back pockets will have a circle worn in the pocket from where you carry your tin of snuff, your tin of tobacco. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."
You can almost see the slo-mo shot of young W, hair gently tousled by the breeze, with the smitten, adoring Karl gazing (if not drooling), rapt (cue the violins), eyes fixed firmly on W's ass.
In his case, at least, it's obviously true love.
"The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know."

It's the power of money and connections. Not since JFK (or FDR) have we had a President who was directly, as a matter of birth and upbringing, part of a huge family/culture of wealth and power. He doesn't have to be smart, he doesn't have to be polite, he doesn't even have to be mature.
Posted by: dan

Big difference is that both FDR and JFK had these qualities in spades. Oh, and they were Democrats.

I live in Oklahoma, and have for all my forty years. Most of you are aware that the largest religious denomination in the state is Oklahoma football.

In the 1990s, just prior to Bob Stoops' arrival, OU's coach was John Blake. A former Sooner player from the early 1980s, he was hired to arrest the program's obvious decline as it had occurred under the previous two coaches. But Blake was the weakest of the three - in his three seasons he finished with an overall record of 12-22. He hired mediocre assistants - his offensive coordinator was notoriously clueless, laying out poor, unimaginative game plans and growing petulant and defensive when sports-talk radio callers would challenge his decisions. Blake was also completely inarticulate, unable to explain his own philosophy or decisions (one was especially infamous in these parts, when he fumbled around an explanation for why he kicked an extra point in a situation that clearly called for going for two).

All this was a problem. It was obvious. It was reflected on the scoreboard.

Still, for all this, when sports-talk radio hosts would criticize him, legions of callers would leap to his defense, saying that we had to "support" the coach. It didn't matter how obvious it was that he was a failure - no matter how plainly wrong his decisions had been, no matter how inarticulate he was - these callers were offended that anyone would have the temerity to criticize their coach.

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this man-child with such an obviously mediocre mind manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

Because the modern GOP is less a political party than a cult. The slavish, defensive, "Bush can do no wrong, ever" comments of the trolls on this blog only support this.

"I can literally remember what he was wearing: an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, bulletins, complete with the-in Texas you see it a lot-one of the back pockets will have a circle worn in the pocket from where you carry your tin of snuff, your tin of tobacco. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."

That's a promising intro to some George and Karl slash fiction right there....

I mean honestly, I think that's the gayest thing I've ever read, and I've read Edmund White and Armistead Maupin....

Recent research in neuro-psycho-chemistry suggests that the human brain is wired to search for a smarter and more generous person, and, once such an other human is found, to be intensely loyal to him.

Although this model mdoes explain the behavior of Andrew Card and other Republicans, the obverse specter of so many liberals hating the President with so much intensity still remains inexplicable.

Even better:
Consider that Bush is really Karl Rove's puppet - Rove's political strategy clearly is what's guiding policy - and Bush may be the C student, but Rove did not get a degree at all.

If the Democrats believe this, and the far-left here certainly does, why did they run a man-child named Kerry against him ? Kerry has married two rich women and that is his resume. Pretty good gigolo, I guess but no legislation and Ds at Yale.

Clinton lined up his cabinet and asked them to lie for him about sex. That's a lot creepier.

Alek Hidell: I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I cannot possibly think what that reminds me of....

Is it precisely because Bush is such an empty vessel of a man, such a blank slate, that his supporters can ascribe whatever virtues they desire onto him?

Bingo.

He's the Golden Calf of Texas. Follow the shoe!

Very, very interesting thread. Lots of good stuff here.

And then there's this: Clinton lined up his cabinet and asked them to lie for him about sex. That's a lot creepier.

I find the hundreds of thousands of unnecessarily dead bodies creepier, but I'm just sensitive that way.

Pretty good gigolo, I guess but no legislation and Ds at Yale.

My father quit Fordham in his last semester, after watching his grades plummet. Why? Because he was drafted and was headed to Vietnam right after graduation. I'm sure this happened to a lot of people. Maybe Kerry too. What's Bush's excuse?

Is it precisely because Bush is such an empty vessel of a man, such a blank slate, that his supporters can ascribe whatever virtues they desire onto him?

This was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me. The other, of course, is that however dimwitted he may be, he represents power. And everyone worships power, though conservatives seem to really need some power to worship. I think it's their defining characteristic.

FDR and JFK had a sense of "noblesse oblige"

Shrub has a sense of "Recedite, plebes. Magister mundi sum." which means "Stand back, little people; I am Master of the Universe".

The lovely mental picture of Rove and Shrub - Well, Gus van Zant missed out on the other "Brokeback" movie, perhaps there is still time.

In terms of sheer psychoanalytic insight, I think Stefan gets pretty close with his comments upthread.

You've got to factor in the fundie factor as well. Very close friend of mine is a deeply fundamental, Earth-is-10,000-years-old-and-Satan-planted-the-dinosaur-fossils fundie - he is baffled by Bush's decisions and has had it with Bush's monumental incompetence, but still supports him because Bush has been, well, appointed by you know who...

And everyone worships power, though conservatives seem to really need some power to worship.

This may be true of the end-timers in general, but you have to remember that we're talking about his advisors, some of whom have known him for decades.

Don't forget that Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau went to Yale with George W.

Here's a excerpt from "Rollng Stone"

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6298171/doonesbury_goes_to_war/?rnd=1143754961161&has-player=unknown

R.S.: Did you know Bush as a student?

GT: We both served on the Armour Council, which was the social committee for our residential college. Nobody in my freshman dorm knew what the council was. But I apparently had shown some leadership qualities in the first three or four days of school, so I was elected unanimously. George Bush was chairman. Our duties consisted of ordering beer kegs and choosing from among the most popular bands to be at our mixers. He certainly knew his stuff -- he was on top of it [laughs].

Even then he had clearly awesome social skills. Legend has it that he knew the names of all forty-five of his fellow pledges when he rushed Deke. He later became rush chairman of Deke -- I do believe he has the soul of a rush chairman. He has that ability to connect with people. Not in the empathetic way that Clinton was so good at, but in the way of making people feel comfortable.

He could also make you feel extremely uncomfortable. He was very good at all the tools for survival that people developed in prep school -- sarcasm, and the giving of nicknames. He was extremely skilled at controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed humiliation.

Well Kevin, it goes like this: Bush was handed his first victory by the SC rightly or wrongly but was none to impressive until 911 (not even a year into his first term), where even as a progressive, I'll admit he did well in Afghanistan. He also skillfully set himself as the rock solid father figure to a nation with serious anxiety about 911. He had the steely resolve, the no none scense attitude that we craved after being attacked. I rememeber seeing Kerry and Bush in a debate and although Kerry out-debated Bush, Bush had the phrases that made us feel secure even while we scratched our heads about Iraq. So his win in 2004 was 911. But now, the bloom is off the rose. An eight year old sees his father as a hero no matter what a boob he really is. But by 17, the boy understands a lot more and views his father more realistically. There will always be the religious base that loves Bush and the sheep that listen to only Rush and think the WMD are in Syria (like my mother-in-law), but the rest of us have about had enough of the great man-child.

Shorter TFFA, after 911, we wanted our daddy and Bush was there in all him simplicity, reading us a story about a goat.

IMHO, w/o 911, bush would be a single term preznit, unless the SC interviened again.

Alek,

I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Did the scoreboard have LEDs?

Because these loyalists only seem "great" when compared to Bush or as in the case of Rove, Bush is just a pawn in their own power grab.

I mean look at all the people that blindly defend Bush there all dumber than a box of rock.Tbroz,Al and CN will lie through there teeth to try and make Bush's blunders look good.By all means call us Bush haters class 2 because nobody tops the Clenis haters but I suppose I would be mad as hell if I got Clenis on my face everytime I opened my mouth.

I hate to always bring up Nixon, but what choice does this administration give me?

The Nixon White House was staffed by people who throve on a siege mentality. A shared, insane ideology and the slobbering pursuit of wealth and power may be what brought the Bush inner circle together, but dehumanizing all political and civic opponents is what cements it. They want a constant state of war, both outside and inside the country.

" even as a progressive, I'll admit he did well in Afghanistan."
Posted by: the fake Fake Al on March 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM
If outsourcing our armed forces' mission to the Northern Alliance, who then let OBL slip out the back door, constitutes "doing well," I'd sure hate to see your definition of "miserable failure."

why shouldn't they be loyal? they can do a piss-poor job at something they're not remotely qualified for, and then get medals.

"throve?"

"Throve?!"

Well lah dee dah.

They want a constant state of war, both outside and inside the country.

Yes, very perceptive. And that also applies to the religious loonies who are somehow simultaneously in control of the entire government, yet constantly under siege by powerful forces they cannot control...

And that also applies to the religious loonies who are somehow simultaneously in control of the entire government, yet constantly under siege by powerful forces they cannot control...

Sure. An abusive marriage made in heaven.

ferd at 4:54 tells us what we always suspected was true - there is no escaping High School.

He could also make you feel extremely uncomfortable. He was very good at all the tools for survival that people developed in prep school -- sarcasm, and the giving of nicknames. He was extremely skilled at controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed humiliation.

And here we have the key....

One thing to remember about Bush is that he has always labored in his father's shadow. Bush senior, for all his other faults, is a tremendously accomplished man -- youngest fighter pilot in the Navy in WWII, war hero, varsity athlete in two sports at Yale, good student, branched out on his own to start a successful oil business, elected Congressman, head of CIA, Ambassador to China, Vice President and President of the CIA, etc. He has one of the best resumes of his generation.

Bush, like most elder sons, tried to follow in his father's footsteps, but he always fell short. Was mediocre at Andover where his father was a star, was a cheerleader at Yale where his father was a two-sport letterman, went AWOL from TANG where his father was a combat fighter pilot and war hero, went bust in the oil business where his father was a success. Every step of his life he's tried to do what his father did, and every step of his life he's failed. Hell, he couldn't even get elected president in his own right, but had to rely on his daddy's cronies on the Supreme Court to pick him.

Think what that will do to someone's pscyhology, to always try and fail, to constantly be reminded of how someone else has done it better than you have. The bullying and sneering and mastery of the slight, therefore, are defense mechanisms he's built up in order to protect his fragile psyche, to give himself some sense of power and mastery -- much like a junior high "mean girl" does.

So just think of Bush as the leader of a cliquish junior high coterie of immature girls, all insecurity and ruthlesness and snobbery and fear of social ostrascism, and all will be clear....

shortstop,
Yes, and it's rather disturbing to realize that Nixon's inner circle and Bush's consist of some of the same guys (e.g., Rummy, Cheney). I guess that was part of your point?

I have an "angry hatred" of Al.

If Bush wasn't such a toady himself, the evangelical/vigilante party would just put another cheerleading figurehead in place.

ferd at 4:54 tells us what we always suspected was true - there is no escaping High School.

Sad but true. So we beat on, boats against the current.

Yes, and it's rather disturbing to realize that Nixon's inner circle and Bush's consist of some of the same guys (e.g., Rummy, Cheney). I guess that was part of your point?

It was, Wonderin, but I've repeated it here so many times I thought I'd give everybody a break.

Think what that will do to someone's pscyhology, to always try and fail, to constantly be reminded of how someone else has done it better than you have.

Which brings us, inevitably, to Bush's obsession with invading Iraq. The cold, cruel irony is that Bush the Lesser's incompetence have done nothing but prove that his father, and Colin Powell, were right in their stated reasons not to take Baghdad despite an undisputed ability to do so.

So just think of Bush as the leader of a cliquish junior high coterie of immature girls, all insecurity and ruthlesness and snobbery and fear of social ostrascism, and all will be clear....

(Staggers drunkenly toward Stefan) Oh, yeah? Oh, YEAH, old man? Want to go mano a mano?

As his White House service wore on, this ostentatious modesty morphed even further into creepy masochism. He seemed to delight in the most painful assignments. After his own father died of Parkinson's disease, Card became a supporter of the life-saving potential of stem-cell research. Yet, when Bush limited federal money for the research, it was Card who made the rounds on the Sunday shows to cheerily defend the policy.

"I can literally remember what he was wearing: an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, bulletins, complete with the-in Texas you see it a lot-one of the back pockets will have a circle worn in the pocket from where you carry your tin of snuff, your tin of tobacco. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have."

Now I understand why these people got so worked up over Brokeback Mountain...

Bush was one of the Heathers! I knew I recognized him!

Bush as Lord of the Manor:

Bush will tease Card in meetings for his long-windedness and tendency to veer off on tangents. People who have watched them together say the president will sometimes order Card around in a tone that suggests he's talking to a servant. In "The Price of Loyalty," former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill describes a scene in which Bush impatiently demands that Card get him a cheeseburger. WaPo

Matters of State for the Chief of Staff to the President of the US:

"Meanwhile, the cheeseburgers haven't arrived, so Bush, as O'Neill tells it, kind of snaps up from the conversation and says, 'Where are the cheeseburgers?' Andy Card, the new chief of staff, is summoned, and he says to Card, 'You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting some cheeseburgers?' You know, not friendly. Card all but runs out of the room..." Anecdotage.com

I know that Bush hails from a powerful dynasty, but I think the man is so obviously mediocre and untalented that there's a very strong element of underdog worship in the phenomenon of Dubya loyalty. It must tickle someone like Karl Rove -- surely a geek who was picked on mercilessly in high school or a loser who could never get a date with the hot cheerleader -- silly pink to be able to watch his boss best all them high achieving Ivy League types who populate liberal circles. Bush is a proxy for a lot of conservative anger at our powerful liberal culture and the accompanying desire for revenge.

Interesting that our own trolls don't (or can't) give reasons for their "intense loyalty." They talk about dems not winning elections and they trash Kevin, but that's it.

Following on from Stefan's last post, the W's "do you want to go mano a mano" incident with his Dad is particularly telling.

Which brings us, inevitably, to Bush's obsession with invading Iraq.

Yep. Bush governs by the negative -- whatever his father did, or whatever Clinton did, is what's he's determined to do the opposite of, like a particularly petulant teenager angrily rejecting his father's advice. It's a pity for Iraq and for us that Bush playing out his Oedipal conflict requires him to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people....

Come to think of it, the Greeks had a word for Oedipus. What was it again? Ah, yes: motherfucker.

Interesting that our own trolls don't (or can't) give reasons for their "intense loyalty." They talk about dems not winning elections and they trash Kevin, but that's it.

I noticed that.

I also wonder to what extent this Bush-licking is the mirror image of the Clinton-hating. They hated Clinton precisely because he was so smart, so clearly interested in and a master of policy. God that drove them nuts!

So now, with Bush as the anti-Clinton, who makes sneering at the smart, popular kids cool again, they have someone they can invest all of their acne-ridden, can't get a date angst in.

Man, the whole world thrown into war because Rove couldn't get laid. How fucked up is that?

It's so funny to watch Kevin Drum, the classic underachiever...

Uh oh. Looks like another troll has changed his spots. Was it Patton or Norman that always tried to take pot shots at Kevin's career instead of staying on topic?

And thinking about Brokeback Mountain, the Greeks, Jeff Guckert, and all that, it just had to come to this:

Q: How do they separate the men from the boys in the Bush Administration?
A: With a crowbar...

"years of philandering by liberals like Bill Clinton". Oh my golly, this is the reason you give for the success of President Bush? What do you know, really? President Bush is only marginally successful. He is the epitome of one born with a silver spoon in his mouth. President Clinton came from nowhere to be president. The very worst he did was to commit a personal sin in sexual behavior. President Bush and his congressional cronies have led us into an unneccesary, tragic, and (we now know) illegal war, brought great economic hardship on the poor and much of the middle-class while giving billions to his buddies in the economic stratosphere. Who will pay for his sins. We will, and our children will. So, please grow up. Be the adult you are supposed to be. Denton Kees

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

Read Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' and study the Renfield character, then you'll understand.

I bet Bush hates garlic.....

Q: How do they separate the men from the boys in the Bush Administration?
A: With a crowbar...

Reminds me of a joke my ex-roommate's boyfriend once told me: "What's the difference between a gay man and a Marine? About four shots of tequila."

Interesting that our own trolls don't (or can't) give reasons for their "intense loyalty." They talk about dems not winning elections and they trash Kevin, but that's it.

I forget where I read it, but someone pointed out these are the little toadies who like to suck up to authority and power, as they themselves are mostly insignificant middle managers in the burbs, bitter they had to wait until marriage.

They like to envision themselves as the powerful ones, but since they neither have the brains or the drive, the next best thing is to stand in the crowd to be 'one of the guys' to add to the chorus, yea, that howard dean is a traitor!

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this mediocre man-child manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

Read Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' and study the Renfield character, then you'll understand.

I bet Bush hates garlic.....

I can understand why Kevin is having a bout of BDS. I think he's under the weather. Don't know what everyone else's excuse is, especially the bitterness oozing off of Ryan Lizza.

This is so common with the Left. Their superiority is so obvious to them, along with the inferiority of their opponents. Why can't other people seem to see it?

If the Democrats don't get the House or Senate back this fall, this is going to descend into first class psychosis. Not going to be pretty.

It's fun to look back at JFK and FDR. Not so much fun when you look at the lineup you've got on the bench now, is it? I can understand it, though. Wish Goldwater and Reagan were still around, myself.

I know that Bush hails from a powerful dynasty, but I think the man is so obviously mediocre and untalented that there's a very strong element of underdog worship in the phenomenon of Dubya loyalty.
Posted by: Harry

People forget that Jeb's considered the smart one, and the one that was to follow in his father's foot steps.

However, he's been pretty much nothing but a fuck-up during his tenure in Florida, so he's a real long shot for president at this point.

I think the family's pretty much played themselves out.

Man, the whole world thrown into war because Rove couldn't get laid. How fucked up is that?

It's the old story. It's all about sex, but the world does NOT move with a woman's hips, David Byrne's pretty line nothwithstanding. It moves with the sexual failures of monster-men like Rove.

The other day when Bush had finished a full cabinet meeting, for some reason all cabinet secretaries had to line up as a backdrop for a short news conference. I was wondering what Kevin is wondering as I watched the backdrop squirm while Bush was mangling his sentnences and taking an inordinate length of time to decide what word to use. I mean, they looked seriously uncomfortable as it was obvious what an idiot he sounded like. It really beats me why someone would want to work for him.

How does this man-child with such an obviously mediocre mind manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

People have always worshiped authority.
People will always worship authority.

B knows this.
He uses it as a lever.

The most interesting thing about that lever is that it works both ways.

B can say things like this with satisfaction:

"He's a PhD, see — I'm a C student. Look who's the President and who's the advisor."

But there are thousands of mediocre and mean thoughts in his head that the lever prevents him from saying.

In other words: Being president constrains him.

I absolutely love that last fact.
B has to swallow heaps and heaps of his own bile.
He wants to tell people to fuck off and obey.
He can't.
That's not good for his organism.
It ages him.

Along these lines... the best insult you and I can give B is to laugh in his face.

Loud.
Uproariously.
Continuously.

Laugh at his language.
Laugh at his pratfalls.
Laugh at his looks.
Laugh at his overt stupidity.

He is defenseless against this.
Better... he believes he is deserving of the highest respect.

There is no more stunning insult human beings can deliver to someone in power.

Against humor... even a C+ Augustus contends in vain.

Laugh outloud at B... every chance you get.

I can understand why Kevin is having a bout of BDS.

...and with this post, tbrosz becomes more of a self-parody than the tbrosz parodies themselves. Congratulations.

He is the epitome of one born with a silver spoon in his mouth. President Clinton came from nowhere to be president.

That always drove them crazy, the fact that Clinton came from literally nothing -- born to a widowed single working class mother in the South, with no money and no connections, growing up in an abusive and alcoholic household, and through sheer intelligence and drive working himself up to Georgetown, a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, Yale Law, and ultimately the Presidency. Clinton showed them all what it was possible to do if you were smart and worked hard, and they hated him for it.

....where even as a progressive, I'll admit he did well in Afghanistan.
Posted by: the fake Fake Al on March 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Consider the objective in Afghanistan:
Get Bin Laden.
Prove to the world that if you shelter terrorists, we'll fuck you and get the terrorist anyway.

I wouldn't say he did well in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is sheltering Bin Laden. And we're selling them F-16s.

Kerry has married two rich women and that is his resume. Pretty good gigolo, I guess but no legislation and Ds at Yale
Posted by: Mike K on March 30, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

He brought down BCCI.
Bush hung out with the people who ran BCCI.

Who would you rather trust you financial security to? The guy who goes after embezzlers, money launderers, terror and drug traffic supporters?

Or the guy who hangs out with them?

Look in the mirror, tbrosz. You think the anti-Bush comments on this thread are rough? Do you remember the Clinton years and the libel and slander that was tossed around then (and still gets tossed around)?

How often does this have to be pointed out to you?

Gregory: ...and with this post, tbrosz becomes more of a self-parody than the tbrosz parodies themselves.

I was just thinking the same thing. The merge is complete.

conspiracy nut: Apparently, nobody has any evidence of lying, cheating and stealing;

Not only are you a stupid, ignorant liar, but you are by far the stupidest, most ignorant, most dishonest dumbass ever to post a comment on this site.

Clinton showed them all what it was possible to do if you were smart and worked hard, and they hated him for it.

In a nutshell. Nicely said. I guess when blacks said that Clinton was the first black president, they understood the subliminal "uppity nigger" better than the rest of us. Or at least sooner.

If the Democrats don't get the House or Senate back this fall, this is going to descend into first class psychosis. Not going to be pretty.

Yes, especially when compared to the maturity displayed by the people who actually have power. Gimme a break.

Wish Goldwater and Reagan were still around, myself. Posted by: tbrosz

That's pathetic. The former probably wished he could have openly belonged to the Klan, and the latter needed a daily nap, had policy influenced by astrologers, and wasn't much brighter than Shrub.

Stefan (5:09) is all over the psychology of Bush. And Gregory adds W's obsession over invading Iraq. Right on gentlemen. Still doesn't explain to me the loyalty of others toward W.

Old canard: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Russell's Corollary: "Those who can do, often can't teach."

Well, as someone said, here's tbrosz or a reasonable fascimile thereof, who can't give a clue as to why he supports Bush.

What is it, tbrosz? The Bush dedication to balancing the budget, the steely-eyed determination not to engage in fruitless 'nation-building', or the fact that the guy is such a 'winner'?

Inquiring minds want to know.

conspiracy nut: You guys are going to have a hard time retaking government with material like that.

Gee, more advice from someone who wants Democrats to lose.

Let's see, that's kinda like the Vatican getting advice from Satan on how to win converts to Christianity, eh?

Actually Jeff II, toward the end of his life the neo-cons openly said that Goldwater had lost it as he repudiated the religious right's stranglehold on his party and urged the Republicans in congress to stop wasting time on their irrational pursuit of Clinton's "scandals".

Gee, more advice from someone who wants Democrats to lose.
Actually, I was reading a Democrat taking it apart. It didn't even impress one of you.

Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 5:44 PM:

Let's see, that's kinda like the Vatican getting advice from Satan on how to win converts to Christianity, eh?

Hey, whatever works...Gotta fill those pews, you know...Just not with so many of those brown people...

I rather object to that slur on Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church has many faults, but rascism is not one of them. In fact, the Church is experiencing its greatest growth in Third World areas such as Africa.

Bleating! Funny!

Well, as someone said, here's tbrosz or a reasonable fascimile thereof, who can't give a clue as to why he supports Bush.

Two words, serial catowner: tax cuts.

In fact, the Church is experiencing its greatest growth in Third World areas such as Africa.

Is this anything like Nestle's efforts there?

two words, serial catowner: tax cuts.

Actually, I think that tbrosz's pathology on this subject is a little more subtle. It basically amounts to "the worst Republican in the world is still better than the best Democrat." And say what you want about that, it saves time thinking.

This is the central mystery of George Bush: How does this man-child with such an obviously mediocre mind manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people? And yet somehow he does. Where's Sigmund Freud when you need him?

You don't need Sigmund. The answer is simple. Bush supporters are the 2-3 generations of people who've grown up with the folksy-but-ballsy heroes of the movies. Start with John Wayne. How about Walking Tall (the original). Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry Movies. There are any number of them.

You should start a new blog post asking for comments: What movies did did the George Bush and his minions see and love? Or: Name the movie character this Bushie most closely resembles.

I'm dead serious. Remember Reagan? He started this trend. He kept remembering things that never actually happened - except in a movie he was in.

My own definition of "truthiness" is: "Something you saw in a movie."

I rather object to that slur on Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church has many faults, but rascism is not one of them. In fact, the Church is experiencing its greatest growth in Third World areas such as Africa. Posted by: Stefan

Well, we found Stefan's blind spot.

"The Church" has pretty much nothing but faults.

aWol is just a vessel, as was Reagan. All they want is low taxes and a pro-business climate. In that, this administration must be pig heaven.

Man, the whole world thrown into war because Rove couldn't get laid. How fucked up is that?

...the world does NOT move with a woman's hips, David Byrne's pretty line nothwithstanding. It moves with the sexual failures of monster-men like Rove.

To all you wonderful ladies out there, fuck a nerd for your tomorrow.

Libby Sosume's nicer twin: Remember Reagan? He started this trend. He kept remembering things that never actually happened - except in a movie he was in.

George W. Bush is a non-actor playing the role of Ronald Reagan who was a grade-B actor playing the role of a cowboy playing the role of President.

At least Ronald Reagan was actually an actor. He was a bad, grade-B actor, but nonetheless he was a trained actor. He could read stuff off a teleprompter and make it sound like he understood what he was saying and he meant it. Unlike George W. Bush who always sounds like he's mechanically mouthing the words phonetically and doesn't have a clue what he's saying.

a pro-business climate

Pro-business is one thing; anti-everything else is something else entirely.

I remember watching some speech by Card many years ago on C-Span... It was clear he had drunk the kool-aid and wasn't that smart a guy, just gullible enuf to buy into the W cult. The perfect kind of guy to have "running the white house" while Rove and Cheney really rule.

By the way, "bleating" is the perfect word to describe conspiracy nut's comments: the sound made by a distressed sheep.

(switching out of the funny hat)

Kevin Drum wrote:

How does this man-child with such an obviously mediocre mind manage to generate such intense loyalty in so many people?

Ego preservation. They've invested so much of themselves in their faith into Dubya that they just can't let go when they really know they ought to.

That's not the only thing, but I'm sure it's part of the reason behind it...

Well, we found Stefan's blind spot.

What, it took you this long? Believe me, I have many many more blind spots than this -- just ask my girlfriend.

"The Church" has pretty much nothing but faults.

Eh. The Church is a large institution made up of human beings, and as most such institutions it has its good and bad points. While I disagree with and object to many of its policies, I also recognize that it does good work in speaking out against the death penalty and war and in working for social and economic justice. Racism, for one thing, has never been a serious charge laid against it in the modern age. The Catholic Church (or at least elements thereof), for another example, was often instrumental in standing up to repressive regimes in Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and Latin America.

But back to the topic at hand....

Alek Hidell wrote: "Still, for all this, when sports-talk radio hosts would criticize him, legions of callers would leap to his defense, saying that we had to 'support' the coach. It didn't matter how obvious it was that he was a failure - no matter how plainly wrong his decisions had been, no matter how inarticulate he was - these callers were offended that anyone would have the temerity to criticize their coach."

We've certainly seen that attitude here, most notably from Joe Schmoe, but also from quite a few of the trolls (and even some of the non-trolls).

In Joe's case, the adoration pretty clearly originated in fear. He projected onto Bush the qualities he felt that the president needed in order to keep Joe and his family safe, despite the fact that Bush has never had those qualities. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Stefan wrote: "Is it precisely because Bush is such an empty vessel of a man, such a blank slate, that his supporters can ascribe whatever virtues they desire onto him?"

Remember that poll that came out before the 2004 election, in which Bush supporters and Kerry supporters were asked to identify which policies their candidate supported? I think Kevin had a post on this and if I recall correctly the Bush supporters were much more likely to be wrong about Bush's policies than Kerry supporters were about Kerry's.

Bush supporters are the 2-3 generations of people who've grown up with the folksy-but-ballsy heroes of the movies. Start with John Wayne.

Appropriately for Bush and his minions, John Wayne also never served in World War II. He had "other priorities," i.e. maintaining his acting career. While most of his compatriots (Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, David Niven (who, incredibly enough, was one of the founders of the British commando units)) went off to war, Wayne stayed behind in Hollywood.

Shows the power of myth, doesn't it? So many American boys grew up watching Wayne play a war hero in movies such as "The Sands of Iwo Jima" that they came to believe he really was one. Meanwhile genuine WWII heroes, such as George McGovern, a decorated Army Air Corps bomber pilot, were derided by the right wing as soft and unpatriotic.

ckelly wrote: "Was it Patton or Norman that always tried to take pot shots at Kevin's career instead of staying on topic?"

Patton may have done it, too, but that was one of dear little Normy's trademarks. I wonder if they realize that when they resort to such tactics, they are admitting that they have lost the debate?

tbrosz wrote: "I can understand why Kevin is having a bout of BDS. I think he's under the weather. Don't know what everyone else's excuse is, especially the bitterness oozing off of Ryan Lizza."

Q.E.D. Poor tbrosz....

(switching back into funny hat)

Stefan on March 30, 2006 at 6:03 PM:

I rather object to that slur on Pope Benedict.

Well, we are getting getting advice from Satan on how to win converts to Christianity, aren't we?

By-the-way: You should see my stand-up routine. BIG laughs on the Oral Roberts jokes...It's not easy trying to be 'Pope Funnycus XXX' behind that bulletproof Plexiglass...

I'm not sure where Al gets off citing Bush's"conservative values compared to Clinton's Philandering." Look at the history Al. It's W who paid for the abortion of the waitress in Houston who suddenly (Since W started in politics) lives in a shiny big house with no visible means of support...

Why are they so loyal?

Conservatives are more likley to accept an authoritarian heirarchy, in general. The Bush white house makes them very comfortable.

AND one does not have to think for oneself and really shouldn't. Just parrot whatever talking points Rove hands out, and you win a place at the power table, and later, a cushy lobbying job.

And everyone knows that the Bush family prizes loyalty above ALL ELSE, so if you want to keep your job, thems the rules.

craigie wrote: "It basically amounts to 'the worst Republican in the world is still better than the best Democrat.'"

Pretty much. I think it was the thread on the incredibly stupid prescription drug program where tbrosz basically insisted that a Democratic version of the program would have been worse. Pressed to defend this remark, he was not able to do so. It was simply an article of faith to him.

Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and Latin America. But back to the topic at hand....
Posted by: Stefan

The local branches. The Vatican and the minions of Satan that run the main office have pretty much taken a hands-off approach to politics in the modern age. Poland was the exception, but only because the Pope was Polish.

It has rarely taken the position of the oppressed. Remember that the Rat was instrumental in shutting down priests in Latin American who were in opposition to the oligarchs.

...Of course, I don't have to deal with too many hecklers...The moment I hear a 'YOU SUCK, PADRE!', I damn their soul to Hell.

Shuts 'em up real fast.

Maybe now that America realized what an incompetant little boy they elected preznit, they will fin