I'm sorry... what were you saying?

So basically Bush prefers to have others chew his food, though once in a while he grabs a pretzel and licks the salt off.

Other than the New York Times and Washington Post, or your local city paper (which gets a lot of its major news from those sources) where do YOU get your daily news?

Anybody who avoids television news, whether it's the networks, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or the Daily Show, is probably not missing a thing.

Skimming is heavy reading for this guy. Does that mean that day dreaming is heavy thinking?

Then again, I don't read newspapers half as much as I used to before the web. However, I doubt he's spending a lot of time reading the Guardian or political blogs. He is definitely one of the most incurious presidents we have ever had. Yale and Harvard Business School must be so proud.

He does know how hard it is to put food on your family, however.

The fucking retard.

Bush is functionatly illiterate, just like countless numbers of Americans. I have nothing else to add, except to say that Keith Olbermann ROCKS!

It is actually worse than recounted here: he is on record as saying he reads mostly the Sports pages.
And by read, I assume he means he looks at the pictures and colorful charts that seem to indicate something wonderful.

To the second power:

Bush is functionally illiterate, just like countless numbers of Americans. I have nothing else to add, except to say that Keith Olbermann ROCKS!

Fuck all you assholes! He read "My Pet Goat"

According to Gail Sheehy’s definitive biographical treatment of Dubya, The Accidental Candidate, when Bush was Governor of Texas he would play an hour and a half of video games in the governor’s office every day. I wonder how much he plays in the Oval Office?

I don’t know about you, but I find it more obscene having a president playing Donkey Kong in the White House than one getting a blow job.

From "Accidental Candidate":

He puts in the hours from 8 to 11:30 A.M., breaking it up with a series of 15-minute meetings, sometimes 10-minute meetings, but rarely is there a 30-minute meeting, says Johnson. At 11:30 he's "outtahere." He tries everything possible to have at least two hours of what he calls private time in the middle of the day to go over to the University of Texas track or run a hard three to five miles on a concrete path at a pace of 7.5 minutes a mile, then relax and return to the office at 1:30, where he'll play some video golf or computer solitaire until about three, and then it's back to the second "hard half-day" until 5:30.

Does seem like someone who isn't exactly a workaholic, but I'm not sure getting a blow job during the work day makes one any more productive or intelligent than playing Solitaire does.

What Bush is trying to say, without admitting it, is that he only looks at the comics.

I don't know about you, but I find it more obscene having a president playing Donkey Kong in the White House than one getting a blow job.

Do metaphorical blow jobs count?

...at times the entire press corps has seemed to be down on its knees.

snicker snack:

Yeah, during the press conferences, you can see the adoration for Bush flowing out of the press corps in waves.

I thought the first three paragraphs of Baker's piece more revealing.

"Not exactly known for his intellectual curiosity..." says it all. Yet he calls all these people in -- presumably for 10 or 15 minutes -- to explain where he's at, and why he's so unpopular, and on and on. So many questions and so few answers he likes.

And "like" seems to be synonymous with "acceptable" which seems synonymous with "true".

Stay the course, then, you dim-witted, unimaginative, self-absorbed retard.

elmo: "He read 'My Pet Goat'"

Yeah! And then there's those three Shakespeares and Albert Camus' The Plague, and that Playboy in the bathroom with all those incisivatin' articles ...

To be fair, I don't watch TV news, and I don't read a daily newspaper that is delivered to my door since I am currently living in France. But I didn't watch the TV news in the states either because , imho, it is all crap and a waste of my time. I get all my news from the internet or am briefed by others who have read the news. And in general, I read the headlines and only follow stories that interest me. So in this I may not be all that different from GWB.

The difference, then, between GWB and me seems to be that I read blogs, editorials and op-ed pieces, and I am intensely curious and believe I can still learn. But I think the biggest difference is that I believe in Evolution and cause and effect.

There is one exception to my no-TV-news practice... the Daily Show. I watch the Daily Show, well, daily, as soon as it is posted on Comedy Central.

I remember in my youth, during the Cold War years, being told inspiring stories about the pitiful, oppressed people suffering behind the Iron Curtain who eagerly listened to the Voice of America broadcasts and were inspired by the vision of freedom and hope. That is how I feel about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

The problem all along has been that Bush seems so normal to other ignoramuses.

So GWB doesn't read newspapers. I'm neither shocked or dismayed by this. The truth is, neither do I.

This is not why he's a total and deepening American disaster: neither is his hairstyle--or, for that matter, his staggering incompetence. It's his contempt for the constitution and the rule of law.

C'mon, let's face it. It's a no-brainer that this guy is exactly that... a no brainer. He probably listens to some visiting evangelists' well pronounced King James quotes and feels that he's educated enough to transform those heart pounding emotions into political policy. It all boils down to an idiot with visions of religious grandeur....in the fucking white house. God Bless America.

Deciding is a full-time job. Time for leisurely reading the news is a luxury the President does not have.

what are the public impressions of gwb?..

does he read or doesnt he....

is he informed or isnt he...

does he listen or doesnt he...

did he take time to consider libby's commutation or didnt he..

the bottom line isnt what is true...

the point is...

to muddy the water...

to infer that no one can truly know anything about anything...

that everything is just opinion...

to basically game the clock...on people's attention span

this strategy of telling conflicting versions of the same story can be effective...

especially when media in general dont provide any perspective or insight..

of course..in the light of extremely low credibility...

its all bush has left...

Ah, Kevin, or should I say, Steve Beneen?

Did ya think we wouldnt notice? Apparently this little stunt has been going on for a whle folks.

Question is will we see Kevin again or has the Monthly put him out to pasture?

Everything about Bush is scripted. In order to be the "regular guy" his handlers want
him to appear to be--- it's all part of presentation--while Cheney runs the government.
Not reading is "cool."
Hostility to science fits in, right along with hostility to reading, to literature,
to current events. To facts!

Don't you wish you had those six years back that we've had to experience
the endless shortcomings of this man...and endure his assaults on the Bill of Rights...
To him, the Constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper." He never read that either.
Observers claimed he actually said this.

You liberals are just putting on your tinfoil hats and being shrill!! He is the President and the ruler of the free world-- of course he has read everything important to read three times!!

See, I just proved my point!! Who do you think is smarter, the person who was elected President or some liberals writing blogs and comments on the internet??

Both elections were stolen, not won.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the president, any president, should care what the NY Times or Washington Post or CBS has to say about anything? I would hope not, whether it's a Republican president or a Democratic president. The MSM has its own agenda, and that colors everything it "reports." See, e.g., Keith Olbermann.

What facts do you think a president could learn from the MSM that he is not otherwise aware of? He may be missing lots of attitude, but who cares about what reporters think?

I suppose if you think the CIA and the State Department, etc. are incompetent and can't be trusted to give factually accurate reports to the president, well, that's another problem.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the president, any president, should care what the NY Times or Washington Post or CBS has to say about anything?

Most people read newspapers to get an idea of the big picture of what's going on. Newspapers chase down a lot of leads, get a lot of tidbits, and provide a disinterested, third-person point of view. In different cases, "disinterested" is more or or less interested, as you've pointed out. But, the wise ruler is going to want to hear what more than one source has to say about a subject. He's not going to want to hear just one guy, his own guy. How does he know that guy doesn't have something up his sleeve, or additional advisers, as well? You're taking too much for granted.

I'm sorry, but in this day and age, reading a newspaper (or at least, a good blog) is an indispensible part of being a well-informed adult.

Most people read newspapers to get an idea of the big picture of what's going on. Newspapers chase down a lot of leads, get a lot of tidbits, and provide a disinterested, third-person point of view.

That's to say, an adviser might just be providing a report based on what subordinates have to say, without providing this broader point of view. It could be that neither the adviser nor the subordinates supplying the information read the newspaper article or consulted the same sources. And a newspaper is written for everybody to read, so it's usually probably a better starting place for a president than an adviser who may inadvertently assume knowledge of details or background knowledge that a person in his or or field may know, or who may otherwise inadvertently give a presentation or write a memo in an unnecessarily technical tone.

read this it is good

his or or field

Oops- his or her field

the NY Times or Washington Post or CBS

Granted, NYT is probably a worse source of what's going on than, say, the Carpetbagger Report. But if there weren't sources like the NYT, there wouldn't be a Carpetbagger Report.

Back to Steve Benen's post--
Washington Post's Pete Baker's article is entitled
"The Imperiled Presidency Inside the Bunker
A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease
Bush, Grasping for Answers and Fixated on Iraq, Remains Resolute"

Of course the man is at ease, having grown up so very insulated and protected by wealth,
and still insulated --now by Halliburton wealth, and the citizens' treasury.
He was set up to be the point man/enabler for the Project for a New American Century neocons' desire for war in Iraq. And he has to live with that disasterous decision. And historians already are not kind to his legacy. His worries are completely narcissistic and rest solely with his legacy.
Recall he wanted to be a war president back in 1999--the family biographer told us that fact.

I am starting to suspect a reactive attachment disorder of infancy or early childhood....

That's funny. My comment I posted last night and which was here, has disappeared.

So, I guess Kevin Drum, or whoever is monitoring this site, can't stand comments from people who challenge their precious orthodoxy. How else to explain the deletion?

I know squeezing out opposing opinions makes you feel smart, but it is just the opposite. You are a very sad group of nitwits.

WG

Whoa, you mean he can read?

Bush stopped reading newspapers, because most of the newspapers are criticizing(obviously) him..I think he would get lot of time to read newspapers after 2008 election.
PVC Windows Diss

Weary G: "You are a very sad group of nitwits."

Yeah, happy Fourth of July to you, too!

It's actually a good idea not to read the editorials in the major papers. Unfortunately, the neo-cons who write there (from AEI, Brookings, Hudson, etc.) have Bush's ear already.

I find it rather sad that we went from 8 years of one of the US' smartest Presidents of all time, to, perhaps the dimmest of them all (and when you consider that Warren Harding was legitimately-elected, that's saying something). When you contrast Shrub w/Al Gore, the contrast between what our elected and selected Presidents is even sadder.

-Z

Just out of curiosity, do you think the president, any president, should care what the NY Times or Washington Post or CBS has to say about anything?

Let me answer your question with a quote:

I thought we were supposed to be winning this war! --W. Cronkite

In each case it looks like, after many a fit and start, the press is doing its duty. A president ignores at his own peril.

dbl: I suppose if you think the CIA and the State Department, etc. are incompetent and can't be trusted to give factually accurate reports to the president, well, that's another problem.

The only portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be true.....were the caveats from the State Department. - Wash. Post Nov.-2005

how's that working out?

USA Today and the Washington Times. That comprises half of all newpapers subscribed to by the White House.

Great.

PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY FLOOD

Crawford, Texas -- A tragic flood this morning destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush.

The flood began in the presidential bathroom where both of the books were kept. Both books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, as he had almost finished coloring the second one.

The White House tried to call FEMA, but there was no answer.

Just very hot young sexy lesbo porn for free.
http://lesbianvalley.net/milf-lesbian.shtml