[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I know and my point was that maybe the connection betweeen “brain trust” and initials is an artifact of the recent practice of using initials. Maybe earlier presidents had them, such as Wilson’s advisory group at Versailles, but weren’t known by their initials.
[/QUOTE]
For example, Andrew Jackson’s advisors were known as the Kitchen Cabinet.
I like how most of the people in this thread are still taking a “That’s my Bush”, view of the man, and acting surprised that he actually gives thought to things.
Early on, Mr. Bush shrugged off the concept of posterity. History would decide what his legacy would be, he said, and he was busy trying to (something or other.) These days, he does seem to be thinking about it, as the days tick down. He hopes to have something positive to hand to the coming Republican nominee. Perhaps the historians can couch his presidency in words like statesman, innovator, courageous commander-in-chief, or, sorry, I gotta stop. I can’t write this any more.
OK, we’ve had half a day to turn this into a serious discussion.
Back to the Pit it goes.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Wit has really fallen off sharply at the White House. Johnson had a kind of Hee Haw humor: Reagan had a few good lines, but it wasn’t even clear he understood them.
[/QUOTE]
Except he had some good lines after he was shot, which I doubt his speechwriters wrote for.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I like how most of the people in this thread are still taking a “That’s my Bush”, view of the man, and acting surprised that he actually gives thought to things.
[/QUOTE]
What do you expect? It is not something he has been known for up to now. We haven’t had a genuine intellectual for president since . . . well, probably Teddy Roosevelt; but this one is less intellectual than any in living memory.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I like how most of the people in this thread are still taking a “That’s my Bush”, view of the man, and acting surprised that he actually gives thought to things.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that is kind of a shocking attitude, given the man’s deeply thoughtful and introspective demeanor, not to mention his highly visible legacy of brilliant decisions in virtually every sphere. He’s a regular Marcus Aurelius, that one. How do people keep missing that side of him?
I suppose Woodrow Wilson is chopped liver? He was a gen-you-wine professor.
Thing is, Bush isn’t a complete dolt, he’s pretty smart if you compare him to the average person. It’s just that we expect the, you know, president, to be smart. And “quite a bit smarter than an average person” isn’t exactly ringing endorsement, neither is “not as stupid as you’d expect”.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I like how most of the people in this thread are still taking a “That’s my Bush”, view of the man, and acting surprised that he actually gives thought to things.
[/QUOTE]
I think (and I guess this is pointless now that it’s back in the Pit) that what’s surprising is not that he’s thinking, but WHAT he’s thinking out. By reputation, Bush is not an introspective man.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
For example, Andrew Jackson’s advisors were known as the Kitchen Cabinet.
[/QUOTE]
I reckon the skull fucking Indian Hater wanted to have its knives handy.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
By reputation, Bush is not an introspective man.
[/QUOTE]
This, and not the misplaced claims of stupidity, has been my criticism of him since before 2000. He can actually display the qualities of a very good thinker when he is not too lazy to actually think. His ability to run for and win the presidency (requiring the original organization and financial backing and several crucial mid-campaign tactical changes) and his ability to push through any number of anti-conservative financial programs in his first year in office despite having a nominally conservative same-party Congress, to say nothing of the masterful corruption of data required to get the country to support him in his idiotic pursuit of the Iraq war, all indicate the ability to plan specific, localized campaigns to accomplish specific goals. (Those who will contend that he was merely a puppet for some smarter and more dire forces have to justify that claim in the face of repeated evidence that he does things his way, often refusing to hear contradictory advice. I am sure that Rove (but not Cheney) has a great deal to do with his strategy mapping, but it still required his participation at some command level to pull off those events.)
However, despite his capacity for planning and execution, he still always conveys the impression that thinking makes his brain hurt. He wants to see the world in nice shades of stark black and white and not think too much about nuance or ramifications.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I think calling presidents by their initials started with FDR. I don’t think Wilson was ever referred to as WW, or Hoover as HCH, or Coolidge as JCC.
[/QUOTE]
It also has a bit to do with newspapers. There’s a finite amount of space available for headlines and the ability to shorten things helps free up room. JFK shorter than Kennedy. LBJ shorter than Johnson. RMN isn’t any shorter than Nixon (when you count spacing of capital letters) so he was always referred to as Nixon. Same thing for Bush.
Clinton I still don’t get. WAG, it probably had to do with WJC sounding like a toilet and WJBC’s a radio station in Illinois.
Maybe Bush is just trying to see what college would have been like without all the blow.
He didn’t have to worry about history when he was popular. Now he’s unpopular, and he swears history will bear him out. In that light, talking with legit historians would be pretty depressing for him.
Wasn’t Herbert Hoover’s middle name Horatio?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Alastair Horne may be the odd man out of that quartet…he’s a British historian who specializes in French history. Bush probably picked him because his book about the French-Algerian war was a very popular read within the American military (and their civilian overseers) back around 2003 or so…
[/QUOTE]
His recent interview with Salon should be of interest. His daughter describes his politics as “to the right of Margaret Thatcher”, though there’s little in his views on Iraq that ought to give comfort to Bush. Or indeed the rest of us.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Wasn’t Herbert Hoover’s middle name Horatio?
[/QUOTE]
Clark.
Herbert C. Hoover.
Hubert Horatio Humphrey.
(Congratualtions if you initiated a whooosh.)
No whoosh. Actually, I screwed up. I really should check these things when it’s so easy to do.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
What do you expect? It is not something he has been known for up to now. We haven’t had a genuine intellectual for president since . . . well, probably Teddy Roosevelt; but this one is less intellectual than any in living memory.
[/QUOTE]
Another satisfied customer. Thank you for shopping at NeoConmart, we have opinions in every price range and every persuasion.
So, mswas, how much does an oracle pull down in today’s marketplace?
No chance, I suppose, that the widely respected Dr. Kervorkian was on the list?