All of this back and forth about what everybody’s motivations might have been for saying or reporting what is making me dizzy. I’m going to call the Bush people today or tomorrow and see how fast I can solve this.
Why would anyone expect that particular quote to be repeated often? I’m sure at the time and earlier Bush also said any number of negative things about, say, communism that most people support and which also weren’t repeated much because they are so humdrum.
Is it true that no other reporters remember him saying it, or that we don’t have other reporters on record specifically backing up Sherman? Those are two entirely different assertions, and the second one, which is the operating assumption we’ve been under here to my understanding, lays the burden of proof upon the Sherman doubters.
I know Bush himself isn’t an overt Bible-thumper, hence use of my phrase “endearing himself to religious members of his party,” which carries the connotation that some Republicans aren’t that hugely religious and that Bush is one of them. None of that stops Republicans running for president from courting the religious right like crazy.
I continue to be amazed that we have to construct an elaborate path of lies for Sherman in order to ‘prove’ that Bush didn’t say something based upn nothing more than a notion that it doesn’t sound like the type of thing you’d think he’d say in public. This seems rather unfair to Sherman, and underlines to me how far marginalized his positions are, constitutional law be damned.
But Bill Bennett is perceived to have slandered a pretty well organized group of people who comprise about 11% of the American population, and who are being grouped according to what they are as opposed to what they believe.
Contrast this with a group of people who comprise less than 5% of the American population, and have no national lobbying organizations of any weight.
There’s a Congressional Black Caucus; is there even a single openly atheist member of Congress, out of 535? Is there an athiest lobbying group handing out money? Are athiests seriously considered as a voting block?
In a country where more than 60% of the population believes in literal angels, atheism is still widely considered to be an indicator of moral deficiency. It’s a personal choice; even people radically opposed to the politics of the CBC don’t by and large attach blame to Arfican-Americans for being who they are.
Thus I don’t think the analogy holds. Now, if you wanted to compare a denigrating comment about athiests in 1987 to a racist comment made in 1900, I might think you had a better analogy.
FWIW, the Boulder Daily Camera is, not suprisingly, the daily newspaper of Boulder, CO. You can say what you like about Boulder, but the Camera is a perfectly legitimate, albeit small, daily. It’s not some ideological screed.
I don’t see much difference between the two positions. Nonetheless, ISTM that the burden of proof remains with Sherman. He claims Bush said it, and has produced nothing conclusive. I am supposed (I guess) to take his word on it - on faith, you might say.
Which is why it is surprising that Bush never seems to have repeated this assertion - even though he must be courting the religious right like crazy.
I don’t think “you made an assertion, back it up” is unfair. And Sherman does seem to have an axe to grind.
If you want to characterize this as marginalizing his positions, no skin off my nose. But unpopular assertions are no less subject to proof than any other kind.
Regards,
Shodan
I called the George H. W. Bush library today, and they did not know anything about the document with the number provided on Sherman’s site. I gave them the number and, when that turned up nothing, although, from the description I gave them, they may have expected to find something from the press conference, not Jan Murray’s letters. Either way, they then searched electronically with the keyword “atheist” and found nothing. I am now completing a letter to the woman who took my phone call with all the details, she said she’ll see it first thing in the morning. I hope this will settle things one way or the other.
Good job, Marley. I hope you get an answer, whatever it is.
Thanks. They open at 10:30 Eastern, so with luck I’ll get a reply before I go into the city tomorrow.
There’s a huge difference between the positions; one is a positive assertion that people have come forward saying Sherman is lying and the other is “absence of evidence.”
I think this is a case where the claim that Sherman is lying is an assertion in and of itself, and no one has presented any evidence at all to back that one up.
From an interview that Bush did with Don Imus a year ago:
Now here he is more or less stating that an atheist doesn’t stand a chance of being a decent president, which isn’t the same as opining that constitutional reform is needed, but he makes what is obviously a direct reference to the events under discussion here.
So the notion that its’ not the sort of thing he might say in public is is a non-starter. He acknowledges denigrating atheists’ ability, compared to the faithful, to participate in the American political system to the fullest extent in the past, and notes the reaction it engendered. The only question now is whether he actually spouted the specific words Sherman claims he does.
Didn’t Clinton say somthing about the presidency and someone spending time on her knees? Oh, wait, that was something else… 
Well, now that the back and forth bullshitting going on got my dander up to the point that I actually shelled out 15 bucks after spending six months convincing myself I was happy as a lurker, let me take a look at this train wreck of a thread and see if we can’t get, if not to the factual answer, at least some sense of on which side the credibility may lie.
The OP asks, did Bush say this thing attributed to him against atheists?
We now have two references to some such event occurring: Sherman’s and Bush’s.
Sherman lists time place and direct quotes. Bush gives a vague reference. Both acknowledge that SOMETHING happened, and it engendered a shitstorm among atheists for a time.
Sherman is something of a loose cannon (he had no qualms about making his son the poster boy against the Pledge of Allegiance), but the broken clock principle says we must consider the possibility of his being correct despite this.
Other sources confirm that a press conference took place at the time and place described by Sherman. Unless Bush is referring to some other atheist controversy (and I don’t seem to find reference to another one), there is little reason not to believe that this very press conference isn’t where the offending statement was made.
Bush claims he repeated Lincoln’s sentiment that an atheist can’t be president. This seems to reflect an opinion, as I stated before, that and atheist can not under any circumstances do justice to the office, and may reflect a further sentiment that an atheist ought not to be given the job, period. This does not necessarily mean a constitutional change: it could suggest that American public opinion ought to remain in a state where a declared atheist doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.
However, as his more current statements are vague as to his specific meaning on that point, we could look at its logical extension.
Any native born US citizen is eligible to be elected president. If some situation is supposed to exist where atheists are supposed to be ineligible, then that suggests they are to be considered some lesser class of citizen. Taken to an extreme, you get Sherman’s claims.
In the Imus interview, it seems clear from the conversation on either end of my quoted section that Imus was trying to get Bush Sr. to address the thought that his son was delibrerately distancing his leadership style from that of his father. He mentions religion in passing as an example of the dichotomy, whereupon Bush feels moved to address the issue of faith in national leadership. So he obviously had strong opinions on the subject at that moment, which raises the possibility that he felt no less strongly about the issue 17 years ago, and may have felt no less moved to speak about it when the opportunity presented itself at the airport.
The lack of reportage about whatever he might have said that day I find to be meaningless. Reporters do not routinely write about every single question and answer with every single reporter at every single press conference, and one more conservative, in the fundamentalism-drenched 1980s, engaging in one more exchange (a brief one at that) regarding their opinions of godless heathen Americans would not, IMO, have been a blip on the radar except for those to whom it mattered.
So it comes down to this, unless we get something more concrete from the Bush Library: Bush said something about atheists that he is still proud of. Did Sherman twist Bush’s actual statements about the atheists and the Presidency into something more extreme about their status as citizens, using the logic described as above? Or do Bush’s currently-stated opinions of faith and the presidency stem from an already extreme opinion that he stated in 1987 regarding the preferable citizenship status of the faithless, and he is now downplaying the extremity of his comments with a thought toward his legacy? I find that either situation is at least plausible.
For the first situation to be true, we need to show that Bush actually had high regard for atheists’ contributions as citizens, just not as leaders. The Imus interview argues against that, given that it is an uncoached tangential jab against atheists, and a reaffirmation of whatever he might have said in the past against them.
For the second argument to be true, we need merely to believe that politicians like people to think well of them, and will take advantage of the dimness of memory to recast past actions in a less damning light.
Advantage Sherman.
As I understand it, arguing that Lincoln had a lot of religious faith is a dicey proposition. Anyway, here’s the reply I got from the Bush library:
So I’ll ‘piggyback,’ as they suggest, but meanwhile… everybody make sure your subscriptions are paid up. 
This thread has produced five or six citations that meet academic standards. This thread has produced ZERO evidence to refute Sherman’s claims. It’s put-up or shut-up time.
This thread has produced nothing of the sort. Several posters claimed that the report was echoed by other news outlets, but no one has actually confirmed exactly what those news outlets said, or if the other reports actually exist. I could just as easily say “well, I read a Reuters report 15 years ago that said Bush never said it. I can’t quote it here, but you can look it up. The onus is now on you.”
Also, it’s not uncommon for a legit news outlet to report that a non-legit news outlet reported something. In this instance, UPI or whoever might merely have reported that Sherman quoted Bush as saying what Sherman claims. That does NOT count as an independent report. So far, nothing independent has been presented. Everything depends entirely on what Sherman reported. The fact is, WE DO NOT KNOW. All we have is Sherman’s account. And that ain’t worth beans.
Give me a break. It’s been noted that the NYT has no documentation of this story.
UPI simply doesn’t have records going that far back in a free format.
We have the citation. You are asking for the link. No, actually you are asking for a free link. I would like an ice cream cone.
Hm. Maybe. I would say that a there’s a presumption that a professional observer is being truthful and roughly accurate. Sherman is such an observer. I have yet to hear a scenario that involves Sherman being mistaken about an extended exchange with Bush Sr. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done; I’m saying it hasn’t been presented. (Journalistic credentials, as I understand, basically involve applying for a press pass. For the White House press corps, they have different levels.)
Look, to be honest, I think this is a case of weighing the evidence. The characteristic “flimsy at best” is borderline ludicrous IMO: harboring deep suspicions about Encarta strikes me as paranoid.
Nonetheless.
Sherman also appears to be a hack. Furthermore, the original source of this quote appears to be an early 1990s screed by M. O’Hair (who may have drawn on the Free Inquiry article). [sup]1[/sup] I again repeat that the evidence here is simply not as strong as I would like.
Here, again, is where we disagree. To me, an offhand remark made to a fringe reporter doesn’t make somebody a nut. Again, I don’t think this comment rises to Agnew levels. Not even close.
Bush’s many defenders also casually sidestep another piece of evidence, namely that the Bush White House had repeated opportunities to clarify the record and decided not to. Again, this isn’t airtight. But it does speak to the contention that Bush could not have possibly said such a mean thing. If the comment is so absurd why didn’t the White House say something like, “We won’t dignify that with a reply?”
My take is that Bush’s remarks at the time were inconsequential. Indeed, as far as I can tell (and I may be wrong) doubts about the quote only emerged in the new millenium.
[sup]1[/sup]Appropos nothing I saw Free Inquiry on a newstand this week. Woohoo.
Let’s pause here for a moment.
Why isn’t it worth beans?
Sherman has offered specific facts. Those that could be checked have been borne out.
Either Sherman is lying or he’s mistaken.
If an entertainer such as O’Reilly or Limbaugh repeatedly states falsehoods which they refuse to correct, then I agree and I believe that their word is worth squat.
If somebody can be shown to make dubious claims or presents suspect methodology, I pause before believing other claims that they make.
It appears that modern conservatives tie truth-value to ideology. I don’t. If Bill Buckley witnessed an event, and he has not displayed a history of fabrication or exageration, then I would take his testimony seriously, though I disagree with his outlook.
I understand that certain modern conservatives don’t share this position. I find this deeply disturbing.
This nonauthoritative site claims that Bush made the Lincoln/knees comment on 15 Jan 1992. So they may be referring to different quotes.
I’ve prepared my FOIA letter and will mail it tomorrow. If you want to throw a party when I get my response, you’ve got plenty of time to clean the house, buy the bunting and potato chips, and make up nice invitations.
Actually uncontradicted first person testimony in the absence of any denial from (potentially) opposing parties despite opportunity has substantial worth; quite sufficient worth (in the absence of any evidence at all that the person is lying) to carry the day.