It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Mr. Bush Just "Be Himself?"

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:16 AM
I was looking at the news early this morning and found this very interesting article. It talks about GWB initiating a new tactic to get back into the good graces of the public as well as Congress. He is just trying to "be himself". You can read it in its entirety here:

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - George W. Bush is taking time to explain himself, open up to the public in new ways and court the U.S. Congress as he tries to breathe life into a presidency beset by sagging ratings and influence.

With a job-approval rating under 40 percent, Bush, who went to his Crawford ranch for a quiet weekend, has a long way to go. Aides acknowledge it will take a while to rebuild his image, and much will depend on the outcome of the Iraq war.

White House staffers, who have long limited the president's appearances to speeches and photo opportunities with little contact with regular people, are now inclined to let Bush be Bush.

Do you guys think that this new tactic will work?

[edit on 3-4-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:10 AM
I've had it with Bush and voted for the fella 4 times. He has never studied battle tactics and is incapable of speaking off the cuff. Iran is a perfect case in point. They have been calling for the death of America since the early 70's. Now it seems they are practicaly pleading for us to attack them. This we will do , but not what they expect at all their military will be destroyed within hours and they won't even know what caused it. You hear about this new bomb they are going to explode a week from now in New Mexico, but it is just that : A big bomb.....a MOAB type of deal. This is a fixation for Iran to jump the gun. They will do exactly that. Yesterday they launched a supposed very fast anti-sub or ship missle, yet they forget how fast a Harpoon can reach that very ship. Live and learn. As for Bush? He has nothing to to with the strategies for victory.

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:36 AM
I think he is at his best when he is himself. Almost everyone is. When you try to fit into the mold that advisors cast for you, you come across as unsure, insincere, and unbelievable.

He actually is very down to earth. He's not at all complicated. And this very trait is what gets brickbats thrown at him from some people. He is a deeply religious man, and his faith is what helps him through tough times when it seems the world is against him. It gives him strength. He sincerely appreciates it when people say they are praying for him. But some detractors interpret that incorrectly. He is not, as some claim, guided by godly voices, at least imo. He does care for the soldiers and their families. He is not trying to strip away our rights. All in all, he is just an average guy who works very hard to keep the country safe and together.

I know I sound like a cheerleader. I have never been president of anything important, but I know what it's like to be under the spotlight. We're all human; we'll all make mistakes from time to time. And realizing that, I will support him as long as he works for the good of the country.

So, I think this new tactic will be very successful, if only because it's natural, and when we act naturally, we tend to make fewer mistakes.

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:58 PM

You hit right on the head. Everyone is better off just being themselves. One always reacts to pressure better when you don't have to remember your lines.

I've been in supervisory positions in the past, nothing so grand and pressure packed as being POTUS, pressure was always easier to deal with when you stay yourself.

If his "handlers" will leave him alone, he'll be fine. So what if he isn't as verbally fleet of foot as some hollywood actor, he's nothing so unimportant as that, he is the President of the United States and needs to be himself, verbal miscues and all.

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 12:00 AM
I think that is true that when you are at ease, you don't have a lot of pressure to deal with in the public. Perhaps Mr. Bush should have shown this side earlier. But I wonder if it will have any affect on the American populace, if not the world.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:36 PM
Probably not. For better or for worse, it is too late to change the perception that he is somesort of psuedo-cowboy from Texas out to save the world for Big Oil. Not saying I agree, or disagree, that just seems to be the working perception...or that he's the font of all evil...or he's the greatest thing since sliced organically grown wheatberry bread. None of which are neccessarily true. The truth is somewhere in the middle, just like with everyone else. But I think it is too late for him to do much in the way of altering which ever perception suits a particular fancy.


posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:16 PM
Seagull, I agree. But as I mentioned in the "Vermont Dems" thread to carseller4, Karl Rove has a lot of work to do.

However, I also think if Mr. Bush tries to rehabilitate himself by being natural, he will have a hard time convincing people because whenever he appears on camera his entire demeanor appears false. It has nothing to do with a "power tie" or the right suit. To act natural, is to have a certain connection with the audience. But in Mr. Bush's demeanor, it seems that when people have a connection with the POTUS, it often looks as if they are bowing down to him out of fear, not of fondness. I don't know why that is, but on camera it appears that way.

Or, if he is speaking in front of his carefully constructed audiences, he still appears as if he is reading off the teleprompter instead of speaking his mind. But whenever he does "speak his mind" in those rare occasions, it appears as if he is smirking at the rest of the public instead of trying to gain their trust.

I don't think the empathy is there. It could be that he is nervous--the very same affliction that I see in Sen. Clinton's demeanor when she comes across camera as being "hard" and "wooden".

The image and body language that often accompianies Mr. Bush is one of insecurity. It is as if he is focusing too much on what he has to say rather than trying to be sincere in approach. And with the lack of empathy or connection to his audiences, even his jokes turn out to be rather canned. Contrast this with his father, the senior Bush. In rare occasions, I hate to say, even I laugh at what he says because it seems more naturally performed.

Just my opinion, imho.

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:48 PM
In these crucial times, we need an above average guy "who works very hard to keep the country safe and together," something poor George just can't seem to do. He does appear insecure; I once had an insecure boss who would flex his pecs visibly underneath his expensive shirts to show he was top dog. Besides, if being himself means calling reporters "major league asshole" or saying "Now watch this drive" after talking about terrorists, then forget about it. Team USA is so far behind now, his cheerleading routine will not help.

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 10:14 AM
Bush is "being hmiself." He is 'Christian" zionist cult trying to shove his heresy down everyone's throats. . .and there rest is we are hated thoughout the arab nations and even in the EU. . .go figure. . . .

Grace Halsell, who regards the movement as a cult, asks: “What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.' (17)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 21.

Walter Riggans interprets the term [Christian Zionist] in an overtly political sense as 'any Christian who supports the Zionist aim of the sovereign State of Israel, its army, government, education etc., but it can be describe a Christian who claims to support the State of Israel'. (7)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 21.

Dale Crowley, a Washington-based religious broadcaster, similarly describes dispensational Christian Zionism as the 'fastest growing cult in America': It's not composed of 'crazies' so much as mainstream, middle to upper-middle class Americans. They give millions of dollars each week – to TV evangelists who expound the fundamentals of the cult. They read Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. They have one goal: to facilitate God's hand to waft them up to heaven free from all the trouble, from where they will watch Armageddon and the destruction of the planet earth. (18)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zioinism: Road Map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004)p. 21-22.

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 05:16 PM
Perhaps so, Shamgar.

But on the subject of religion, does anyone truly think that Mr. Bush is religious man? He might be privately. But publicly, he doesn't look like it at all.

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by ceci2006Perhaps so, Shamgar. But on the subject of religion, does anyone truly think that Mr. Bush is religious man? He might be privately. But publicly, he doesn't look like it at all.

hahahaaaaa he is a cult member. . . . and all you have to do is look at the US position on Israel and you can see his "religion" being acted out. . . .

With the rise of Arab nationalism and especially Palestinian aspirations towards self-determination, the polemics against Arabs has grown. Comparisons between Hitler and Arabs are now frequent in the writings of contemporary Christian Zionists. (129) Van der Hoeven of the ICEJ is typical: 'Just as there was a definite ideology behind hatred and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis, there is one behind the hatred and wars by the Arabs against the Jews and people of Israel.'(130)
Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 242.

Antipathy for Arabs generally has led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the demonization of Islam, while Arab leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are cast for the role of Antichrist. (118) In such a dualistic and polarized world, Christian Zionists are best skeptical and at worst hostile towards the Middle East peace process.
Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 240.

Since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate that Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armegeddon.
Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armegeddon? (Leicester: 2004) Page 252.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Shamgar]

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:13 AM
Shamgar, I looked to Skippy for an answer. A long time. Although your post really doesn't have anything to do with the article I posted, I gave your claims the benefit of the doubt.

I found a Christian Science Monitor article that investigates Christian Zionism. Here what it had to say:

Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine and a conservative Catholic, says their influence is overemphasized. "The administration's commitment to Israel was there from the very first day, prior to the coalition of Evangelicals the administration has cultivated for the past 3-1/2 years," he says. "Their role is only supportive."[...]As a result of Christian Zionists' alliance with Likud governments, they now work actively with Jewish groups in the US, even though historically the two have been on opposing sides of key issues.

"Christian Zionist groups play an increasingly important role," says Morton Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America and a leader of the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. "In many districts where there are very few Jews, the members of the House and Senate are Israel's supporters in part because of the strong Christian Zionist lobby on Capitol Hill."

Other observers say the Bush administration's tilt toward Israel in the Israeli- Palestinian dispute results from a coalition of neoconservatives, the Jewish lobby, and Christian Zionists - with the latter providing the grass-roots political punch as a prime Bush constituency.

So, you may be on to something there. Whether it might be a part of Mr. Bush's new attempt to be "himself", I really do not know. What I do know is that he has not demonstrated his commitment to religion overtly in his "make-over" attempt as of yet. But it is true that U.S. policies have been very supportive of Israel.

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:09 AM
Bing yourself implies a relaxed honest state of being...

How on earth is he going to do that when all these lies have to weigh so hard on him? For one thing, he has to keep track of the lies. As you all know, that's not easy.

When asked something, he has to scan his brain for the right answer. That in itself causes tension.

They might have him be more exposed to the outside world, but being himself?? Whoever he really is....Cant be done.

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:16 PM

It fascinates me that you would put it that way. Because it reminds me of a book that I recently read called, Bush on the Couch. It is by Justin A. Frank, M.D. Throughout the pages, he psychoanalyzes Mr. Bush's personality and concludes that he is a man that has no remorse. Not only that, he says that Mr. Bush's problems with drugs continue to haunt him even though the POTUS claimed to have quit "cold turkey". In this stance, I truly do believe that it might be a little problematic for him to be "himself" when he has so much baggage in his life.

This is what Dr. Frank had to say in the introduction of his book:

Frank, Justin A. Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. New York: 10 ReganBooks, 2004.

George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction. All of us have witnessed the affable good humor with which he charms both supporters and detractors; even those of us who disagree with his policies may find him personally lieable. As time goes on, however, the gulf between his personality and those policies--and the style with which they are executed--grows ever wider, rasing serious questions about his behavior.
As a citizen, I worry about what these contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president's ability to govern; as a psychoanalyst, I'm troubled by their implications for the president's current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of certain information that we know about his past.

Naturally, the occasional misstatement, or discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as politics as usual. But when the most powerful man on the planet consistently exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated symptoms--anyone of which I've seen paitients need years to work through--it's certainly cause for further investigation, if not for outright alarm. (xi-xii)

After reading this book, I have to admit that I was shocked by his analysis of the POTUS' personality. That is why I think that you may be right. Mr. Bush has a hard time distinguishing who he is, let alone what he stands for. I don't think he has the capability to separate himself from the lies and truths surrounding his personality to present a "natural" demeanor, let alone convince others of it.

new topics

top topics


log in