"It's not to say I don't respect the press. I do respect the press. But sometimes it's hard to be an optimistic leader. A leader must project an optimistic view. It's hard to be optimistic if you read a bunch of stuff about yourself." -- President Bush, in an interview with British journalist Martin Newland, Nov. 14, 2003

In a recent interview President Bush revealed that he doesn't read newspapers. Though he occasionally glances at the headlines, he relies on his advisors to provide him with "objective" accounts, "And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." He said this has been his practice since he became president.

President Bush's reliance on aides for news is at variance with the previous occupants of his office. President Eisenhower, according to his press secretary, read nine newspapers a day. President Kennedy also read multiple newspapers; to digest the news quickly he famously signed up for Evelyn Wood's speed reading course--and insisted that other high officials do as well. Lyndon Johnson was by his own confession a news junkie.

Richard Nixon began his day by reading a special news digest, upwards of sixty pages, prepared by aides (including Patrick Buchanan) that reported on the contents of dozens of papers across the country. Although the digest was often packed to suit Nixon's biases (aides included articles that played to his prejudices against liberals), the news summary offered an extraordinarily broad exposure to events and views. Nixon would jot his reactions to stories in the margins, indicating the action he wanted officials to take in response to developments. Biographer Stephen Ambrose observed that Nixon in effect governed the country through these jottings.

Ronald Reagan was an avid reader of newspapers. His ex-wife Jane Wyman confessed to friends that she was bored by his constant diatribes about news. Both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clifton read the papers daily.

Our question of the week: Should presidents read the papers?

Bush's Interview (Fox News, September 23, 2003)

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

jim smith - 6/6/2004

Surely the question should be: did he read the newspapers before he became President and had someone 'objective' to tell him what to think? Has he ever read a newspaper? Can he read anything with smaller letters than an autocue?

jim smith - 6/6/2004

Surely the question should be: did he read the newspapers before he became President and had someone 'objective' to tell him what to think? Has he ever read a newspaper? Can he read anything with smaller letters than an autocue?

Red Dog - 12/26/2003

Doesn't this question assume that Bush can read?

Bruce - 12/24/2003

The real question is, should anyone read newspapers?

I see that the art of public debate has "evolved" to a level that reminds me of my playground in elementary school. When the shouting and insults get too loud then the fists start to fly. The one left standing at the end is the one who is morally, legally, and politically correct -- in other words, the one in possession of the "best" argument. Everyone else is a moral and intellectual dwarf and needs to shut up unless they want another bloody nose(oh, wait, can't tell people that yet. There is still a first amandment and the suppression of free speach via a bully pulpit will have to wait just a little while longer). Is this a fair characterization of this discussion thread? Makes me proud to be an American! I am so glad to see that critical thinking skills and basic manners are still being taught in our schools and universities. Smells like fear. I can litterally hear minds snapping shut over the wire. Keep them open for just another 30 seconds and I'll be done.

Presidents who read and rely on newspapers for their facts are like scholars who rely on the Readers Digest as their primary source material. Reporters are at arms length from the people and organizations they report on, often relying on press releases and second hand information, on information leaked by people in bars who's loyalty and credibility are more then questionable, are biased toward the sensational and away from the factual to sell ad space. Reporters gotta eat. Then they sum up their self-sacraficial, incredibly insightful, and hard won opinions (this is sarcasm, by the way) in columns written at the 8th grade level.

Or, as the President of the United States of America, you can read analyst reports on the latest intel provided by our vast intelligence networks, often with first hand knowledge of things said and done in places a reporter has neither the budget or authority to go, often obtained at great expense and risk of life, gathered and prioritized by people who share your worldview and know the difference between intel and political propaganda.

True, these intel networks are not perfect and were severely damaged in the ‘90s by people who believe perception is indeed reality and not interference; networks that took decades to build and will take decades to rebuild. However, even in their currently crippled capacity these networks fare a bit better in their coverage and relevance toward national security then, say CNN, or Fox, or NYT, any of the public networks -- be they print or streaming media. Entertaining, persuasive, yes, even powerful, too powerful, but not factually engineered to provide the kind of intel necessary to make decisions about national security.

If you had your finger on “THE BUTTON” who would you allow to influence and persuade you? The New York Times?There are only so many hours in a day so you had better invest your research time wisely. Remember, life and death hang on every decision and you do need to be able to live with yourself when it's all over. Of course, only people with a conscience agonize over their decisions and carefully consider the authenticity of their intel. I am indeed confident that this describes all of us.

Was that in keeping with the style of this debate? Next time, if there is a next time, I will write with the assumption that those reading this are indeed intelligent, thinking, feeling people deserving of my love and respect in spite of their professed beliefs or position on any particular matter. People are far more then their beliefs or their style of rhetoric and we need to proceed on the basis of mutual respect rather then mutual distain. A good argument should be able to stand on it's own without resorting to emotional manipulations and should be a joy to craft even in the face of high stakes and bitter opposition. Otherwise it's just a stupid playground fist fight. Life is short. I've got better things to do.

Enjoyed it. Gotta go.

Jonathan Dresner - 12/3/2003

Kay of Vancouver,

I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw your note, and appreciate your comments. It is a rare and precious thing on this board (or the internet generally), to end a thread with coming together, instead of storming off.

I actually share some of your concern about the use of titles (I'd forgotten about the Nixon slogan) particularly their use outside of professional venues. The traditional deference offered to ambassadors -- particularly the tradition of calling ambassadors "Honorable" in perpetuity after their term of service ends -- for example, is undoubtedly a holdover from the days of lords and dames.

For me, this is a professional venue, though I value the willingness of people to ignore my credentials if I'm wrong.

Thanks for engaging in this discussion.

roxman - 12/3/2003

To put the newspaper issue aside for a moment, what are your criteria for a successful President?

Kay of Vancouver - 12/2/2003

Your medium cannot even contact a spirit guide.

Kay of Vancouver - 12/2/2003

Dear Sir:

I accept your apology, your compliments, and your rebukes. The results of your initial response have taught me valuable lessons about attempting to use humor to express my opinion and to defend myself.

RE honorifics & titles: Imagine my surprise to discover yesterday that the use of honorifics and titles is a matter of debate among the editors of newspapers! I aleady knew that the use of honorifics and titles has been debated in academic circles for decades, now perhaps even centuries. I was once witness to a tongue-lashing given by an internationally-recognized scholar when a graduate student called him Dr. Altick instead of Mr. Altick. The tongue-lashing also included an uncomplimentary reference to the German academic tradition of using "professor" as a title. Even though the use of honorifics and titles may not be debated now in political circles, I myself have been bothered by this use ever since Nixon used "Re-Elect the President" as a campaign slogan. The historical rejection of inherited titles may have been based on their "corrosive effect on democratic values" but the use of earned titles and bestowed honorifics seems to me to have a similar effect.

My commendation and congratulations on your achievement.

Sincerely,

Kay of Vancouver

Cram - 12/2/2003

Garrison,
Your point is well made. As for your prior post, I will not disagree with your overall analysis.

Garrison - 12/1/2003

Of course, Cram, it is not likely reading news items will hinder performance or taint quality information from quality sources only the President may be able to access.

As journalists do not adhere to the high standards of objectivity and fact-based reporting enforced by an independent body authorized to revoke certification of credentials, the quality of their offerings are suspect.

As journalists typically are not required to have an educational or theoretical background or practical experience in the subject matter upon which they report, the quality of their offerings is suspect.

As journalists tend to bend to the left ideologically -- and the Washington press corps in particular tends to vote for Democrats -- I simply do not believe the views of reporters and editors as hidden in hard news items are representative of the population.

When Secretary Rumsfeld delivers in person a report on Iraq, he does so knowing President Bush will hold him responsible for any misrepresentation. When the Washington Post offers up a report on Iraq based on anonymous Pentagon officials with unknown credentials and credibility that cannot be measured, those sources talked to the press knowing they will not be held accountable for their misrepresentations. When one is busy and has access to named sources who freely put their credibility on the line, why read the Washington Post?

Swatting At Flies - 12/1/2003

Leaders need to lead. Leaders need to provide a vision of the future to shape events. Newspapers can only report what's already happened and speculate about what might come. From a leader's perspective, a newspaper can only provide information about what the general newspaper reading public is getting.

Newspapers are not sources of information. They are conduits for certain types of information. They contain what publishers, through their editors, decide is 'news'. If you read the major mainstream newspapers, you'll find pretty much the same major stories.

If I were President of the United States of America I wouldn't bother reading the newspaper. I'd be busy making news.

C.R.W. - 12/1/2003

William La Jeunesse was an embedded reporter who attended a showing of Robbins' play and pointed out numerous distortions.

I think we're at a point where some art has reached such a degree of parity between its political motivations and fantastical exagerrations that it is impossible to separate any intrinsic artistic value from its value as propaganda. If you want to make a statement on the human condition, at least be honest. And an effort at going beyond a self-defeatingly arbitrary sense of selectivity wouldn't hurt either.

Cram - 12/1/2003

Garrison,
I disagree with nothing that you have said, although I would not go as far as you in labeling all news being based on "in large part of misinformation, disinformation, misquotes, anonymous sourcing preventing the reader from judging the source's credentials, ideologically driven opinion, lies, misrepresentations, intentional omissions of relevant information, and other intentional distortions."

Nevertheless, I should hope that a President of the United States need not worry about being brainwashed or fooled by what he reads. However, I would also hope that his own curiosity combined with the legitimate goal of learning from as many diverse sources as possible would encourage Presidents to read the news.

A President reading the news does not preclude getting any information from Ms. Rice or anyone else. It does however, in my own humble opinion, give the President or anyone else a better rounded sense, not only of what is going on in the world, but also of what the country, his constituents, THINK is going on in the world.

I am not saying that Presidents must read the news in order to be well informed. But to be frank, I am having a hard time understanding the argument that, in general, reading the news actually hinders performance or information.

Garrison - 12/1/2003

Jouralism is not a profession. Journalists have to meet no minimum standard for education. There is no licensing or certification process. There is no governing body ensuring journalist excellence.

The "hard" news, analyses and commentary content of most newspapers is comprised in large part of misinformation, disinformation, misquotes, anonymous sourcing preventing the reader from judging the source's credentials, ideologically driven opinion, lies, misrepresentations, intentional omissions of relevant information, and other intentional distortions.

Do I want President Bush to be informed by DR. RICE on matters of national security or Maureen Dowd or some be-pimpled reporter for the East Bumpkin Farmers Times with an animal husbandry degree???

DR. RICE!!!

Jonathan Dresner - 12/1/2003

For the record, the abjuration of honorifics in early America was about inherited nobility and its corrosive effect on democratic values. I don't remember any mainstream American movement against earned titles. I assure you, for the record, my Ph.D. and subsequent career were earned, not inherited.

I looked back at your original post, and I think a mealy-mouthed backhanded apology was more than enough. You aren't anywhere near as funny or as clever as you think, nor was your original post related to the more interesting later comment I cited. As far as your discussion with Mr. Jones, I think you've been giving at least as good as you're getting.

I'm not the civility police, really. Just an historian trying to have a civil discussion. Clearly that's not going to happen here.

Grant Jones - 11/30/2003

Yes I did. Did you figure that out all by yourself? So Georgie Boy, any response to my post of 28 Nov. at 7:07 PM? A clever boy like you should be able to present something better than a quote from Mencken.

NYC Guide - 11/30/2003

You're right!! Why should he read a newspaper? He should get his from a standard Republican source, like one of Reagan's old astrologers! That way, he could get the news weeks in advance and it could be just as tailored to his needs as the current system. But with one big plus, it would free up more time to skulk off to Iraq in secret or take his weekly vacations.

George Oilwell - 11/30/2003

"grammer"

Did you mean "grammar"?

Grant Jones - 11/30/2003

I thought the issue at hand was George W. Bush's intelligence, not my grammer or typing skills.

Still waiting for that proof.

George Oilwell - 11/30/2003

Kay,

I like the way you THINK.

YES, "the future's uncertain and the end is always near". J.M.

Grant Jones - 11/30/2003

Does that include your toadys?

Kay of Vancouver - 11/30/2003

I've been reading this board for a long time and posting messages on this board every once in a while. Interesting question from you, considering that you pronounced me dead to you and yours.

Grant Jones - 11/30/2003

Does this mean you will go troll another site. :-)

Grant Jones - 11/30/2003

And a big "no comment" from Georgie Boy regarding content. Feel free to proofread all my posts. I can always use the drill.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/30/2003

Thank you, milord, for noting how the digital medium makes the use of irony so difficult and the use of sarcasm so easy to perceive. If I understand you correctly, the electronic doodads and pixelated whajjamacallits somehow pervert the written word so that irony is unrecognizable and sarcasm is blatantly highlighted. Is there some button I can push to correct this distortion problem? Is there some tech support person who really knows how to correct this problem? Maybe somebody is working on a new software package or hardware addition to correct the problem? Until the problem is corrected, should I worry about what the digital medium is doing to ironic sarcasm or sarcastic irony? I wonder if Guttenberg and his successors had such problems when the printing press was first introduced? Could such trans-media crossovers have something to do with the concern expressed by the upper classes about allowing the lower classes to learn how to read? or with the concerns expressed by slave-owners in passing laws forbidding slaves from learning to read?

When a professional historian decides a joke deserves a rebuke for "unnecesary incivility" and when the historian's toady decides the jokester deserves a few more whips of the lash and receives no such rebuke for incivility from the professional oh-so-concerned about proper decorum, why should I be surprised that the professional historian offers such a mealy-mouthed, back-handed acknowledgement of a reading error. Yes, that was not civil, but I believe you owe me one.

RE honorifics: I am an Old School American who doesn't believe in the use of honorifics because as Old World signs of social and/or class standing, they usually indicate submission and not respect. My respect for you was indicated by the content of my first response to you; my disrespect for you is indicated by the content of this one. I suggest that if you're interested in gaining and keeping respect that you develop a sense of humor.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/30/2003

But, Doctor George, that simple typo just couldn't be the sign of something so serious, could it? Isn't there any chance of survival?

Kay of Vancouver - 11/30/2003

With one massive stroke, you have dispatched her to the great beyond. Her head lies on the keyboard, the keyboard is covered in her blood. The gore is horrible. Oh, the humanity, the humanity.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/29/2003

Mr. Jones is indeed respecting my wishes when he refered to me by the honorific. I don't insist on either Prof. or Dr., but I also don't feel that I'm on a first-name basis with the discussants on this board. I use Mr. or Ms. when a last name is provided; Prof. or Dr. when I know the poster to have earned those titles. Pseudonymonous posters, and first-name posters, get whatever formality seems appropriate and grammatically wieldy.

You're right that the term ad hominem has gotten something of a bum rap: there are times when the person is the issue.

But you have to be very careful with irony on-line: it doesn't take the conversion to digital well at all. I read it as snide sarcasm, whereas I found you later discussion of the ad hominem nature of the question quite effective (not entirely persuasive, but at least worth consideration).

George Oilwell - 11/29/2003

"If you think George W. Bush is an illiterate, you have to provide proof of you contention."

Grant Jones - 11/29/2003

The "poll" was dumb. That does not excuse your stupidity. "It was all just an attempt at satire." No, I don't buy your lame excuse. If you think George W. Bush is an illiterate, you have to provide proof of you contention. Your hatred of the man is not proof of anything.

Grant Jones - 11/29/2003

You are very defensive for some reason. I was quite clearly refering to Frick and Frack, aka Kay and Barbara, in my post that you are upset about.

Grant Jones - 11/29/2003

I refer to Prof. Dresner in that form because he has stated on another thread that he prefers that people address each other on HNN in a formal manner. I was just respecting his wish, that's all.

"I thought as a writer I had entered the realms of Jonathan Swift." Are you joking or delusional?

The fact that you "think" that inductive logic is based on faith and that logic is "limiting" says all I need to know about your epistemology. It also explains why you express yourself in floating abstractions. Concept formation is an inductive process.

"I apoligize for not providing any supporting evidence. I could make some snide comment about pearls and swine..." You make it too easy. You have nothing to add to any discussion, by your own admission. So I will ignore all further posts by you.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/29/2003

First, thank you, Grant, for detailing your own limitations in argumentation & persuasion, which happen to be rhetorical modes which move beyond basic exposition (thesis plus supporting statements and evidence), which in-and-of itself necessarily limits itself to the appearance of inductive reasoning and which is not the presentation of inductive reasoning itself (not to mention that the leap of faith involved in inductive reasoning makes it fundamentally illogical). These self-identified limitations explain why you seemingly cannot see that the poll question was not asking for a logical response at all. If the pollster wanted to generate more historical facts to add to those he presented in his article, he would have asked a completely different question than "should Presidents read newspapers?" Your expressed preference for basic exposition explains as well why you seemingly do not know that an ad hominem argument is a perfectly appropriate, although somewhat dangerous, rhetorical device to use and why you seemingly do not know the difference between an ad hominem argument and an argument based on reductio ad absurdum. I thought the question was a silly one and I initially provided what was, I hoped, an even sillier answer to the poll question. Imagine my surprise to discover that my silliness has been taken so seriously (but I did find Barbara's support a lot of fun). For a moment there, I thought as a writer I'd entered the realms of Jonathan Swift.

Second, thank you too for declaring your preference for proper identification of the writer (when you earlier referred to Jonathan as Prof. Dresner, I deduced that you as well have a great fondness for titles). May I note that there is a long-established tradition of using pseudonyms (and I thought George Oilwell was a great one). As well, many a written work has been published anonymously (most newspaper editorials are still anonymous).

Third, thank you for hinting at your preferred form of "truth." Why you chose to attempt to attack what you yourself declared to be nothing is odd, but I guess it's a form of advanced shadow-boxing that some seem determined to substitute for thought.

I apologize for not presenting a clear thesis; I apologize for not providing any supporting evidence. I could make some snide comment about pearls and swine and pomposity, but I won't.

NYGuy - 11/28/2003

Derek,

I would take someone with Clinton's policy knowledge and someone else's moral compass over someone with Bush's seeming lack of interest in policy any day. In any casde, the nature of the dialogue these days is that any assertions of a flaw in (in this case) Bush meets with two outsized reactions -- fury and anger and righteousness from his defenders, and equal apoplexy and rage and righteousness from his detractors.

NYGuy

Only someone who does not live in the real world would make a statement that a lawyer has policy knowledge. And then add that lawyers have moral convictions. While you may be in academia you are completely unaware of what goes on in the law department. Budding lawyers are told that if they want to deal with morality they should go to the divinity school. Surprised you never hear of this in your little world.

Clinton changed political debate with his legal mind, which is completely unprepared for the leadership of a great country. That is why the Presidents role was seriously debased during his administration and why he ranks at the bottom of the list of Presidents.

Bush makes policy that world leaders respect because they respect the man and because he exudes leadership and character. You are right about the nature of dialogue today which is that of democrats with a lawyer’s mentality which was introduced into politics by your favorite President Bill. Winning is all that counts. Morality, the protection of our citizens, etc. is of no importance.

Derek,

This is the sort of thing that leads people actually to make reading the paper out to be a bad thing and on the other side implies that only the publication of the NYT every morning keeps the leader of the free world from utter ignorance. Aren't both sides a little silly? And yet this is pretty much what this argument has come down to.

NYGuy,

Finally we agree on the silliness of this article, particularly when it does not meet the standards suggested by HNN. What you don’t understand is that HNN need clicks to get advertising and silly articles have been their weapons of choice. Don’t be mislead by claims of historical exchanges.

NYGuy - 11/28/2003

Grant,

I have present my proof and predictions for over 8 months and they have been right on target. The fact that someone lacks the experience and knowledge to understand it their problem, not mine. I hope when the library closes for the holidays you get out into the real world so you can begin to know what is going on. Meanwhile, ignorance is bliss.

Happy Holidays.

Grant Jones - 11/28/2003

Fortunately for me, claims of "truth" have the burden of proof. None has been presented in the above screeds. Therefore, I have nothing to refute.

Like the posts above by Barbara Cornett and Kay, yours is completely witless. (I suspect, this is why you use an alias. I would too if I were you) We are all very opinionated here at HNN. Most of us understand that opinions need to be supported by facts and logical argumentation. Especially on a history board, so try to develop an arguement that is inductive in nature. You will need to provide historical facts in a logical framework supporting a clearly defined thesis. Good Luck.

George Oilwell - 11/28/2003

"You are boring."

If the truth is boring to you, then you must be one of those people H.L. Mencken was referring to when he said: "The public always prefers nonsense to sense."

George Oilwell - 11/28/2003

I just think that if Bill Clinton had been honest with the murikan
peoples about his relationship wiff mommica, none of this would have happened. We might not even know that bush is an AWOL cokehead and dry drunk who is bearly literate.

Grant Jones - 11/28/2003

Barbara Cornett below has made my point better than I could. But you are right, polls should not be confused with facts. Neither should your fact-free rants. I've already read your above "right-wing" bashing a thousand times. You write in bromides. You are boring.

NYGuy - 11/28/2003

According to the new play by Tim Robbins newsmen who were embedded with US troops had sold out and were just puppets.

This shows that this is a false question for HNN to present and shows another example of GW's brillance. Instead of reading distorted reports he focused like a laser on keeping the US safe and making the world better and safer place.

The more I understand the thinking of this man the more I become impressed with his vision and genius.

Sorry for all those who were sucked in by the false reports from the front.

Barbara Cornett - 11/28/2003

You are absolutely correct Kay, but the rightwingers who are masters of personal attacks and the politics of personal destruction cannot bear to have their politics exposed for what they really are. They were backed into a corner and unable to defend the top dunce of the world they had to resort to accusations of ad hominem attacks.

NYGuy - 11/28/2003

Jerk

"What is it about Bush that makes you elevate him into the best thing since sliced bread? Your adulation of him is possibly one of the most mindless things I read on the HNN, and it exceeds the affection I have ever heard liberals give to Clinton or conservatives given to Reagan! I mean, do you know how retarded you sound when you say how much the world all turns to Bush for leadership?!? If you ever find yourself out of work, they are looking for a new minister of information in Iraq."

NYGuy,

Hey Jerk, I read the above and get the impression that you don't understand what I am saying. That is OK. You don't understand GW either and you don't seem to have the ability to define what your problem is beyond. I don't think that is my problem.

I won't ignore you and am willing to try to understand what you are trying to say. So keep on sending your analysis of why GW is not a genius just as you have done in this post.

A real jerk - 11/28/2003

NYGuy,
What is it about Bush that makes you elevate him into the best thing since sliced bread? Your adulation of him is possibly one of the most mindless things I read on the HNN, and it exceeds the affection I have ever heard liberals give to Clinton or conservatives given to Reagan! I mean, do you know how retarded you sound when you say how much the world all turns to Bush for leadership?!? If you ever find yourself out of work, they are looking for a new minister of information in Iraq.

Is it because he is conservative (unlikely since many of his policies depart from conservative doctrine)? Is it because he is a Republican (I suspect this more than anything else)? I mean, come on, I have presidents that I like, but I don't raise any of them to the absurd status you put Bush in!

You like Bush, we all get it, please stop embarrassing yourself by turning Bush into some kind of second coming. I mean, come on, a genius? A man who couldn't name the President of Pakistan and who called Africa a country is a genius?!?

Defend his policies, by all means, and feel free to admire the man as a person. But your total and unflinching hero-worshipping of him makes you sound like a total moron and tends to cheapen your otherwise intelligent arguments by painting yourself as a blindly partisan puppet. Do us all a favor and either nail him to a cross, or get over your obsession. You make those of us who like Bush for legitimate reasons look like idiots.

Of course, it is far more likely that you will simply ignore this message and continue on with your mindless rants about how wonderful he is, and how great his crap smells. It doesn’t really matter to me, I just thought I would be a pal and let you know how stupid you sound. You know what they say, no good deed…

You might be wondering why I am saying all this in response to the one message that is relatively free of mindless dribble... it is because I am a real jerk :)

James Jones - 11/27/2003

He should read newspapers, but only if he can read.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/27/2003

Aren't you overlooking the possibility that the poll question itself is an ad hominem attack aimed at Bush? After all, Bush's comments led to the poll question in the first place. The article and other responses include references to the contrasting reading habits of other Presidents and other leaders. Dresner himself noted that Bush seemingly has mastered the ability to read teleprompters (I do question that assertion myself). Additionally, the use of "should" in "Should presidents read newspapers?" blatantly asks for subjective responses, even judgmental responses. The question itself begs for evaluations of Bush, evaluations not only of him as a President or a leader but also of him simply as a reader. Any response to the poll question is therefore essentially an ad hominem argument, whether reflecting a positive judgment or a negative one.

NYGuy - 11/27/2003

The Commander in Chief makes unannounced trip to the troops in Iraq, received wild welcome and support.

For anyone interested you can read about it in the newspaper tomorrow.

NYGuy - 11/27/2003

The Commander in Chief makes unannounced trip to the troops in Iraq, received wild welcome and support.

For anyone interested you can read about it in the newspaper tomorrow.

Kevin M. Fitzpatrick - 11/27/2003

Newspaper? We don't need no stinking newspapers!

Brett Kottmann - 11/26/2003

Seriously, though, there is nothing in a newspaper that is not on the Internet any more. Newspapers will slowly slip from existance as a printed and then distributed form of communication.

It is much easier to distribute electronically, then print what you wish to keep.

So no, Presidents (or anyone else) should not read "newspapers" any more than they should pump their own gas or do their own laundry. If you have the means to aggregate news (through aides), then more power to you. I think it is irrelevant whether you get it from a newspaper, an online source or through professional research organizations--as long as you know the primary source of the news.

Derek Catsam - 11/26/2003

David --
Do you really think you've made any point whatsoever by saying that Jimmy Carter read the papers? Is there a larger argument there? Is reading papers now not only unneccessary, but actually a vice? If this is the case, I have to wonder if you have spent any time in DC -- just about every official at every level usually carries 2-3 papers with them.
I do find it disquieting that there is a larger trend in intellectual lack of curiousness that the President displays. The situation in which he was asked to name national leaders during the campaign, while in a sense unfair, was also revelatory -- one of those national leaders was Pakistan's! Perhaps someone running for the leadership of the free world should know the names of leaders who would prove to have a rather significant effect on his presidency, don't you think?
That said, probably we bush critics are making too much of this -- the president surely gets briefing sheets, surely gets clips, surely is kept abreast of what he needs to know. But it would be nice if he wanted to know more. I would take someone with Clinton's policy knowledge and someone else's moral compass over someone with Bush's seeming lack of interest in policy any day. In any casde, the nature of the dialogue these days is that any assertions of a flaw in (in this case) Bush meets with two outsized reactions -- fury and anger and righteousness from his defenders, and equal apoplexy and rage and righteousness from his detractors. This is the sort of thing that leads people actually to make reading the paper out to be a bad thing and on the other side implies that only the publication of the NYT every morning keeps the leader of the free world from utter ignorance. Aren't both sides a little silly? And yet this is pretty much what this argument has come down to.

Kansas - 11/26/2003

It would be nice if he read papers, but then even without knowing what is going on he is still the second greatest president of the 21st Century.

Grant Jones - 11/26/2003

I think Prof. Dresner's point was that an ad-hominem rant is not an argument. A point clearly lost to you.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/26/2003

Why not give NYG a preliminary ok on his proposal? The century's only 3 or 4 years old. Things might improve. We might do better than this.

Barbara Cornett - 11/26/2003

I don't think there was anything uncivil about Kay's post! I think it was right on!! Go Kay!!!

She has stated the obvious. She has addressed the thought that cries out to be heard! The qestion should be "Should Presidents be smart enough to read major newspapers daily".

Clinton managed to carry out the duties of his office, deal with daily and continuous attacks by the media and the republicans, view movies, deal with Ken Starr and Linda Tripp, deal with Monica, read daily newspapers AND read several novels every week. That is an indication that he is smart enough to qualify to sit in the White House.

The incivility here is the fact that such a moron as Bush is allowed in the White House when he could never have gotten there as a result of his own efforts over his lifetime or as a result of his own ambition or preparation.

He was a womanizer, drugie and alcoholic during the years that other contenders for the office were studying, working in public life and perparing themselves for the presidency.

Clinton dealt with his desire to avoid VietNam in context with his plans to someday run for president. He was thoughtful and serious about the issue and knew that it would conflict with his ambition and could hurt him which it eventually did. Unlike the pass that Bush gets from the media on this issue.

Bush avoided VietNam by having his father, who had connections and power, get him placed first on the list to join the National Guard. Bush stated that he didn't want to be made deaf by guns and he thought it was great that he could learn to fly instead. He was in favor of the VietNam war and was a hawk. Because he refused to fight he is known today as a chickenhawk. Contrast that with Clinton being against the war.

We have a president in the White House who had the office stolen for him and who is clearly unqualified to hold that office and who cannot carry out the responsbilities of that office because he is mentally challenged. It is not uncivil to say so, it is imperative to say so. He doesn't read the papers because he is uninterested and stupid and without simple curiosity about the very subjects that he is supposed to be dealing with.

He often visited classrooms when he first took office and that is where he seemed most confortable, talking with people who were on his own level. He continued to read a book to kids at the very moment the world trade center was being attacked. It never even occured to him that he should scramble planes to intercept the other hijacked planes. He is so dependent upon others to run the white House that he was content to sit and wait for them to tell him what to do and as a result nobody took charge on that day. That resulted in a coverup and White House refusal to allow investigations into the timelines and details of 9-11. Bush hid on Air Force One and left the people to fend for themselves on that day. Stupid is as stupid does.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/26/2003

I believe my comments were a very polite way to suggest the silliness of the topic itself and as well the silliness of the man now holding the office of President. The long-term solution is well in hand; he can only serve one more term--unless the GOP decides to tackle the Constitution. As if the GOP'd ever do that!

NYGuy - 11/26/2003

If you are talking about leadership you are right.

I don't know if I would go as far as you would, but I do think that GW is the "Man of the Century." :)

One unequal to Bush in all ways - 11/26/2003

"How could you even mention Clinton in the same breath with GW."

I agree with NYGuy and TexasGuy and think that from now on, when someone talks about Bush, they must preced it with "his most high and mighty great one."

I think that his most high and mighty great one Bush is definitely the greatest thing to happen to the planet earth! Our prayers have all been answered! Of course, you can't mention that other guy in the same breath as his most high and mighty great one Bush! his most high and mighty great one Bush's only equals really are Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and whoever invented TV dinners.

So shame on you nonbelievers who would dare critisize his most high and mighty great one Bush! He is as far bayond us as we are to the ants.

I would like to prpose a law that would make it illegal to say anything bad about his most high and mighty great one Bush.

Do I have your support NYGuy and TexasGuy??

TexasGuy - 11/26/2003

NYGuy has this right. I read the newspaper because I can't just call up Condi or Jacques Chirac and find out what they're thinking. I don't get to call Donald Rumsfeld, either. I have to make do with the Wall Street Journal and C-Span (I think that C-Span has done more to newspapers than is commonly thought. Just watch someone give a speech and then find the summary in the newspaper. You'll be saying BULLSH** very quickly).

I think that Clinton was more like those people that predict the future in the National Enquirer: If you have enough "predictions", one of them will come true. No one will remember the things you said that didn't happen, but the event that did, people will worship your prescience. Clinton had less 'backbone' than any president in history. Like the NYGuy, I don't think that Clinton deserves a comparision with GWB (or FDR, or JFK, he may stand up well to William Henry Harrison, who only was president a month.

NYGuy - 11/26/2003

Dan,

How could you even mention Clinton in the same breath with GW. For all his reading newspapers and talking up a storm, I feel your pain, etc. he failed to take the necessary actions to protect our country from terrorists and he ended his Presidency by plunging us into a serious recession which threw millions of workers out of a job. Yes indeed he was a big talker.

GW is a man of action. His leadership and economic policies are bringing the country out of the Clinton recession. He has taught the world leaders about the danger of terrorism and his astute foreign policy is leading the world toward peace and giving the its people hope.

Yes you are correct, Clinton was a big lawyer, a profession that ranks below used car salesmen. No wonder we inherited both terrorism and a recession from his adminstration.

dan - 11/26/2003

NyGuy,

A few more things...You do realize that the only reason GW is not a lawyer is because he didn't get in to law school. He also was not that astute a businessman, having bankrupt several oil companies (Harkin, Arbusto....) and managing to do a little insider trading in the process.

And now your happy to have him to manage our Country the way he (mis)managed his businesses?!?

dan - 11/26/2003

NyGuy,

You say that GW's genius is that he "recognizes the terrorist threat". The outgoing Clinton administration warned them of this threat in light of the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen and they chose to ignore it for over a year. Condoleeza Rice aknowledged that she was warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that terrorism and Al-Qaeda in particular were going to be the biggest challenge of the 21st Century. It wasn't until AFTER September 11th, 2001 that GW had his epiphany and saw that terrorism was such a threat (that took some great insight).

By the way how has he handled Afghanistan, yesterday, Nov. 25, 2003, as he announced that the Taliban had been defeated several NEWSPAPERS were reporting on increasing attacks by the Taliban on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Sounds like he needs to be a little better informed, however he gets his information.

NYGuy - 11/25/2003

Derek,

Actually, calling an argument dopey is not name calling in the same way that calling you a dope would be.

NYGuy,

If GW used such reasoning and language it would be construed that the one making the statement was inarticulate and stupid and had no grasp of the English language. Yours is just a sophist type of argument. Black is white and white is black. .

Derek

As for the argument that businessmen have a wider view than your Arkansas lawyer, well, gee, where did you get that example? Your blatantly partisan argument lacks so little substance as to be worthless. Are you at all aware of how many lawyers are in the current administration -- in any administration -- and are making policy?

NYGuy,

Our argument is that businessmen provide valuable input to make global decisions and you say no it is not the President who makes policy but lawyers. Seems you still have your head in the Clinton Administration when what you said was probably right. You still miss the point; people with real world experience and who have run global business and understand the real world are putting current policy together. This is far different from lawyers whose skills are in meaningless debate and long winded speeches.

Derek

Are you really that unaware of the composition of government?

NYGuy,

You teach your class that lawyers are the ones who make policy. Hmm. Interesting idea, but that sounds like a democrat’s view of reality.

Derek

And are you really saying that Bush has a better grasp on policy than Clinton

NYGuy

Well, ….. Yes, you are finally getting the picture.

Derek,

Even his strongest detractors never said that Clinton was not brilliant when it came to knowing the issues and policy. Further, are you really saying prep school Kennebunk Ivy League Bush is more grounded in "reality", whatever that is, than Clinton, given Clinton's background? This is simply silly.

NYGuy,

No wonder you don’t understand what I am talking about, in addition to character and leadership it also about knowledge. Clinton’s knowledge of the world was juvenile and he could look good on a college campus by talking to kids. But, Global leadership, and dealing with grown ups requires Global understanding which GW’s advisers are and also embody.

Derek,

I maintain that people who hide under the cover of the "real world" (where most of us do not get to roam, bitch, snipe, and whine under the cloak of anonymity, by the way) simply want to engage in cheap tactics rather thsan engage difficult issues. You actually think it is better for policy makers not to read newspapers. Goodness.

NYGuy,

You are trapped in your little world and enjoy justifying it. You are not the center of the universe and you do not have all the answers. As I said before the fact you don’t understand the real world is not the issue. The world leaders do know of the rapid changes that are going on, as do businessmen who engage in global commerce. It is important that they understand, which they do, and they support GW’s genius and understanding of the real world. That is why they support him and say the U. S. is showing the leadership needed to make this a peaceful world. That is also the reason academia’s view are tolerated because they have no relevance to the real world. As history students constantly ask,”what is History good for?”.


Perhaps a simple example will prove the point.

Hong Kong employers are reported to be asking their domestic help to do computer tasks as well as regular household tasks. Many maids do household budgeting, design and maintain the family web site and help with homework by searching the Internet for school papers.

In Shenzhen, computer-literate maids can earn $225/month. This compares with the salaries of recent university graduates working at white-collar jobs. Indonesia and the Philippines are major sources of such domestic workers in Asia as contract salaries rise with those who have language and computer skills.

For people in the real world this simple paragraph has more information for world leaders such as GW, Cheney and Rumsfeld than a newspaper that spouts out quagmire, looting of the Baghdad Museum, UN in and the US out, etc and similar meaningless reports.

I rather have someone with Global experience surrounding GW and making policy than someone like Clinton and his recent college graduates and lawyer friends.

Having knowledge produces the strong convictions held by GW, which is another character trait that brilliant people like Clinton lack.

Understanding and studying the real world facts as the White House does is what analysis is all about. It is not about spewing out words just to have someone hear him or herself talk.

Newspapers have their place especially if you are into sports or the comics. Beyond that it is only useful for wrapping fish.

Cram - 11/25/2003

Good point, Grant. In fact, I should have clarified that in my post. When I referred to newspapers, I was thinking of online papers and other news sources as well.

Grant Jones - 11/25/2003

Why does anyone, with internet access, need to read print newspapers on a daily basis? Besides with the government's intelligence gathering ability, I would panic if Bush had to learn about what is happening in the world from the N.Y. Times.

C.R.W. - 11/25/2003

If this starts to become epistemological, I advise reading the book "Goedel, Esher, Bach" by Hofstadter. No system of knowledge or logic can be both 100% consistent and at the same time 100% complete. What one gains in the way of one will inevitably be lost in the way of the other.

Bush's advisors obviously know what's going in the news in terms of what's pertinent to their area (Rove - politics, Rice/Rumsfeld/Cheney - security, Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bremmer - Iraq, Powell - diplomatic melarchy). The guy knows how to delegate, he trusts his team, and if they fail the chance to prove that is in 2004.

"Bias" is, more often than not, a meaningless charge. Everyone has their own perspective. And if the subjective interest of his team gets in the way of objectively advising toward a successful policy then it's up to the American people to decide that in 2004. Not for the journalists of 2001, 2002, 2003, etc. They're entitled to their opinion, interpretation, or viewpoint in the meantime, but not necessarily executive influence.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/25/2003

I am no fan of President Bush or his policies, allies, politics or agenda. The question is not his ability to read (he's pretty darn good with a teleprompter, a test that neither of us could probably pass without quite a bit of practice), but the narrowness of his information sources. And, for the record, I am horrified at the idea of a national or world leader who is insulated from public discourse or criticism in the way that Bush is described as being insulated: I can't think of a single example of such a cloistered leadership that isn't highly disfunctional.

I even agree with your critique of his educational policies. But there's no reason to be impolite about it, and lots of reasons to think that perhaps a more moderate tone (even with highly critical content) could be a more successful long term solution.

Cram - 11/25/2003

David,
In answer to your quesstions:
1) "Do you think Colin Powell and Wolfowitz think just as Bush does?"

No I would doubt that they think alike at all. However, Bush never suggested that he gets his new from the Secretary of State. Specifically, he mentioned Dick Cheney and Condi Rice, two people that share a fundimental ideology, even if they are not exact clones of each other in many specific areas.


2) "Do you think the newspapers can give Bush a better overview of current events than his experts and advisers can?"

I never suggested that paper can give a better overview, simply a different one that could very well include facts that his aids determined were not important enough to bring to him.

Personally, I would feel much better knowing that the ledaer of the free world reads the news. That is simply a personal preference that not many people might share, I find it difficult to present a convincing argument however, that it is better for a President NOT to.

David - 11/25/2003

Perhaps the reason Bush is so convinced that he is right even when the reality does not conform to his perceptions is that all he hears is a group of people who thinks just as he does.

Do you think Colin Powell and Wolfowitz think just as Bush does? Impossible, given that these two individuals couldn't think more different. So your premise falls flat.

Do you think the newspapers can give Bush a better overview of current events than his experts and advisers can? I would say probably not, given that the newspapers usually go to these government experts as sources for their news.

Kay of Vancouver - 11/25/2003

Well, I certainly don't mind if Bush doesn't want or doesn't have the time to read newspapers. He seems perfectly happy reading aloud to schoolchildren from his favorite children's book "The Velveteen Rabbit" (I think that's the book). Who would want a president who wanted to get on the radio or tv and read the newspapers to adoring public? Maybe he could handle reading the comic strips, but four-frame comics might be a bit difficult for him and the one-frame political cartoons would probably lead him to declare war against editorial cartoonists. After all, he's leading the movement for diminishing standards of education--as the C-student President, he's preparing the way for future D-students and dropouts to be President. Thank god, he doesn't bother trying to add and subtract either. Hooray for illiteracy and innumeracy!

Derek Catsam - 11/25/2003

Actually, calling an argument dopey is not namecalling in the same way that calling you a dope would be.
As for the argument that businessmen have a wider view than your Arkansas lawyer, well, gee, where did you get that example from? Your blatantly partisan argument lacks so little substance as to be worthless. Are you at all aware of how many lawyers are in the current administration -- in any administration -- and are making policy? Are you really that unaware of the composition of government? And are you really saying that Bush has a better grasp on policy than Clinton -- not whether or not you agree with the policy, but actually knowing and grasping it? Even his strongest detractors never said that Clinton was not brilliant when it came to knowing the issues and policy. Further, are you really saying prep school Kennebunk Ivy League Bush is more grounded in "reality", whatever that is, than Clinton, given Clinton's background? This is simply silly. I maintain that people who hide under the cover of the "real world" (where most of us do not get to roam, bitch, snipe, and whine under the cloak of anonymity, by the way) simply want to engage in cheap tactics rather thsan engage difficult issues. You actually think it is better for policy makers not to read newspapers. Goodness.

Cram - 11/25/2003

The purpose of newspapers is to *gasp* learn what is happening in the world today. The fact that Bush does not read the news demonstrated that he has no concern/interest/curiosity into what is happening outside of his immidiate circle, he has no way of learning a different perspective, and no method of discovering something that his aids may have missed.

The defense that newspapers are not objective is not a defense at all. I am able to read the news without being brainwashed and so should any intelligent person.

Perhaps the reason Bush is so convinced that he is right even when the reality does not conform to his perceptions is that all he hears is a group of people who thinks just as he does.

The only thing more frightening then a President of the United States that does not read the news is a population that doesn't seem to mind it, and even sees it as a plus!

David - 11/25/2003

Jimmy Carter read the papers, and look what that did for him.

Bush's daily briefings seem like an efficient way to bring him up to date.

Oscar Chamberlain - 11/25/2003

NY Guy
I actually agree with you on one point. Not reading newspapers is not a mark of failure.

However, I think you are wrong about the business viewpoint: "businessmen take a longer-term outlook"

1. It is not long-term. It is bottom line, and concern about the bottom line is exceedingly short term.

2. If Bush does have that business viewpoint, it will be reinforced by standard (and bipartisan) political thinking that is even more short-term and bottom line.

3. I know you see what he's doing in the Middle East as a success. What I hear from him is long term vision; what I see is short-term decision making that is losing track of that long term vision. That's one reason that I'm not sure that comparing him to a top businessman is good. It looks to me like he's made an investment but is squandering it by not investing enough.

4. Finally, news summaries are necessary for presidents given the demands on their time. But any president should have multiple sources for those summaries.

NYGuy - 11/25/2003

Geoff,

"And, it goes a long way towards explaining why W. Bush is an even more miserable failure than was his father."

NYGuy,

You prove nothing with your comments, but your analysis ends with the above conclusion. You prove my point, reading newspapers does not give one a logical or analytica mind, and it doesn't stop one from being a political propagandist.

Geoff Ericson - 11/25/2003

Presidents who read newspapers are better informed and more curious than those who do not. Competent leaders in civilized countries nowadays also tend to know how to spell and what double negatives like "no-nothing" are. But such traits are not the essence of good leadership. No leader of any large entity, e.g. an entire country, can know everything or make all decisions alone.

Good leaders prevail because they know how to pick and how to rely upon skilled subordinates and advisors. That explains to a considerable degree why Reagan was more successful than Carter. And, it goes a long way towards explaining why W. Bush is an even more miserable failure than was his father.

NYGuy - 11/24/2003

NYGuy

Your name-calling does not carry the day and your attempt to change my meaning is typical.

Derek

-- what a silly range of arguments.

'" Utterly dopey, but worth a few cheap points among the booboisie I suppose.

NYGuy

First you don’t understand that top-level businessmen deal with a global viewpoint everyday and have a detailed understanding of the “real world” that an Arkansas Lawyer or someone who spent time under the water most of their lives can not have. During their tenure they get daily reports of what the people and governments of the world are doing. I don’t believe that is true of academia.

NYGuy

But, Derek you actually prove my point when you say:

Derek

“And don't you realize that many of the reasons why most presidents have followed the news has not been to get the most cutting edge information, but rather to get a feel for opinion both popular and elite?”

NYGuy

You say they read the papers for an edge because they don’t know what is going on and they don't understand the longer term picture? As I said they are like a bunch of day traders, not world leaders.

You see businessmen take a longer-term outlook and don’t rely on newspapers and polls to make decisions. That is one of the strengths of GW, he does not make his decisions based upon what people who are no nothings, say in print. One only has to reflex on the “quagmire opinion” crowd, “we are losing the war” crowd, “the U. S. failed to protect the Baghdad Museum” lies, “This is only about oil”, “Bush is in Iraq to help his business friends”, etc. to see how unreliable the media is and how little they know. I will agree that something like a 9/11 is important to know about and can effect your outlook, but such major events are rare.

You imply that the newspapers understood GW’s genius when he recognized that terrorism will be the big danger in the 21st Century and that we can’t have peace until we ferret it out. I never saw that in the newspapers. The closest someone came to understanding GW’s genius was CNN’s portrayal of world terrorism and showed world leaders that acknowledged that the world needs the leadership of the U. S. (GW) in stopping this danger.

So your setting up a false premise does not change anything I said, it only shows how you try to shape a debate for your advantage, but also proves that you never read in the newspapers what GW’s vision is.

Derek

“... the question, and it is still far from answered, is whether or not they had links to Saddam, this is far from proven, and the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion.”

NYGuy

As I said above, GW’s genius is that he saw the big picture threat of emerging terrorism in the real world during the 21st Century, which many still do not understand since, they can’t read about it in the newspapers.


In my opinion, such a smart person as GW has both character and leadership something I did not see in the above Presidents.. Your are entitled to your own opinions and you can bet I won’t call you “silly”, or dopey, although I might think it.

Derek Catsam - 11/24/2003

NYGuy -- what a silly range of arguments. You argue that carter and Clinton read newspapers and it showed their lack of character? Is there a causal link there? readiung the newspaper harms character? makes one a bad president? makes one a bad leader? Do you really believe that if none of Bush's staff read the papers it would be a good thing? Do you really believe that none of Bush's advisors read the paper? I'd aver that most every one does. And don't you realize that many of the reasons why most presidents have followed the news has not been to get the most cutting edge information, but rather to get a feel for opinion both popular and elite? And if you find out that the overwhelming majority of Congress, Democrat and Republican, read a range of sources will that revise your opinion, or is this simply an opinion of convenience, an opinion you are expressing in order to defend Bush rather than to make a cogent point about reading newspapers.
Are you also saying that Bush is really more attuned to the "real world" than his predecessor? And what on earth does the "real wortld" even mean except to be another one of those vacuous cudgels that people weild against those with whom they disagree for cheap but meaningless effect? How is Bush more from the real world than, say, Carter or Reagan or his father or Clinton or for that matter Gore or Dole or Mondale or Dukakis? The dumb "real world" criticism is one that irks me to no end because it is nothing more than shorthand for "I do not agree with you and so rather than argue against what you say i am going to slyly impugn your contact with my 'real world.'" Utterly dopey, but worth a few cheap points among the booboisie I suppose. And let's not get into Bush's success as a businessman.
Meanwhile if you are saying that no news outlet over the past two years has recognized al quada to be a threat, you really are a hopeless ideologue. I would reverse your point -- i cannot think of a major newspaper that has not recognized that al quada is dangerous. the question, and it is still far from answered, is whether or not they had links to Saddam, this is far from proven, and the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion.

NYGuy - 11/24/2003

Since newpapers mentality are similar to traders on Wall street, both have a time outlook of 15-30 minutes. Then why should President's read the newspapers to get information that is mostly inaccuate and subject to changing on a dime.

Meanwhile, most retiree are already discussed with the media. They have learned that they know the questions that are raised and the answers that are going to be given. Since the media presents nothing new, why should one rely on the media. The media is in a quaqmire with stories like, "We are losindg in Iraq, the democrats want to cut and run out of Iraq, the democrats want to destroy our government with filabusters, etc. What can one learn from such nonsense.

By contrast GW was a businessman as are his advisors. These people had to live in the real world to succeed. They understand the global world of the past 40 years and the changes and the trends that are occuring, unlike the average newsman who can't look beyond his nose.

President Carter and Clinton read the newspapers and it showed their lack of character as they cut and ran at the first sign the newspapers told them to. That is not leadership. True leadership involves not only good character but a big picture view of the world.

CNN, no fan of GW, pointed out his genius over the weekend with a portray of Al-quada as international terrorists. Aside from GW no newspapers have recognized this threat over the past two years. CNN went on to show how these fanatics are threatening world peace in Indonesia, Africa, the Philipines, the Middle east, Europe, the U. S, Russia, etc. And they intereviewed world leaders who said that only the US leadership will prevent these gangsters from taking over the world. GW told the newspapers about this 3 years ago and no one got it.

As we have said before, and CNN acknowledges, GW is a genius that sees a target no one else sees and hits it.

That is why newspaper men and their supporters can make silly commnets about something they don't understand.

This is a problem of being an analyst and a leader, not a good reader.

George Oilwell - 11/24/2003

How about some more polls to bolster support for the unelected fraud.

* Should Presidents know how to speak in complete sentences?
* Should Presidents know anything about anything?
* Should Presidents be required to feign interest in the well-being of all Americans?
* Should Presidents be required to "leave no child behind"?
* Should Presidents be President if they fail to win the presidential election they ran in?
* Should Presidents invade other countries to steal their assets for his corporate cronies?
* Should Presidents advocate progressive forms of taxation?

* Should the GOP promote partisan polls on HNN?

Kenneth P. Melvin - 11/24/2003

Does anyone know if Laura Bush reads a newspaper?

Robert McElvaine - 11/24/2003

Good Lord. Newspapers are far from totally objective. But a president who thinks that his own advisers are objective, especially when those advisers include people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfkowitz? No wonder he got into the mess in Iraq. Apparently he also doesn't read books, such as his father's, which would have told him exactly what would happen if the US tried to occupy Iraq.

Yes, presidents should read newspapers.