George W. Bush Is Like .... ?

Hot Topics

... RONALD REAGAN 1-27-03

Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times Magazine (January 26, 2003) contended that Bush seems very much like Ronald Reagan. He noted that even some Republicans--like Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan--object to the comparison, fearful that it diminishes Reagan's great achievements. But he is convinced the analogy has merit:


Many students of the presidency would argue that a basic-man-on-the-street quality -- a plain-spoken, unassuming genuineness -- is central to the appeal of both men, but Noonan's wariness is understandable. Let's concede that this kind of comparison can be reductionist. At its silliest, it can lapse into a parlor game of the Lincoln-had-a-secretary-named-Kennedy variety. Times change. Presidents reflect their times.

But midway into Bush's first term, measuring the emerging president against Reagan is an instructive way of looking at Bush's qualities and of explaining his popularity. It is even, with a larger margin of error, a basis for hazarding some guesses about the course he will follow, particularly now that his hand is strengthened by a Congress of his own party, by the unlikelihood of internal opposition in 2004 and for that matter by the lack of coherent opposition from the Democrats.

I began this exercise inclined to think of Bush as Reagan Lite -- that is, a president with shallower, unschooled instincts in place of the older man's studied, lifelong convictions, and without the mastery of language that served Reagan so well. Perhaps, I'd have said, he is a bit of a Reagan poseur -- the White House being such a studio of contrivance and calculation. I ended my research more inclined to think that Bush is in a sense the fruition of Reagan, and that -- far from being the lightweight opportunist of liberal caricature or the centrist he sometimes played during his own election campaign -- he stands a good chance of advancing a radical agenda that Reagan himself could only carry so far. Bush is not, as Reagan was, an original, but he has adapted Reagan's ideas to new times, and found some new language in which to market them. We seem not only to be witnessing the third term of the Reagan presidency; at this rate we may well see the fourth.


Richard W. Stevenson, writing in the NYT (January 23, 2003) disclosed that Karl Rove, the president's political advisor, has been at it again--playing historian. Last time out (see below) he compared President Bush to Andrew Jackson. This time he saw in President Bush a lot of the qualities associated with Teddy Roosevelt. Stevenson:


 Karl Rove, the White House's senior political strategist, said today that President Bush was a populist whose call for the elimination of taxes on stock dividends was aimed at"the little guy."

In a wide-ranging session with reporters, Mr. Rove suggested that the president ranked with Theodore Roosevelt as an environmentalist and predicted a close 2004 presidential race. He said the Republican Party had been strengthened by the controversy over Senator Trent Lott, and he played down his own reputation as the most powerful behind-the-scenes White House adviser, on both policy and politics, in generations. ...

Asked how Mr. Bush compared with Teddy Roosevelt on foreign and economic policy, Mr. Rove replied that the president is a populist.

"Give him a choice between Wall Street and Main Street and he'll choose Main Street every time," Mr. Rove said.

When faced with a decision whether to call for the elimination of the tax on dividends at the corporate level or the individual level, Mr. Rove said, the president sided"with the little guy."

Asked to elaborate, Mr. Rove said that"wealth is too important to be left to the wealthy" and that Mr. Bush wanted to reward risk-taking entrepreneurs. He said Mr. Bush's overall tax plan would actually put more of the total income-tax burden on upper-income people by removing more low-income people from the federal tax rolls.

... ANDREW JACKSON 9-17-02

Karl Rove, according to a report in the Washington Post, remarked in September that he was convinced that President Bush is a lot like Andrew Jackson. Jackson biographer Robert Remini commented,"there's something to it." Remini was invited to the White House to expound upon the similarities between the two Southern presidents.

In an article in the Post Dana Milbank noted that at first glance there weren't many similarities between Jackson and Bush. Jackson: led a populist revolt; Bush: aligned himself with big corporations. Jackson: born poor; Bush: born rich. Jackson: had an election stolen from him by the son of a president; Bush: the son of a president who, some believe, stole an election. And so on. But:


 Jackson clashed with Congress and the judiciary as he sought to build the president's power. Opponents accused him of eliminating civil liberties and cartoonists portrayed him as King Andrew. The Bush administration has battled with Congress over intelligence sharing and war powers, and with the judiciary over the rights of the accused.

Jackson was a frontiersman who spoke of the"idiots" in Washington. The cowboy-boot wearing Bush often ridicules Washington in speeches.

Jackson had a fierce temper and was ruthless against his enemies. Bush, too, is known for his hot temper and for dividing his world into friends and enemies. Bush keeps a scorecard with photos of wanted terrorists and checks them off as they are killed.

[Most importantly, Milbank noted, were the similarities between their world views:]

The Council on Foreign Relations' Walter Russell Mead, in a book last year titled"Special Providence," discerned four strains of American foreign policy: the Hamiltonian approach, which favors international commerce and institutions; the Jeffersonian approach, which frowns on costly international entanglements; the Jacksonian approach, an unapologetic flexing of military might; and the Wilsonian approach, an internationalism based on moral values.

The first President Bush had heavy Hamiltonian instincts. Bill Clinton mixed the Hamiltonian with the Wilsonian. Mead's book came out before it was possible to categorize the current president and his response to the Sept. 11 attacks. A recent conversation with Mead, though, allowed for some updating: Bush, he says, is increasingly pure Jacksonian.


During July, when news of corporate scandals was prominently played in the news, President Bush vowed to hunt down corporate wrongdoers. At a news conference a reporter asked him if he was in the same position as Teddy Roosevelt:


 Q. Yes, Mr. President, to put your speech tomorrow in a larger context, at the turn of the last century Theodore Roosevelt complained about what he called the malefactors of great wealth and he asked in a very famous speech, 'Who shall rule this country?' The people or the what he called those who hide behind the breastworks of corporate organizations. I wonder if you feel this era is comparable to that one and if you feel you should respond as aggressively as Roosevelt did?

A. Well, of course, he was referring to trusts. I'm referring to a lapse of ethics. And of the people forgetting the fact that they represent things other than their own compensation packages, however inflated they may be. That they have a responsibility to employees and shareholders. And I also understand how tender the free enterprise system can be if people lose confidence in the system it would be hard to attract capital in the markets. And that's one reason I've reacted so steadily against what I have seen. And I don't like it a bit. And I'm going to talk about it tomorrow. (Bush press conference, 7-8-02)

Following this exchange many critics of the administration, reviewing the president's proposals to clean up Wall Street, concluded he was no Teddy Roosevelt. See Bob Batchelor, "Bush Walks and Talks Softly--Where's the Big Stick?" (HNN, 7-22-02).

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Charlotte May Harris - 10/25/2004

George W Bush is a man on his own, there has never previously been a man quite like him. He is an individual with apparently extremist views however is he the Saviour or the misled, time will tell. Yet I doubt he can ever claim that history will look on him as favourably as it has one of those to whom he is compared. For Sir Winston Churchill unlike George w Bush could be sure that history would look favourably on him, as in his own words, 'History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.'

clarence willard swinney - 8/3/2004

For twenty years of adulthood he was:
Draft Dodger
Criminal Military Deserter
Criminal Accessory to Baby killing
Criminal Cocaine Snorter
Criminal Drunk
alleged adulterer
alleged woman abuser
pathological liar (see my list of over 200)
Waffle House Leader

No he is not a good man today. If he is devout call me Pope Clarence I.
clarence swinney burlington nc

D A Moschkin - 7/29/2004

From an animal-lovers' site, November 2000:


D A Moschkin - 7/29/2004

From an animal-lovers' site, November 2000:


Jack Andrews - 12/21/2003

Animals In Print
The On-Line Newsletter

From 3 November 2000 Issue:


MIDLAND, Texas ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000

An alert for American voters and humane educators everywhere appeared on May 21 in the 61st through 64th paragraphs of a 76-paragraph NEW YORK TIMES feature on the childhood of Republican candidate for U.S. president George W. Bush -- if anyone noticed.

«One of the local rituals for children,» reported Nicholas D. Kristof of Life in Midland, Texas, when George W. was a boy, «were meetings with cookies and milk at the home of a nice old lady who represented the SPCA. The cookies were digested more thoroughly than the teachings.»

«`We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush pal Terry] Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'»

Kristof made plain that «we» explicitly included George W. Bush, and that George W., the Safari Club International «Governor of the Year» in 1999 for his support of trophy hunting, was the leader among the boys who did it.

George W. Bush, 54, apparently learned hunting and alleged sportsmanship the National Rifle Association way, from his father, former U.S. President George H. Bush. NRA vice president Kayne Robinson boasted at a members-only meeting in early 2000 that Bush, if elected, would be «a president where we work out of their office.»

That got some attention, along with the role of NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre in raising $250,000 at a recent Republican Party fundraiser honoring Bush, and the Bush record as Texas governor of signing bills allowing people to carry concealed handguns and take guns to church, and barring cities from suing gun-makers.

Yet no one, not even Representative Tom Lantos (D-California), raised with reference to Bush the character issue implicit in having recreationally shot and blown up frogs -- or talked about the failure of humane education to dissuade Bush from cruelty which must have been known by his famous father, as the evidence would have been hard to conceal.

On May 25, however, Lantos and 20 other Representatives showed that they should've recognized the character issue by introducing House Concurrent Resolution 338. The Resolution, according to Lantos' press release, urges «greater attention to identifying and treating individuals who are guilty of violence against animals because of the link between abuse of animals and violence against humans. In addition, it urges federal agencies to further investigate the link between cruelty toward animals and violence against humans.»

Offered Lantos, «It is commonsense knowledge that any individual who harms animals cruelly and deliberately is not otherwise well-adjusted. A man who abuses the family dog or cat may turn that violence on his spouse or children. Those children involved in school shootings weren't just `having fun' or `just being boys' -- they were engaged in torturing and hurting animals. As a society, we cannot overlook the fact that a person who hurts animals is committing an act of violence and may eventually turn on human beings.»

But the only people George W. Bush is known to have had a part in killing were the 135 convicts whose executions he has authorized during his five-and-a-half years as Texas governor. Bush mocked the executed killer Karla Fae Tucker's plea for her life in a falsetto, and reportedly giggled when asked by a journalist how he could send the executed Gary Graham to die, when Graham's court-appointed attorney was judicially admonished for sleeping through much of his trial.

DOPPELGANGER? If accused serial killer Robert Yates, 48, of Spokane, Washington, had been caught and convicted in Texas, be might have been among those whose killing by lethal injection Bush approved.

If Bush and Yates had been closer in age and geography, they might have been friends, sharing their love of church, baseball, and -- especially -- using their guns to kill small animals. Instead Yates grew up in Oak Harbor, Washington. An April 26 investigative report on Yates' youth by Jessie Stensland of the WHIDBEY NEWS-TIMES and SOUTH WHIDBEY RECORD buried mention of Yates' hunting in the l7th paragraph of 21.

Like George W. Bush, Yates evidently graduated to trophy hunting. But instead of blasting exotic species on Texas hunting ranches, be allegedly hunted young suspected prostitutes. He allegedly terrorized them, robbed them, and shot at least 18 of them at close range with a handgun. Yates shares his background as a teenaged hunter not only with George W. Bush but also with at least 42 other adults and 35 teens who have been charged with murder in recent years, whose hunting backgrounds have surfaced -- albeit often just barely -- in news coverage of their alleged crimes.

The WHIDBEY NEWS-TIMES and SOUTH WHIDBEY RECORD did not publish a letter by ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton citing the statistics; discussing the traits that studies have found are often shared by hunters, serial killers, and child abusers; and noting that early involvement in legal sport hunting -- not just illegal animal torture -- also was in the reported backgrounds of convicted school massacre perpetrators Luke Woodham, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Kip Kinkel, Michael Carneal, Barry Loukatis, and Evan Ramsey.

Press, public, and politicians who are just barely beginning to recognize the link between illegal violence against animals and violence against humans remain far from understanding the distinction between the inhibition about getting caught that discourages illegality, and the inhibition about causing suffering that George W. Bush's humane education teacher tried unsuccessfully to encourage."

From: ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000, p. 18.

Josh Narins - 11/13/2003

A trumped-up media-inspired war...
The highest friction between the parties seen in US history...
Corporate wealth being the driving force in politics...

Bush choosed "Main Street" over "Wall Street" every time? I am looking up the addresses of Halliburton and Bechtel now... hmmm... not Main Street.

Michael George - 10/27/2003

The Republican party engaged in just this kind of name-calling during the Clinton years, and seriously underestimated the political power of their opponent. Now the Democrats are showing that such rants are not merely the calling-card of the right wing. It was foolish behavior for the Republicans back then and now the ranting chorus has been joined by the Democrats. Shame on you both.

Judith Squires - 10/24/2003

Bush is like Chauncey Gardner.....very scary indeed.

Judith Squires - 10/24/2003

Bush is like Chauncey Gardner.....very scary indeed.

Robert Harrigan - 9/26/2003

Harry Truman ordered US troops into a war. Ditto Bush. Harry Truman overestimated the political power of American military power. Ditto Bush. Harry Truman found himself in an unwinnable quagmire. Ditto Bush. Harry Truman watched helplessly as the US casualty list grew longer. Ditto Bush. Harry Truman saw his popularity climb at the beginning of the war, and then start a slow steady decline to the point that his re-election hopes are dashed. Ditto Bush. Harry Truman lost the white house to an opposition party retired General....

Irene - 8/1/2003

Bush is more like Warren G Harding than FDR.
FDR cared for the people

Dubbya and Harding care for special interest

FDR was elected
Dubbya was selected.

Harding was not astute enough to kead the country
Dubbya...well just look at his record...read it and weep!

Arnold Offner - 8/1/2003

Bush as another FDR is blasphemy. First, FDR had served 8 years a Asst. Sect.of the Navy before becoming governor. Second, he was a professional politician in the best sense, not a Charlie McCarthy for a host of righht-wing Edgar Bergens.

Most important, FDR aimed at use of government to advance the nation's economic and social well being, and he did not shy from taking on the "economic royalists" who he held responsible for economic disaster of the early 1930s. on matters of foreign policy, he understood how to wage a masterful campaign against a real evil axis, he promoted his Four Freedoms and the UN, was an anti-colonialist, given to global detente, and recognized the limits of American power despite our exceptionalresources. And he would never have dreamed of waging unilateralist war (while rejecting almost every patiently negotiated treaty on arms control and the environment)that is the Bush administration's hallmark. Spare us such FDR-Bush comparisons, except to say they are polar opposites.

stonefruit - 5/1/2003

"Patient also displayed his sadistic impulses by becoming clearly aroused whenever his talk turned to the possible death or punishment of others. This behavior has been noted previously in his public enthusiasm in condemning fellow Texans to death. But it goes back even further that that according to one of his childhood friends, Terry Throckmorton. "We were terrible to animals," Throckmorton recalled of his adventures with the patient, and offered as an example the thousands of frogs who would come out by a small lake after a good rain: "Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them. Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up."


He also shot at his younger brothers in their house with a BB gun. NYU Communications professor Mark Crispin Miller has also noted how his garbled syntax improves dramatically when talking about cruelty, violence and retribution. The man and his maladministration are psychopaths. History will also prove they had foreknowledge and/or complicity with 911.


Eric Zuesse - 4/3/2003

Lloyd, since Fred Davis never responded, I think that we can reasonably assume that Fred didn't have any evidence supporting his charge, and that he was simply lying, or else that he was carelessly and quite irresponsibly passing along a lie that he had received from some other liar.

Isn't it shameful that someone would do such a thing on a website supposedly run by historians

Eric Zuesse - 4/3/2003

Lloyd, since Fred Davis never responded, I think that we can reasonably assume that Fred didn't have any evidence supporting his charge, and that he was simply lying, or else that he was carelessly and quite irresponsibly passing along a lie that he had received from some other liar.

Isn't it shameful that someone would do such a thing on a website supposedly run by historians?

Eric Zuesse - 4/3/2003

It is now over a month since, in this forum, I asked Fred Davis to provide documentation for the charge that he had made here on February 2 saying that George W. Bush had been an animal sadist, and Fred still has not responded. I have also posted here a general inquiry to all readers requesting if they are aware of any evidence that Fred's charge was true. There have also been no responses to that.

I despise Bush as much as anyone, but I also despise anyone who would manufacture or carelessly broadcast a false charge against anyone--even against Bush.

Stephen Kriz - 4/1/2003


I absolutely agree. As Helen Thomas has so aptly put it,"this is the worst president in all of American history". I don't know about torturing animals, but he is most definitely tortuing the English language and torturing those of us who see America's role in the world being diminished, marginalized and villified.

Dubya's entire life is one of failure and inability to achieve anything without the help and complicity of wealthy family and friends. He is utterly incompetent, intellectually lazy, morally conflicted and arrogantly childish. He combines the intellectual heft of Dan Quayle with the integrity of Richard Nixon. He is the lowest of the low.

Stephen Kriz

Eric Zuesse - 3/20/2003

If anyone can document the undocumented allegation made by Fred Davis on February 15, in which he alleged that Bush "got his jollies as a child by torturing animals," please email it to me at cettel@shoreham.net. Thanks.

Eric Zuesse - 3/19/2003

Will you please be so kind as to provide your source for sayin of G.W. Bush, "This man got his jollies by torturing animals as a child."

clarence swinney - 3/2/2003

Reagan increased spending by 80%--debt by 187%--deficits by 112%.

Bush is trying to out do him in just four years.

Bush lost 2.3 million jobs in two. Reagan lost 5.0 in two.

Reagan had over 100 charged with crimes with many convicted.

Reagan was careless with Rambo rhetoric like Bush.

He bragged on how he could have killed 200 million.

Reagan was an affable brain dead dunce during most of his presidency.

Bush is just a smartass dunce.
clarence swinney

Lawrence B. A. Hatter - 2/17/2003

The recent advice of the Department of "Homeland" security (sounds like something Martha Stewart created) to seal windows and doors with duct tape and plastic sheeting is reminiscent of the 1950s duck and cover campaigns. Whilst a school desk was clearly unable to deal with the impact of mega ton warheads, and painting your windows white didn't refelct the harmful gamma rays, I'm sure a Walmart sack and some sticky tape will guard against exposure to chemical and biological agents.

Lloyd Drako - 2/16/2003

Tortured animals as a small child? I'll assume you have some source for this! Or were you just venting?

fred davis - 2/15/2003

The comparisons you make are by Bush's promoters. Teddy Roosevelt was a giant. You would do better to compare Bush to the smallest of the midgets. Even Nixon looks like a great president by comparison. This man who got his jollies by torturing animals as a child, who is a pawn of the near-fascist radical right and the military industrial complex, who can't get out a straight sentence unless he's reading from a speech, who has the CIA and FBI place his political enemies on a "no fly list"may ultimately rank as the smallest of them all.

James Wilson - 2/12/2003

Yep, Bush never sold the Chinese and North Koreans to the Communists. He hasn't got nearly the body count to his credit. Truman's body count is still rising, every year. Just remember to buy everything from Wal-mart to honor his memory. If we don't buy Chi-com goods then the slaves they have making the stuff wouldn't have any reason to keep them alive anymore. Do your part to save the communist slaves that oh so beloved Truman gave to Mao and his mad bunch of assassins.

Lloyd Drako - 2/2/2003

Isn't it obvious? Bush II is like Bush I, only with a somewhat less impressive resume. Flubbed a great opportunity to lead the world at a crucial turning-point: aftermath of the Cold War, aftermath of September 11. Won a war with Iraq: the first a less-than-total victory, the next most likely a total victory. (But the American electorate notoriously does not reward military victory with political success.) Failed to deal with a weakening economy: 1991-1992, 2001-2003. One term, one term, let's hope. Teddy Roosevelt indeed! I did not know Teddy Roosevelt, but I do know W is no TR.

NotHolyJustWise - 1/25/2003

One last thing, please.
When Mr. Truman's business failed, he paid off his debts.
He did not ask seedy characters to pay it off for him, like the Bin Ladens, nor did he try to push his debts off on the taxpayers, like his lawsuit against the he and Texas Rangers.

NotHolyJustWise - 1/25/2003

Mr. Bush is not like Mr. Truman.
Mr. Truman served his war years and did not go AWOL, not once.
Mr. Truman liked his alchohol in moderation.
Mr. Truman did not believe that the US should follow the Corporato Fascisti government of Mussolini.
Mr. Truman was his own man.
Mr. Truman integrated the Armed Services and worked against the KKK.
No one in Mr. Truman's family traded with the Nazi's.
Mr. Truman almost lost the election and did not ask anyone to tamper with it.
Mr. Truman beleived in the American people.
Aside from comments made about his daughter, Mr. Truman was not thinned skinned.
Mr. Truman was self-educated and knew how to use it when governing.
Mr. Truman knew that Africa was not a country.
Mr. Truman was a more truthful and less fearful.
The only times "Bush and Truman" would have been said in the same sentence, may have been if Mr. Truman was quoted as saying--
"When asked, Mr. Truman compared Mr. Bush with Richard Nixon by stating: 'That SOB is the only other fellow I know who could lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time."

Barry Jeshurin - 1/25/2003

It is truly appalling how the GOP in there quest to rule the world are trotting out the mediocre as worthy of our love and adoration. Rove, who I am told lacks any academic credentials, is laser like in his pursuit to make his benefactor, our resident in chief, into something he will never be; a champion of the people.

A populist, Bush I or II will never be. Empathetic to the great unwashed; never. Truly capable of a legacy that is worthy of the ages; hardly.

It is especially troubling that as a country we have turned a blind eye to the "process." The process I refer to is our need to vote and put forth a concentrateded effort to forge the fate of this land with that vote. It is because of this lack of concern that leads us into the present sorry state of affairs and allows hacks like Rove to have a place on the world stage.

I think the analogy Rove truly implies but would never refer to in public is with the last tsar of Russia.

Arnold Offner - 1/10/2003

Are you kidding, George W like Harry Truman?
Not in 1000 years. Truman was not an advanced liberal nor advanced New Dealer, but he voted for New Deal prorgams and his Fair Deal aimed to keep and extend New Deal programs: min. wage, social security, public housing, rights of labor (HST fought, vetoed, and sought repeal of Taft-Hartley)and civil rights once he caught up to Hubert Humphrey's point at the 1948 convention about the Democrats needing to leave the shadow of states rights to walk into bright sunlight of human rights. (Rememeber, that's when Strom Thurmond et al formed the Dixiecrats that Trent Lott still loves)...HST was a Jacksonian, which meant special privs. for none. HST would have nothing to do with shameful tax cuts for wealthy of Bush (that's all his economic programs amounts to), and wd. never consort with the oil drilling magnates, Texas Enron types who regard public property as theirs (How do you think Texas Ranger stadium was built?) and public lands as theirs to exploit.

As for foreign affairs, HST for all his failings wd deplore US unitlateral quitting of ABM treaty, Kyoto accord, Intl Criminal; Court, and announcing right of first strike against any nation we perceive as trying to build to our arms level (Sept. 2002 Nat Security policy). As for dealing with terrorism, what have we accomplished? Lost Osama in Afghanistan because we feared putting troops on ground after him, and now turn to fighting Iraq as substitute (Sure, Saddam Husein is perfect villain)...while North Korea quits nuclear nonproliferation agreement. (What can we say after quitting ABM etc.) And on foreign aid, Bush as skimpy as can be...even worse than Bush I and Clinton..

So Bush can talk tough...but after that it's all political posturing and little or no understanding of how the world works...Truman must be crying to think that anyone would compare him to GW or vice versa. "Malefactors of wealth" is what HST would say about Bush and Co.

Arnoold Offner
Lafayette College

greg stokes - 12/30/2002


Jesse E. Worley, II - 12/22/2002

W. Bush is not a Harry Truman. Harry Truman assocaited with criminals and admited it. He even attended Tom Pengergast's funeral. W associates with them as long as they have money and no he won't go to their funeral. Harry Truman was a great man, albeit with some faults. He worked for the people, advanced civil rights, and stood up for what he believed. he came to Washington poor and left poor. No, W is not even in the same class. That soft spoken aw shucks routine only fools people who can not think for themselves. w and Karl Rove are the perfect Machavellians who can be bought, but at a price. The only quesiton is will the oil industry and the rest of corporate America be as generous to him when he leaves office. (I point to the million dollar speeches that Reagan made in japan after he left office. Sorry folks that was a bribe for services rendered)
Jesse E. Worley, II

M. Lee Murrah - 11/22/2002

Truman was underestimated, even ridiculed. Ditto Bush. Truman was plain and direct. Ditto Bush. Despite the doubts of others, Truman was confident of his own judgement and made hard decisions involving great risk. Ditto Bush. Truman never second-guessed himself. Ditto Bush. Truman challenged a dangerous international foe and prevailed. Thus far, ditto Bush. Truman had a tart tongue. Ditto Bush. Truman did not worry about what the press thought about him. Ditto Bush.