bushieaboozinagain?

September 23, 2005 2:36 PM

Is Bush back on the bottle? A few not-so-credible sources have been running this story, and people are starting to are starting to talk.

Although you may sneer at the National Enquirer, it actually has a track record for factual accuracy, which even the CJR acknowledges. Hey, enquiring minds want to know…
posted by slogger (109 comments total)

I guess that would explain the need for sudden bathroom breaks.

Seriously though, as much as I hate the guy, I don't want to believe this.
posted by JeremyT at 2:40 PM on September 23, 2005

Even if he is drinking; how could you discern that behavior from his "normal" short bus behavior? Would there be some sort of laser involved? Lasers are cool.
posted by weirdoactor at 2:41 PM on September 23, 2005

Seriously though, as much as I hate the guy, I don't want to believe this.

Why not? I doubt it would make him much worse at what he's doing...
posted by delmoi at 2:44 PM on September 23, 2005

It must be really frustrating for poor Georgey-boy, being supposedly the most powerful man on Earth, and yet his life is so fucked up that he can't even have a nice, cold beer.

I'm enjoying a cold beer right now. It tastes great.

Cheers!
posted by cleardawn at 2:44 PM on September 23, 2005

Why not? I doubt it would make him much worse at what he's doing...

Well, for one, some might consider it a sympathetic excuse? Oh, who am I kidding? Those people are going to forgive him no matter what.
posted by JeremyT at 2:46 PM on September 23, 2005

You know, I hope that this isn't true just from a human compassion standpoint. Alchoholism pretty much sucks for you and everyone who cares about you.

Let's take the Neocrats down in the 2006 elections based on the fact that they are, you know, destroying the country - not because Bush suffers from a disease and may or may not be relapsing.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:48 PM on September 23, 2005

Ulysses Grant was a pretty bad president, too. But I see online that many believe his reputation as an alcoholic was exaggerated.
posted by johngoren at 2:48 PM on September 23, 2005

Few things could lead to Bush leaving office. This would be one.
posted by caddis at 2:48 PM on September 23, 2005

Seriously, though, sometimes the best way to get back on your feet is a self-destroying bender. Here's to hoping Dubya's lasts for, oh, the next three years. (*clink*)
posted by billysumday at 2:49 PM on September 23, 2005

A wise man once said:

What the fug has happened to this site since hurricane season? Sheesh.
posted by dhoyt at 2:49 PM on September 23, 2005

Beer would be fine, it's the harder stuff that worries me, I mean jeez, the guy has his finger on the big red button, maybe he's going for a nixon-style "I'm crazy" strategy.

Also, one of our managing editors who's been in the biz forever just covered about the same content of your second paragraph and links. I had no idea that the National Enquirer was anything but a joke, but apparently they have real reporters doin' real reporter stuff out in the field, and sometimes they get it right.
posted by milovoo at 2:52 PM on September 23, 2005

dhoyt-- most of the country doesn't really care for Bush, but pre-Hurricane, at least people thought he was something of a leader. They may not have agreed with Iraq 100%, but they saw that need for something in the Middle East and rallied behind the President as a leader.

Now, it has been revealed that, in addition to having policies which a good chunk of this site's membership disagrees with, he doesn't have an ounce of leadership ability. So the gloves have come off.
posted by cell divide at 2:53 PM on September 23, 2005

Few things could lead to Bush leaving office. This would be one.

Among all the comparably likely scenarios for such a turn of events, I prefer the flying vampire monkey zombies, myself.
posted by y2karl at 2:58 PM on September 23, 2005

posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on September 23, 2005

seriously, what difference does it make? assuming he stayed sober all these years, look at the results. maybe when drunk he'll take less crappy decisions
posted by matteo at 3:01 PM on September 23, 2005

posted by Capn at 3:02 PM on September 23, 2005

I like Sadly, No's speculation that he's back on nose candy.
posted by birdherder at 3:03 PM on September 23, 2005

Now, it has been revealed that, in addition to having policies which a good chunk of this site's membership disagrees with, he doesn't have an ounce of leadership ability. So the gloves have come off.

Uh huh. And all I'm saying is that if you want to prove you have an ounce of brains, or any perspective at all, you'll resist posting this kind of dreck to the front page. Anyone remember the "OMG teh pretzel story was made up cuz Bu$h was drunk!!!" thread(s)? How about the "Is Bu$h oN pRoZac???" thread which was deleted before the '04 election? Keep speculating like children, keep getting your enemies elected. Awesome.
posted by dhoyt at 3:03 PM on September 23, 2005

I always have wondered how sone can sneak crap -- as the Prez! Clinton and his cigars, ties and thighs...now George with his drink of choice? Who gets it for him? Surely Laura has none in the house....does he get a bottle " Guarding Tess " style? Does he have a secret Crawford stash? Is it airlifted in to secret coordinates?
posted by RubberHen at 3:04 PM on September 23, 2005

Such short memories... Doesn't anyone remember when Clinton broke his leg hanging out with nortorious booze-hound John Daily?

Did anyone think he managed to fall down the stairs sober?
posted by buck09 at 3:04 PM on September 23, 2005

And thanks to slogger for resorting to posting from the National Frigging Enquirer to prove my point in spades.
posted by dhoyt at 3:04 PM on September 23, 2005

By way of comparison, Clinton was a great man with great flaws. The fact that he was aware of these flaws, I think, drove him to accomplish a great deal. Bush may or may not have that same potential, but maybe finding rock bottom, and getting into some kind of course of therapy (finding a "meeting" is probably out of the question at that level) where he can come to grips with his own frailty and finally become humble might be good for all of us. In fact, getting him into treatment should have been a prerequisite for his candidacy, but that's left for another discussion. Until that happens, he'll be disjointed as ever and continue to be "managed" by the sycophants that surround him.

As much as I have professed to "hate Bush", I never have. I never believed him to be either stupid or evil, just manipulated. I have secretly believe his alcoholism to be the device that Cheney et al have used ("why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?") to manipulate him. If he ever overcomes it, maybe he's got potential to be a decent human being, if only a marginal president.
posted by psmealey at 3:06 PM on September 23, 2005

You know, dhoyt, I think there is in fact a way to get across the fact that you think an argument is stupid without resorting to the OMG TH3 HAXZ0RZ type.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:07 PM on September 23, 2005

I'm sorry, that was a little snappy. I meant OMG teh hax0rz. I apologize.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:09 PM on September 23, 2005

It's not meant to be hacker type, it's meant to convey the level of intellect & maturity looming behind the Pretzel/Prozac turds posts in question.

OMG TH3 HAXZ0RZ

Please stop screaming ;)
posted by dhoyt at 3:10 PM on September 23, 2005

dhoyt, I'm not defending the FPP, just trying to shed some light on why the site may be a bit more crazy then usual, which is the question you asked.
posted by cell divide at 3:13 PM on September 23, 2005

I like Sadly, No's speculation that he's back on nose candy.

Except I hear he's also been seen with Kate Moss quite a bit lately, but that be anything. [totally kidding, duh!]
posted by milovoo at 3:14 PM on September 23, 2005

btw, I don't think that we're talking about something on the level of a tinfoil hat conspiracy. According to nearly everyone that knew him "back in the day", the guy was a full blown alcoholic. He also, according to himself, never sought any course of therapy or treatment for it. Is it all that far-fetched that, in the conduct of a very stressful job, he may have relapsed. All respect due to dhoyt (who I think is a helluva smart guy), but National Enquirer notwithstanding, it's a legitimate possibility on which to speculate.
posted by psmealey at 3:17 PM on September 23, 2005

Please stop screaming ;)

I just get a little worked up sometimes, is all. And I know what you're doing, and I agree it's a stupid post.

However. We as a people must rise up and find a way to convey that opinion that doesn't involve replacing the letter e with the number 3.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:18 PM on September 23, 2005

When Bush visited the UK two years ago, I was struck by the fact that at lunch with Blair, he'd enjoyed a 'wonderful non-alcoholic lager'. In my (very) personal experience, that's beyond bounds for a recovering alcoholic who is serious about recovery.
posted by punilux at 3:23 PM on September 23, 2005

dhoyt, I'm not defending the FPP, just trying to shed some light on why the site may be a bit more crazy then usual, which is the question you asked.

I know, and you're right -- I'm just saying it's disappointing when a site about cool links ends up being a platform for pushing agendas and trafficking in rumors, gossip & conspiracies. I keep recommending the site to friends, and, reading every tenth post or so, regretting it.
posted by dhoyt at 3:24 PM on September 23, 2005

And, now that I think about it, the new way to accomplish that IS CAPSLOCKS ON WHOLE POST IS ONE CONTINUOUS SENTENSE WITH LOTSA SPELLINGS ERRORS WRITTEEN THE WAY A FOURYEAER OLD TALKS WHEN THEY REALLY REALLY REALLYL WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:26 PM on September 23, 2005

LY
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:26 PM on September 23, 2005

Well, if the rumors are true and we have an alcoholic president getting drunk again then I'd say that's cause for concern, no? Yes.

And I love that its become completely accepted to shit all over threads rather than flag them and take them to Meta.
posted by fenriq at 3:29 PM on September 23, 2005

You know, I just thought I'd point out the two best Enquirer headlines I remember (back when I still looked at them in the checkout line).

Picture: Four guys in chainmail, on horses. Lots of dust. Obviously an SCA reenactment or something. Headline: "FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE SPOTTED IN ARIZONA"

Picture: bat with fangs, dripping blood. Headline: "DID DRACULA HAVE AIDS?" Subhead: "Vampires Spread More Than Terror, Say Experts!"

It would not shock me in the least if Bush was indeed back on the sauce. Lord knows that would explain a lot.

But consider the source. Sheesh.
posted by Malor at 3:29 PM on September 23, 2005

Malor, you're thinking of Weekly World News. Nat'l Enquirer is celebrity slander.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:30 PM on September 23, 2005

I keep recommending the site to friends, and, reading every tenth post or so, regretting it.

Something you and I can definitely agree on.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:31 PM on September 23, 2005

Incidentally, I had a writing class that had an exercise to take a Weekly World News headline and create a story around it. The stories the professor shared with the class afterwards were awesome.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:33 PM on September 23, 2005

Hmm, I really thought those were Enquirer, sometime in the late 80s. Of course, it being nearly twenty years ago, A) my memory may have failed me (EASILY possible), B) the magazine may have changed focus, or C) it may have become more credible. Failing memory seems the likely answer.

Regardless, they were pretty funny, and I thought folks would enjoy them. :)
posted by Malor at 3:35 PM on September 23, 2005

Malor, the Enquirer is disreputable but more so on what it chooses to report about. Whether you're misremembering or "misremembering" those headlines would most likely come from Weekly World News.
posted by substrate at 3:40 PM on September 23, 2005

I keep recommending the site to friends,
and, reading every tenth post or so, regretting it.

So you are a control freak to everyone, equally then?

Perhaps if you went through and told everyone exactly which FPPs you did like and which ones you didn't, we could fine-tune the site to your specifications. Then you could tell your friends.
posted by milovoo at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2005

Bush does not run the US. His team runs the country. Maybe it's not even right to call it his team. The team he's on runs the US. Bush could (and very well may) smoke crack every morning and nothing would get worse.
posted by pracowity at 3:45 PM on September 23, 2005

Honourable things to do when people say things you don't like:

say something different.
point out the error of their opinion.
show counter-evidence.
switch off.

Dishonourable things to do:
claim they have no right to post.
say you've heard it all before.
deride the sources.

dhoyt: the ball's in your court, it's a game without end.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:46 PM on September 23, 2005

GAL WITH GREEN BABY SAYS SHE WAS RAPED BY A LEPRECHAUN
posted by LarryC at 3:47 PM on September 23, 2005

Seems to me to be a possibility, that he's fallen off the wagon, but I'm wary of the Rovian ability to mislead and play dirty. Equally, it's easier to believe something that you want to believe - leftisits need to be wary of that just as much.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:48 PM on September 23, 2005

The Enquirer is much more about slandering actual people and stretching truth as thinly as possible than about fully making shit up.

They are far more likely to take quotes/pictures/interviews way out of context, though most of their stories tend to have some small kernel of truth in them. Trouble is often that kernel of truth is 100% the opposite of what the story implies...

That said I think it's possible even likely that the Prez poured himself a stiff one after a year of no good news topped off with Katrina disaster icing. I think however no good ever comes when a good Christian gets a little off his moral compass. It usually ends up making them even more righteous and angry then actually sitting down and admitting their own humanity.
posted by aaronscool at 3:50 PM on September 23, 2005

Hm. Let's look at it from the other perspective. Is there any reason to believe he ever really stopped drinking? Claiming to have done it without help merely explains why there's no one in a therapeutic role to attest that he did kick it. We really only have his word and those of his supporters that he kicked it, with God's help. Presumably this is the same God who told him to invade Iraq but somehow omitted to tell him the levees would break.

And there's always this.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:56 PM on September 23, 2005

And thanks to slogger for resorting to posting from the National Frigging Enquirer to prove my point in spades.

Wow, you actually had a point? Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure you didn't really have a point.

Who the hell knows if Bush is drinking: I don't think it really matters. It would be impossible for him to be a worse leader.
posted by teece at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2005

GEORGE, STOP!
posted by plexiwatt at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2005

substrate, nothing even remotely agenda-ish about the headlines I posted... I just found them sufficiently ludicrous/funny to remember them for two decades. If they are WWN and not Enquirer, then it's simple ignorance on my part, not some deep plot to discredit the the damn lib'ruls. :)

I was ignoring Wikipedia's opinion because of those headlines. Assuming that they were indeed WWN, the Wikipedia article becomes quite interesting. They point out that Enquirer has to be extremely careful about what they report, because they are so inflammatory. They have to have their Is dotted and Ts crossed before printing, because if they're wrong even a little bit, they're likely to get sued.

So if they really DID print something about Bush being back on the bottle, they might very well be right. And like I said above... wow, would that ever explain a lot.

If it's true, dear God, I hope he gets into detox shortly. Some folks seem to be hoping he stays pickled for the rest of his Presidency. That would be, I think, an extremely bad idea.
posted by Malor at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2005

dhoyt: "I keep recommending the site to friends,
"and, reading every tenth post or so, regretting it.

milovoo : "So you are a control freak to everyone, equally then?"

Er...I don't think it quite works out that way. If I recommend a rave to a friend, and he comes back telling me it was full of gangsters and scary looking borderline-overdosers, and I regret having recommended it, I don't think that makes me a control freak. I'm not arguing about whether or not MeFi is recommendable, or should be tailored to anyone's tastes, but just that recommending a site and then seeing a bunch of stuff you don't find recommendable isn't really a "control freak" issue.

Malor, easy way to sort out your memories (since they both had pictures as well as headlines): Were the pictures in black and white? The Enquirer has a color cover (or at least a few colors, like red), and Weekly World News is purely greyscale.
posted by Bugbread at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2005

I wish the original poster would have found more recent serious analysis of the Natl. Enq. than a '95 article. Because I started having a bit of respect for the work they were doing just the past few years - breaking "serious" stories the MSM wasn't even touching.

I think a lot of us are searching for an explanation to Duhbya's bizarre, disconnected behavior of late, and this is a plausible suggestion. As is the idea he has some sort of mental condition (early-onset Alzheimers or the theory that both he and Cheney are outright sociopaths).

I mean, I despise the guy, and figure he just ran for President to prove to his Daddy he could. I don't think he has much of a grasp of complex issues, any ability to think strategically and longterm. And he could give a crap about anyone.

But what was different this past month is either:
A) That his handlers - still on vacation or passing kidneystones - merely did a much poorer job than usual of hiding what a weirdo he always is, or
B) He really has gotten more off the wall.

Meanwhile, resident conservatives try to tell us this isn't important, whereas, of course, what Clinton was doing with his diddly in the Oval Office was. [Oh, and someone has to bring up John Daly - without even being able to spell his name.]

Beer would be fine, it's the harder stuff that worries me

I hope that was sarcastic - you do know you're just as much an alky on beer as on anything else.
posted by NorthernLite at 3:58 PM on September 23, 2005

dash_slot-

Ironically, I flamed someone a week or two ago for jumping into a thread just to bitch about the content, but I'm on dhoyt's side here, for the most part. When a disreputable source makes an explosive claim wholely without evidence, it's ridiculous to expect people to debate it seriously.

When Bob Dornan loudly proclaimed Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, my entire counter-argument was "oh, he's a fucking nutjob," and then I moved on with my life. Of course, that might be because he proved it by shooting a watermelon in his backyard, but still.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:01 PM on September 23, 2005

Well to add to my comments about the Natl. Enq.'s higher research standards in recent years - the wiki piece does shed a little more light on that. But I'm wondering if any other serious journalism trade publications have examined the Natl. Enq.'s work in the past few years.
posted by NorthernLite at 4:05 PM on September 23, 2005

Freerepublic poster claims Jimmy Carter may have killed a hooker in order to have sex with her lifeless corpse.

Everybody speculate.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:10 PM on September 23, 2005

Well, I never much liked Jimmy Carter, but I hate to think he may be a corpse raper!
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:10 PM on September 23, 2005

Is there some way to retroactively impeach someone for necrophilia?
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:11 PM on September 23, 2005

Sure explains a lot about the late seventies, if you ask me.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:11 PM on September 23, 2005

It's a shame that some girl's life had to be snuffed out in order to (allegedly) satisfy that peanut-farmer's vile sexual urges.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:12 PM on September 23, 2005

...and the echo chamber you hear is iron chef morimoto shouting to himself because he doesn't think other people are paying enough attention to him...
posted by clevershark at 4:13 PM on September 23, 2005

I just hope he enters some sort of twelve-step program IMMEDIATELY.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:13 PM on September 23, 2005

okay, I'm done.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:14 PM on September 23, 2005

Bush would NEVER sue the Nat'l Enquirer for this, even if he had legal grounds. Doing so would draw attention to something that would otherwise just go away. Thus, I don't think a threat of lawsuit has any bearing on the issue.

Bush's behaviour is interesting, though. Today, he comes across as rather inarticulate, and very uninformed. However, I've watched a decade-old debate (from his run for Texas governor) in which he was very bright, well-spoken, and in command of much knowledge.

So I often do wonder why he is so different now. Is it an act? Is he sick? Is he back on the bottle? Was he really well rehearsed a decade ago? What?

It's fun to speculate, which is all this is. But it is unnecessary to prove the point the George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents in the union's history, so I don't spend much time on it. Sickly enough, though, if you could prove that GWB was sick or back on the bottle, that, rather than the way he has fucked up the country, would be what turned Americans off to him. Twisted priorities we have today.
posted by teece at 4:15 PM on September 23, 2005

Let's keep the MetaChat out of Metafilter. Thank you.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:22 PM on September 23, 2005

larryc: bitch was asking for it. always trying to get my fuckin' lucky charms.
posted by keswick at 4:24 PM on September 23, 2005

No! This is a brilliant Post.

It's a piece of counter Agit-Prop right out of the Rove Handbook. Think about it.

Common knowledge that the President was a drunk and drug addict. How do you over come that? diffuse it. Tell his story of "rising above" his human frailty - it makes his base all weepy. Think about the 1980's Republicans who were snorting coke off strippers tits.

Then he falls off the wagon. Most former alcoholics do. Presidents are no exception. So. Whatya do? Leak it to the raggiest tabloid so people get fatigued by the idea and the mainstream press won't touch it.
posted by tkchrist at 4:50 PM on September 23, 2005

I don't know if the Enquirer's story has any basis in truth. It is interesting to me that the public's perception of Bush has become so negative that the Enquirer would run the story. Based on extensive research conducted while standing in the grocery lines it seems to me that the Enquirer only runs stories that support what people are already thinking.
posted by rdr at 4:51 PM on September 23, 2005

JIMMY, STOP!
posted by rdone at 4:56 PM on September 23, 2005

Bush's behaviour is interesting, though. Today, he comes across as rather inarticulate, and very uninformed. However, I've watched a decade-old debate (from his run for Texas governor) in which he was very bright, well-spoken, and in command of much knowledge.

My money is that the folksy dumb guy is the act, and that he's actually a reasonably intelligent man.

As far as the sauce goes, I couldn't possibly care less.
posted by I Love Tacos at 4:58 PM on September 23, 2005

Regardless of the truth of the story (I assume it's not) I think the interesting thing is that the Inquirer chose to run a story like this about Bush at all. Given what seems to be their core constituency of readers, maybe there is some sort of subtle, barely-detectable shift in the undercurrents of the country. Hmmmm...
posted by umberto at 5:03 PM on September 23, 2005

Given what seems to be their core constituency of readers

People who probably don't vote?
posted by billysumday at 5:08 PM on September 23, 2005

Some people just NEED to drink and I think Bush is one of them. I've noticed a marked difference in his speech and reactions to things of late. I might even go so far as to say that he was so high with power and pseudo-christianity that he needed a good stiff drink to become grounded again.

I really think that he is really starting to rethink some of his motives and means. Too little too late, but our Little Man President might be growing up.

Good for everyone if he falls of the wagon and has an attack of conscious.
posted by snsranch at 5:17 PM on September 23, 2005

You mean you guys believed him when he said he quit drinking?
posted by muppetboy at 5:22 PM on September 23, 2005

MetaTalk thread.
posted by russilwvong at 5:23 PM on September 23, 2005

I just remember "Fahrenheit 9/11." I really came to understand Bush a bit better through that movie. Really! (and I thought it was a pretty bad film, overall) It was the film of Bush reading to the kids when he's told about 9/11, and the mystery time that he kept reading to them even when he'd been told of the attack.

Turn off Moore's overinflated, juvenile commentary and just look at the man. What you see in his eyes is *panic.* Sheer, unadulterated panic. He didn't just freeze up; he went into complete la-la land and kept reading because he couldn't even think to do anything else.

And I don't actually mean this as an insult per se. I think the vast majority of us, in his shoes at that moment, would have choked. But that was the point I was finally, 100% fully convinced that Bush was NOT evil. He was merely incompetent. An unprepared Joe Schmoe off the street magically made President, completely unable to do his job -

And completely aware of it.

So much of what he does makes sense, when run through this filter.
posted by InnocentBystander at 5:33 PM on September 23, 2005

InnocentBystander - an interesting observation. Such conjures up for me an image of Bush as an incompetent version of "Dave."

I can't help but feel that Bush often finds himself "out-of-his league" as President. I suspect he doesn't really "take to the job," and can't wait for his time in office to be done. Heck -- he can't wait for the next five-week vacation, can he?
posted by ericb at 5:48 PM on September 23, 2005

The story might be more interesting if, say, bush were able to drink and yet be a good president, or even competent. But, really, I can't think if anything he could do on the bottle that is any more disturbing or offensive than what he has done ostensibly sober.
posted by troybob at 5:53 PM on September 23, 2005

And don't forget the persisting rumor about Rush Limbaugh being a scat-muncher.
posted by deusdiabolus at 5:55 PM on September 23, 2005

mmmmmm taco sauce
posted by terrapin at 5:56 PM on September 23, 2005

Good for everyone if he falls of the wagon and has an attack of conscious.

brilliant! attack of conscious is my new favorite phrase!
posted by troybob at 6:28 PM on September 23, 2005

If it's good enough for the MiB, it's good enough for me.
posted by deborah at 6:32 PM on September 23, 2005

It is interesting to me that the public's perception of Bush has become so negative that the Enquirer would run the story.

This is the story here, of course, not whether or not the ass in the chair is back on the hooch.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:02 PM on September 23, 2005

And don't forget the persisting rumor about Rush Limbaugh being a scat-muncher.

Well, he is dating Darryl Kagin.

BTW, I was really struck by how well Bush spoke from New Orleans. I didn't think it was a particularly good speech, but he was far better spoken than I've ever heard him. He wasn't halting, his voice was expressive. Perhaps he really understood what he was saying.

I don't pretend to understand him. He frustrates me. The only think that is consistant about Bush is his behavior and his cronyism. God help us all.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:09 PM on September 23, 2005

Opps, Darrin. You know, the sports reporter turned anchor-person from CNN.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:10 PM on September 23, 2005

milovoo: If he's like nixon, more like this nixon.

"Can we tell them no? When I talked to the president, he was loaded."
Henry Kissinger, to his assistant
posted by absalom at 8:16 PM on September 23, 2005

Mission accomplished.


posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:28 PM on September 23, 2005

Quote:
"The only think that is consistant about Bush is his behavior and his cronyism."

Well, that and his ability to fill up the calendar with Proclamations of Observance. One of which is (kind of, sort of) notable with regards to this topic made on August 29th, 2005 proclamations.

Atonement, perhaps?
posted by shiska at 9:07 PM on September 23, 2005

MetaFilter : We as a people must rise up and find a way to convey that opinion that doesn't involve replacing the letter e with the number 3.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:11 PM on September 23, 2005

While the National Enquirer has a reputation fore being sleazy they don't have a reputation for being incorrect. One of the main reasons they get these stories is that they pay their sources, something considered unethical by most journalists.

Is there a list somewhere of National Enquirer stories that turned out to be wrong, or studies done of the accuracy of the NE?
posted by delmoi at 9:58 PM on September 23, 2005

Buck09 said: Such short memories... Doesn't anyone remember when Clinton broke his leg hanging out with nortorious booze-hound John Daily?

Did anyone think he managed to fall down the stairs sober?

Except it wasn't John Daly, and Clinton didn't break his leg. it was Greg Norman, and Clinton tore a knee tendon. I don't believe Norman has a reputation as a drunk, although he is an Aussie...
posted by schmedeman at 10:04 PM on September 23, 2005

Who cares whether this is true or not? Who really thinks Gee Dubya Bush is in charge of running anything? As long as he's not driving let him drink all he wants.
posted by davy at 11:02 PM on September 23, 2005

I think this was a good post, if it matters. It's interesting. I had no idea the National Enquirer had any credibility whatsoever, and the CJR article and the Slate article (linked from Wikipedia) were very informative.

It could be true. It is kind of sad. But sort of meaningless -- he hardly makes decisions as it is, I'm sure. The only consequence would be, perhaps, his presidency going up a couple of notches on the international embarassment meter.

The really frustrating thing is that he's still the President of the United States of America, so when he manages to blurt something out through the fog of his mind, we still have to pay a little bit of attention. It usually means someone influential has impressed upon him that he should be saying it.
posted by blacklite at 2:33 AM on September 24, 2005

Malor : with respect to the four horsemen, it really looks like that was Weekly World News [1] [2 - scroll down to 'Tabloid Headline of the Week']. These are the only relevant hits in the top ten of this google search. I'm hoping that someone else does better than I on the other headline -- it turns out that there are a lot of people out there on the internet that like to talk about vampires....
posted by Mr Stickfigure at 8:21 AM on September 24, 2005

Mr. Stickfigure, that's DEFINITELY the headline. So it was indeed the WWN, and I didn't remember it quite right.

I just did a search on the vampire one too, and I don't see it anywhere either. It may be lost to history. Kind of a shame, it was pretty funny. :)
posted by Malor at 8:40 AM on September 24, 2005

Hey, at least W's a funny drunk and not a mean drunk.
posted by BoringPostcards at 8:50 AM on September 24, 2005

Even his own are turning on him. Novak breaks secrecy to report on the Aspen conference.

For two full days, George W. Bush was bashed. He was taken to task on his handling of stem cell research, population control, the Iraq war and, especially, Hurricane Katrina. The critics were no left-wing bloggers. They were rich, mainly Republican and presumably Bush voters in the last two presidential elections.
posted by caddis at 9:13 AM on September 24, 2005

Maybe he's drinking because he's lost his mojo:

A president who roamed across the national and world stages with an unshakable self-assurance that comforted Republicans and confounded critics since 2001 suddenly finds himself struggling to reclaim his swagger.
...
A president who normally thrives on tough talk and self-assurance finds himself at what aides privately describe as a low point in office, one that is changing the psychic and political aura of the White House, as well as its distinctive political approach.

posted by kirkaracha at 9:49 AM on September 24, 2005

What bush needs is some Ecstasy.
posted by delmoi at 1:27 PM on September 24, 2005

I've been drunk ever since Bush was eleced. Why shouldn't he be?
posted by maxsparber at 1:40 PM on September 24, 2005

I by eleced, I mean elected.

Hic.
posted by maxsparber at 1:40 PM on September 24, 2005

You know when he takes these 5 week vacations what does he do? I mean he doesn't read, the only tv he can watch is fox news and even that would probably depress him. If he watches movies he's probably just jackin off to old John Wayne movies. What else does he have to do besides drink?
posted by Justin Case at 3:57 PM on September 24, 2005

tkchrist: So. Whatya do? Leak it to the raggiest tabloid so people get fatigued by the idea and the mainstream press won't touch it.

I think you may have a good point there.
posted by Kloryne at 4:58 PM on September 24, 2005

George Bush Jr. is the ultimate example of The Peter Principal.

You can see it in almost everything he does: he is continually out of his league.

There was a revealing moment on The Daily Show this past week, where Bush is at some "Town Hall" thing. He makes this perfectly decent, sincere, honest comment about how glad he is to work with [whomever the group was] in rebuilding [whatever it is]. He really meant it. One of the few moments of sincerity I've seen from him.

And then he bolloxed it by trying to self-spin it into some grandiose-sounding extended remix. And fudged it, of course, because he simply isn't silver-tongued. And came off as a shallow, insecure liar who is so very much beyond his comfort zone.

I don't think Bush, deep down, belives he can run the country.

I think Bush, deep down, realizes that he is the biggest disappointment in his father's life.

And I think both these things incapacitate him.

Which is why, in the end, it doesn't much matter if Bush is drunk, stoned, ripped on cocaine, or whatever: he is just a tool being used by those around him. That's how he got into the predicament he's in, and that's how it's gonna continue.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:47 PM on September 24, 2005

the theory that both he and Cheney are outright sociopaths

Do you think that's a theory? I thought it was pretty much a fact.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:49 PM on September 24, 2005

BTW, I was really struck by how well Bush spoke from New Orleans. I didn't think it was a particularly good speech, but he was far better spoken than I've ever heard him.

Bush was reading his "address" off of teleprompters! The area around Jackson Square in New Orleans was in virtual lockdown -- and totally stage-crafted:

"The president arrived in darkness, in the dead silence of what looked to be—and in many ways was—an abandoned city under military occupation. Riding through town in an SUV, escorted only by two police cars with their sirens off, George W. Bush made his way through deserted streets, past the oddly intimate detritus of disaster—a random single sneaker, an empty baby stroller, a stack of looted mattresses. On the corners of the French Quarter, pairs of soldiers materialized in the headlights: members of the 82nd Airborne, wearing red berets and hefting assault rifles, snapping salutes to a commander in chief they could not see. Bourbon Street—once neon-bright, tumultuous—now stood empty in the pitch dark, covered with thick dust like a Western ghost town, the utter quiet broken only by chirping locusts and the creak of unlatched shutters in the night.

But one place was illuminated—blindingly so: Jackson Square, the heart of a city that, in turn, is the heart of a Gulf Coast region devastated by the most powerful hurricane ever to hit the United States. White House advance men, who brought their own generators as backups, lit the square with hundreds of rock-concert high-voltage lamps. They draped camouflage nets from the trees to shield the scene—the Cathedral of St. Louis and an equestrian statue of Andrew Jackson—from surrounding streets. They barred the press and public; among the few allowed inside the gates were chief of staff Andy Card, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. When he got the cue last Thursday night, Bush strode across the empty lawns to give one of the most important speeches of his presidency..." [Newsweek | Sept. 26, 2005 issue]

posted by ericb at 6:34 PM on September 24, 2005

Mission Accompished! Ring any bells?
posted by ericb at 6:34 PM on September 24, 2005

*Accomplished*
posted by ericb at 6:34 PM on September 24, 2005

The vampires don't mind if *his boy* is evaporating. This is the sad side of the bad news.
posted by nandop at 7:47 PM on September 24, 2005

It is interesting to me that the public's perception of Bush has become so negative that the Enquirer would run the story.

This is the story here, of course, not whether or not the ass in the chair is back on the hooch.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:02 PM EST on September 23

Bush hitched his wagon to a pack of savage wild dogs (we don't want none of that homo stuff) but here's the problem with harnessing savage dogs: if you fall off the wagon and into the mud they'll savage you.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:04 AM on September 25, 2005