President Bush Is A Sentimental Man Or Why He Scares Me

[cali]

He's a sentimental man. Add to that, his religiosity and sense of entitlement and you've got a dangerous and volatile personality.

I know, I know, most people don't necessarily think of sentimentality right off the bat when thinking about bush's worst character flaws, but I hate it and tend to notice it when an extreme example is in front of me.

When I think sentimental I think mawkish, bathetic, puppy dogs frolicking in the rain and young autistic boys who come off the bench to make 10 3 pointers in the last 5 minutes of the big high school game. I think of bush with his arm around the kid saying "call me george w."

It does something unpleasant to my stomach.

Some aide probably thought the visit up, but I don't think he put his arm around the kid because he's a coldly calculating opportunist. It's because he's a true believer and a sentimental man. That means he's both stubborn and manipulatable, paradoxical as that may seem.

Bush is the type of person whose emotions run shallow and syrupy. He'll cry over the feats of a 14 year old autistic kid, but he's unable to grasp the tragedy of civilians dying by the hundreds each day in Iraq. He doesn't feel responsible for the soldiers he sent to die for a, well, we all know what comes after that. He experiences some muddled thoughts about saving Americans,flags and Islamofascists; maybe some mournful trumpet music and a reminder that God chose him, thrown in.

Sounds like a crusade to me. And it's scary.

[uppityperson]

1. He never grew up, never had to be responsible for his actions

Good writing.

[cali]

2. Thanks very much.

It was that picture of him with that kid- as you probably realize- that got me on that train of thought.

[Kurovski]

9. As an alcholic, he also is adept at manipulating.

this is one of the reasons one gets that "sick-feeling" in the pit of the stomach when he attempts chumminess, or awkwardly attempts to be concerned for others.

[whitestarz]

3. I'm not saying you're right or wrong...

...but I AM always surprised to read long diatribes about Bush describing his feelings, his motivations, his deep inner thoughts, how he was raised, his thoughts as a young college student, his ideas about life and what he feels he has a right to, how he feels about his parents, what he thinks about other countries, what his responsibility is towards America and God, how he considers Condoleeza Rice, what he thinks the people of NOLA are owed--even what he thinks about Lance Armstrong, Chris Reeves, and people who work out! Here, and other leftwing sites, we see it all. And a lot of this speculation is fun to indulge in--no question about that; that's what DU is for, and why it's so carefully guarded and slanted.

But you DO know that it IS speculation....it IS mostly assumptions, our opinions? I mean, I listen to 95% of the missives from D.C.--the speeches, the policies, decisions from the court/Congress/Senate/Pentagon--you name it. All the things we speculate about don't pass the logic test; we simply are NOT given any information about them--not enough to inform an opinion. We are guessing and assuming.

In school, I was taught to use cognitive behavioral therapy techniques--and I teach them everyday. To check things against a concrete reality is key in getting rid of illogical thoughts. The things I read here everyday haven't been checked out--we DON'T have enough information about Bush that would enable us to know them.

Our continual focus on Bush has made him awfully powerful--much more powerful than he'd be ordinarily--and that's a mistake. His name isn't going to be on a ballot ever again, but that's all we talk about. We're going to keep talking about him and then jam a ballot in front of people in '08, saying 'don't support Bush!, as our biggest message to the people--and they're going to look at us like we've lost our minds.

We need to talk about Republicans--not Bush--and stop all this childish and illogical speculation. THAT'S the only way we're going to get our power--and a little respect--back.

[Kurovski]

4. Let's talk about Republicans, let's talk about how they define

their opposition. The definitions worked for them, They can work for us, the "we" you refer to.

Psychologists and therapists all over the world are dissecting the crazy assholes in Washington today. They're not childish...there is plenty of information and observation to go on.

Defining the crazy fuckers in DC DOES define the Republican Party, for that is whom they have chosen and whom they protect and defend illogically, against reason, law, The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

Sane people don't behave as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice do. They are off their ever-lovin' rockers. And the Republican Party has lost its mind and its way.

And that's talking about Republicans.

[whitestarz]

5. I don't let them...

...define ONE single thing for me. We'd be stronger if WE defined reality--instead of reacting to every single heartbeat of theirs.

[Kurovski]

6. We are defining it, just as it is in reality.

Bush is a sick man.

The trashing and misrepresentation of the term "liberal" is just one of the biggest examples of how Republicans succesfully defined their opposition, despite your personal resistance.

You state that you don't let them define one single thing for you, but you label other's attempts to define their own experience as "speculation."

You've probably seen this "speculation" across Democratic boards because most reasonable people define reality through observation rather than the Republican method of making crap up from whole cloth.

[whitestarz]

7. There is just a difference...

...between opinion and fact.

[Kurovski]

8. That's what I said.

And the biggest gap is where the bullshit resides.

[sheelz]

10. Put it to the test

You said:

"In school, I was taught to use cognitive behavioral therapy techniques--and I teach them everyday. To check things against a concrete reality is key in getting rid of illogical thoughts"

What I learned was to put it to the test! So put this to the test:

Best Country. Best People.

[cali]

11. Yes, of course it's speculation

though hardly a long diatribe. In fact, it's not even half as long as your somewhat turgid response.
Look, psycho-history is a well established branch of history. I realize that runs counter to your training, but it doesn't discount its validity. Honesty compels me to issue a disclaimer here: My little sketch is not psycho-history. It's just an observation. Could be spot on, could be wrong.

It's laughable that you think our focus, at DU or anywhere else, has made bush more powerful. It's just bizarre. No, bush is not all we talk about here, not by a long shot. Might I suggest you're being a tad myopic? We talk about all manner of things and all manner of republicans. Please consider taking off your blinders.

We can learn a great deal about someone who is constantly in the public eye. You do realize don't you, that excellent biographies are penned all the time by authors who (gasp) didn't know their subjects? Quite often those subject have been dead for decades, even centuries. Astonishing isn't it? Furthermore, many, probably most, biographies are psychological profiles.

Finally, there's nothing particularly illogical about what I wrote. Certainly it's not dangerous. No it's not indulging in fantasy, neither is it childish. What strikes me as interesting is your over the top response to a my little thumbnail sketch impression of aspects of bush's personality. Done, btw, in a light hearted manner. Something you might want to try. Light heartedness, that is. Having a hissy fit over my modest words is more than a little silly.