The Story Behind the Story, the Continuing Series
Atrios writes about media inconsistency regarding who is and isn’t fair game when it comes to reporting on the private lives of public figures.
Years ago, Christopher Hitchens wrote that he went into journalism because he didn’t want to have to rely on the media to get the news. I’ve felt that way in conversations with an unspecified number of real journalists for an unspecified number of real Emm Ess Emm(TMJustin Slotman) organs recently about this business of the President’s wife being secretly separated from him because, among other things, he is drinking again. Now the marriage business is merely titillating. I have no idea if President Bush and Secretary of State Rice are really sleeping together or not. I’d like to know because I’m a writer, and writers are incurable gossips.
But if the man who has the authority to launch nuclear weapons all on his say-so is an alcoholic who has gone back on the sauce because of the pressure of his job, that seems to me to be fucking news! The public has the right to know that. And from what I can tell this seems to be the open secret among journalists that some people claimed Valerie Plame’s real job was, something “everybody knows” but nobody is saying. A president who has claimed absolute power based on a couple of stray clauses in the Constitution and a couple of dodgy recent laws is an addict who has fallen back into his habit.
That seems important.
Comment by Karen —
April 29, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
I was in college and law school when Reagan was in office, and I had a couple of friends get a job on the Hill during that time. They said that during his second term, Reagan was quite often dazed and out of it, but no one would report it because he was so popular. That, and the fact that his condition wasn’t caused by drugs or drinking. Still, even then, the fact that the guy with his finger on the button wasn’t entirely cognizant really, really disturbed me. This, of course, is much worse. Reagan just sort of nodded off, but anyone who has ever been around a drunk knows booze produces some really nasty behavior before it knocks the drinker out. Bush is an acknowledged dry drunk, meaning he’s built up a much greater than normal tolerance for the stuff. Thus, he can do a lot of damage before he passes out. Yeah, this is very big news, and it’s the job of the press to report it. I honestly don’t think the public is going to feel sorry for this loser if news of his boozing makes CNN.
Comment by Nat —
April 29, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Fair enough – but I thought the same thing about Clinton’s little indiscretion. A married man who0 can’t keep his hands off a much younger junior employee, even while conducting official government business (blowjobs while talking on the phone with a congressman), even while under investigation for sexual harassment, probably shouldn’t be allowed to control our nuclear arsenal either. (Hitchens has pointed out that bombing the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was probably not the action of a rational individual.)
I do think there’s a difference to these cases, though – Clitnon should have resigned, but Bush should be in jail.
Comment by D.A. Ridgely —
April 29, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Of course, there’s always the outside chance that drinking would make Bush a better president. Just sayin’
Comment by von Laue —
April 29, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
the open secret among journalists that some people claimed Valerie Plame’s real job was, something “everybody knows†but nobody is saying
I cannot parse this. What does this mean?
And what was Plame’s real job? Jesus. What are you stinking not-real-journalist bloggers good for if you can’t dish rumors?
Comment by Mona —
April 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
But really, how could he hide it if he is drinking again? He’d be in bed hungover until some late hour. All kinds of shit would indicate it, including a slurring, stumbling moment someone gets on film.
But if anyone knows, it is the Secret Service. He has a substitute addiction in his ardent devotion to a god (I don’t mean that in a snarky sense, but in the Wm James psychological one that AA is predicated on). I think the god thing is what still drives him and do not believe he thinks he is in any trouble since he thinks the Guy Upstairs and he are still totally on the same page. IOW, he feels no pressure that would make him drink again.
Comment by Jon H —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
“Hitchens has pointed out that bombing the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was probably not the action of a rational individual”
And yet, he’s been a huge Iraq war supporter…
At least bombing the factory was defensible as a *limited* action based on possibly-sketchy intelligence.
I suppose Hitch’s beef with Clinton is that he didn’t go all-out and *invade* Sudan.
Comment by Ray Radlein —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
I honestly doubt there is anything at all in this, but if Dubya started stumbling and slurring his speech, it would probably be more or less indistinguishable from his typical behavior of the last eight years, numerous examples of which are to be found on YouTube.
Comment by r€nato —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Just think what we will find out about Bush after he leaves office in 2009.
Comment by pseudonymous in nc —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
This is also one of the structural problems with a strong executive president. If Tony Blair were a drunken adulterer, it would be all over the tabloids. (Charles Kennedy’s taste for the drink cost him his party leadership.) But Bush is head of state. Which makes me wonder whether the 25th Amendment would ever be invoked on an alcoholic or chemically-incapacitated president: the FDR rules of propriety kick in to defend the ‘office of the presidency’.
(Of course, the Clinton exception applies here.)
But Hitchens is right: having friends who are journalists opens up a window both on the business, and on the news.
Comment by Rhetoric Buster —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
“A married man who can’t keep his hands off a much younger junior employee, even while conducting official government business (blowjobs while talking on the phone with a congressman), even while under investigation for sexual harassment, probably shouldn’t be allowed to control our nuclear arsenal either.”
Nat–To use Clinton’s willingness to cheat on his wife and engage in a consensual affair without considering anything else, such as Clinton’s apparent skill and success at formulating public policy, including foreign policy, makes no sense. It’s like arguing that under Reagan federal budget deficits exploded and the USG baked a cake as a gift for Iran, therefore he “probably shouldn’t have been allowed to control our nuclear arsenal.”
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Ray hits on something worth amplifying: Bush has always been an extremely bad public speaker. If you watch the full footage of any of his public addresses, you’ll encounter a staggering number of just plain weird speech errors, plus strange gestures and peculiar, often wildly inappropriate, expressions. The mass media tendency to settle on one few-seconds-long clip and all use the same thing works in Bush’s favor.
Hitchens claims, and has claimed for years, that the Bush administration is the champion of secular democratic values against autocracy and theocracy. He is not competent to assess the behavior of rational people.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
To start with the very literal, specific topic here:
But if the man who has the authority to launch nuclear weapons all on his say-so is an alcoholic who has gone back on the sauce because of the pressure of his job, that seems to me to be fucking news!
I wouldn’t worry about the finger on the nuclear button, because (from what we’ve been led to believe, anyway) that command has to pass through a number of people, and if a President ever got drunk and tried to order a launch a whole shitload of Very High Level People would descend upon him and tell the people on the other end of the phone to hold off while the President “consults with advisors.”
But with the wider issue here, yeah, that’s a problem. Advisors can save a President from a very specific, extreme, and momentary lapse. But the general habits and thought processes of a drunk are hardly conducive to a good Presidency.
The number one feature of any alcoholic (and alcoholic family) is of course denial. (Trust me, I know from my own family.) And our Iraq policy is a classic case of denial: Keep going, no matter what, because Everything is Fine. It will all get better soon. Just be nice and play along and don’t point out the obvious, and it will all get better over time. And if you do point out the obvious, then you are the bad guy.
Now, not every drinking problem brings in all the pathologies of a Classic Alcoholic Family. But Bush shows all the signs.
As far as comparisons with womanizers (i.e. Clinton): I don’t care too much if a President has bad personal habits if they can be compartmentalized. Mistresses, no matter what the moralists say, have been successfully compartmentalized by countless powerful men (and women, no doubt) throughout the ages. The ones who do it right allocate their time accordingly, and the mistress learns to get used to encounters that are cut short. It’s an outlet, a way to channel things.
Clinton, whatever else might be said about him, was a good compartmentalizer. Bush, whatever else might be true of his case, shows all the classic signs of an alcoholic personality.
Comment by John Emerson —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
7: A good alcoholic can get drunk a lot without a hangover. Bush also has a lot of people covering for him.
2: alcohol really degrades behavior. I really don’t think that blowjobs do. I’d be glad to be a subject in an experiment testing that, though.
I don’t think we should generalize about alcoholics. I’m touchy about that! — and anyway, we don’t want to encourage the Churchill meme. It’s a Bush thing, and bad as dry Bush is, drunk Bush would be frighteningly worse.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 29, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
BTW, if the Bush marriage is dysfunctional, it would be one more similarity between George Bush and former 24 President Charles Logan.
I’d better not say anything else about that. In light of what Martha Logan did, this is the sort of topic that might get your name on a list.
Comment by Wells. —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Speaking of alcoholics… Christopher Hitchens!
Comment by Condor —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
For all the talk here of incurable gossips, alcoholism and Hitchens, I can’t believe I’m the the only one who’s willing to make broach the connection between the three. What kind of incurable gossips are you? For that matter, what kind of incurable drunks are you?
Comment by Condor —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Obviously I excuse Wells from my previous comment. Great minds and all.
Comment by Matt Weiner —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
the open secret among journalists that some people claimed Valerie Plame’s real job was, something “everybody knows†but nobody is saying
My parsing is this:
Some people claimed that it was an open secret what Valerie Plame’s real job was;
Bush’s drinking really is an open secret;
namely, something “everybody knows†but nobody is saying.
And her real job, I take it, is what we now all know; that she was a CIA operative and not an energy consultant.
Comment by Bill —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
As to the question posed, yes if the guy with his finger on the button is hitting the bottle, the public has a right to know.
How do you know if it is just a nasty rumour or the real truth. Should you spread the rumour because it might be true, and the consequences are so dire?
I’m with Mona, if Dubya was on the sauce we’d know it. It would be hard to hide in somebody who lives his life under the media spotlight.
Comment by cal —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
“A president who has claimed absolute power based on a couple of stray clauses in the Constitution”
Read article 2. You won’t find any stray clauses that could be interpreted to give any president absolute power. Read article 1 and you’ll see that congress has most of the juice.
On a fun note: It would be hilarious if Bush were doing Rice. Can you imagine all those conservatives that lectured about Clinton-Lewinsky, in a complete panic reminding us that a president’s personal life has nothing to do with his duties or value in public life.
Talk about your chickens coming home to roost.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Didn’t we recently find out that JFK was constantly hopped up on pills for all manner of maladies? I wouldn’t find it terribly surprising if Bush had fallen off of the wagon.
Comment by stevesh —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
You all and Teddie RicksPlace have it backwards.
The Bushism speaking deficiencies were planned in 1999 by Karl “Blue Parrot” Rove to cover up the drinking. It’s worked for eight years.
You guys are on crack, maybe acid too, but definitely crack.
More Citizen/EntertainmentToNite Journalism!!!!! More WiKi links!!!!
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
April 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
IIRC, it was Dorothy Parker who said, upon word of Calvin Coolidge’s death, “How can they tell?”
.
I’d have to ask the same of an off-the-wagon Bush.
.
What’s he going to do? Attack a country that’s not a threat? Kill more Americans than al Qaeda? Kill more people worldwide than al Qaeda? Go on a photo op while a major American city is destroyed? Suspend habeas corpus? Make kidnapping and torture the law of the land?
.
Seriously – what can he do that would be evidence he’s drunk that he wouldn’t plausibly do sober?
Comment by Avram —
April 29, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
I don’t know that Bush has always been a bad public speaker. Remember that old Texas gubernatorial debate footage from 1994 that was being blogged about a few years back? The one that shows Bush talking rapidly and confidently in long, complex sentences?
Comment by Soprano —
April 29, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
It’s actually quite easy to hide the excessive consumption of alcohol, even with public figures, if they have a high-enough tolerance fior the stuff. Nixon, for example, was a world-class drinker, but most people still do not know that he got very drunk, very often, and we may never know to what extent his alcohol consumption influenced his performance in office.
Comment by tontocal —
April 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
I’ve long suspected that it’s been Bush’s epilepsy that’s being covered up, hence all the ‘cringe-worthy’ gaffes in his public speaking events. It’s the medication he’s on. Remember that bandaid on his head after he allegedly fell off the sofa watching a football game? Grand-mal seizure anyone?
Comment by Njorl —
April 29, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
I always picture it the other way around…
Condi in a dominatrix get-up with a big strap-on and a riding crop, slapping him around and calling him a “Bad little president”
Ok, so I better be off to take my meds now.
Comment by Avram —
April 29, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
And here’s the Bush video on YouTube, for those of you who don’t feel like downloading a 4 meg MPEG file.
Comment by smkngman —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:14 am
I guess if he is drinking again, it would explain this
Comment by Charles Martin —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Chris Hitchens calling ANYONE else a drunk is proof positive of the saying “takes one to know one.”
Hitch should have been quietly ignored years ago, as Dennis Miller was. Believe me, I’d LOVE for this to a) be true and b) come out in such a way that impeachment was inevitable. HOWEVER, until we see some real proof that any of this has happened, I remain a skeptic and thus must defend the preznit: “innocent until proven guilty.”
Comment by John Lott —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
I cannot BELIEVE that you are spreading the disgusting, scurrilous, and totally unfounded rumor that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. It is true that there have been rumors of strains in the marriage of President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush, leading to speculation that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, but that’s all it is – speculation. It’s true that in 2004, the Secretary of State nearly called President Bush her “husband” – specifically, she called him “my husb- the President”, also leading to speculation that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. But again, that’s all it is – speculation. There is NO CONCLUSIVE AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and until there is such conclusive and irrefutable evidence that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, there is no justification for spreading rumors and speculation that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice!
Comment by netbot —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Re Reagan:
There can be a bright side to an out-of-it leader. When RR was about to leave the California governorship in January 2 1975, I believe, his deskwork that day consisted of signing a pile of bills and a pile to veto. In his distracted state he signed the vetoes and vetoed the bills to be signed. Our town got a marvelous $30 million community college and a $5 million library grant to get the library well stocked. This event was just a month shy of his 64th birthday, and he was already acting absent-minded.
Comment by td —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:46 am
So then we’ll see Cheney sworn in as President-for-real? He’d do it in even if the Bush Crime Family made him appoint Jeb as VP.
Comment by A.Citizen —
April 30, 2007 @ 1:07 am
What a bunch of maroons as Bugs Bunny usta say, you guys are….
Bush started the war ‘To Git Saddam’ remember? During the course of this excellent adventure the man has caused the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqis, 3300 Americans and violated numerous laws regarding the conduct of war. He is no different in these regards from the Nazis we tried and executed after WWII.
And all you folks want to talk about is, ”Is Bush a drunk…is he fucking Condie-lies-a-Lot?
Truly American exceptionalism is proof against almost any reality.
The man should be impeached and then tried for his war crimes.
Then executed if found guilty.
Not gossiped about as if he was some third-rate TV star.
Comment by spocko —
April 30, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Comment by John Lott —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Your comment makes me SICK. For you to try and spread the rumor that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, with your silly trick of putting denials on either side of it is just horrible.
That is the kind of low down dirty trick I expect from Matt Drudge.
Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report would say “Bush Sleeping with Condi Sex?” in his headline but only if he Bush was a Democrat. But since he isn’t Matt Drudge would never say that.
Here is how it works in right-wing world.
1) Lowly blogger starts the rumor about a Democrat and it would then be fed to Drudge, and then Fox would run the headline: “Bush and Rice Lovers?” as if it isn’t a rumor. Then of course if Bush was a Democrat, ABC’s The Note would have to talk about “The Controversy of a rumored affair between Bush and Rice.”
At some point Rice will be asked about it indirectly and deny. But since she didn’t deny it fast enough it’s really HER fault. (Think Kerry and the Intern or SwiftBoaters) I mean she really SHOULD have started the denials sooner the press will grouse as if it is here fault that some blogger started a rumor that Rice is having sex with Bush. “It’s really to be expected since she is a public official and all that these rumors will start” they will say among themselves. Then some low level employee who is friends with the people fired by Rice when Powell left will say, “I’ve seen them come out of the White House when there was no real meeting.” But nobody will ask WHY that anonymous person is allowed to make that kind of comment. Especially when we learn that the person has a REASON to spread an ill founded rumor. Now of course the talk radio would be ALL over this with jokes and comments, if they were democrats. The cruder ones will say, “You know what they say about… “The president clearing some brush is taking on a whole new meaning!” and “When he told Laura he was having rice for dinner…” they would hint about some kind of old racist joke too. But only if he was a Democrat.
And then if this was a Democrat there would be calls for an investigation and direct questions of the President (hopefully under oath) where the president would say, “I did NOT have sex with the Secretary of State.”
(A republican president wouldn’t let himself be under oath because he got away with a “conversation” about 9/11 with Dick Cheney there, so don’t expect him to deny under oath he was sleeping with his SecDef.)
Then later it would be noted that he DIDN’T say “I did not have sex with Condoleeza Rice.” so technically he wasn’t lying. That would be true. He didn’t have sex with Colin Powell!
And the world would never notice how carefully he parsed the statement because the whole press core would be in high dungeon over the terrible rumors, if it was a Republican. But they would be spreading the rumors if it was a Democrat.
But by this time a nice war will start with Iran based on some US hostages being caught. But unlike Britain who saved the lives of the 15 with out starting a war using diplomacy, we will have to kill millions and spend trillions so we won’t look weak. But it won’t be because Bush is wagging the dog or anything.
Now THAT is how it is done. Your silly trick John Lott is very amateur and will only work on the Internets. When you control the radio and have Matt Drudge who is the assignment editor for the newspapers who are the source for Fox and the MSM you have a much more powerful engine.
Learn how the real players do it, John Lott. And then figure out how to get PAID to do it, like the think tankers and right-wing welfare recipients who REALLY are the smart ones.
Comment by Poncho & Lefty —
April 30, 2007 @ 3:00 am
“If you folks think drinking and driving is dangerous, that’s nothing compared to drinking and Presidenting.”
George W. Bush
from soon to be released book
“My 28 Days With Betty Ford”
Comment by Kevin Hayden —
April 30, 2007 @ 4:00 am
He’s doing a piss poor job being an alcoholic, if you ask me. If we could get him to go on the wagon from presidenting, he could at least be doing a more convincing portrayal of a drunk.
“My name is George and I’m a president.” There’s gotta be a twelve step program to help him overcome that.
Of course, then we have to worry about Cheney, who’s still on the PCP.
Comment by Litz —
April 30, 2007 @ 7:17 am
Of course, there’s always the outside chance that drinking would make Bush a better president. Just sayin’
No, actually there’s not. An alcoholic in the throes of addiction is focused on his habit, 24-7. Getting his fix, hiding it, covering for it, denying it. He is not focused on the business at hand. Since we have a self-described “war president,” it’s very troubling that major decisions affecting the lives of millions are being made by someone in an impaired state.
On the other hand, maybe we’ll get lucky and someone will give him a blow job.
Comment by Phoenix Woman —
April 30, 2007 @ 7:37 am
Actually, he WASN’T that popular; he was reasonably popular for a Republican president, but overall he was only about average or worse. In fact, there were times when he was almost as unpopular as Bush is now.
But the media kept propping him up and still does to this day, partly because the GOP had started its campaign of buying off/buying up the media with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which made it possible for hate-radio goons like Rush to be brought into the national market by their conservative sugar daddies — remember, Rush was a money-loser for years until he get a big enough ratings base) and other regulations, and partly because the Cons have always been more fervently working the refs and harrassing the press, a habit to which we’re relatively new.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 30, 2007 @ 7:47 am
On the other hand, maybe we’ll get lucky and someone will give him a blow job.
At this point, I’d pay for the hooker, and have Dennis Kucinich standing by to file the articles of impeachment as soon as it was done.
Comment by John Lott —
April 30, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Spocko, I cannot BELIEVE that you said this:
WHO has EVER even SUGGESTED not that President Bush is not sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, or is only sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, but that he is sleeping, or is also sleeping, with either former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, present Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, or both! There are only surrilous rumors that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, but that have not, until you started them, any rumors of any kind that President Bush is sleeping with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, or that President Bush is sleeping with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates!
Comment by John Emerson —
April 30, 2007 @ 8:06 am
An alcoholic in the throes of addiction is focused on his habit, 24-7. Getting his fix, hiding it, covering for it, denying it.
Bullshit. Getting an alcoholic fix is easy — it’s not heroin, you know. Hiding and covering aren’t that hard, especially because alcoholics aren’t drunk all the time, and especially when you have master manipulators like Hughes and Rove around.
Alcohol is bad for your judgment and bad for your temperament, but there have been lots of functional alcoholics over the years.
Bush was a mean, sloppy, disfunctional drunk when he was a drunk, and when someone falls off the wagon that’s usually very bad, and he’s mcuh worse drunk that sober, but I’m there are other alcoholics in government who do a good job and whom we like just fine.
Comment by susan —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Bill @ 19:
not a chance. how much do you really know about Cheney’s heart disease? the medical problems that man had even before his self appointment as vp should have DQd him. read John Dean’s book or ask your cardiologist.
anyone who has watched Bush’s public appearances over the years and observed the spectrum of affect from somnambulistic to hypERmanic could only conclude that the man is either medicated or high. I suspect both. and not infrequently hung over.
Comment by VJB —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Absent evidence to the contrary, I will consider John Lott’s comments to be satirical, based on his second comment @41. Although it could well be true that someone pulled the pins on his hinges, so he goes off like a grenade in a classroom. I like Spocko’s response to him, though, very much.
Comment by Hogan (not matthew) —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Actually, he WASN’T that popular; he was reasonably popular for a Republican president, but overall he was only about average or worse.
No, see, “popular” in this context means “popular with the DC establishment and press corps,” people like Sally Quinn and David Broder. They sure did love them some Reagan. And they didn’t then and don’t now give a damn what the rest of the country thinks.
Comment by Patrick Nielsen Hayden —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:22 am
The idea that if this President was drinking heavily we’d be immediately able to tell seems pretty naive to me. 15mg of time-release Dexedrine will perk a body right up, regardless of how hard that body hit the sauce the night before. Entirely legal, too, if it’s prescribed, and does anyone care to argue that the President of the United States can’t get a doctor to prescribe whatever high-tech stimulants he wants? Please. The history of the American presidency is replete with medical secrets and off-list prescriptions.
No, it’s not a healthy lifestyle, but given Bush’s clear devotion to fitness and exercise, it’s unlikely to take a visible toll until well after his term runs out.
Comment by C.L. —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Didn’t we recently find out that JFK was constantly hopped up on pills for all manner of maladies? I wouldn’t find it terribly surprising if Bush had fallen off of the wagon.
According to Timothy Leary, JFK also took LSD in the White House at least once.
Comment by Lamb Cannon —
April 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am
perhaps the loathsome “Hitch” would be willing to write an autobiographical sequel to his hilarious “Missionary Position,” said book being the only excuse this seriously f*cked up, neo-war wimp, cigar-stoking, brandy-sniveling post-reality weeny has for consideration as a “human being”
Comment by zak822 —
April 30, 2007 @ 10:30 am
“how could he hide it if he is drinking again”
You didn’t see the video of Bush in South America? Guy was all lit up. In my mind there was absolutely no question that he was not just drinking, the boy was one sip away from being stumbling drunk.
It’s easy to hide if people are willing to conspire to hide it for you. And there is always an endless supply of people willing to protect the very powerful, hoping that they will profit from it.
Comment by Erox —
April 30, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Someone get this man a drink and get him in cell #2!
Comment by Azael —
April 30, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I guess this whole rumor (or both rumors, actually) lend new meaning to the first lady’s claim that the Iraq war has been hardest on her and the president.
Comment by Aaaargh —
April 30, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I talked to Ann Richards about this a bit before she died. She thought there was something seriously wrong with him. She said he had been a very effective speaker when he was running against her for governor of Texas and while he held the post, and she considered him a dangerous debater. But since becoming preznit, he seems to have lost all that verbal skill. Brain damage? Not out of the question.
Comment by Dan Flasar —
April 30, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Remember Daddy Bush? Remember his speech patterns? Dad wasn’t a scintillating public speaker either. Think about it – both of these guys sound like the kind of stream-of-consciousness deer caught in the headlights speech you see when people are caught by the local news when they have to comment on an accident or a house blown up by a leaking gas-line.
They may be perfectly intelligent people, but they just can’t articulate well. BushDaddy, by the way, was taking Halcion, a sleeping agent that has since fallen out of favor because it causes memory lapses.
Hitchins is a tragedy. Good writer, soused, bitter son of a bitch. Even Studs Terkel, who likes everybody, had to call it quits with him.
And heck, have a heart for poor little Condileeza. She’s cute, she tries “SO HARD” to be good, never gotten anybody, she loves the man. Give her a break and let her get some for once in her life!!!!
Bush drunk? I don’t know anything at all about alcoholism. Could he be any worse a president then he is?
Dan
Comment by nellieh —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
After a terrible drinking night celebrating Kennedy’s inauguration, I stopped drinking at age 28. Reflecting at that time, My girlfriend/wife and I had not kissed without alcohol on my breath for our first 8 years together. After 16 years, I relapsed for approx 8 years and stopped again. At my relapse, it was as if I had never stopped. I stil got drunk on the same amount, kept drinking when I was sloshed, the stupid behavior was the same and the hangovers combined with increased smoking made my coughing up in the morning shower awful. I guess that did more than anything to make the decision to stop again. I don’t know if Bush has started again and I think probably not. If he is it can’t be to the point of challenging his old man. (which by the way his old man should have kicked his ass) You don’t recover from hangovers at the age of 60 like you did at 40.
Comment by pre AmeriKKKan —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
as someone who has no good way of dealing with alcohol i feel sorry for the guy and his family if indeed he has relapsed. it is a sickness and he should be in treatment as of yesterday. is laura a pharmhead? who cares? she’s not the Decider. check HER in too if need be, but 43 cannot be managing anything, much less the fate of our nation. impeach cheney, betty ford mr. bush.
as for the sex stuff, no one anywhere can make sense of their hormones at certain times, so there again, i cannot be on a high horse about that one. otoh, the hypocrisy of R’s to harp on “traditional” values while getting “massages” is just the kind of duplicity that will sink the Repugnant-can party. there will be D’s on that list, for sure, but at least they were not known for pushing the values button in quite the same righteous, patronizing way.
btw, who are the msm reps on that list? boy, i bet they’ll wish they were on the fired prosecutor list or the $400.00 haircut list, any list but THIS list. can’t wait! it’s like criminals, liars, perverts, oh boy!
note: NOW prostitution has a chance to be legal, about time that we were more realistic about horndogs and those that take economical advantage of it.
Comment by buck raye —
April 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I have a real problem with drunkies and junkies, since they want to blame everyone else for their lot in life. With the crazy shit that our president has been up to, I am not so sure he is on the sauce, he acts more, like someone, on the PIPE! Maybe he is doing both, who really knows??????????????????. Just because Willie J. Clinton, got a blowjob, who cares? Monica got her Presidential knee pads, WJC got off, and the country did not get attacked that day. The real question should have been, where was his adoring wife, who should have been performing this service all along. Now if this was a threesome, that might have been interesting…………………..and newsworthy.
I don’t care if the congress is buttfucking each other, the senate is playing with itself, and there are a thousand hookers, at the Greenbriar on standby ready to snap into action. but when they fucked the American people with the ” PATRIOT ACT, I just can’t wait to un-elect these phoney moralistic bastards.
Comment by Monte Davis —
April 30, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Cheney on PCP?? Wrong drug. Hunter S. Thompson has left us, but the most cursory of literature searches under “wolverine,” “hypertension” and “rabies” would turn up his pioneering clinical studies of adrenochrome and clinch the case.
Comment by Michael —
April 30, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
I’m actually not too worried about this, even if the Prez is a raging drunk. IIRC, the ability to launch nukes is based on the say-so of at least two people, not just whoever’s in charge at the time. Of course, if I am wrong about this, then we should all invest in Depends.
Comment by Barry —
April 30, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
#53 (Dan), the whole point behind the 1994 video was that George W. was deteriorating in speech. Back in the early 1990’s, somebody for TNR asked a doctor (neurologist?) about George I. The doctor’s comment was that if somebody had gone from normal to that speaking patter, he’d be worried, but if he’d always spoke that way then the doctor would just figure that he always spoke that way.
So the key thing is what sort of *deterioration* in George W’s speech patterns has been observed.
Comment by Kevin Carson —
May 1, 2007 @ 12:33 am
When Reagan and Brezhnev headed up the two superpowers, the fate of the world depended [pun intended] on two men in adult diapers.
Trackback by B12 Solipsism —
May 1, 2007 @ 2:18 am
links for 2007-05-01…
Many Tricks · Service Scrubber Excellent idea for an app, from Tidbits-talk (tags: freeware OSX) Brendan Haywood = Big Sexy?, and TNT Copies the Bog – D.C. Sports Bog TNT jacks the Bog. I’m sure some intern at……
Comment by MeltingLiberty —
May 1, 2007 @ 11:40 am
What this nation is faced with here (and the rest of the world as well, unfortunately) is a volitile wakup call for a sleeping republic that contains elements the world has never seen before.
The following are key points that need to be taken into account that reflect my observations:
1. The alcohol element is a potentially bad one. If this alcoholic is one that is not genuinely enguaged in a recovery process (one that actually has the potential to really change the individual through hard work in most cases, the 12 steps of AA for example, one that requires the alcoholic to become rigourously searching and honest to himself and to others, humility, and hard work of making amends and when wrong- PROMPTY ADMITTING IT) then what we have is a very big problem like most alcohilic families still suffering from this disease. Humility is not one of Bush’s “strong suits” as we see with aboundant clarity. He is a classic “dry drunk” and a classic offender of “self will run riot.” He is behaving like most Patriarcal abusers that we see alot in his age group (the throwbacks to the mid 20th century paradigm)- practiconers of the “power over” mentality aka “Do what I say and nobody gets hurt”. You know the one…”Big Daddy answers to nobody but the boss” and in this case, the boss is GOD (which brings me to the next point).
2. As far as the God issue, Bush is displaying none of the qualities Christ would and is hiding behind his “apparent” faith and righteousness. I don’t know what I hate more, the arrogance and mendacity of this style of misrepresentation or the Southern Baptist Convention that has supported him on the grounds of “Family Values” and the other NeoCons of the radical right that were highly influential in putting “Captain Fuck-Up Gone Dictator” into power. “Dictator” hmm… that brings me to the next point.
3. In resoponse the comment number 20- “A president who has claimed absolute power based on a couple of stray clauses in the Constitution  a few thoughts.
I have seen him myself say in his own words “This would be a much easier job if I were dictator” in an candid moment on TV I saw about three or four years ago. I couldnt believe my eyes and ears at the time.
Most people do not know about is Bush’s move on October 17th toward martial law in the signing of the “Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency†and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.â€
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”
With all this said, all Bush has to do is to declare Martial Law (as he has the power now to do so at any time) and elections can be suspended. With this he can stay in office as long as he is alive and/or willing to make the call to return to the election process… say after we win “The War on Terrorism” (you know the war that is the vague and open ended definintion that has no real quantifyable way of deturmining victory or defeat-the endless meal ticket for the defense contractors and other war profiteering cartel members like the Bush family itself kinda war).
All we can do is bug the shit out of our representatives, be mad and constructively channel our discontent in effective ways and vote in a responsibe and informed manner and lastly – never give up!
Comment by MeltingLiberty —
May 1, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
To add to my entry #62- There is no question this person is a Dictator in need of chaos (chaos and drama being another quality untreated alcoholics seem to create ariund them). Without this “War”, Bush faces the the threat of becoming a vulnerable, irrelevant national leader/war criminal. The next year if not the next few months are going to get very colorful I predict. I am including a link to Bush’s Costitutional Record. FYI
Just enjoy it!
Comment by ratty pilgrim —
May 1, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
To those who put the question. “If 43 was drinking again wouldn’t it become obvious at some point?” Just look at his speech in Tipp City a couple of weeks ago. He WAS slurring his speech, speaking haltingly, slowly, at times. It’s even more mind blowing when you read the entire transcript. It is one rambling, senseless babble. He also uses overblown handmotions (especially the one where he spreads his hands over his chest). It was on the White House web site for a short time and was quickly removed. If he had a history of Epilepsy, as one here has suggested, there is no way that could have been kept hidden for his entire life. In fact, it would have given him an honorable draft deferment.
Comment by Richard Cownie —
May 31, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
I can’t believe the epilepsy idea: he may have
gone AWOL, but he definitely *did* fly jet
fighters, and no matter what strings he pulled
that couldn’t have happened if he was prone to
seizures.
The drinking sounds frighteningly plausible: he
always looks and sounds drunk to me, so I guess
I can’t judge. Who has evidence ? And how can
we get more evidence ? Could some reporter just
ask him point-blank how much alcohol he’s drunk
in the last month ? I kinda expect we’d get a
non-denial denial, but the precise wording
might be interesting.
Comment by sparky —
June 1, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
To Mona: Oh, no. Trust me, if you’re a “professional” drunk, you can still get up early. Unfortunately, that gives that idiot (drunk or not) more time to screw things up.
To John Emerson (post #13): You are absolutely right: Good “professional” drunks don’t get hangovers.
To the rest of the posters: I did not read all of your posts. But, I think it’s time to do something about my own drinking. At least I don’t drink and drive! Nor do I threaten “Nuke and Puke.”
Really, thank you all very much.