I've spoken with a more than a few people in the last few years who have the opinion that President Shrub is a great American. He's honest and sincere. And who can forget that he's also a self titled "compassionate conservative." But I don't buy it.
Now I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or Communist — a politician is a politician and I don't believe any of them are really, truly, honest or compassionate. Especially once they have made it to the big leagues.
So it came as little surprise when I found the following story:
His smiling response was swift: "Who cares what you think?"
Nice.
In his defense it's possible he was suffering from another drug flashback at that moment. And who wouldn't snap if you're suffering one of those!
Addendum — In order to be fair and non-partisan as possible. *wink*
It appears that John Kerry could also use a lesson in acceptable Presidential behavior. After falling on a ski slope due to an accidental brush with a Secret Service agent, Kerry called the man a not so nice string of three words (not displayed here to protect the innocent and Pennsylvania Amish). This strikes me as odd considering the very man John unloaded on is sworn to protect him at all costs, including but not restricted too, taking a bullet for the presidential hopeful.
What an asshat.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Hey, at least he's consistent. He's always been a prick to me.
Shocked. I am just shocked.
I'm surprised he smiled when he said it. I'm guessing there were cameras present.
It is not surprising that Bill Hangley Jr works for a non profit. These types usually want warm & fuzzy. Not saying there is anything wrong with warm & fuzzy- just perhaps that Non Profits attract the sort of people who are surprised when the most powerful world leader isn't accomidating to his dissapproval.
I’ve worked for non-profits for nine years and don’t know that I would ever expect the President of the United Stats to be warm and fuzzy. In fact, that would kind of freak me out.
But I do expect the President (whomever it may be) to respond in a manner befitting the Office of the President of the United States, not as some everyday jerk.
thats true.
He's truely the worst President in history. I hope he only serves 4. Vote him out.
I voted for Bush in 2000 and will not be voting for... anyone... in 2004. Neither choice is a good one, and I can't bring myself to support either party.
However...
What would you expect him to say in that situation? Try to think of Bush as a regular person (like you) instead of the President - some random guy comes up to him and says, in no uncertain terms, "I've made up my mind about 2004 after only six months, and I hate you" - and you wanted him to say... what? It's not like he was in a position where he could stop the whole event and spend an hour talking to this guy about his disappointment, nor do I imagine he thought it worth the effort ("No Laura, let me talk to him - these Salon guys have always given me a fair chance!").
It seems to me that the Salon guy knew he could get his comment in without having to debate the merit of his opinion with Bush. Now, he could've used the opportunity to ask a really straightforward/poignant question, something he could use for a real article, but instead he just told him off. Fine, it's his right to do so, but if I were in Bush's shoes and no one could hear, I would probably use the same line. What else is there to say?
I don't know if I could have pulled it off with the smile, though...
Ya, I am not a Bush supporter by any means, but I would have said the same thing. Who does really care? It's one vote out of the pack. My mind is literally overloaded with extremes I could take this to.
I answer, "no one does!" so shut up and get over it.
I completely agree with Bob on this one. What did he really expect Bush's response to be? "Gee.. thanks!". It was a exchange of opinions. Bush is used to such comments and prolly came out unscathed. The guy from Salon prolly got a severe dose of a reality check.
A better response for Bush to a comment like that whould have been; "Fu** you very much!" (with a big smile of course)
and he couldn't have said something diplomatic, like: "Well I'm sorry, you feel that way . . . "?
The bf and I just had an argument on that very point, Harry. Bf thought that Bush is a human and should be allowed to respond however he wants. I think whoever's the Prez should be diplomatic. I imagined that if the incident happened to Clinton instead of Bush, he would have said something like "I'm sorry you feel that way" etc. What's interesting about that is that Bush lovers might say that made Clinton a bad president because he was a "schmoozer" (and Bush is "truthful"..haha). If you're a Bush hater, then you think that makes Bush a bad president because he lacks diplomacy, and diplomacy is essential to his job. No wonder the rest of the world hates the US.
The rest of the world hates the US because we're successful, much the same as you probably hate the guys they promoted over you. Think about it. A country of 300 million basically controls the economy and politics of 6 billion. Do we expect the world to say, "Thanks."
The rest of the world hates the U.S. because a lot of us think just like you, only with not so many numbers.
Thankfully, I'm not one of them.
The rest of the world hates the U.S. largely because, after the outpouring of sympathy and friendship the world showed us after 9/11, when it came to invading Iraq, our diplomacy-challenged president told the rest of the world, "Who cares what you think?"
Greg, you are inconsistent. You complain about the President not being "honest and sincere" and then when he is, you complain about him not being friendly. You can't have it both ways my friend.
So you're suggesting that we elected a jerk so deal with it?
That's like saying we elected a sex addict so deal with it, in regards to President Clinton.
The President of the United States is bound to the duty and dignity of the Office. I would expect no less of Shrub than I would any past or future president. A low-brow, knee jerk, politician is something I would expect from a small town council, not the Whitehouse.
The rest of the world hates the US because we're successful
Wrong. The rest of the world hates us because we are successful and smug, gluttonous, and arrogant, a set of traits Mr. Bush has done nothing to dispel.
"Who cares what you think?"
Not a very Christian thing to say when you brag about being a born-again Christian... especially while attending a church picnic.
Wow. The venom people have towards Bush is unreal. Never before has anyone been held to this high of standard. Greg is comparing a rude comment to adultery and no one cares to point out the obvious difference.
I'm not saying what he said was the best choice he could have made, but goodness, who among us hasn't been short with someone. And truly none among us knows what it's like to live under that kind of pressure.
You know what American's do best? Judge.
Greg is comparing a rude comment to adultery
Leon, I'm confused. Where does it say anything about adultery?
Leon's right, I hinted at adultery when I should have said, we elected a liar so deal with it.
Clinton's problem was that he lied to Congress under oath, not his hallway activities. That and getting caught red handed.
“Who cares what you think?"
Wow, a democratic politician caught in a moment of honesty.
I think it works on so many levels.
I do think it’s wrong to draw any conclusions just because the response is consistent with someone you wouldn’t want making any decisions that effect you. There could have been mitigating circumstances, the event could be misrepresented or it could even a fabrication.
I have no faith based associations myself, but I believe a venue appropriate response might have been “Jesus does, sirâ€
I suppose you can put Clinton's lies and Bush's lies on a scale and see which way it tips...
Just yesterday I listened to an interview with Richard Clarke, George Bush's former anti-terrorism adviser tell 60 Minutes that soon after the attacks, Bush demanded to know whether Iraq was behind them. When Clarke told him intelligence found no link, "He came back at me and said: 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way."
After experts concluded again that Saddam Hussein played no role, Clarke said, his memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. Do it again.' "
Clarke's memo was returned because Tenet had already "told the president that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack," the White House said.
So George W. gives the order to enter Iraq, gives it a sugar-coated name, like "Operation I Will Succees Where My Dad Failed" and off we go, looking for "WMD's" that apparently no one has been able to find.
But let's put it all in perspective. Clinton lied about getting laid. Bush lied about WMD's so that we would have an excuse to invade a country. To even put these 2 lies on the same plane of existence is absolutely ridiculous! Since when did infidelity compromise our national security?
Far from me to continue this off-topic complaint or to be an apologist for a philanderer I didn't vote for, but:
Clinton Lies = A Semen Stain is Elevated to Newsworthiness
Bush Lies = Many dead, billions spent, credibility for our nation lost
'Nuff said.
I'm not shocked at all.. If you say that to anyone, especially the president, you're likely to offend them.. plus, the president is a freeman.. he can say what he wants. its completely acceptable for him to say "who cares what you think?" .. why should he be downed on
‘its completely acceptable for him to say "who cares what you think?"’
I’m concerned you think that.
I don’t hold myself to very high standards, but even I’m not so openly egocentric to say something like that to a critic (and not with insincerity so practiced as to smile while insulting someone).
I’m not absolutely certain, but I’m at least operating under the assumption that the US is a democratic republic sort of society. To the best of my reckoning, I think that may be a reasonably good sort of society. Leaders in that sort of society who might reflexively ‘not care’ about criticisms from those they represent, are probably less than ideal candidates for their role.
If the incident really did happen, it’s not the “who cares†statement that’s troubling (not really that offensive as a one off), it’s the reflex nature of it (not a lot of time to think while you’re shaking hands). It could be seen as a sign of the nature of the man’s mind.
JB: Clarke is now working for the Kerry campaign. [Goes to motive.] When the report was sent back, the reason was to get the latest info... update it. Very common practice in the Intel process.
Beerzie: You can believe what you choose to believe. I would wager that no amount of evidence would change your mind.
To make much ado about this single, supposed comment is only highlighting the agenda of the left to demonize their opposition. Pretty obvious to thinking persons.
“Beerzie: You can believe what you choose to believe. I would wager that no amount of evidence would change your mind.â€
Probably true enough, but I wouldn’t go pointing any fingers.
As far as I can tell, the teams we belong to are as much a haphazard matter of proximity as anything else (think baseball). Then having embraced the team as part of our selves, we dogmatically cast all things ‘us’ as good, and all things ‘them’ as necessarily bad (it’s not the thing, but which team does it).
Don’t let evidence get in the way of a good thing.
It all comes down to tact.
He's human. We know. But, he's also the person representing our country. That alone calls for extreme lacks of privacy, expression, and freedoms. In certain terms, he's no longer a person, but a pawn.
When my international friends think of America, they associate it immediately with its leader. That's what they're suppose to do. "If their representative is like that, and they elected him, then some of them must be like him, one way or another." Now, I know there are some Americans who are just as bigoted, tactless, and duplicitous as he, but they aren't all of America and they aren't the ones being surveillanced by the entire world.
I know a lot of people and George W. Bush doesn't serve us well as a representative. His needs, wants, and desires don't match ours. That's why we want him gone.
TD, I would love to hear more about Clarke working for the Kerry campaign. Do you have references of this information?
As I recall, Clarke is a registered Republican.
Actually I know that Clarke is a friend of Kerry, quite possibly now working for the campaign...
However, a politician that knows how to work the system would not make allegations that strong unless there was a whole lot of proof to back them up.
I fell to my knees crying mercy the day he became president.
It's all so wrong and it's all so evil.
ag wrote: As far as I can tell, the teams we belong to are as much a haphazard matter of proximity as anything else (think baseball). Then having embraced the team as part of our selves, we dogmatically cast all things ‘us’ as good, and all things ‘them’ as necessarily bad (it’s not the thing, but which team does it).
Don’t let evidence get in the way of a good thing.
I didn't join any team. (Registered independant)
I vote for whichever candidate most closely reflects my views. As it turns out, that person is most often a Republican, but your comment tells us that's not how you choose to view things.
The timing of Clarke's announcement so clearly coincides with the launch of his new book that it's impossible to not see this as a money-grab with hints of revenge due to his "realigned" career path via Bush. Viacom is the publisher of both Clarke's book and 60 Minutes who "broke" the story. Link.
Clarke may or may not be a registered Republican at this moment but records show he has only given money to the Democrats in the past 10 years.
Link.
This whole issue is fabricated, believe it and show your naivete. Propagate it and show your character.
TD, you still haven't provided evidence that Clarke is working for the Kerry campaign as you stated. It would appear to me that you are grasping at straws.
“I didn't join any team. (Registered independent)â€
TD, in the same line you claim no team and then proceed to name the team you belong to (Registered independent). Then after declaring your independence, you boldly proceed to assert your alignment as most often Republican (to indicate the correctness of the Republican team to the rest of us, I guess). Perhaps a little introspection is in order.
I'm not a registered anything, but in the terms of what I was saying before, I belong to at least three dozen major teams (each for a different 'sport' so to speak).
Sounds to me like some of you have already made up your minds before all the facts are out.