Liberal sources have been circulating a google video of Bush at the G8 apparently drinking a beer. Bush, a recovering alcoholic who is a teetotaler, says he has not taken a drink since he was 40.
The BBC says US officials insist it was a non-alcoholic beer. There's been very little coverage of this in the US media because it's what we call unsubstantiated.
As a liberal, this makes me cringe. If the same howling mob were exercising their schadenfreude at a liberal's peccadillos and lazily blowing up something in the press that was this minor and unprovable, you'd all be crying foul and running to mediamatters.
For those of you really interested in being active in politics: don't speculate. Confirm, or be respectful, even of your enemies, or you will lose credibility and run yourself risk of being quoted as unreasonable by third parties at a later date. Maybe even the more gossipy people on your own side, who may be running against you at some point.
This whole thing really doesn't add to the quality of political discourse, in my opinion.
--
Shava Nerad, News and Opinion Correspondent:
Shava’s column, Iconoclasm, published several times a week to Gather Essentials: Newsis an examination of the provocative ideas emerging in media and world culture behind the news.
Shava Nerad has been working on the Internet for twenty-five years, at the boundaries of Internet and social issues. She is executive director of The Tor Project as her day job. She lives in Somerville, MA with her teenage son, her fiance (a professional magician and fundraising coach), and a corgi/dachshund mutt named George.
Opinions here have nothing to do with Tor.
You can find all of Shava's Iconoclasm columns at http://Iconoclasm.gather.com
Keep up with Shava’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network -- just click here and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page (colleage connections only please, unless you know me on the street!)
You’ll find Shava and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
One of my friends is an alchoholic, and to him, in his opinion, he cannot drink "near" beer. He does not tempt himself because he knows well where it could lead. This stuff is not a joke. I think it is a really bad mistake to have ever elected a president who had a drug problem. I think it speaks to a lack of character and integrity, and I do not know if Bush was the first one, but I do know there many many people who have finally had to stop supporting him.
I am not and never was a Bush supporter. I have supported the war in Afghanistan, and I support an effort in Iraq, but I have to say that Bush and his hawkish advisors have done such a poor job at all aspects of this effort that I must call it incompetent. I think the only thing President Bush has ever had right was that action against Islamic Nazism needs to be stood up to, and destroyed.
If US officials said it was a non-alchoholic beer, what are we to make of that, since almost everything to come out of the Bush administration has been modified to hide the reality of whatever? For me it is just another boulder on the huge heavy load this country has to bear for another year and half.
As to the Prez & his beer, you're absolutely right about substantiation, Shava. Hell, it could have been a root beer. Bush isn't nearly as stupid as all you southpaws like to claim, but no way would he drink a beer in public.
Some of the best words to writers, reporters and speakers that I've ever heard. Thank you for sharing them.
The motivating issue I see behind the interest in this is a desire to catch Buford W. in every lie or subterfuge that he can be caught in. From one angle, so much flap was made over Clinton's sex scandal smoke and so little has been made over Buford's cloud for war that rivals must apparently turn to the moral arenas to find something that might effect the psyche of current Americans.
He will leave a contentious legacy.
That said, since the "liberal media" has never bothered to focus on those rather obvious signs of trouble, it seems a bit absurd to focus on him sipping a low-alcoholic content beer.
"The Dems haven't done s--t since obtaining their "majority" in Congress
Yes, they actually have done quite a bit, especially considering that they don't have a strong majority, and are facing pure obstructionism from the republicans. Let's not forget that congressional oversight disappeared entirely for 6 years.
The new congress is not only moving forward with important legislation (one of the biggest things that they were faced with immediately on was finishing the appropriations bill that the republicans were too lazy to too in 2006), but has, at the same time, been carrying out critically important and long overdue oversight of this highly corrupt executive branch.
I agree (and so do many conservatives!) that Bush will leave a contentious legacy. But I suspect that focusing on his postulated status as a dry drunk is a decoy.
Remember that, regardless of party, when we elect a president we don't just elect a personality. He is a CEO with completely insufficient time to run a country -- we elect him, and his advisors who become his cabinet, his 5000 appointees, the boards of advisors to the executive branch and so on.
I truly suspect that many reasonable conservatives (and remember, I grew up with Jeffords) would have come into this whole presidency with mixed feelings just looking at the PNAC cabal Bush swept into DC -- but frankly, just as Democrats are not all poli sci majors, I think most Republicans don't get into the nuances of "neo-conservativism" and other utopian non-pragmatic movements in their party, they just see the label and think "ah, that sounds nice" and hit the lever for the R's on the ticket.
they just see the label and think "ah, that sounds nice" and hit the lever for the R's on the ticket. I think this appies to too many people of all affiliations. They don't do their homework beore voting and vote only for name recognition, party or some other equally trivial detail about a candidate.
It takes more people than one to run the ship of state, and these days that ship is like an aircraft carrier, like a city to itself. The chain of command is vital, and all of it must be excellent, for the good of the country.
Really, the role of the presidential candidate is to get elected. Our process doesn't select, with modern media, for the best administrator or leader. So we must be doubly vigilant and mark the character of the company s/he keeps.
*yawn*
Yesterday's news. He doesn't even know HOW to tell the truth. Ever.
Too bad he didn't keep drinking.
Maybe he HAS begun again.
Cirrhosis would be such a fitting fate for this mass murderer.