-
Website
http://blogs.nashuatelegraph.com/TheEditor'sBlog -
Original page
http://blogs.nashuatelegraph.com/theeditorsblog/2007/08/16/some-readers-offended-by-bush-brain-headline/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I see no problem using the heading :Bush's Brain. If the neo-conservatives have a problem with it, they need to get a more interesting life and stop focusing on trivia.
When you mention "the King", you obviously mean Elvis. "King of Soul", the late, great Mr. Brown. "Prince of Pop"... I could go on and on. The point I want to make is that Karl Rove WAS Mr. Bush's brain-trust, and whether you like our President or not, he was the brain-cell behind the power. He's a very intelligent, (and tries to be an) insightful man. Yes, BUSH'S BRAIN fits perfectly. It's a perfect moniker for him.
Perhaps those individuals who didn't appreciate the "Bush's Brain" moniker would have preferred President Bush's own nick name for Mr Rove: Turd Blossom.
What's the problem? Not everyone gets to upgrade there brain power with a resignation. I just hope his next brain has a moral compass!
You have the Office of the President and you have the indivual that occupies that office. The words Bush's Brain were not disrespectable to the Office of the President as they were directed at the individual.
Just as Clinton deserved critism for his conduct so does Bush deserve critism for his. What he has done to the US Military and the civilians of Iraq is immoral if not criminal.
Go to You Tube and listen to what Cheney had to say in 1994 about invading Iraq. His words were the truth in 2003 but Bush chose to lie.
Incredibly smart... intellectually dominating... Sounds like "Brain" is a very apt description.
From the News Hour, August 17th, 2007
DAVID BROOKS: Listen, in the White House -- one of the things, if you interview Rove, which I've done many times, he is always cheerful. He's a pleasure to be around. He's incredibly smart, and he can talk to you about anything knowledgably and interestingly. And so he intellectually dominated the White House, I would say. And he had the trust of Bush, because he'd been there with Bush since before the beginning.
Karl Rove has one of the most polarizing political operatives in out history. The fact the Bush sanctioned some of his manuevers indicates the basic charecter of the current president. Enough said. I am tired of hearing that the office of the president desrves respect no matter the occupent. respect and trust is earned nor arbitrarily given, particularly after 6 years of lies, half truths and idealogical agendas.
Great minds, or at least a great many minds have the same idea. Daryl Cagle a professional cartoonist was very upset with him self for a very similar reason. He and several other cartoonist used almost identical "Brain" cartoon on the subject. Not plagiarizers, just something he calls a yahtzee. See his blog here: http://cagle.com/news/blog/ for his comments and "Rove Resigns" on his Professional Cartoonist Net work here: http://cagle.com/news/RoveResigns/main.asp<br>
It wouldn't surprise me any if a Google search on the phrase "Bush's Brain" pulled up a lot of headlines with the same or similar wording.
I doubt the Telegraphs use of the phrase was politically motivated.
More likely it was the obvious choice. Which in a way makes it a very poor, and unoriginal choice.
OK, political stuff, and minds won't be changed. Personally I object to these kind of headlines, with double meanings, more designed to sell papers than to get the facts out. Polarazing figures usually don't need
this kind of pejorative headline, and I would have opted for the high road myself. But it's not "Hurst creating the Spanish AMerican War journalis." That said, there is plently you could be doing to get Congress to Co-operate and start to
act. I don't think you need the list of problems.
While Hodes and Judd are home, why don't you have an intelligent converasation with them and get their input on how to proceed? Slogans and headlines don't solve problems. In depth interviews with salient facts are more helpful, in my view.
I had no problem with the headline since I believe it to be the literal as well as the metaphorical truth. George W. Bush has to be one of the most unintelligent, uninformed, unreflective individuals ever to occupy the Oval Office. As far as I am concerned, the man (or woman) and the office are inextricable. One can respect both or none, depending upon the office's occupant. Sad to say, I have had no respect for either since January of 2001.
I was offended by the headline since it seemed more of an editorial comment than hard-fact and as a supporter of the President, I've also grown tired of the constant slams against him over the last 7 years. I never liked the "Bush's brain" label or use. Maybe if there was more equitable headline treatment of conservative vs. liberal politicians in the news I wouldn't have given it another thought. Suffering through 8 torturous years of a Clinton presidency, I do not recall such headlines against him in major news publications. When Dick Morris left the White House, was there a headline "Clinton's Sex Spinner" or "Clinton's Climax Negotiator"?
Whether or not you agree that the moniker is fitting, I don't think it belongs in a front page headline, or in a news story period. It is too easily viewed as a pejorative, and could therefore be reasonably interpreted as bias. The fact that "Rove has been referred to as such numerous times over the years" is a pretty poor excuse. In general, I think the newspaper should be focused on reporting news, not making news.
I will bet that the person who came up with that headline is a liberal Democrat. The attempt is to paint Bush as "having no brain" and that he marched in subordination to Rove. The same headline would not have been used when Dick Morris resigned under President Clinton. The prevailing truth is that news is liberal in this country and the consensus among the journalist elite is that Conservative Republican Presidents are either lazy or stupid and Liberal Democratic Presidents are too smart to be understood. It has fooled tha masses so why not keep using it.
Enough with the blind allefiance to whomever is the head of ones personal political party...
I thought it was funny and fitting. (and an intersting visual if taken quite literally.)
Regardless of which party he belongs to, our current president is the perfect illustration of the Douglass Adams quote: Any person capable of becoming president shouldn't be allowed to have the job. (or something to that effect)
It seems to me that people are translating a simple news headline into an opinion on the intelligence level of the politically conservative.
If you're that oversensitive to something so small, the problem isn't this newspaper's political leanings. The problem is low self-esteem.
Please check out Sunday's op-ed page to find out where Gary Vincent, our independent reader advocate, comes down on this particular issue -- as well as several others raised by our readers. In the meantime, thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond to my query.
There have not been 7 years name calling. Bush entered office with a favorable opinion rating which skyrocketed after September 11 and stayed high during the Afghanistan invasion. It wasn't until he failed to get Osama and started the Iraq war that his numbers went South.
Check out www.pollingreport.com</p>