Anyone still undecided about whether Bush is capable to serve a second term?

If so they should read this article in The New York Times Magazine. It's a disturbing portrait of a man who is wilting under the pressure of the job. It also answers my question of almost a year ago Is Bush the man to carry out the Bush doctrine? and the answer, simply & based on his ability to ask questions and process information, is thumbs-down. It takes more than faith to win a war.

(Btw, I know that there are a few rational pro-Bush people out there and I would be curious to get there take on the article --- and not just a dismissive "Oh it's from the NYT.")

UPDATE: Q.E.D.:

This President doesn't learn from his mistakes because he doesn't think he has ever made any.

Comments

[Glen Raphael]

As a third-party observer, my reaction was "oh, it's the New York Times". :-)

The writer didn't seem so much bothered that Bush bases decisions on faith as that he bases them on the wrong faith. The tip-off was the question on "peak oil" - was there anything logically wrong with Bush's response? No, what was wrong was only that he failed to express piety towards a few religious tenets of the faith of environmentalism. After reading Earth in the Balance I found Gore frightening for the same reason this author finds Bush frightening - he was proposing to reorganize society based on a viewpoint I didn't share, a viewpoint that seemed immune to rational debate.

It might be interesting to contrast Kerry with Bush in regards to this issue, but it makes no sense to simply assume Kerry would be better. Kerry hasn't been President yet. the power of the Presidency corrupts just about everybody the same way it did Bush. That's why we have limited terms, to limit the damage any single emperor of ours can do.

"politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly."

[TM Lutas]

After slogging through 11 pages, my conclusion is that it's a hit piece, and not to be relied on. It would be shocking, if true, that the Washington officials who surround Bush and are supposedly upset at his unwillingness to give evidence to doubters are collectively unable to work in the biblical admonition that Jesus gave to his own doubting apostle.

No doubt having somebody stick his hand into a 3 day old chest wound and sever leg and arm wounds is extremely uncomfortable and painful but Jesus insisted on the painful indignity and when Thomas proclaimed his belief Jesus blessed him. Even if you're a jew, muslim, or atheist, any politician or bureaucrat worth his salt could trot down to the nearest Methodist preacher to get some theological pointers on this subject. The supposed fact that neither Democrat nor Republican Washington has been unable to deliver the message in the language of Bush's own faith would be a damning indictment if true.

Everybody knows to hone their golf skills if the new boss is an avid golfer. It just goes with the territory of needing to speak the boss' language. With prayer and faith being such a central part of the Bush 2000 campaign, the lack of the DC bipartisan mandarinate to make similar accommodations would speak to its own bigotry.

I think instead that Susskind is making what Democrats would call "an illegal in-kind campaign contribution" if it were done the other way around.

[bkmiller]

Well, without being too harsh, I would certainly hope that a rational writer WOULD question the religious ideology of a President and his supporters who believes that God personally directs his policy decisions, said decisions should thus be unquestioned, and that Middle Eastern policies are particularly appropriate when they are aimed at bringing about "The Rapture" and the end of the world.

But, then, I am just a doomed agnostic liberal pointy headed democrat, so my opinions do not matter when it comes to the uniquely blessed status of The Annointed One.