1
   

True Grit: Bush Style

 
 
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 11:09 pm
Bush picks for Cabinet have shared trait: Grit

By Frank James
Washington Bureau
Published December 4, 2004

WASHINGTON -- If there is a pattern in President Bush's choices for key posts in his second term, it's that the people he has selected often have extraordinary personal stories of having succeeded after overcoming great obstacles.

The trend continued this week as the president announced more changes in his Cabinet.

On Friday, Bush said Bernard Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner, high school dropout and son of a convicted prostitute who abandoned him early in life, was his nominee to be the new secretary of the Homeland Security Department.

The president hails from an elite family and attended Yale and Harvard Universities. But he was raised in West Texas and appears drawn to people whose life stories show they achieved beyond most expectations, say experts who have studied Bush's presidency and life.

And the president sees something of himself in their stories, students of Bush say, for the president believes that, like himself, they have done better than others thought they would.

Commerce Secretary-designate Carlos Gutierrez, a Cuban immigrant who rose from a Kellogg Co. truck driver to become the company's chief executive officer in what Bush called "a great American success story," is an example.

Alberto Gonzales Jr., someone from a poor Mexican-American family who became Bush's White House counsel, is his pick to be attorney general.

Another example is National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, nominated by Bush to be the first black woman to serve as secretary of state. She was raised in segregated Birmingham, Ala., where one of her friends was killed in the infamous 1963 church-bombing by white racists that left four young girls dead.

A divergent path

The president seems to breaking the mold among the nation's chief executives in the importance he appears to place on the self-made aspect of Cabinet picks.

"Go back and look at the people who served in Cabinets," says Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution. "They weren't chosen this way. In some ways their stories were irrelevant. This is the first president, maybe, where the most important thing is the story."

Other presidents chose Cabinet members because they needed someone who knew how to balance the budget or who was a Catholic, said Hess. Or in the case of the Interior Department, it was long thought essential to get a governor from a Western state, he added.

"When so many have wonderful stories you start to wonder, maybe he is looking for wonderful stories," Hess said.

Experts say the president also views the triumph-over-adversity story as quintessentially American, reflecting his belief in the nation's self-image as the greatest land of opportunity ever known.

At a news conference while still president-elect in 2000, Bush was asked if he meant to send a message by choosing numerous women, immigrants and minorities for his Cabinet, many of whom Bush described as having "wonderful stories."

"You bet," Bush said. "That people who work hard and make the right decisions in life can achieve anything they want in America."

Some who have studied Bush's life believe stories about hardships surmounted appeal to Bush's Texas spirit.

"It goes back to his entrepreneurial background in Midland, Texas, looking for oil wells and that kind of pioneering spirit they had back in Midland where you valued the American dream, and that's what this is all about," said Ronald Kessler, a journalist who wrote "A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush."

While many observers view Bush as a scion of wealth, Kessler says that's not accurate. Bush received about $50,000 left over from an education trust fund but didn't strike it rich until he sold his stake in the Texas Rangers baseball team for about $15 million in 1998.

"Certainly having the Bush name helped with connections and opened doors but most of it was on his own," Kessler said.

Robert Dallek, a presidential historian, said he believes Bush is drawn to people like Kerik and Gutierrez because of an antipathy toward the old guard of the Republican Party.

"He doesn't like that old Republican Party, that old Northeastern Establishment ... What he likes are people who aren't part of any fixed old-style establishment," Dallek said. "That's how he identifies himself. He's comfortable with those folks."

Peter Schweizer, who co-authored "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty" and interviewed Bush family members for the book, says the president had the burden of having to measure up to an extremely successful father, former President George H.W. Bush.

"By no means does he equate his childhood burdens with his father with escaping Cuba," said Schweizer, "but that sense of overcoming barriers, whatever they might be, is something that he could very much identify with."

Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at George Washington University, concurs. Frank also is a psychoanalyst who wrote a book called "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."

Change came at 40

"Until he was 40 he was not self-made at all," Frank said. "He was completely dependent on his parents, on his name ... on his alcohol. When he stopped drinking and found religion he became, in his view, self-made. He essentially admired and idealized this aspect of himself. So, in that sense it's an extremely positive feeling for him," which he recognizes in others.

The downside of this sense that one was self-made, experts said, is that it can lead to being impervious to others' opinions and a disdain for those who haven't figured out how to better their circumstances.

Americans and perhaps humans generally are impressed by up-by-the-bootstraps stories, and Bush is no exception. But he may even be more smitten with such stories than the typical politician.

In Schweizer's conversations with Bush family members, they described Bush as more a student of people than ideas.

"If you look at everything from prep school to college to his early forays into politics, he has always been a student of people, more than interested in abstract ideas or policy questions, and I think that comes through in the kind of Cabinet people he is picking," Schweizer said.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 944 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 08:46 am
That's odd. I thought he picked for the one thing that they all have in common. They share his opinions. Bush has rid himself of any dissenting voices and this has homogonized his cabinet to people who thik just like him. There will be no dialogue on ideas - just how to get those ideas done. This is not a good thing in my opinion.

TF
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 09:45 am
That's the great thing about this country. All opinions are welcome and valid. If you disagree with anything, you have a Constitutional right to voice your opinion.

Of course, when you're through talking, the next logical step is to go out and do something about it.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 09:49 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
That's odd. I thought he picked for the one thing that they all have in common. They share his opinions. Bush has rid himself of any dissenting voices and this has homogonized his cabinet to people who thik just like him. There will be no dialogue on ideas - just how to get those ideas done. This is not a good thing in my opinion.

TF


There are many paths to a common goal. Those who share the same ideological goals can have very spirited debates on the means of achieving them. That is what a cabinet is for, is it not?
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 09:35 pm
As Shaft said Just Wonders 'You damned right!' Wink I agree completely.

Larry:

Not so sure. There isn't any debate in an echo chamber. I know Colin Powell was a moderate voice for the Bush cabinet and now he is gone. Condi Rice is not a moderate - she is all over Bush's plans and I don't think you will hear any debate there.

You said above that there can be spirited debates on how to achieve goals - I think the point of debate is to question goals and wonder whether they are worthwhile.

TF
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 09:50 pm
"Dirty" politics cannot exist without "grit".

"Grit" is abrasive, and erodes whatever it abrades...

(Ever see what "grit" can do to a floor?)
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 11:23 pm
Condi Rice is one of the 'Vulcans' as they are known. Hanger-ons from the Reagan and first Bush Presidencies and able to take advantage of the chronic flaws in Dubya's lack of well... just about everything:
Richard Armitage
Robert Zoellick
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert Blackwill
Richard Perle
Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney
Colin Powell (must have been a suprise to him!)

I'm sure that with the kind of control that this mob exercise within the White House and in the administration there is going to be very little dissent or self-analysis.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 11:31 pm
I am just reading about them!

Spooky stuff....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2004 11:45 pm
Re: True Grit: Bush Style
JustWonders wrote:
Bush picks for Cabinet have shared trait: Grit

By Frank James
Washington Bureau
Published December 4, 2004

WASHINGTON -- If there is a pattern in President Bush's choices for key posts in his second term, it's that the people he has selected often have extraordinary personal stories of having succeeded after overcoming great obstacles.


I kind of like that. Particularly in contrast to the Clinton regime. I love the idea of a guy who drove a truck for a living running some major agency. Neither one of the Clintons, as I've read it, has ever had a driver's license nor has any idea how to drive a car, much less a truck.

Democrats seem to want to provide us with public servants who've spent their lives in ivory towers studying communism or French poetry. I like the real-world approach better.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 12:27 am
The sycophants of the Prescott/Walker/Bush Dynasty are always amusing when they attempt to strike the "common man" pose for their masters.

Yeah, "have a beer with W..." THAT's the ticket!

Ludicrous!
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 11:24 am
Actually, the Cabinet can be almost anything the President wants it to be. Of course, the Cabinet Secretaries are the day-to-day managers of substantial parts fo the Executive Branch, and as such their various departments are expected to reflect the values of the Secetary. Cabinet level appontments are vetted by the Senate who are to "advise and consent" to the President's choices. They usually do.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 05:10 pm
The system of "Checks and Balances" is designed to minimize the effect of a President's caprices and whimsies ("almost anything the President wants it to be").
When that system of checks and balances is nullified, the Democratic Process is as well.

Our predecessors had very good reasons for mandating Congressional approval of Cabinet appointees... the President is NOT intended to be Monarch, Imperator or Dictator.
0 Replies
 
DimestoreDiva
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 08:24 pm
Quote:
Neither one of the Clintons, as I've read it, has ever had a driver's license nor has any idea how to drive a car, much less a truck.


As you have read it? I am not going to even ask where you think you read that. Oh, Clinton had people killed, you probably read that too. Sad thing is you believe this crap.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 02:36 pm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 01:02 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
That's odd. I thought he picked for the one thing that they all have in common. They share his opinions. Bush has rid himself of any dissenting voices and this has homogonized his cabinet to people who thik just like him. There will be no dialogue on ideas - just how to get those ideas done. This is not a good thing in my opinion.

TF


We elect a president. We do not elect the president's cabinet.

Why would we want a cabinet consisting of people who are going to fight the policy decisions of the person we elected?

It does not follow that the appointment of loyalists to the cabinet precludes the proffering of alternative positions during policy deliberations.

What it suggests is the perfectly reasonable desire of the president to have his administration present a united front once policy decisions are made.

Opponents of Bush will think the worst relative to his approach to filling his cabinet. What else is new?

I don't want an unelected cabinet to independently set policy. If you do, I would suggest that you are among those who hope that the cabinet members might set policy in opposition to the president for whom you did not vote.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » True Grit: Bush Style
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 06:02:51