• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Interesting Story About George W. Bush


Problematic Shitlord
I have to admit, I was surprised and somewhat pleased to read this, bear in mind it was written in 2005:


I have known President Bush for 40 years -- ever since we attended Yale College together in the 1960s. I'm a Democrat (and I was a Democrat then), but I liked him and I still like him, as a sincere and kind man and a good friend.

Because I've known him for so long, it was clear to me when he first began running for president that he could beat Al Gore, and I warned Gore of that early on. I knew it then (and again in 2004) because I knew, from my earliest memories of George W. Bush, that not only did people routinely underestimate him -- but that he encouraged them to do so. Ask Ann Richards, who was 20 points ahead in the closing weeks of Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas but lost to him after his last-minute surge.

The master of low expectations -- that is my clearest, and fondest, memory of George Bush at Yale. We would hang out together in the wood-paneled common room at Davenport College, where we both lived. I'd be worried about studying for my history exam or outlining my outlines; he would be relaxing on the couches, observing people walking by, maybe chatting up a girl or talking sports with another guy. As far as I could tell, he never studied or worried much about his grades. He looked exactly the same then as today, without the gray hair. Same sardonic grin, always comfortable with himself, no sense of pressure, coasting intellectually. Yet when the term was over, he would get by -- sometimes Bs, sometimes Cs. I could never figure how he did it without, apparently, ever opening a book.

But despite what you may have heard or read, George was not just frat-house party boy. One of my most vivid memories is this: A few of us were in the common room one night. It was 1965, I believe -- my junior year, his sophomore. We were making our usual sarcastic commentaries on those who walked by us. A little nasty perhaps, but always with a touch of humor. On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.

George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

Remember, this was the 1960s -- pre-Stonewall, before gay rights became a cause many of us (especially male college students) had thought much about. I remember thinking, "This guy is much deeper than I realized."

In light of that memory, I wondered last year why Bush chose to exploit the gay marriage issue in his campaign. I'm still not sure, but I think that's what politics sometimes does to a person. Now he appears to be backing off, and I am not surprised. I hope it suggests a return to the "compassionate conservatism" I remember and that he practiced in his two terms as governor of Texas.

But there's one potential obstacle. The trait that I remember that worries me most of all today is his stubbornness.

I remember a late night of playing pool in the grubby pool room at the Delta Kappa Epsilon house where we spent our evenings when George insisted on trying to complete a double-bank shot in the side pocket. He attempted it over and over, and he wouldn't give up until we forced him to leave.

I admired that competitive stubbornness at the time and still do today. But I must admit it also worries, even scares, me today as I watch him in the White House on the issue of Iraq.
I never doubted Bush's conviction or sincerity when he said that preemptive war against Iraq was necessary in the war against terrorism. Frankly, I was concerned about WMD too.
But I've heard new facts since then and I've changed my mind about whether a preemptive strike was necessary. Will George Bush do the same? As I saw at the pool table, the flip side of deep conviction can be a stubborn refusal to change positions even when the facts change.

There were no WMD; we know that now. And far from helping us in the war against terror, the U.S. presence in Iraq has created opportunities for new terrorists. A stubborn decision to "stay the course" will only mean that more lives will be senselessly lost and his presidency will go the way of Lyndon Johnson's.

In truth, if he ever makes that very difficult decision to get us out as quickly and humanely as possible, it would be consistent with the George Bush I remember, still like and admire -- a man who is humble, not afraid to admit a mistake, and optimistic about the future.
In light of the other thread about Obama's newly expressed support of gay marriage, I wonder how it would ever be possible to get an honest candidate in the oval office (or any office for that matter). I say that because it's obvious you can't be yourself since to win voters, you have to put on a face and play to the crowds that support you. I think it's a very real reason the two party system is such a faulty one. You generally have to play to one side or the other and staying neutral will most likely bother both sides since you aren't entirely 'on their team' as our country's mentality goes.

It would be nice to see an America where the two party system is destroyed, but for now I guess we'll just have to keep reminding ourselves that the talking points of a politician are not worth much nor do they really help us know them.


Free Spirit
Staff member
There's a reason they say politicians are full of hot air. The more they have the higher they will rise.

President Bush slid by in school then he slid by as President.


Registered Member
I agree that a 2 party system is hindering our nation. However, i fail to see what that article has to do with that particular subject. The article came off as a piece of pandering fluff designed to inflate average America's opinion of Bush Jr. The Bush family is extremely powerful. Bush Jr was a coaster. His family's influence couls explain much, if not all his success. He coasted through an ivy league school. He was released from the air force, thus avoiding the on going war at the time. He had several failed business practices some of which were funded or partnered with the bin Laden family. There is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources that he didn't actually win the presidential elections. George H Bush went to Yale (a "skull and bones" initiate...gee take a guess if his son was too, i wonder if daddy Bush had the power to pull strings at Yale), struck it rich as an oil baron thanks to George Herbert's father, Prescott's connections, was a c.i.a. director and a long time politician. In other words, the Bush family is a very well connected and powerful family. Of course George Jr. could just coast by, not because he was some sort of natural intellectual genius filled with sincerety and values. It is a well written piece of fluff, but seems like an obvious device to win the hearts of unsuspecting individuals. It really does tug the heart strings, but also reeks of poo. It is pure opinion by one individual (or designed by several to seem that way) that presents emotional content and very very little else. It is a great article if you truly want to see only the good and completely ignore facts and truth. If you want to believe our country has only ever had a benevolent and righteous agenda and Bush as a pure being with nothing but the purest intentions. Willfull ignorance is bliss. No one wants to have a prolonged introspective glance at the root of their faults and bad deeds, even at a national level. The truth makes that fairly difficult to ignore. So we call it conspiracy "theories" (even with a foundation of cold hard facts). Let's face it though, America is teeming with those who wear blindfolds to the point that it becomes grafted to their skin. You want the truth? You can't handle the....


Registered Member
Or, maybe, inspite of, or because of, the family he was born into, and the inherent advantage and disadvantage, that he might actually be a decent guy that did his best with the situation at hand?

I'm not a fan of either Bush's presidency. But I do think despite all the attacks on GW he has remained a class act and kept quiet letting things take their course without interjecting himself at every opportunity.


Registered Member
I understand and acknowledge the possible validity of your statement. However, can you honestly say he would have succeeded, if that man was not born a Bush, that he would have still become a president of the United States? If he was born in an average family, George W. Jenkins, he still would have been leader of the free world, coasted through Yale, would have had business partnerships with the bin Laden family and avoided going to Viet Nam? He would have achieved all those things without riding one of the most powerful families in America coat tails? It seems extremely far-fetched to me. I doubt he even would have gained acceptance into Yale, much less held any type of political office. As for doing his best, well, no, I cannot honestly agree with that. Class act? I cannot honestly agree with that either. He may not have thrown a fit and act like a child everytime he was confronted, but i can't call that a class act.


Registered Member
Who would be the same person if they were not born to their parents and lived their experiences? I don't get your point.

Mine is, that whether people agree with him politically or not, he is a decent kind person by all accounts. And that you don't see him armchair quarterbacking the current situation.


Embrace the Suck
This is my take on it. By all accounts George W. Bush was a decent human being. I think where people get mixed up is just because he opposed say gay marriage, that does not translate to "He hates gays and wants them all to burn in hell". People can oppose things without hating the opposition. At one time I was not in favor of gay marriage and my position on that issue has changed.

So I disagree that there is some dishonesty here. He may have not been in favor of gay marriage, that does not translate logically to him being ok with someone picking on a gay person and calling them names. I can honestly say I have never picked on anyone or have I ever called someone names just because they are not like me, including the time I was not in favor of gay marriage.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending W's presidency nor am I advocating for it being a good presidency, what I am saying is someone such as him can be against gay marriage and he can still be a good decent human being. Being against something politically does not mean he hates that opposition.


Registered Member
I used to get so frustrated with Bush when he would come on for a press conference and make mistakes or blunders. Or when he wouldn't have a retort to some new accusation. I knew it would add to how much he was disrespected. All those critics of Bush out there that would make fun of him are the same people that think bullying is the fucking crime of the century. Hell, that is what the media does. To all candidates! All POTUS's take a shitload of heat, and they should take it because it is part of the job. Do you think a dishwasher can reject putting his hands in hot water? Anyway, the gay marriage issue isn't just "for" or "against". Those that don't support gay marriage aren't haters of gays. Which is clearly why Bush respected the human that is inside of the label "gay". To then defend the traditional definition of marriage is just as acceptable. It's not an attack against gays.


not a plastic bag
I knew Bush had more class than the other living presidents combined when after all the sh!t he took from the left and Obama his response was to sincerely wish Obama the best and hope he is a successful president. I'd never do that, I don't think most people could.


Embrace the Suck
Right MIT? Far different from the lack of class Clinton showed him. And Clinton didn't take half the shit Bush took. I disagree with him on gay marriage, and a myriad of other issues, but he always showed class, I'd give him that.