Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Perhaps the biggest feat that the Bush camp has is that Bush's complete lack of gravitas will cause voters to question if he has the weight to handle the nation's office. It's a valid concern and a very important question that voters should be asking. Bush has demonstrated a consistent lack of knowledge and acumen in almost all areas – from school to business to politics. His gaffes have demonstrated a lack of understanding in key areas as well a simple, general unremarkability. Perhaps more worrisome, Bush has been consistently unwilling to take positions on key issues, answer important questions or provide real ideas. Even worse, he doesn't seem to think these things should be required of him.

One area where Bush is almost completely lacking, is foreign policy. Even Bush's staff will admit that their man just doesn't have any real experience dealing with other countries. Karen Hughes, Bush's communications director says that Bush "readily concedes that, as governor, he does not have extensive foreign policy experience." Bush head foreign policy expert, Condoleeza Rice, agreed, "he certainly doesn't have a great deal of foreign affairs experience." Bush likes to claim that his dealings with Mexico really do give him the experience needed to be president (and Rice reversed herself when she made the same case at the Republican Convention). But the governor of Texas (or any other border state), in all actuality, handle very few issues vis-à-vis Mexico, save formalities like bridge openings and the like. Real dealing with Mexico (on issues like trade, drugs, etc.) are handled by the federal government in Washington, not by the state government in Austin.

When Bush has had the rare opportunity to meet with world leaders, it must not have made a big impression. Last year he met with the Prime Minister of Slovenia, but when he was queried by a Slovakian journalist about the journalist's home country Bush replied, "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first hand from your foreign minister who came to Texas." Not only didn't he recall the rank of his visitor, he didn't know the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia. You might not either but, then again, you're not hoping to be President. The two countries actually have significant and important difference. Slovakia is part of the former nation of Czechoslovakia while Slovenia used to be part of greater Yugoslavia and, thus, is an integral part of the Balkans – a region in which the US recently finished fighting a war. You would think a presidential wannabe would have some knowledge of the region in which US troops were waging a war. You'd be wrong. Even as the war was unfolding, Bush managed to somehow absorb so little information on the site of the conflict that he noted that the result of the Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo would be that the "Kosovian can move back in." The only problem is that residents of Kosovo are called "Kosovars" not "Kosovians." The US was fighting a war in Kosovo and Bush didn't even know what the people for whom we were fighting were called.

The second biggest international crisis of 1999, after the war in Kosovo, was the massacre of civilians by the Indonesian government in the independence minded province of East Timor. Bush had very little to say about the crisis as it unfolded, but did tell us that "if the East Timorians decide to revolt, I'm sure I'll have a statement." The only problem, again, is that the people of East Timor are called Timorese, not Timorians. The two biggest crises of the year and the presumptive GOP nominee couldn't be bothered to learn even the names of the people being killed off en masse.

Bush's foreign policy inadequacies have manifested themselves at several other times during the campaign. In November, Bush was faced with a 'pop quiz' sprung by a Boston political reporter Andy Hiller. Bush was asked to name the leaders of four of the world's most important current hot spots: India, Pakistan, Chechnya and Taiwan. India and Pakistan have been in a shooting war in the past two years over a disputed border region and have recently begun testing nuclear weapons. Chechnya is the breakaway Russian republic that has twice been put down by the brutal tactics of the Russian army. Taiwan, of course, remains a tempting invasion target of China. These are all important issues that the next President of the United States will have to face and his decisions will have major repercussions on all of us. Bush could only partially name one of the leaders, "Lee" of Taiwan. Now, I couldn't tell you the leaders of these countries either, but I'm not running for president. Bush is.

Bus tried to make up for this lapse a few months later during an online interview session. When the subject of the Hiller "pop quiz" was raised, Bush dared the moderator of the session to ask him who the president of minister is. When the moderator obliged, Bush answered "Vajpayee" proudly. Atal Vajpayee is a leader in India, he is the country's Prime Minister. He is not, however, the president. That title belongs to KR Narayanan. It may seem a trivial difference, but on the world stage it makes a huge difference. Moreover, this was Bush's own question. He wanted to show off his new found international understanding and practically begged to be asked this specific question. He still got it wrong. That's like having a final exam with one question that you get to write and still failing it! It'd be hilarious if it weren't so scary.

One place you'd think Bush would have down pat is Canada. It's not quite as close to Texas, but it is our only other direct neighbor. Bush wasn't up to the task, however, when Canadian Comedian Rick Mercer, posing as a reporter, told Bush that Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine" had endorsed him. "I appreciate his strong statement, "Bush replied. "I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbor to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and that we will closely together." The Prime Minster of Canada is, of course, not Jean "Poutine." It is Jean Chretien (and, no, the two are not pronounced similarly). Pouitne is a Canadian fast food meal of french fries, gravy and cheese curd! Moreover, what did Bush mean by our "most important" neighbor to the north? Canada is our only neighbor to the north unless I'm missing something!

Admittedly, these criticisms are somewhat nit-picky. The ability to name names and places is a very superficial way to asses a person's understanding of key issues. Still, I find Bush's inability to answer even these shallow questions disconcerting. If he can't answer the shallow ones, how is he going to deal with deep and complex problems? We've seen him try to go into depth of foreign policy (and everything else) only a very few times during the campaign. When he has, Bush has not allayed these fears.

Bush faced some hard-hitting questions from, of all places, Glamour magazine. In the midst of a rather fluffy interview, Glamour reporter David France was asking Bush some free association questions. "Gloria Steinem" brought "pioneer." "Christine Whitman" brought "good friend." Then France threw out "the Tailban," "Bush shook his head and remained silent." When France prodded him with "because of the repression of women in Afghanistan," Bush finally got it, "oh, I thought you meant some band." Some band? We're not asking who the president of Chechnya is now? The Tailban are the militant Muslim rulers of Afghanistan who, along with a litany of other oppressive rules, have banned women from taking any jobs. They are also suspected of having aided the world's number one terrorist, Osama Bin-Laden. Bush had to be prodded by a reporter from Glamour to remember this? Shouldn't he know on his own?

What about Russia? It's a pretty important player in international affairs after all and there are specific happenings going on. Russians recently elected former KGB head Vladamir Putin as their new president. What did Bush think? He didn't have a position, but, he said, "I will if I'm President." Great, who needs to know his stance before voting for him anyway? How about the recent alliance between Putin and the large block of communists who still sit in the Russian Duma (its lower house of parliament)? Back in January, when Bush appeared on ABC's "This Week," Sam Donaldson was persistent in his attempts to engage Bush on the subject. After Bush had already twice refused to answer the question, Donaldson tried one last time. "It may be a fool's errand on my part," Donaldson asked again, "but I'm going to try one more time to see if you think there is a danger in the recent deal that Putin has made with Communists." As Jake Tapper of Salon noted, "It was unclear if this instance was a desire by the governor to muddle his position on a controversial issue or an attempt to wiggle away from responding to a question he was ill-equipped to answer. Either way, he never answered it."

There are plenty of other examples. After a coup in Pakistan overthrew a democratically elected government and replaced him with one of the countries most hawkish generals towards India (who Pakistan was fighting a war with and who, like Pakistan, had been playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinksmanship), Bush said that the coup was a good thing because it would bring stability to the region. He said this even though he couldn't name the general who led the coup.

In a primary debate, Bush took a dramatically hard line on Saddam Hussein. "No one has envisioned Saddam, at least at that point in history, no one envisioned him still standing…. It's time to finish the job," Bush said. " If I found, in any way, shape or form, that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out." Now, I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that Saddam Hussein is one of the biggest villains on the planet, but to suggest assassination, as Bush clearly was, is more than extreme. By both law and executive the assassination of a foreign person by the US is illegal. Besides, look at the trouble the US got into in the '60s and the '70s when the CIA was running around toppling governments left and right. State sanctioned assassination is just bad news, even for Saddam.

The recent failed Camp David negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have highlighted just how difficult a problem the Middle East peace process is. At the end of last year, Bush was asked what he would do to further that process. Bush's response was both completely off topic and completely nonsensical: "I want to stand by Israel. We're not gonna allow Israel to be pushed into the Red Sea…. There's something called the Arrow missile system, which is an inter-ballistic, a short range inter-ballistic missile system that intercepts missiles coming from [elsewhere]." Where do you start with this quote? First: geography. Where does Bush think Israel in located anyway? (Maybe it's the mystical other northern neighbor he was talking about!) He must have meant the Mediterranean Sea, because the Red Sea doesn't make any sense in that context. Second: what the heck in an "inter-ballistic" missile? There are ballistic missiles. There are intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). There are intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). There is no such thing as an "inter-ballistic" missile, though Bush must have been pretty sure there was seeing how he mentioned it twice. Moreover, the Arrow missile system isn't anything like an IRBM, ICBM or any other kind of ballistic missile. It is like the Patriot system, designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. This is the man we want deciding if we need a national missile defense system? Third: look at the question. The question was what would Bush do to further the peace process. Israel is one of our strongest allies, and we should stand by her. But, somehow, I don't think hyping "inter-ballistic" missiles is going to be the best tactic in bringing peace to the region. Will that be Bush's answer everywhere? "Ahh, let's just give 'em some missile?" Scary.

Brent Scowcroft was President Bush's National Security Adviser. He knows that the son doesn't have the same skills as the father, at least when it comes to foreign policy, "Is he comfortable with foreign policy? I would say not."

Foreign Policy is not the only area of concern for Bush when it comes to questions of ability and knowledge. Take, for example, taxes. The centerpiece of Bush's economic policy proposals is his huge tax cut (for more on that see Chapter 6). It's huge and it's costly and it relies entirely on the country having a budge surplus that will be just as huge over the next ten years. That isn't even remotely a certainty. Predicting budget is a decidedly risky business and the current projections of endless surpluses are based on some rather dubious assumptions. A prudent (as W.'s dad would like to say) plan would include contingencies to guard against a smaller surplus than expected. Otherwise, the results could be an utter disaster (they might be even if we do get those huge surpluses). But Bush the younger (unlike his dad) had no need for prudence. When asked in a primary what part of his tax cut he would jettison should the predicted surplus not materialize, Bush responded, "I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to decline." He refuses? Just like that? That just isn't smart.

Bush also seems a little hazy on the tax cuts he has passed back in Texas. During the primaries, Bush was hammering McCain for a loophole in McCain's proposed tax plan that would have created a small tax hike on certain businesses within a much larger tax cut. Meanwhile, Steve Forbes was criticizing Bush for doing much the same thing: his 1997 proposal of a sales tax increases within a much larger tax cut. Bush, of course, got indignant that anyone would have the temerity to call him on his hypocrisy. But he didn't seem to really understand exactly what Forbes' point was anyway. What Bush did was ok, apparently, "cause I had a tax cut. I cut the taxes. I led, in the state of Texas, the largest cut in 1997, and have done so, and I did so in 1999 as well." Reading that you just expect him to throw "inter-ballistic missiles" in there somewhere. The question was about the concept of small tax increases within larger tax cuts. The economy, even the Texas economy, is more complex than simply saying "let's raise taxes" or "let's cut taxes." Where, when, how much and on what are all very important details. Important unless, of course, you're George W. Bush.

How about illegal immigrants? Bush told the San Francisco Chronicle that the federal government should not reimburse states for money they spend on benefits and other entitlements for illegal immigrants. That's a pretty standard conservative position (though not a super compassionate one) but it wasn't the position had taken when he had supported a lawsuit by Texas and other states that demanded just such reimbursements. I guess he just forgot (a Bush spokesperson said he simply misunderstood the question even though it was a rather simple one).

Bush's abortion stance makes little sense, and Bush will readily admit that himself. He insists that life begins at conception but also supports exception to any abortion ban for the cases of rape and incest. If life begins at conception, though, then he must believe that even in these cases an abortion is murder. If he truly believes it is murder how can he justify it even if the unfortunate woman was raped? Murder is murder after all, right? Mmmm, no, "I know there's somewhat of a contradiction there," Bush admits, "but, nevertheless, that's the position I've taken." It's only one of the most contentious issues that the country is facing today, who cares about a little contradiction? Not W.

Even some of Bush's biggest backers have, in trying to play up some of Bush's other characteristics, tacitly admitted that their candidate lacks the weight needed to be president. New Mexico governor Gary Johnson tried to play up Bush's populist appeal at a rally by recounting a conversation the two had a governors conference, "George turns to me, and says, 'What are they talking about?' I said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'you don't know a thing, do you?' And I said, 'not one thing.' He said, "neither do I.' And we kinda high fived." JC Watts, the number three Republican in the House of Representatives, also talked up Bush's populist appeal before the South Carolina. He told the assembled throngs that Bush was ok because "you can buy clever." Bush may have bought the Republican nomination, but I assure you that, despite what Watts says, no amount of campaign contributions is going to be able to buy Bush more competence.

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post was able to put the positions that Bush has taken on issues like abortion and taxes into the proper perspective. "Bush has the impregnable confidence of someone who does not know what he does not know," Cohen writes. "These [positions] are neither reassuring or enlightening. They suggest a man with no patience for complexities and the conviction that if the position feels right then it has to be right."

Perhaps the most telling indicator that Bush doesn't have what it takes to handle the complexities of the issues he would face as president is the reluctance he has continually shown to actually take a stand on important issues or to even answer some of the most basic questions directed his way.

The Supreme Court is one of the most important issues of this campaign. With at least three and maybe four justices set to retire in the next four years, the next president will have a nearly unprecedented opportunity to shape the Court. Because it is such an important issue, it's imperative that the American people understand just what kind of people the two candidates would appoint to the Court. Bush, however, wants to avoid talking about that as much as possible. Bush will not tell us whether or not he will appoint justices that will uphold Roe vs. Wade. He will only tell us that he would prefer to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Court. The question this raises, obviously, is what exactly is a "strict constructionist?" Bush won't tell us. When he was pressed on the definition and asked to give an example of a Court ruling that he thought was proper for a "strict constructionist" during a press conference early in the year Bush would only say, "I'm not going to get into a Supreme Court ruling. I'm not a lawyer. The strict constructionist definition strictly interprets the Constitution for what it is and doesn't use the opportunity of the Constitution to pass legislation or legislate from the bench." But what does it mean to "Strictly interpret the Constitution?" If it were that simple we wouldn't need a Supreme Court! This is a cop out pure and simple. The reporters at the press conference, however, weren't satisfied. If he wouldn't cite a case that was properly decided then could he at least give an example of one that violated the principles he was espousing? No. "I've said what I am going to say" is all that Bush would say. Would appointing strict construcitonists mean there could be a chance that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned? "I'm going to name strict constructionists to the Supreme Court." Bush also would not comment on his father's appointment of David Souter, saying "I'm not going to fall into that trap." What trap? David Souter is a Supreme Court justice and a controversial one at that. Don't the American people deserve to know you're opinion of the man? Apparently not.

Bush, remember, had no opinion of the election of Vladamir Putin in Russia. About his deal with communists in the Duma, Bush would say nothing even when pressed three times by Sam Donaldson. His actions were no different when the US was weighing action in the Balkans. Even after Bush figured out what the people of Kosovo are called, he wouldn't take a position either way on US involvement for months. First he let anti-war Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire bear his standard on the conflict, then he told us that the US had an important stake in the region. When explicitly pressed as to whether or not the US should send forces, all he would say is "I believe we ought to be slow to engage our military, slow to commit our troops." Even heading into May of 1999, Bush would not take a firm stand. Harry Jaffe of Salon noted that "the son of the former president has said very little about Kosovo, and what he has said makes him look less presidential." Bush would only get firmly behind US involvement only after the matter was, for all intensive purposes, settled.

We've seen just how mushy Bush can be when it comes to taking on his own party. He was the only one of his party's eleven initial presidential candidate who would not take a stand on Pat Buchanan. His reaction to controversy over his Louisiana campaign chairman, Governor Mike Foster. Foster was fined a substantial amount of money for trying to cover up the fact that he had twice bought mailing lists from former KKK leader (and GOP candidate for Governor) David Duke. Just as with Buchanan, Bush refused to condemn or even comment on Foster's actions. He was pressed on the issue in an interview with long time New York newsman Gabe Pressman and other New York journalists about his positions on both Buchanan and Foster, this was the exchange that occurred:

"Gov. Bush," aone reporter asked, "Gov. Pataki and Mayor have both been willing to decry racism and anti-Semitism and that sort of thing; you haven't been ..."

"I decry racism, and I decry anti-Semitism," Bush interrupted.

"But not when there's any sort of political risk ..."

"I decry racism," Bush said. "I hereby decry anti-Semitism."

"But your Louisiana campaign chair, Gov. Foster, purchased mailing lists from David Duke and when you were asked about that you said that you didn't even know anything about it."

"I didn't know anything about it," Bush said.

"Well, now you do," the reporter said.

And that was it, Bush simply refused to comment on Foster's actions and forced the reporters to move onto the next question. I don't understand why taking a stand against this kind of thing is so difficult for Governor Bush.

Even on the rare occasion that Bush has found the backbone to take on the more extreme members of his own party, it hasn't lasted for long. In one his better moments, back in October, Bush took on the tendency of his party, and especially the representatives of his party in Congress, to ignore the people they represent and, instead, either focus on "sterile" facts and figures or engage in the tried and true GOP tactics of lamenting America's moral decay. Republicans are "speaking a sterile language of rates and numbers, of the CBO and GNP," Bush said. "Too often on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching towards Gomorrah." Now here were some real backbone and some very presidential actions. Alas, Bush wouldn't stick by his guns. After GOP Congressional leaders complained to his campaign, Bush backpedaled furiously, claiming that he hadn't intended to say those things about Congressional Republicans, but rather that he meant that the media only left the impression that the GOP in Congress acted that way. So, in the span of a few days, Bush went from making some poignant and fair criticism of his own party to simply repeating the tired Republican excuse of blaming the "liberal media." Considering Bush's refusal to take a stand on racists and anti-Semites in his own party, it's not surprising that his stand on Congress didn't last any longer.

The Supreme Court, abortion, Kosovo, Russia, Congress, Pat Buchanan and David Foster. Bush's waffling and wishy-washy attitude on all of these issues just reinforce the idea that he is either incapable or unwilling to take a stand on important details. It's a trend he has repeated time and time again, often with the excuse that he doesn't want to comment on a "state issue" like the Confederate flag in South Carolina, Affirmative Action in California or teaching evolution in Kansas. The presidency is a serious job and the next president will face serious issues that are important to all Americans. We shouldn't elect someone who can't or won't tell us exactly where he stands.

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about Bush's refusal to answer questions about the most basic issues is the extreme arrogance Bush displays in brushing the questions aside. It's as if Bush thinks he, by right, should be immune from such frivolities. For him, somehow, knowledge and understanding of the issues are unimportant. All that matters is that he has, or so he says, all of these nebulous qualities like leadership and compassion and dignity. And if any of us feel the need to question him on any more basic qualifications, that's just too bad. When Heller sprung his foreign policy pop quiz on Bush, the worst thing might not have been Bush's lack of answers but the pure look of disdain that he gave Heller, as if to say 'how dare you question me?' That look, that smirk, is ever present.

During the all-important New Hampshire primary, Bush seemed to take victory for granted. He didn't bother showing up for most of the Republican debates or even bother to campaign hard until it became apparent that he was in real trouble. The Manchester Union-Leader, one of the country's most conservative papers, ran a page 1 editorial entitled "Governor Smirk" in which it called Bush a "double-talking Texan" whose attitude was "one of ill-disguised contempt that he should even have to appear with" the other candidates.

Margret Carlson of Time pegged the problem in a December column. "No matter how remote Bush's answer tot he question at hand," Carlson said, "he thinks he's pulled the wool over the teacher's eyes, that with his innate smarts and abundant charm, he will not flunk history 101. After all, it's been arranged. He's going to be president." That's the crux of the issue right there. Just like everything else in his life, Bush has had the Republican nomination handed to him on a silver platter. He thinks the presidency should be just the same and those of us who think he should have to work for it, well, we get the smirk.

What Bush lacks in knowledge of specific issues, he makes up for with an equally troubling lack of substance in general. Behind his inability to grasp the subtleties of many of these complex issues is a history of intellectual laziness and general unremarkability. While other eventual leaders were confronting situations that would leave them with valuable life lessons, building up résumés of significant public or military service or achievement in other important fields, and generally accumulating the kind of experiences that they would later rely on to be the basis for their decision making processes, Bush was just floating around for a decade or three. Even conservative columnist and Bush supporter David Brooks understands that when it comes to Bush, there is an experience, gravitas and judgement gap. "What is unnerving about the Texas governor's performance [so far in the campaign and the primary debates]," Brooks writes, "is he hasn't shown that he has spent his life trying to acquire the deep pools of experience and wisdom he will need to draw upon if he becomes president."

Brooks present Homer's legendary Odysseus as the model of the kind of important life experiences we should be looking for in a candidate, but "There are no Odysseuses in either the Democratic or Republican presidential fields," he says. "But most of the candidates have at least spent their lives building towards this opportunity…. Bush, by contrast, seems younger than his years."

Such a lack of substance in his history is the reason that Bush's "autobiography" was not written by Mickey Herskowitz. Herskowitz, a friend of Bush and a sports writer for the Houston Chronicle, was hired to ghostwrite Bush's book, but he couldn't write a decent book because he wasn't able to get anything of substance out of Bush. He asked for anything of substance from the Bush campaign and was given a stack of 1000 Bush speeches but, according to Herskowitz, "it was actually five speeches the governor has given 200 times." Herskowitz was later fired and the book was written by Bush's communications director Hughes instead.

Indeed, Bush seemed only to make Brooks' point for him in an interview late last year. He was asked what the toughest decision he had ever made was. He didn't mention his decision to avoid Vietnam, or any particularly troubling death penalty case that he reviewed as governor of Texas. Instead, Bush said that his decision to fire Bobby Valentine as manger of the Texas Rangers was his toughest call. One would think that he would be faced with one or two more difficult decisions were he to become president. When he's faced with these decisions are we really going to be confident that Bush will be able to make the right call when, by his own admission, he hasn't had to make any such calls before? I am not overflowing with confidence, I must say.

In addition to this lack of experience and life history, or perhaps because of it, Bush lack's the superior intellect we would expect a president to have. Bush is, by no means, a stupid man. Anyone who tells you so is greatly exaggerating. Bush, however, is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. His intelligence is only average and, combined with his lack of experience, leads directly to the problems he often has grasping the complexities of important issues. Bush may be ok with big idea (the key word there is "may") but he just doesn't have to patience or ability to think deeply on important nuances where differences are really made.

ABC News' Mark Halperin managed to unearth a little of this shallowness in a mini press conference last year. He asked Bush a relatively straight forward question; he wanted Bush to discuss the four national elections of the last decade and how they shaped the conservative image. Bush answered, "well, '88 was great but '92 stunk." Who is he, Tarzan? "'88 good, '92 bad" is all he can come up with? First of all, '88 wasn't even in the decade and he failed to mention the elections of '94, '96 and '98 completely. Second, the question, while no overly complex, was asking a little more that simply if he thought these elections were good or bad. The image of conservatives has fluctuated dramatically over the course of the decade, going from a high in the "Gingrich Revolution" in 1994 to a low in the post impeachment backlash of 1998 that saw Gingrich booted out of power. There's a lot more to the question than simply saying, 'well, my dad won in 1988 so it must have been good and he lost in 1992 so it must have been bad.' Bush failed to grasp that. It may seem like a small question to nit-pick over, but it is merely one example of a pattern, and an enlightening one at that.

Bush has trouble with more that simple questions. His grasp of the English language (and his attempts to explain his grasp on other issues) makes Dan Quayle look like a Nobel Laureate. Here are just some of "The Complete Bushism" as compiled by Jacob Wiesberg of Slate.com.

Bush's gravitas gap has given pause to many of those who have seen him in action up close and personal. Tom Pauken, who was the chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1994 to 1998, says that he has "real concern" about a Bush presidency. "It's critical we have someone with real intellect to handle the job," he continues. "It's one thing to be a governor in a state where Lt. Governor Bob Bullock has all the power, but it's a totally different thing to be president." John Sharp, former Democratic Texas Comptroller, thinks that Bush has benefited from a great economy and that he would be in trouble if ever faced with difficult decisions. "When there's a lot of money in the treasury, the governor can pacify everybody. When the economy goes bad, you better not have that kind of governor – and you better not have that kind of president," Sharp says. "You'd better have someone who knows how to pull the levers of government and get the state, or the country, out of trouble."

Gary Mauro, the former Texas Land commissioner who lost the 1998 governors race to Bush, says that Bush simply doesn't care about most of the important issues. "I've never met a politician with less passion about the issues than George W. Bush. I don't like Phil Gramm, and I don't like Kay Bailey Hutchison, but I have no doubt in my mind what they care about. I couldn't tell you anything Bush cares about," Mauro says. "Because of that lack of passion, he's willing to change his positions. He has no core. He flip-flops 100 percent because he doesn't care…. As a practitioner of the art of politics, he's wonderful. In terms of policy, he stinks."

Jim Hightower, Texas' Democratic Agricultural commissioner from 1983 to 1991, finds a bunch of faults with Bush: "One, the smirk. This is not a facial tic. This is from within. It reflects a spoiled brat's sense of entitlement and a mean streak that we've seen flare up. I think that Bush's sense of privilege is going to grow real tiresome real fast. The more you get to know him, the less you get to like him. Two, deep down, this guy is shallow. His one hundred experts and fundraisers and media handlers and powderers and puffers have done a good job so far of keeping his shallowness under cover. But during the stress of the primary campaign, the media, and even some Republicans, began to ask whether this guy really has it. It's not about intellect. He doesn't have weight or depth. Three, he is a corporate wet dream, a loyal performer for the fat cats who've put money in him. If the voters and the media focus on the favors he has done for rich people, they'll see Bush for what he really is: a hired hand for corporate interests. That's not what the general public wants its president to be."

Paul Begala, a political consultant based out of Washington and Austin (who has advised mostly Democrats including Bill Clinton) claims of Bush, "he's lighter than my biscuits. He has the weakest, thinnest, briefest record in public life of any major party nominee in American history. I put a challenge to Ari Fleischer of the Bush campaign. I asked, 'For a million dollars, can you name me a major party nominee with a thinner, shorter record in public life?' He couldn't do it. I put the same challenge to Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and he named two: Ulysses S. Grant and Wendell Willkie. I flat-out disagree with him about Grant [who lead all Union forces during the Civil War], but Willkie is interesting. At least he was a plausible nominee because everyone saw him as a brilliant leader and a gifted man. These are not adjectives used to describe George Bush…. Plus he traded Sammy Sosa. Does America want a president who would trade Sammy Sosa?"

Perhaps Bush's former neighbor from Midland David Rosen summed up what all of these Texas were trying to say, "If George is elected President, it would destroy my faith in the office because he is such an ordinary guy." Weisberg went even further when commenting on Bush's 'autobiography', "mom's dog Millie came across as a more complex character – and a better prose stylist."

As Hightower noted, the Bush team has done a good job of covering up their candidate's shortcomings. They have done this mainly by restricting access to Bush as much as possible. Their thinking is that the less we get to know of Bush the better of they are. It's a good strategy when your candidate is so prone to putting his foot in his mouth or demonstrating his limited grasp of the issues.

What has the Bush team done? First they help Bush out of the primary debates for months. John McCain, Steve Fobes, Orin Hatch, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer went at each other in Iowa and New Hampshire for weeks while Bush sat at home. Bush and his team are up to the same thing in the general election. They still have not answered the Gore campaign's challenge to debate twice a week until election day. Meanwhile, over forty independent groups (and David Letterman) have invited both candidates to debate. Gore has accepted almost all of the invitations, Bush has not accepted one.

Bush has limited his access to reporters as well. While he gets a lot of good press for bantering with reporters on his campaign plane, Bush rarely allows reporters to sit down with him one on one. Bill Minutaglio, who was trying to write a friendly biography of Bush, was not even granted an interview with Bush. We've already discussed Mickey Herskowitz who was supposed to write Bush's 'autobiography' (shouldn't Bush have written that, by the way? I mean, McCain, Gore and Bradley actually all wrote their own books themselves, why can't Bush?). He was replaced with Hughes when he complained of a lack of access to his subject.

Dana Milbank on The New Republic tried, in vain, for eight months to get an interview with Bush, but Hughes simply told her, "It's not going to happen." One network executive consoled her by saying "you don't want an interview anyway, he doesn't say anything." Even when reporters to get access, it is usually highly scripted and/or completely devoid of any substance. One Arizona newspaperman was told by the Bush camp what kind of questions he could ask. Eric Stern of Iowa's Waterloo Courier said of his interview with Bush, "he was so charming I almost neglected to notice that he didn't answer any of my questions."

When Bush did start granting more access he ran into trouble, like the grilling Donaldson gave him over "strict constructionists" and the Putin/communist deal from Russia on ABC's This Week. How did the Bush team react? They cancelled press conferences because they were "not in our own best interests."

In the end, Bush has avoided taking stances on almost any and all topics, especially when such a stance would risk alienating either moderate swing voters or his red-neck base. On important issues he has been completely silent. That might be his best tactic though, as he has said some ridiculous things when he dared to open his mouth. I do not believe that Bush is a moron, though I also don't believe that he is anywhere above average of the intelligence scale. The worrisome thing, though, is that he displays this averagness all too often and , worse still, seems to feel as if it's perfectly fine. As Carlson said, Bush makes you think that he believes that he should just be handed the presidency on a silver platter. And why not? That is how he has gotten everything else in life, why would he expect anything different now.