From the NY Times, so you have to register. The article is Ron Suskind talking about the Bush Presidency and how it is dominated by faith, not just of a religious kind, but of faith in all matters of policy, untempered by self-questioning or analysis.
Some choice excerpts from this exceptionally large and largely exceptional article:
quote:In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
quote:''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
quote:A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.
Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''
posted
I don't think there is a good defense of the arrogance shown by those interviewed for the article you link to. However, I would ask you if you really believe that your favorite politicians don't have the same confidence in themselve that is shown through those quotations? Maybe I just a terrible cynic, but I think that the difference between the politicians interviewed here and other politicians in the highest echelons of government is not in their attitudes towards their mandate, their righteousness, or their place in history, but in their willingness to say it out loud to a reporter.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that is someone actually changes their position, either because they finsd out new information or becasue the situation has changed, they are a flip-flopper to Bush and his followers....
Because once right is always right when you don't EVER make a mistake... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm prepared, based on a lifetime of judicious study, to distrust everything any politician says or does. Having acknowledged my deeply ingrained cynicism, I find that GWB brings out a level of loathing in me that I previously did not know existed. The very idea that his Administration would be guided by imperialism and "self-created reality" strikes me not just as a good explanation of what I've seen them doing, but also a tragic critique on the country as a whole.
We get the leaders we deserve, and I think that people in general are attracted to confidence and an unwillingness to accept any criticism of America. Because of that, and because the Democrats are naturally in the position of being "critical" (this being an election year in which they are not the incumbent party), I suspect that we'll have not only 4 more years of Bush but a greater Republican presence in Congress.
Just remember, those of you who like this sort of imbalance and think the GOP is the party to lead us into the future, you're putting your faith in politicians.
They will disappoint us every time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
As opposed to people who believe what? That solutions emerge from preconceived ideas? Or that action is more important than thoughtful consideration? This is truly bizarre. I wish the aide's name had been given.
My sister pointed out that Bush shares a worldview of a lot of recovering or ex-alcoholics: they tend to see things as black or white.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that a Bush aide would actually say that blew my mind. I guess that's what being out of the mainstream consists of, actually trying to understand before making decisions.
If you read the whole article, there is repeated mention of the not-so-subtle effort Bush is making to campaign as God's chosen candidate. Some of the examples given are quite shocking. There appears to be a strong contingent of evangelicals who believe that God acts through this president, and to lack faith in him is to lack faith in God.
That is truly frightening. Almost as frigtening as his expectation that people should have faith in his instincts over careful, nuanced fact based decision making.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shivers* Middle ground. That's what I want. It's all well and good to have faith when you're an individual. But, when the fate of all of America, 230 million people and much of the world rests on your shoulders you need facts, you need research and subtlety and Bush has none of that! *now reading the whole article while screaming in frustration and bits and punching the walls* You just can't think like this when you're president! You just can't! Oh, God, how did this guy become president... how? *frustrated to the point of near madness*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Oh, God, how did this guy become president... how?"
Well, mainly, the guy he was running against looked a little stiff and didn't seem like much of a beer drinker.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Changing one's position does not necessarily make one a 'flip-flopper'. It can indeed (and, when a wise and honest person does it, often is) due to changes in circumstance, better information, or some new insight.
Just because it is the Bush Campaign labelling Sen. Kerry a flip-flopper does not mean that Kerry changes his positions because of those reasons, either.
The man currently says that we're in the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, etc. But on other occassions he has said that he would have gone to war, too.
I'm no fan of Bush (and less of Kerry), and disinclined to believe anything but a weather report coming out of either campaign...but that can justly be called 'flip-flopping'.
And while I'm actually posting, on Kerry's ability to 'internationalize' the war. Would his methods of bringing other nations into the war be similar to his methods of alienating and ignoring nations already in the war? That "...but Bush decided to go it alone..." irritates me to no end. If I were a British citizen, maybe I wouldn't like Bush-but that little campaign gem would piss me off.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem with the flip-flopping argument is that very few politicians aren't flip-floppers, and Bush is a more prolific flip-flopper than Kerry is. An examination of Bush's statements on why he went to war, among other things, should make that pretty clear.
posted
Rakeesh -- first of all, Kerry's plenty popular with people in Britain, among other places, so that fear seems to be unfounded .
Second, Kerry has made it quite clear the with the intelligence and portrayal he was given, he would go to war, but that he feels this intelligence and portrayal (and apparently justly so) were inaccurate, and that second, he would have waited longer to try out other solutions and verify possibly erroneous information.
That's not flip flopping.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, it is flip-flopping, Fugu. He has said that with the information he had at the time, he would have made the same decision Bush did-to invade. Now he says differently, with the addition of, "But I would have waited longer, done everything better, etc."
Which is it? If the second is a truthful statement (and he has the enviable position of hindsight, in which anything Bush does right, he too would have done, and anything Bush does wrong, of course he would not have done), then he would not have gone to war with that information, he would have waited longer and verified intelligence.
It's not a question at all of whether the intelligence about WMD in Iraq was accurate (and it is obvious it was not; intelligence organs themselves are admitting this). It's a question of the difference (if any) between the Kerry Campaign and the reality of the Kerry Administration. Should Kerry be elected, he won't get to say, "I would have waited longer." There will be decisions that need making now, or at least soon.
An aggressive, ruthless, hateful dictator with a proven willingness to use WMD on civilian populations, and a willingness to be buddy-buddy with at least some terrorists, all so soon after 9-11-01 is, I think, such a decision. Senator Kerry's entire platform on Iraq is, more or less, "I would have done everything Bush did, but better. When things were less than crystal clear, I would have waited. When things were clear, I would have gone. When friends were reluctant, I would have gained their support. When they were not, I would have happily invited them to join us."
As for the British, I wonder if they've seen that particular ad. I also wonder what new public opinion polls are out regarding how the British people feel about the Presidential election. Last I heard (and it's been awhile, I'm quite possibly wrong), they were nearly an even split.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He has said that with the information he had at the time, he would have made the same decision Bush did-to invade."
The implied statement, Rak, is that Bush had other information that he did not provide, and that Kerry and the other senators were in fact misled.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you see how the Republicans are creating the Reallity right here, right now?
They are dictating that there were two, maybe three possible solutions to Hussein and Iraq.
1) Do what we did, as we did it. Go to war quickly, but be unprepared for the peace.
2) Cave into Hussein.
3) Allow other countries to tell us how to defend ourselves.
When Kerry tries to explain his idea, to be tough on Hussein, but give the inspectors more time and make better plans for winning the peace, listen to military experts on troop requirements to secure the peace instead of yes men saying "We can win this sir yes sir." it doesn't fall into one of those three predefined options.
Since he doesn't fall into one of those options, they claim he is a flip-flop artist jumping from one to the others.
But its the Republican (neo-con) spin-lords who set up those options. By defining them that way they succeed in defining reality.
And while we analyze how they did it, they will redefine it elsewhere.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm aware of that. I don't recall that Kerry has come out yet and said as much in plain language, though.
Which is why, really, I almost certainly will not be voting for him. It's all well and good to vote against Bush, but don't lets pretend we've got anything but a bout between two prevaricating, spin-mongering politicians.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should elaborate. What quotations do you base your position that Kerry has said he would have gone in with essentially the same timetable as Bush did?
That's the foundation of your flip-flop assertion, that he was willing to go in on basically the same time table.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for posting this article, Chaeron. I've just finished reading it, and although the New York Times is left-leaning, I can't help but be drawn in by Suskind's conviction. And it fills me with dread.
I dread that Mark McKinnon is right. I dread that the middle America is ruled by the religious right that outnumbers the so-called "reality-based community" 2 to 1. I dread that Bush will win because of that, and that the continuation of a faith-based presidency will endanger the separation of Church and State.
I was raised a devout Roman Catholic by strict Italian parents. I was an altar boy for two years, and during that time I seriously entertained the idea of becoming a priest. But with the disillusionment of my teenage years I became agnostic, and since then, I've been a good person, a spiritual person, but not a "religious" person. I know firsthand the ills of organized religion. And for sixteen years, I have avoided entering a new religious community because of it.
I travel sometimes to Texas and Kansas, but I never discuss politics with those I do business with. I read local papers but it's not a complete story. I'm very interested in knowing if Mr. McKinnon paints a correct picture. Can Hatrackers from the area please comment on his statement? What have you seen and experienced? In churches? In groups? In public speeches? At home?
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
You might scan down and read the big, blue highlighted bits, which should make excessively clear that his support for the war was qualified in the ways he talks about nowadays.
From the first debate:
quote:KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
Regarding why Kerry cannot out and out say Bush misled the country: such an accusation, seriously leveled, requires a serious degree of evidence. Unfortunately, partly due to the obscuration this administration has practiced, it is not clear Bush was complicit in any misleading. People in the public would just take it as Kerry grasping for straws, plain and simple, absent anything short of a tape recorded statement by Bush, as they have already reacted to Kerry's much weaker (in the sense of assertive logic) accusation that the administration was more concerned with Iraq than it should have been given the evidence, despite abundant testimony by many people (in most cases, formerly) associated with the administration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The hope is I can visit for about a week sometime over winter break, which will be scheduled once anna's schedule (meaning mainly you guys's family's) is more definite.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't mean to be presumptuous, but you didn't read the article, did you? It has nothing to do with election year spin, which yes, is laid on thick by both sides. It has to do with the nature of the Bush Administration's decision making philosophy. This has to do with the formation of policy based on instinct and ideology, and an unwillingness to adapt policy to changing facts. Suskind shows us a White House with an outright contempt for empiricism. Please, respond to these criticisms, instead of just shouting back with talking points like "flip-flop." It demeans this whole debate.
That said, why do you give so much credence to the anti-Kerry smear campaign? I recently watched Going Upriver since it is being distributed for free on the internet. I was prepared for a shameless 90 minutes of Kerry cheerleading. What I got was an excellent piece not only on John Kerry, but on Vietnam Vets Against the War in general. The movie was filled with archival footage, and relied nearly exclusively on primary sources. I had read the transcript of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; however, seeing the footage of it really made an impact. It really showed a man who became involved in politics out of a desire to serve the public good and right injustices. To smear him for what he did thirty years ago to oppose Nixon's policy of Vietnamization is beyond despicable.
I am aware no one here has maligned him for these reasons, but I just felt like getting that out. I see, hidden behind the facade that 30 years of politics builds, that same person of intelligence, principle and action, and I think that he can resurrect the spirit of those years past that gave him the courage to do what invoked the wrath of the establishment out of principal and a sense of connection to his fellow man. If he can do that, he can manage to do what is required of him as president, namely to ask Americans to make necessary sacrifices, and to make unpopular but principled decisions. I see in Kerry, behind the distasteful image he has conjured for this campaign, someone who is willing to, out of a sincere commitment to public service, put his office before his career.
Just to give some background about the author of the article: Ron Suskind is a Pulitzer Prize winner (1995, for feature writing). He was the Wall Street Journal national affairs editor from 1993 to 2000. He is also the Author of The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Didn't want you to think I'd let this thread die, but I've been pretty busy.
I know that Kerry's statements are more complicated than simply he said before he was for the war, now he's agin it. I'm not a dittohead. Still, just because they were more complicated doesn't mean he still isn't trying to be all things to all people. It's just irritating to me when (in my opinion) people compare Sen. Kerry to Pres. Bush and forget (again, in my opinion) that just because Bush is so awful, doesn't mean Kerry is so good or anything but a standard federal career politician.
The first blue block of text is interesting. Work with the UN Security Council? Force Saddam to disarm if he refuses to do so? Act with allies? Pardon me for being blunt, but Dubya did those things. He worked with the UN, he forced Saddam to disarm after he (repeatedly, again) refused to do so, and he acted with many allies. The question becomes a matter of degrees, not nearly as cut-and-dried as "but he decided to go it alone."
quote:We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past.
This statement is a fallacy; just because we have new technologies, new governments, and new cultures versus two hundred years ago does not mean that the responses to some things will still be essentially the same.
quote:Most importantly, it is a time when international institutions must rise to the occasion and seek new authority and a new measure of respect.
I wholeheartedly agree, but that simply will not happen with the United Nations. It is fundamentally flawed if that is what its aim is.
quote:With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
See, I dislike Kerry more than Bush because he says these things (and I don't doubt he believes them), and he comes up with something other than, "Holy freaking s*^&! We gotta move on this right the f@!% NOW!"
Then he goes on to say that these things aren't sufficient cause to go to war? That given Saddam's known history (and obviously there must be much more known to the federal government not known to the public) And he acts as though it was rash and uncalled for for Dubya to have gone to war (with his support, btw; only a fool would have expected anything but war with the authorization, despite his words to the contrary)
That, to me, is flip-flopping. Saying (and believing) those things he said about Saddam, and then speaking as though Bush is a reckless, ally-spurning warmonger who should have waited. This is essentially what the Kerry Campaign states.
The third block of text. The war was and has been multilateral; where is Sen. Kerry's support? Diplomatic efforts were attempted and were met with failure, or more delays-delays which showed no promise of ending.
Despite his careful nuance, notwithstanding his long speech in which he attempts to be the good guy to all sides of the issue, I still believe that he is, really, a 'flip-flopper'. I believe this about basically all career politicians. In fact I believe it about Bush, as well. I just like the way he flops whereas I dislike the day Kerry flips.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time to give much of a comment now, but keep in mind that Kerry wrote this before the war, saying he thought Bush needed to do these things. It doesn't count against Kerry at all that Bush did do at least some of the things. These are just things that Kerry was specifically saying before the war which show that his position was not what the Bush campaign makes it out to be now (supporting Bush's timetable of going to war).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, Fugu. The things Sen. Kerry said Bush should do, he largely did-at least, according to that speech-but the rhetoric from the Kerry Campaign does not fit those circumstances.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else see Suskind on Charlie Rose (PBS) last night? It was pretty scary.
I have no problem with elected officials having deep-seated beliefs, and praying for guidance.
But it disturbs me when faith and prayer appear to overcome rationality and empiricism in the leader of the free world. God gave us all brains as well as guts, and the president should try to use his brains more and his guts less.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Fugu -- how do you feel about how now Kerry is talking more and more about "his faith" and how it will guide him if he is President?
One Article I think he made mention of it during the last debate as well.
Obviously he is doing this to try to pull back some of the borderline religious right that he feels he may have lost through other comments, but for those of you who don't think faith should be an issue at all, and don't like Bush's talk about faith, how do you feel about Kerry's use of it?
Defenestraitor ---
quote:I travel sometimes to Texas and Kansas
Really? You ought to stop by and say hi to me sometime. But you might want to wait until after the election....
posted
Farmgirl: Where on earth do I say I have a problem with someone taking action because of their faith?
I don't like how Bush uses faith to justify the lack of need for study and consideration. I don't like how Bush requires faith in his actions without questioning. I don't have a problem with making decisions that are informed by one's faith provided one accepts that empirical study of the issue may lead to a new understanding of what that faith implies for the decision, which Bush doesn't seem to accept.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
So you are saying you don't think that Kerry will use his "faith" in the same way Bush has?? I mean, we have no way of really knowing yet at this point what real impact it will or won't have on him while in office.
quote: I don't like how Bush uses faith to justify the lack of need for study and consideration. I don't like how Bush requires faith in his actions without questioning. I don't have a problem with making decisions that are informed by one's faith provided one accepts that empirical study of the issue may lead to a new understanding of what that faith implies for the decision, which Bush doesn't seem to accept.
I'm not aware of anything that Bush has done in acting on "faith" alone without any other details or study.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl -- I might suggest taking a look at Kerry's Senate record. Usually one's history in elected office is a good indicator of one's future performance in elected office. It certainly was with Bush (I love statements that are true no matter what your perspective).
As for you, Chad, might I refer you to "Tax cuts are good when the economy is good! Tax cuts are good when the economy is bad! Tax cuts are good when I can't even get my own rather economically conservative treasury secretary to support them! Tax cuts are good even when I'm not putting any effort into cutting our spending!" Bush's religious faith matters very little to me (just like Kerry's religious faith matters very little to me), its his faith in his political positions that generally get me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh,a nd the environment is another good one. Bush advocates programs he says will help the environment. Okay, lets try them out -- except Bush has also made huge cuts in the monitoring of the environmental impact of factories and such, meaning that we must accept the good impact of the programs he has put in place on faith, not on fact.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok I see your point. I thought it was about his religious actions playing a part in his decision making process.
But might we also base our whole view of Kerry using the same "faith"? He says he'll do X, Y, and Z, but we have nothing to say that he actually will.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article that started this thread wasn't primarily about religious faith.
As for why Kerry won't, I refer you to my comment on history as an elected official.
Plus there's the fact that no other President in the past few decades has carried the practice as far as Bush, making it unlikely another will.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu -- actually I have been looking for this for a few days -- where do I find a complete record of Kerry's votes while a Senator? I can find bits and pieces and opinions, etc. but haven't found the federal link that says everything that Kerry HAS voted on, what his votes were, and which times he didn't vote at all....
posted
Okay -- it looks like I will have to wade through each of these individually, but I can do that. I found the "Interest Group Ratings" link to be even more interesting, especially when it came to votes on taxation.
I notice the first link says he has been Senator since 1984, but doesn't post any of his voting record prior to 1988. Perhaps that is just as far back as the web site chooses to publish...
posted
I believe that's because before a certain point the votes are only available on paper, and transcribing the data for all those votes and people hasn't been done (at least, by anyone who will share the information with votesmart or another public interest site).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I dislike his stance on many faith-motivated issues, which to me he appears to hold before looking at empirical evidence. That's just my opinion, really, since I don't live in his head. Stem-cells being the biggest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is he? I think you're talking about Bush, but I'm not sure, it could be Kerry.
Second, while there are issues where that occurs, they are few and matter not so much to me, mostly. While stem cell research is important, Bush's positions is not such as to block its occurence, at least completely, and there are more important issues, IMO, which I tend to focus on.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I mean, we have no way of really knowing yet at this point what real impact it will or won't have on him while in office.
