The Nucular Option

Loading

2008-03-05

President George W. Bush dances in front of the media while he awaits the arrival of presumptive Republican Party presidential nomimee John McCain and his wife Cindy on the North Portico of the White House in Washington, March 5, 2008.
REUTERS/Jason Reed

People dislike Bush for what he did. You guys dislike Obama for who he is. Think about it.Reader comment

It’s true that critics on the left and right have disliked the President on policy issues. But it is not true that liberal Democrats have only been his critics because of “what he did”.

“The woman who knew that I had dyslexia – I never interviewed her.”President Bush Orange, Calif., Sept. 15, 2000

Bush has been stereotyped as linguistically and cognitively inept. Because he has mangled sentences and words on occasion, his intelligence has been misunderestimated over these last 8 years. Gail Sheehy, writing for Vanity Fair, was the one who began a myth that Bush is dyslexic. Nancy LaFevers is one of the experts Sheehy cited in her article; yet LaFevers expressly told Sheehy that Bush is not dyslexic.


campaign

How about the troublesome word, “nuclear”? So much had been made about his pronunciation of just that one word over the years, that you’d think critics were arguing on a substantive issue of dire, global consequence.

It’s been said that Bush’s metathesis of the word “nuclear” into “nucular” is not all that uncommon, and hardly unique.

Bush isn’t the only American president to lose the “nucular” war. In his “On Language” column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents—Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton—have mangled the word.

In fact, Bush’s usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary.

~~~

These days, Merriam-Webster’s sends every reader who fusses about “nucular” a defensive, 400-word response letter. Click here to read it.

Pg 126 of Ronald Kessler’s A Matter of Character:

Even though he knew how the word nuclear was normally pronounced, he insisted on pronouncing it NOO-kyoo-ler, a southern rendering which happened to be similar to Jimmy Carter’s NOOK-ee-yuh.

“He loves to say NOO-kyoo-ler,” Clay Johnson said. “I think he likes the way it sounds, or maybe he’s trying to affirm his southern roots. We were going to have a meeting about nuclear energy one time. Before the meeting, I kidded him and said, “Just remember, it’s NOO-klee-er. During the meeting, he said NOO-kyoo-ler. Andy Card looked at me and shrugged, meaning: “What can you do?'”

I’ve heard some pundits who have met the President say they think he gets a kick out of pronouncing it the way he does; suggesting that when it became a bone of contention by liberal elitists in the media, Bush began to deliberately pronounce it that way for the hell of it (radio talk-show host Michael Medved has said that during an invitation to the White House-I think the one in September of 2006- Bush pronounced the word the “correct way”).

Ah…what a good memory I have…found it:

And one more thing: twice during his meandering conversation, the President deployed the word “nuclear.” Both times, he pronounced it flawlessly — as “new- clee-ar,” not “nuke-cule-ar.” Considering the huge press attention on the mis-pronounciation of this single word, nothing shocked me more about meeting the president than hearing him, in private conservation, avoid a mistake for which he’s become celebrated in public.

If he can say “nu-clee-ar” in private, why does he still say, “nuke-cule-ar” when he speaks on camera? Could it be possible that there’s some mischievous intent here– that the President deliberately gives his own spin to the word just to provoke pompous pundits into paroxysms of supercilious rage? It seems like a far-fetched explanation, I’ll admit, but after seeing the President’s infectiously feisty mood this Friday, I wouldn’t put it past him.

One of the endearing qualities of President Bush, is that he’s able to laugh at himself.

Kessler’s A Matter of Character, pg 126-7:

Ironically, the liberals who made fun of Bush’s speech patterns and called it dyslexia would be the first to pounce if Bush ridiculed the way others spoke. But Bush, possessed of a self-deprecating sense of humor, thought his gaffes were hilarious. Clay Johnson was in the Oval Office a few days before Bush was to speak at the Radio and Television Correspondents dinner.

“I’m going to give the funniest speech you’ve ever heard,” Bush told “Big Man,” as he called Johnson. “They have this tape of ridiculous phrases I used in the campaign. I can’t believe that a canddiate for president said those things.”

Bush recited some of the examples:

“Africa is a a nation that….”

“Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work.”

“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.”

“The woman who knew that I had dyslexia- I never interviewed her.”

“I’ve never seen him laugh that hard,” Johnson said.

“At the Radio and Television Correspondents dinner, Bush said, “This is my most famous statement: ‘Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning.’ Let us analyze that sentence for a moment,” he said. “If you’re a stickler, you probably think the singular verb ‘is’ should have been ‘are’. But if you read it closely, you’ll see I’m using the intransitive plural subjunctive tense. So,” Bush said to laughter, “the word ‘is’ is correct.”

A month later, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Bush put on a slide show about growing up in Texas. One slide was of one of his elementary school report cards. Miraculously, he had received As in writing, reading, spelling, arithmetic, music, and art.

“So my advice to you is, don’t peak too early,” Bush said.

Check out MataHarley’s post with a video of Bush’s self-roasting at the 2007 White House Correspondents Dinner.

Slate:

It helps his case that Bush, like Yogi Berra, is in on the joke. This was clear from the first White House correspondents’ dinner, in March 2001, when the new president read from the first collection of Bushisms, which he described as like Mao’s “little red book,” only not in Chinese. “Now ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “you have to admit that in my sentences I go where no man has gone before.” Of course, he bumbled his speech, claiming that he’d invented the term misunderstanding. He meant to say “misunderestimated.”

Being able to laugh at yourself is a rare quality in a leader. It’s one thing George W. Bush can do that Bill Clinton couldn’t.

The “Bushisms” shouldn’t be a big source of consternation and embarrassment to Bush supporters. You’ll feel far better if you just smile and laugh along with them and our president when he makes an honest-to-funny gaffe.

Never misunderestimate the power of having a sense of humor.


hratkp

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

People dislike Bush for what he did. You guys dislike Obama for who he is. Think about it.

I keep hearing this same thing from one Obama supporter after another. You know, I was at President Bush’s inauguration in 2001, and there were thousands of protesters there chanting and carrying signs bashing him, before he had even been sworn in. So they can claim they hated him for what he did instead of who he is, but I know better.

ON DISLIKING SOMEONE FOR “WHO HE IS” RATHER THAN FOR “WHAT HE’S DONE”

I don’t like O’Bunko because of the many lies he’s told, and the close associates he has who have a history of doing evil things. I like Bush because he tries to do good, even though he sometimes fails. But O’Bunko is a liar. And that is both “what he does” and “who he is” as well as being only one of his many faults. In fact, the evil things that his closest friends and advisers have done only serve to highlight his deceit.

I suppose the author of that silly comment is trying to accuse us of “racism” or some such nonsense, but in a way that sounds like he’s making a profound statement. He isn’t. He’s just excusing his irrational hatred of Bush for “who he is” (same as “what he’s done” if you are truly objective about it), while impugning us for our ratioinal distrust and dislike of O’Bunko for being a pathetic zero who’s only accomplishments (i.e., “who he is’) are either evil or insignificant. Not that there is anything wrong with being insignificant, only that he pretends he isn’t when he is.

That silly criticism is just sophistry, like so many other strained criticisms they come up with for what they don’t like. It’s nonsense, as is most of what they believe, because everything they know is wrong.

“You guys dislike Obama for who he is.”

And who the hell is he? No ones knows. A Muslim? An illegal alien? A communist? Where does he comes from? Who is behind this guy? What are his goals? This guy has sealed all of his records. Why should we not be suspect of him? What is he hiding?

The only thing we know for sure about him is his past associations that are all despicables. We also know that he is a liar, a crook, a flip-flopper and that he cannot speak without a teleprompter. What is there to like about him?

Despite my views on a lot of Bush’s policies which I disagree with (but not all) – I actually think he is a funny guy. Yes funny to laugh at. But also funny to laugh with. To give him credit – the guy has got humour. I know that’s not an attribute that’s needed for being President but I think it has made some people warm to him.

I also think Bill Clinton and Reagan had that connection with people with their ease and humour. Unlike Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Bush Sr or Carter. Whereas both Obama and Palin has got massive fan bases – I’m not sure they are particularly good with humour beyond scripted pieces – time will tell.

It is easy to mangle words and Bush is pretty good at doing that, but he flaunts this flaw and makes it an attribute of sorts.

i totaly agree with craig. only evil hides in the shadows. people always fear the unknown. i pray bambi does well because we are all in this together. i will wait to see what bambi does in office, and believe, i will be watching!

as for president Bush, he is my hero for having the guts to go after the terrorists. remember, 3000 people went down in a very short period of time and that our pentagon was attacked and the plane that went down in that field in pa was probably heading for the white house. i remember watching people running for their lives out of washington. how quickly we all forget because of the fact that president Bush and his direction has kept us safe. i ask, if you were president at that time, what would you have done

“And who the hell is he? No ones knows. A Muslim? An illegal alien? A communist?”

Is he a plane! Is he a bird!
Maybe he’s an Islamic Commie from Outer Space!

Help – Obama is sooo scary. But Nobody knows!!!
Who is going to save us from this shadow creeping Anti-Christ !?
Somebody hit DEFCON 1 and turn out the lights.

Gaffa, to answer your question, Obama is actually the satanic reincarnation of your good friend LAWRENCE of Arabia, you know, the one you call a shining example of British Counter Insurgency.

It’s just nonsense that we dislike Obama for who he is. Unless it is because he is a marxist and a crook.

As for Bush, the left hates him because he is so manly and handsome. It’s true, I read it on Kos.

I don’t like Obama because he’s a liar and a fraud and he’s going to end up causing the greatest loss of human life the planet has ever known as a result of the global depression his policies are sure to bring about.

Tricky Dick: he’s [Obama] going to end up causing the greatest loss of human life the planet has ever known as a result of the global depression his policies are sure to bring about.

Oh, and George W. Bush had nothing to do with the disastrous economic conditions we are in today??????? $5 Trillion + and counting nation debt during his presidency (almost doubling it), collapse of our financial markets, near 50% drop in equities, near 20% drop in home values and much more bad to come, all from this present president!

Psssst….blast

The President is not in charge of the economy.

Aye Chihuahua: The President is not in charge of the economy.

He has veto power (and his party was in control of of congress for much of his administration), has power over regulatory agencies and of course the bully pulpit. He did not use his veto to reign in spending and balance the budget, he allowed unfettered trade with China (even though it was widely recognized that the Yuan was undervalued to dump cheap goods in our market) he did not have a properly supervised SEC and in the end, fair or unfair, the buck stops with the President.

The president might not be “in charge” of the economy, but he controls many of the levers of power which directly influence it.

Again, I’ll remind you that the President is not in charge of the economy.

Pull out your copy of the US Constitution, dust it off, and read it. Then you’ll have a more thorough understanding of the role of the Executive.

You’ll also notice, once the dust bunnies are cleared away, that we (the US) have wandered away from the Constitution in many, many areas including, but not in any way limited to, the involvement of the fed gov’t in the economy.

So, in short, you should point your gnarled fingers at everyone who has steered us away from constitutional principals vis-a-vis the economy as well as those who have quietly sat in the corner and allowed it to happen.

President Bush should have yelled from the rafters what he knew was going on. In 2003 and 2005, Regulaters wanted to reign in Fannie and Freddie, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer ran a cover for these institutions . Google the CEOs of these companies, All democrats who allowed the books to be cooked and left will millions of our tax payer dollars. They should be in jail, and now run the banking and finace committees in congress. UTube has the hearing of the democrats, Frank, Dodd, attacking the regulater for wanting to regulate . They attacked the regulators for over-reacting and said nothing was wrong with fannie and freddie, the regulater was called a racist because Mr. Johnson, CEO at the time, A DEM, was black. Johnson was forced to resign for cooking the books soon after that hearing.

President bush should have persued this but the wolf was at the gate, the dems would not bring a vote to the floor to regulate, he should have put Cheney on it . He would have knocked heads together for sure.
All i can say is the dems are brilliant in their evil. Prove capitalism a poor system and go to socialism. Great Idea. I heard the FBI is investigating all of this mess, and i hope someone out of this group pays- Oh, Jamie Gorelic was also a CEO at F and F and walked away with 26 million. Johnson 96 million even though he was fired for cooking the books. Google man, get the facts. Type in Who, and when , The answers are all there, videos too. Amazing.

President Bush should have yelled from the rafters what he knew was going on.

The President started sounding the alarm on Fannie and Freddie in 2001.

He was blocked at every turn by the Dems.

Sort of like how he sounded the alarm on Social Security and no one listened.

The only difference is that Soc Sec hasn’t collapsed….yet.

@Aye Chihuahua: So true Aye. In a few years no one will get any of the SS money they put in the Big Ponzi Scheme in the Sky. Think Madoff times a thousand, and all the IOUs in the SS Lock Box will be as good as the Sub Prime Loans that Carter and BUbba put on steroids.

I would rather keep it and invest in what I want to.

I loved how Bush used his Bushisms to just get at the Looney Left in this country. He was supreme in getting them all in a tizzy over nothing.

Aye Chihuahua: Pull out your copy of the US Constitution, dust it off, and read it. Then you’ll have a more thorough understanding of the role of the Executive

You obliviously missed the section about the presidents veto authority… it takes a 2/3 majority for congress to pass measures over the president vetos… Bush could have stopped the spending if he wanted. Plus, you forget 200 years of history where laws and regulations on the economy were passed and whole departments and agencies were developed, all under the administration of the President.

“So, in short, you should point your gnarled fingers at everyone who has steered us away from constitutional principals vis-a-vis the economy as well as those who have quietly sat in the corner and allowed it to happen.”

I do point fingers at others involved but here we are speaking of President Bush‘s role… he could have used his power with the regulators at his command to deal with the industries that did “credit default swaps”, “derivatives” and other hocus-pocus crap that was sold into the markets. He could have dealt with the MASSIVE federal spending. He has near sole authority to deal with Foreign relations (read that in the Constitution) and deal with the MASSIVE flooding of our markets with cheap Chinese goods where the China’s government forced down the value of the Yuan artificially, thus placing American companies at a disadvantage. THAT WAS GEORGE BUSH’s RESPONSIBILITY.

Pres Bush had to let the spoiled children spend so they would support the military spending for the war. He had to keep all the babies happy. The idiots in congress put pork in the military bills. He had no choice. I don’t know if republicans were as bad as the dems but the republicans have paid the price.
Now the dems have their chance to fix this or add to the disaster. If BO crashes the economy further he will be a one term pres. Spending will not fix this. SEC of Tresuray Paulson is a Dem, Bernanke is a Dem who voted for BO. Bush made the mistake of not removing dems from the administation and we paid for that. TAx cuts across the board, as Reagan did, will work out the free markets, gov created jobs wil only employee a small number of people, SMALL BUSINESS IS THE ENGINE.
All the money put out so far has not helped the markets, the markets know BO does not know what he is doing and will not recover with his newly printed, TRillion. Markets look to the future and they have determined our future is not bright.
Another stupid thing done was to raise minimum wage. My hours have been cut, managers told me they will lay people off to compensate for this wage increases. If BO taxes small business, like my sister owns, she says the employees will be laid off and others will have to work harder, she also said, as she hads out their last check, to thank BO for their unemployed status and enter the world he wants them in , WELFARE.

You guys dislike Obama for who he is.

I’ll agree with that. I dislike Obama because I see him as a political hack – someone who talks big, but has done nothing to prove it. Granted, he doesn’t have as long as a political history as (insert name here), but hey, even people with similar or less time have racked up accomplishments or made some kind of noticable mark (like, say, Sarah Palin). Frankly, for all of his talk about “a new kind of politics,” Obama is the same old kind and a blatant liar. He claims to have regularly reached across the aisle, but the record doesn’t show that. His positions on issues like Iraq, the surge, guns, nuclear power, gay marriage, NAFTA, abortion and more regularly change when he thinks there’s a vote to be had. You can easily find that to be true, but when he’s called on it, he claims that’s not true and people are lying about him. Also, notice how virtually everything Obama campaigned on is being put on the shelf. Because of the bad economy, you say? Well, if that’s the case, how come he was promising all that stuff even after it was clear the economy was in serious trouble? Or what about his talk about needing people outside of the beltway to run things? So far, his team is mostly made up of Clinton people with a couple of Bush 43’s thrown into the mix (aka people not from outside of the beltway).

Obama is the kind of politician who moves according to polls. Granted, many politicians do that at least sometimes, but the rate Obama has done it is frightening. Real leaders lead – often doing what they think is right when others disagree. A lot of Obama supporters like to throw in comparisons to Lincoln. Remember, though, that many were against Lincoln early on in the Civil War because of the way it was going for the Union. Many wanted to just call it quits and move on, but Lincoln felt it was absolutely necessary to achieve victory – sticking it out until the right general came along and things started going right. Hmmm, now who does that remind me of?

Because he has mangled sentences and words on occasion

I love the irony of people picking on Bush for mangling sentences and words. I mean, c’mon, who hasn’t done that in their lifetimes? At least Bush didn’t say there were 57 states.

Tricky Dick
on your 8, january 09, how did you know?
I’m at february 2012, and so many military died since you said that.