I’ll take Bush’s word for it

December 6, 2005

The conventional wisdom tells us that the president, unlike some of his predecessors, is not a voracious reader when it comes to the daily news. Over the weekend, the New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller seemed anxious to debunk this notion — which she described as “crazy” — and defended Bush’s reading habits.

Discussing Bush’s appetite for information, host Chris Matthews wondered about the similarity between Bush and “guys who won’t ask directions when they drive somewhere.” BBC News host Katty Kay responded: “The telling moment for me in his presidency was when he came out and said … ‘I prefer to get my news and my information from objective sources, and those are the people around me,’ rather than from anything external.”

Kay’s observation prompted Bumiller to reply, “Katty — he reads the papers. Please, you know, I — this is crazy. Whenever I say this, people don’t believe me. He reads the newspapers. I am here to tell you he reads the newspapers.”

Not according to Bush. Bumiller’s incredulity notwithstanding, the president has personally admitted to not reading newspapers. In fact, in September 2003, Bush told Fox News’ Brit Hume, “I glance at the headlines just to kind of [get] a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are [sic] probably read the news themselves.” (The president’s briefers “probably” read the news?)

For that matter, Bush talked to the Washington Times’ Bill Sammon a year later and boasted about his news-consuming habits, or in this case, lack thereof.

“I don’t watch the nightly newscasts on TV, nor do I watch the endless hours of people giving their opinion about things,” the president said. “I don’t read the editorial pages; I don’t read the columnists.”

Yet Mr. Bush regularly monitors the news pages of a select few daily publications.

“I get the newspapers — the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today — those are the four papers delivered,” he said. “I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I’ll skim it.”

Yes, when most of us see a newspaper article that we think might be interesting, we read it. When the president sees a story of particular interest, he’ll “skim” it. How reassuring.

Bumiller said “people don’t believe” her when she says Bush reads newspapers. I think there’s a good reason for their skepticism.

Bumiller: “I am here to tell you he reads the newspapers.”

Well, yes I suppose you are. Among other things. Maybe “people don’t believe” her because she’s too obviously carrying water for the Bush administration?

This is just one more example of Bumiller’s “reporting” about what a misunderstood and tremendous guy Bush is. I’ll wait until the film version comes out: “How Brown(-Nosed) Was My Valley”

  • Why the hell is Bumiller on TV shilling for the Administration? Doesn’t the NYT pay her enough so she has to take a second job?

    Of course, she is the one who complained that is was so scary to ask questions of White House officials (in a press conference no less), so she didn’t. What fine journalism from the Times. Don’t they have a spare intern to send to cover Bumiller’s beat so we might get some reporting for a change?

  • Does Bumiller realize Bush already *has* a nominee for the Supreme Court, and she can save her Harriet Miers impression for later?

    Or is she Jeff Gannon in drag?

  • Bumiller may have gotten the idea that Bush reads the paper from the way Bush gushes over her column every time he sees her.

    More seriously, it appears that there is now a campaign afoot to portray Bubble Boy as engaged. Sunday’s David Brooks column in the Times was the first I noticed this. Brooks gives his version of the theory of evolution on Iraq.

    First the White House’s public face and private deliberations on Iraq were marked by a disconnect with reality. Next came private acceptance of reality forced on the administration by Negroponte, but the public face remained fixed. (The genotype evolved. The phenotype didn’t.) This phase was, according to Brooks, marked by a “probing and realistic President Bush.” We are now at the stage were the public face has caught up to the internals.

    When I read this I thought of the old SNL skit with Reagan in the Oval office with a group of visitors. He sat behind his desk and projected his amiable, but not too bright, granddad persona. When the visitors left, he jumped up, pulled down a map, and started to bark orders. I think Brooks is angling for a writers job on SNL, because his Sunday column is even funnier than that skit.

    Not to be out done, Gail Collins juxtaposed the Brooks’ column with Frank Rich’s column about Woodward which bore the headline, “All the Presidents Flacks.” That alone made the $5 price worthwhile.

  • I wonder if Bush has “skimmed” the U. S. Constitution. Or maybe “The Pet Goat” exhausted his literary interest for good.

  • Maybe the NY Times should have terminated all folks with “miller” anywhere in their name. This clown has been doing crap like this for years now. One would think if the Times was serious about ever being respected once again that it would rectify situations such as this member of the US Ignorocracy.

  • Bumiller says Bubble Boy reads the papers, Bubble Boy says he doesn’t. Oddly enough, I believe Bumiller.

    Point one, Bubble Boy lies. Enough said.

    Point two, Bubble Boy has a reason to lie. It fits his PR image – down home, regular guy, man of faith. Doesn’t bother himself with those biased, nasty, Christian-hating newspapers. I can see how that would appeal to the nutters who buy into the image.

    Please note that I am not defending “it’s scary” Bumiller here. I’m just saying, it seems more likely that she is reporting what she has seen and Bush is peddling BS.

  • Does Bush read the papers or not? The answer is ultimately unknowable. All we really know is what the White House wishes to portray, which is not useless information. It helps us understand the weaknesses or strengths that Rove sees in the president’s support. T

    The portrait of Bush as uninterested in the newspaper which we originally had was playing to the anti-intellectual segment of Bush’s base. It also sent the message that I don’t trust what I read in the papers and neither should you. On this I agree with Lame Man.

    After Katrina many people came to understand how disengaged the President was. Rove had to counter this negative view of Bush by retooling his an image. We now have W 1.05 which unlike W 1.0 is “probing and realistic.” The old story of Bush not reading the papers conflicts with this upgraded view, hence it is now disabled in W 1.05.

  • Bush has said several times he doesn’t read much in the way of books or newspapers. Why would you say something like that in a forum that is quoted, and be quite proud or at least unashamed of, if it wasn’t true? He would have to know this might seem to some as dumb (those snobby intellectuals – that he doesn’t care about) or as common (those common man types he likes to think he is), so saying something about not reading much is a win-win situation – there is now downside (to him).

  • Let’s not forget when Katrina struck his staffers “who probably read the newspapers” had to make a DVD for Bush so he could comprehend the damage the hurricane caused. If he reads the newspapers I’m sure he would’ve have needed that DVD.

  • Apparently Bush Sr. didn’t like to read either; Jon Podhoretz suggested in his book *Hell of a Ride* that Poppy, who wrote hundreds of notes and memos during his reign, probably wrote more than he ever read. So much for the benefits of an Ivy League and prep-school education.

    • Comments are closed.