It's a spoof, Marc, but it's correct, so you shouldn't feel a bit queazy. As I wrote to a loyal Bush Watch reader when it began to make the rounds of the Web, a story doesn't have to be true to be correct. Is there any doubt that if Dictator Bush were compared with all of the presidents since FDR, he would come in dead last, based on the criteria of "scholarly achievements, writings that they alone wrote,their ability to speak effectively, and a number of psychological factors"? Some might argue that Reagan should be last, but at least he was a professional pitch man. Anyway, he came in next to last, with Poppy a dismal third last. Since the writer of the story, the name of the think tank, and the city of origin were indicated in the original version, the only thing that has been verified is that there is a Scranton, Pa. The supposed author of the study and the think tank have had ample time to come forth and prove the doubters wrong. We ran the story early on with the caution, "While the authenticity of the study might be questioned, we believe the results are indisputable," and we put quotes around the name of the author of the study, "Jennifer Borenstein," the name of the think tank, "Levenstein," and the name of the news service carrying the story, "Baskerville News Service." --Politex,

First of all, Chas, the IRS will be sending out tax refund checks of $300 per person to those who paid enough income taxes last year to qualify. That's only 61% of those who filed. A rule of thumb is the more you need that $300, the less likely you will be to get it. Although the IRS spent $80 million to send out letters praising the Bush Administration this week in advance of sending the actual checks starting July 23, millions of the letters were mistakenly sent to folks who will get nothing. However, they will not be forgotten, because they will be paying for the tax refunds for the richer folks by having their social services cut to enable Bush to pay for the tax refund. As for future income taxes, the rule of thumb is that the richer you are, the higher will be your reduced tax percentage. The bottom line is that Bush has shifted the expenses of government from the wealthy who, after all, benefit most from our society, to the middle class, who don't. This, of course, makes sense to Bush, since it was the wealthy who put him in power, not people like you or I. --Politex, 7/19/01

You bet your bippy it could happen, Dex. To put things in prespective, it must be noted that Bush is trying a Dem trick. In the past, it's been the Dems who push to have the illegal aliens made legal and the Repugs who fight against it in Congress. Bush has put the Dems in a Catch-22 position. He's betting that he will get the majority of the new Hispanic votes, and he may be right, and if the Dems fight it in Congress, he's got a great campaign issue. Once again, the Dems have allowed themselves to be put on the unrewarding defensive. --Politex, 7/17/01

Thank you for your letter, Mr. Stone. Your analysis of the Pravada story was most helpful and we plan to share it with our readers. However, we don't agree that we lack discernment by calling a particular story to the attention of our readers. You must know that Bush Watch doesn't support the positions taken by each of the 20-40 stories we link to each day. We couldn't, since many of them are contradictory. That's what editorials are for, and our editorial record speaks for itself. Of course, we do tend to give our slant on the story by the headline link we write. You quote the Pravada headline of the story, not the headline link at Bush Watch, which I think provides the reader with the necessary caution......

PRAVDA Russians See Connection Between Rumsfeld Budget Request And Sharon's Secret Plans For War 7/14/01 bushwatch.com

Since Pravada is the newspaper of record in Russia, don't you think it's important to be aware of its "paranoid antisemitic diatribes"? (By the way, Bush Watch didn't "publish" the story, it linked to it.) Don't you think it's important to know where Putin's coming from? I sure do. I think it's better to know the semi-official Russian line within its own country than to trust Bush's naive judgement that Putin can be trusted by looking into his eyes, don't you? It seems to me that the real question you should be asking is, is Bush an anti-Semite in his trust of Putin or is he simply lacking in knowledge about what gets written in Pravada and it's semi-official relationship with the Russian government? best wishes, jerry politex, 7/15/01

Storm, if you're tired of missile defense now, you'll be totally exhausted if Bush ever gets his plan in place. However, you give me too much credit. Although some might think of me as the all-powerful hand behind the nation's activities, the fact is I'm just your humble reporter. Each day I run around the Net and find what I think are the most important stories, and sometimes I comment on a story or two at the "Watercooler" or on "Ask Politex." I don't recall writing anything lately on missile defense, so I suppose you're talking about the daily headlines.. With respect to the those, I'm just a messenger, I don't create the news. Like the confused King in the cartoon, you're talking about killing the messenger because you don't like the message he delivers. I can't help it if missile defense was the big story in the last few days, so I led the headlines with stories on the subject. The fact is, this week I reported on an average of 28 stories each day, and the missile defense stories averaged out to 4 per day. As for your statement that my "coverage of the latest human rights violations of the Bush adminstration has been virtually non-existant," I'm not sure what you mean by that. What kinds of human rights abuses are you talking about? While "missile defense" is a concrete topic, "human rights" is not because it could include both abuses of people in general and certain groups in particular, groups such as poor pregnant women, blacks, gays, jews, seniors, etc. Unless you have some kind of hidden agenda when you use the term "human rights," I don't think it's fair to say that our coverage is "non-existant." In fact, on an average day, there are more such stories about human rights abuses than missile defense. That has little to do with me, however. It's just that Bush spends more time on polcies that abuse various groups of minorities than he does on missile defense. As for your comment that the headlines do not included coverage of other "important subjects," I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Finally, Storm, while I'm sure that your opinions are strongly felt, do you think it's fair to other Bush Watch readers to appoint yourself as their spokesmam? As a loyal Bush watcher once wrote to me, "Who's 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?" --Politex, 7/14/01

1. Why did you create your site?

Bush Watch was started in Feb. of 1998 to serve as an early warning system to the world. At the time, not even Bush had a web site, although he finally started one a few months later to begin his run for a second term as governor. We also hoped that the truth about Bush would be picked up by the media movers and shakers and our message would be amplified. When this didn't happen in Texas, we wrote a story about it for Salon, warning the national media, but to no avail. That was in the days when we naively believed that reporting the simple truth of what was really in Bush's heart, soul, and mind, as evidenced by his actions as governor, would be more than enough. Unfortunately, we underestimated the desire of the media to hide Bush's major flaws, the power of the Supreme Court to elect one of their own over the wishes of the majority of the voters, and the will of the corporations to spend whatever it took to gain control of the presidency.

2. How much time do you and your staff spend on it? And does anyone get paid?

There are three unpaid staff members and many loyal unpaid contributors. Politex edits the site, Dories edits the headlines page, Christine does the tech work, and we all write stories. This is a part-time job for Doris and Christine and a full-time job for Politex. Bush Watch is a non-commercial site and we don't take contributions from our readers.

3. What's your traffic? Stats NA

4. Is the anti-Bush website phenomenon new or is it just part of the development of the Internet? In other words, are people visiting your site (and creating ones like it) simply because the technology and the Bush ire exist or is there something about Bush-bashing that is best done online?

Naturally, Bush websites could not exist without two ingredients, Bush and the Internet. If Bush had not been selected as our Resident by the Supreme Court, there would be no need for Bush websites. If the Internet did not exist, we would be passing out broadsheets about Bush on street corners.

5. How many Bush haters do you think exist in the U.S.? Is it a force powerful enough to affect change -- and, if so, what kind?

Based on voting statistics, over a quarter of a million more Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush. Roughly 24% of eligible Americans 18 years or over voted for Gore, a slightly smaller percentage of the same group voted for Bush, and nearly all of the rest didn't vote at all. Based on what Bush has done since being the Resident as well as the various reports of reactions by Americans, one would suspect that the number inclined to vote against Bush is even greater today than it was on election day. Since we live in a corporate republic based on a two-party system, one supposes that if the election were to be held today, Gore would win again by an even greater majority. "Change" is something we have left in our pockets after we spend the Bush tax cut bribe on a burger and a beer, but before we begin to get the bills for the large number of social services that are being cut by Bush in order to send us the bribe.

Jerry Politex, Editor, Bush Watch (www.bushwatch.com) July 5, 2001

You're absolutely right, Aaron, "the law is the law," but that means it isn't "truth," "justice," or "morality." Why we have "halls of justice" and "court justices," and icons of the "Blind Scales of Justice" throughout the land is beyond me. Perhaps our forefathers used "truth," "law," and "justice" interchangeably, but it wasn't really the case then, nor is it the case now. The law is whatever the folks in power want it to be, short of an uprising by the people. That's why every inequity resulting from a supposedly ethical but unjust court decision should be fought tooth and nail. It's not likely that the Cheney residency protest could go any further, however, since the pretense of saying Cheney is a voting resident of Wyoming is the product of political power, corrupt election laws, and questionable decisions by judges. The Dems are not in a position to challenge, having skeletons of their own in the closet.

Let me give you a quick overview of our legal system. Naturally, like all such broad generalizations, there are anecdotal incidents and circumstances that do not mesh with the big picture. If you believe our laws are just or moral, rather than simply legal, you're probably a member of the middle class. The wealthy and the poor know otherwise. The wealthy make the laws for their benefit, and the poor are oppressed by them for the benefit of the wealthy. The middle class fear both the wealthy and the poor, and naively count on the law to protect them. In such cases, how well they're defended is based upon how much they can spend. In order to believe that the law works, you've got to believe that the Supreme Court was right to elect Bush AND that the L.A. jury was right to set O.J. free. Or how about the law that once said Blacks and Whites should be separate, but equal? That was once the law of the land. Ever have a Realtor tell you about the Golden Rule, "Whoever has the gold, rules"? That rule applies to our legal system as well. If it didn't, then why are Bush and the Dems fighting over who should be appointed to judgeships. If judges were concerned about morality and justice, who gets appointed wouldn't make any difference, right? But doesn't that mean that judges' decisions are not ethical? Not at all, Aaron, as any lawyer will tell you. Ethics means following the dictates of the law as understood, so it's a closed system, and truth, justice and morality don't really enter into the equation. Not having gone to law school, I'm sure that some bright law student can quote from Law 101 to show me that I'm wrong and that the system works. My response is, it sure does. The law is the law. And no more. Just remember George W. Bush and O.J. Simpson. --Politex, 6/28/01

FURTHER READING: Maureen Dowd on Clarence Thomas, 6/27/01 and William Pitt on Our Politicized Judiciary, 6/28/01

No. (Thanks for the q+a, SLK.) --Politex, 6/23/01

Good question, GD, and one that's puzzled many Bush Watchers over the years, particularly since before getting accepted to the Harvard School of Business Bush was turned down by the Law School at the University of Texas, and no wonder. At Yale he averaged out to a gentleman's "C" that was even lower than Gore's undergrad score at Harvard. He was best known for his skills as class clown, cheerleader and socializer through his earlier school years in Midland public schools, Houston's Kinkaid Prep, and Andover, his father's prep school. We know that his high school years at Kinkaid were difficult. In those days Junior's mother did not allow him to go out with the guys until after she word-quizzed him with flash cards. There are indications of dyslexia and attention deficit disorder in the Bush family.

As Bill Minutaglio writes in FIRST SON, it was assumed that Bush would go to Yale no matter what, because his grandfather was a Yale Trustee and his father had had a respected career there. In other words, Bush had connections and it was commonly understood in thos days that such connections were an acceptable way to be let into an Ivy League school. In those days the Ivy League was like England's House of Lords. A dim bulb from an approved prep school with money, a name, and family connections was seldom turned away. In fact, such students as well as many of the administrators believed that the purpose of a Yale education was to make the necessary business and career connections needed to continue to have the children of privileged families run the country. This is obviously what happened in Bush's case, since so many key members of his administration or his wealthy political team are former classmates at Yale and Harvard. In that sense, Yale's and Harvard's investments in Bush have paid off handsomely and have served to reinforce the policy of privilege. With respect to Harvard's admission of Bush, Nat Butler, an MBA classmate says, the Harvard Business School "was looking to enhance the Harvard Business School...Being the son of George Herbert Walker Bush, right there, that is helpful." Butler adds that Harvard was "a place where people are very aware of power and who has it and how everybody is related to it. (Minutaglia, 155-56)

However, once Bush arrived at Harvard, he was on his own, right? Well, not exactly. Unlike the Law School at the University of Texas, the emphasis in the Harvard MBA program wasn't on memorization, testing, and individual argumentation, but on group work on hands-on case studies. This approach was perfect for Bush's socializing skills and his need to work hard in order to prove himself to his father. His relationship with Poppy had reached a crisis due to various forms of self-abuse the previous year. Butler feels that the Harvard case-study approach with its emphasis on fixing existing problems in a practical, non-theoretical way was a good match for Bush's limitations. Bush's Uncle Jonathan, the successful Wall Street money manager saw the Harvard MBA as a "militaristic" degree that you gained through long hours of "push-ups." It was thought that the program would give Junior "discipline." Minutaglia reports that another Bush classmate observed that Bush fit right in to the Harvard MBA mentality: "concerned with management, not social issues...Serious people who want to make money."

Living in the hostile territory of New England liberalism, Bush chewed tobacco and wore his Texas Air National Guard flight jacket regularly to class, but neither his fellow classmates nor his teachers were aware of his record of being AWOL back in Texas. Numerous weekends were spent visiting relatives in New England with a classmate in tow. Others were spent "drinking," "womanizing" and running.While at Harvard, Bush "was single-mindedly interested in the way organizations were structured," and decided he was not going to feel guilty about the "consequences of privilege." (Minutaglio, 157) Bush is pictured wearing a rumpled polo shirt in his graduating class picture, while the other graduates are in suits and ties. Unlike most of the other grads who were headed for New York, he had decided to follow his father's footsteps and work in the West Texas oil business, for, as he said at the time, "The barriers to entry were very low." --Politex, 6/21/01

R.J., thanks for calling my attention to the Hatfield essay posted in yesterday's Online Journal (6/11/01). As you know, I've always depended upon loyal Bush Watch readers like yourself to call my attention to things I've missed. I have some questions about your comments. I've only discussed Hatfield three times on Bush Watch that I can recall, and all three discussions have been in relation to the publication of different versions of his book on Bush. I don't think that's "going out of my way." As for "dumping" on Hatfield, I can't agree with that, either. The criteria I've applied to Hatfield's book is the criteria I apply to any serious research. As for the Hatfield book being the best bio on Bush, I'm not sure that's saying much, even if we were to conclude that it's true. My feeling is that there aren't enough bios on Bush to determine any "best" and "worst" books. Of the three that I can think of (Hatfield's Mitchell's, and Minutaglio's), I consider it a fact that Hatfield's bio is the most anti-Bush, the least documented, and the most controversial in its unproven allegations. Is that a "scathing" remark? How about this: George W. Bush is a liar and a hypocrite, he cares more about his corporate buddies and campaign contributors than the average citizen, and his tax cut bill is a calculated plan to screw poor people and the Democrat Party and will lead to deficit spending and be very harmful to the country. Is that a "scathing" remark? Talking about "scathing" remarks, what, exactly did I write in my essay on the new reprint of the Hatfield book (books.htm ) that you find "scathing"? Please copy and paste these remarks and send them to me, because I have no idea what you're talking about. And as for the 6/11/01 Hatfield essay being a "rebuttal" to my "scathing commentary" about him, why not copy and paste the specficic sentences in his essay that you think is a relevant "rebuttal" to those "scathing" remarks and send them to me as well. Finally, if you've been reading Bush Watch for two years and you honestly think that my comments upon Hatfield's book indicate that my leanings are pro-Bush, I can only suggest that you might want to read more carefully in the future. thanks and best wishes, jerry politex, 6/12/01