Since we coupled a lead-in to a Boston Globe story about New Orleans teens asking Bush about his drug use with a lead-in to an Onion parody of that type of Bush story, substituting a mass-murder for drug use but eliciting the same responses to reporters from Bush, we've gotten some interesting mail. Readers generally feel that Bush is capable of doing so many objectionable things and voicing so many absurdities that fictional exaggeration isn't needed. Besides, some readers have written, one fictional report could lead beginning Bush watchers to believe that all of the documented reports about him are fictional as well. Accordingly, one reader suggested that links to parody at Bush Watch should be clearly marked, since it's often hard to believe that what Bush does and says is not the product of some unknown political parody to begin with. We must confess that this very point is what stirred our initial interest in Bush, and we thought his abilities would best be seen by simply presenting the news and documenting all opinions. As Doris in Des Moines writes,"Why not just admit that the entire press corps are crossing their fingers and trying not to laugh every time they report one of [Bush's] "answers" to one of their "questions," but the gang at the Onion just isn't as good at deadpan as the Associated Press." Here are the original lead-ins with a selection of reader responses below.

METAIRIE, La. - "Blaming ''dark dungeons of evil on the Internet'' in part for school shootings, George W. Bush told a high school crowd yesterday that parents need to pay close attention to their children's hobbies to help curb youth violence. After receiving tepid applause from a diverse crowd at the Grace King High School outside New Orleans, Bush was confronted by several teenagers about ...rumors of his own drug use. And it did not take long for the Texas governor to make it clear he was irritated.... ''There's a game in politics that says, `Let's float a rumor and force somebody to talk about it.' And I'm not playing the game,'' Bush said. ''I've been investigated, they've had reporters all over my background.'' He added: ''You can draw any conclusion you want, but what you cannot draw is the conclusion that I have not brought honor and respect when given the highest office in my state.'' Bush's remark did not satisfy the questioner, 17-year-old Glenn Dyer, a high school senior who wanted to know the difference between President Clinton's parsing of the word ''is'' and Bush's refusal to say flat-out that he had never done drugs. ''He had a thing for circumlocution,'' [a] high school junior said. ''He had a few good points. But overall, he just managed to avoid questions.''" --more

SUNNYVALE, CA--"Telling reporters and critics to "stick to the issues that matter," Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush declined to answer questions Monday concerning his alleged involvement in a 1984 Brownsville, TX, mass murder, in which 17 people were ritualistically murdered and skinned. "I will not stoop to discussing that," said Bush during a campaign stop at a Bay Area software-packaging plant. "We've got people across this country without health care, a broken educational system, taxes that are way too high, and all you want to talk about is something that may or may not have happened 16 years ago? I'm sorry, but I find that offensive."" more

"I have read with great interest the news on your site. I've found the postings informative and amusing, and I assumed they were factual. However, after seeing your report on the Brownsville mass murder, and your link to another site giving more detail on the subject, I have to dismiss the Bush Watch as another parody site. Humorous, but that's all."

You have decided to dismiss Bush Watch as being a parody site because we have included a lead and a link to one parody story from a nationally-known parody site among thousands of links to news stories around the world and hundreds of documented, factual political stories? That, of course, is your choice, sir. Please note that the parody story is in quotes and the same first paragraph is repeated in the full parody story you're linked to, fully indicating the source of the story. Using your logic, however, you'll have to stop reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all of the other national and local newspapers that you probably read, since satire and parody is often included. Further, you'll have to cancel subscriptions to all magazines on both sides of the political issues, from the National Review to the Texas Observer, from Time to the New Republic. In short, you'll be without the normal news channels you probably use. The fact of the matter is that you'd be very hard pressed to find sources of hard news that don't provide parody and satire within its pages. Like the other sources of news, we depend upon the maturity and intelligence of our readers to distinguish between fact and obvious fiction. However, just to be sure that everyone got the "joke" of the parody, directly above the lead-in to the linked parody we included a factual recent story (linked) of the kind that the Onion story was making fun of. I'm sorry that you appear to have missed the point of the juxtaposition of the two stories in the "Bush News Capsule" unit, that you did not know that Onion writes parodies, and that you were willing to accept the story at face value, and I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused. On the other hand, while we're proud that you think so much of our news-gathering abilities that you're willing to accept everything that we link readers to as fact without double-checking the veracity of its sources when such questions arise, history suggests that no news source should be so honored. best wishes, jerry politex

Dear Politex:

I love your site. Truly, I do. Yet I must take issue with your response to the reader who got knicker-knotted over the Onion link. You assert that there is also parody and satire in the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.

Excuse me? Where are you finding this stuff? If our friends at the rags of record are engaging in sprightly parody of their own windbaggery, I've been missing it in the reams of pundit pomposity and solemn observations on the obvious. If you've found the good stuff, please share. Perhaps you could color-code your links--say, standard blue for the standard bloviating, a nice racy hot pink for the alleged satire.

The biggest problem, of course, is the one you don't address in your reply, which is whether it is, in fact, theoretically possible to parody George Bush. Today, for instance, I read that those merry pranksters at the NYT printed the Shrubster's witty riposte to the observation that McCain turned out the voters: "then how come he didn't win, huh?" Faster than you can say the man has an IQ he can roll in a craps game, the handlers and trainers are telling the Associated Press that he didn't really mean it, that the interview was misleading, and that what he really meant to say was . . . uh . . . something else. Bush, according to the AP, said that the NYT interview "didn't characterize how I feel." You know. He didn't FEEL juvenile when he said it, so it must be just another case of . . . bad press? Bad karma? Bad hair day? Badminton? If we free-associate long enough, will we convince ourselves that Dubya's synapses are actually firing?

What, exactly, would allow me or any other innocent member of the public to decide whether these news reports are parody or not? The whole concept of "parody" implies that somewhere, at some point in time, there was some "content" that was supposed to be "serious," and that is now being "parodied." If you are the sort of person who can entertain the idea that behind Bush the Frat Boy there lurks Bush the Statesman, then of course you probably believe everything you read in the New York Times. I don't know what can be done for such people other than to keep them comfortable until the fever passes or the end comes.

The rest of us, however, end up feeling like a hayseed freshman at a performance of "Waiting for Godot." Sure, we see other people laughing, but does that mean it's supposed to be funny? Or is it funny because it isn't funny? If I start cackling with wild-eyed glee while reading a New York Times article about Bush's economic ideas, is it possible to tell whether I've missed the point or not?

Perpetuating this dubious distinction between "straight" and "satirical" reporting on the Bush candidacy is not, I'm afraid, putting journalism at the service of the public. Why not just admit that the entire press corps are crossing their fingers and trying not to laugh every time they report one of his "answers" to one of their "questions," but the gang at the Onion just aren't as good at deadpan as the Associated Press seems to think it ought to be?

Thanks for your efforts.

Doris in Des Moines

I am a big fan and supporter of your site. I enjoy the various dissections of George Bush that are easily achieved on your site. Yet I do agree with the person who was put off a bit by the manner in which the parody article on Bush's "possible mass murder involvement" was laid out on your page. I actually read the Onion and enjoy it thoroughly. I believe that your site skewers Bush with facts and credible evidence (this is even more fun than parody!!) Because your site has a firm standing on credible facts regarding Dubyah, I think you should have noted that the particular article in question was, in fact, a parody. It's too bad that you may have temporarily lost some credibility for such a great site, especially when some independents and undecided voters may be looking to your site for guidance regarding Bush.

"I first want to say I think your site is great! I have been showing different articles to people in the office and I feel your links to the daily headlines are helping me to do my part to bring the truth to the public about this imbecile. I never had a good feeling about him or his dad for that matter from the start and [Bush Watch] is simply solidifying my earlier perceptions.

"I find it very interesting that a society that has spent so much time and money investigating Bill Clinton to find vitually nothing in his background that anywhere near resembles the criminal he has been made out to be seems ignorant to what GW is about. Was the charismatic spell of old Ronnie so powerful that we can expect anyone who is remotely associated with the "Gipper"...to have a chance at running for President no matter how incompetent?...

"As for the parody. I am a double degreed professional technical mananger for a computer networking firm [and] I really believed the parody story about the Brownsville cult. Quite frankly, after hearing all this other stuff about the smirking boy wonder this didn't at all suprise me. At least [Bush Watch] had the sense to fess up and admit this was a parody."

Updated Texas Rankings Under Bush: 1st in Children without Health Insurance %...1st in Toxic Air Releases...1st in Smog Days (Houston)...1st in poorest counties(3)...3rd in Hunger %...5th in Highest Teen Birth Rate...41st in Breast Cancer Screenings...45th in Mothers Receiving Pre-Natal Care...46th in Public Libraries and Branches...46th in High School Completion Rate...46th in Water Resources Protection...47th in Delivery of Social Services...48th in Literacy...48th in Per Capita Funding for Public Health...48 in Best Place to Raise Children (29th before Bush)*...48th in Spending for Parks and Recreation...48th in Spending for the Arts...49th in Spending for the Environment...50th in Women with Health Insurance...50th in Teachers' Salaries plus Benefits... *Children's Rights Council. further documentation Only one accredited child-care center exists for every 2,637 children. A fourth of children still are not immunized by age 2. --Texas Freedom Network. welcome...comment...bulletin board Bush Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex. Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk. links