Bush Losing the Spotlight - WaPo

[rndmprsn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/04/25/BL2005042500581.html

Say what you will about his policies, there is little doubt that President Bush has been the brilliantly-lit star of the Washington show ever since he moved into the White House in 2001.

But this week, the spotlight may be out of his control.

Over in Congress, there's the increased scrutiny of Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics. There's the possibly derailing nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the UN. There's the mounting pressure from the religious right and the vice president to go nuclear in the Senate and ban filibusters for judicial nominations.

The American public is preoccupied with gas prices, but in spite of Bush's meeting today with the Saudis, there's apparently little that he is willing or able to do about it.

And while people are talking about Social Security, most of the talk is not what the White House had in mind.

About the worst thing that can happen to a president is for people to stop paying attention...

[WI_DEM]

1. brilliantly lit star since he came to Washington in '01?

only when he is drunk.

[TahitiNut]

6. "brilliantly lit star" or "flaming asshole" .... same, same.

:shrug:

His puppeteers and sycophants treat him like the "burning Bush" but I recall seeing that stuff being burned every morning in 'Nam ... as the half-drums were pulled out from under the seats of the latrines, doused with aviation fuel, and burned off.

[Arkana]

2. The poor widdle baby.

I guess we should give Georgie Porgie some attention, huh? :sarcasm:

This is nothing but fluff to distract from his failures--it makes it seem as though Delay and Bolton are separate from him, which they're not.

[AuntiBush]

3. You think they could add IMPEACHMENT in there?

Would make my day, for certain.

[Mojambo]

4. And what do children do when they're not getting attention?

They act out.

Be concerned kids.

[LdyGuique]

5. Does this mean that I have to post one of the pics

of him holding hands with the Prince as wallpaper? :puke:

or, start nightly prayers on his behalf? :scared:

Please, please, let me just ignore him as being irrelevant -- afterall, his party does this already.

[gratuitous]

7. "The brilliantly-lit star of the Washington show"?

Somebody want to perform a lipectomy of the Post's lips from George's ass, please?

Yeah, and like any "brilliantly-lit star" of the show, the camera is in tight focus to hide all the extras and stagehands working their butts off to make the "star" look good. The trouble is, the Post and its media cohorts have been only too happy the last four years to play up the fictional aspects of Stupidhead's presidency. Well, it's cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Was it all worth it, Washington Post?

Oh, and next time you want to go star-fucking, Post? Remember that real stars generate their own light; they don't need "brilliant" lighting to shine. See, e.g., Marla Ruzicka.

[AlCzervik]

8. Dan Froomkin, what the hells the matter with you? It should be "Dim-bulb"

[remfan]

9. and that spells LAME DUCK

*giggle*

How's that mandate going, Chimpy?