The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - Does George W. Bush Have Presenile Dementia?

September 24, 2004

Bush | Does George W. Bush Have Presenile Dementia?

In the July/August Atlantic James Fallows has an excellent piece about the upcoming debates … an article worth reading in particular for its review of Bush’s not-well-understood history of performing well in debates, especially in situations when he’s expected to lose (as his defeats of collegiate debate scholar Ann Richards in the Texas Gubernatorial election demonstrates).

Good news for you: this article is among the few the Atlantic pieces online free, and you may read it here.

What caught my eye in the article, however, was this passage:

Yolette Garcia, who as the executive producer at KERA-TV, in Dallas, had supervised negotiations for the Bush-Richards debate, says that in those days Bush was noted for his poise and ease in public appearances—including the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid as President. “You never saw him in an awkward situation as governor,” she told me. “You expected he’d know the right thing to say.”
Obviously, Bush doesn’t sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff’s view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush’s consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can’t afford to let the mask slip.

I say: Maybe. Clearly Bush has been content to let his opponents, including the press, think him a numbskull. Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful: his friends don’t mind, and his enemies continue to underestimate him. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States.

Then, in the current edition of The Atlantic, to which I subscribe, there is this letter to the editor:

James Fallows’s description of John Kerry’s debating skills (“When George Meets John,” July/August Atlantic) was interesting, but what was most remarkable was Fallows’s documentation of President Bush’s mostly overlooked changes over the past decade—specifically, “the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills.” Fallows points to “speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder,” but correctly concludes, “The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate.”
I, too, felt that something organic was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush’s problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, “artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects,” who “did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones.” Consider, in contrast, the present: “the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid,” “Bush’s recent faltering performances,” “his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions,” “his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot,” “speaking more slowly and less gracefully.”

Not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush’s problem cannot be “a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia,” because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is “presenile dementia”! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer’s situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age. It runs about the same course as typical senile dementias, such as classical Alzheimer’s—to incapacitation and, eventually, death, as with President Ronald Reagan, but at a relatively earlier age. President Bush’s “mangled” words are a demonstration of what physicians call “confabulation,” and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia. Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.

Joseph M. Price, M.D.
Carsonville, Mich.

This letter is NOT available online, but I’ve decided to post it here nonetheless … if you want to register with The Atlantic and see it online, you may do so here.

An interesting, if ultimately sorrowful, hypothesis. About presenile dementia: Dorlands Medical Dictionary offers this definition of the affliction:

presenile dementia, that occurring in younger persons, usually in persons age 65 or younger; since most cases are due to Alzheimer’s disease, the term is sometimes used as a synonym of d. of the Alzheimer type, early onset, and has also been used to denote Alzheimer’s disease.

It was difficult to locate anything online about symptoms … any links or information from readers is welcome.

Update: First of all, I’m not saying I BELIEVE this any more than I’ve said I believe any other post we put on this page. As always, our interpretive stance is “we post, you decide.” So please keep that in mind if you’re about to make a personal attribution about me based on this post. I’ve posted a million items on this page favorable to G. W. Bush, and when folks from the left have leveled the “you’re biased” gun at my head I wouldn’t tolerate that attribution either, and I’m not about to invoke (or tolerate) a double-standard now. Thanks.

Now, as to whether this should be on Op/Ed: since it’s not my opinion, and since I’m not editorializing, and since it’s from a respected news publication, I don’t think so. Neither does Michele. Again with a possible double standard: when the first Rathergate items started to fly, they were all opinion or informed opinion, but they appeared on this page because we thought the claim was newsworthy and not editorializing.

If anything, y’all should fact-check the shit out of this and disprove it, if Bush is your guy. And if he’s not, you should hope the fact-checkers turn up diddly.

But for God’s sake: don’t rant at management. We just pay the bills and keep the lights on.

Update 2: This from a very trusted source … I’ll protect his anonymity, but I will say he practiced medicine for 35 years, and has served as a respected member of the international medical community for decades:

Dubbya may be losing it, but the evidence cited has no credibility. The “confabulation” part tells me that the author didn’t know what he was talking about. I’m sure that we can expect a bunch of conspiracy stories next, with Karl Rove and Laura hiding the president’s disability ala Edith Wilson.

So … if we buy the premise that Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Mich. really DOESN‘T know what he’s talking about, doesn’t it seem a bit untoward for the Atlantic to print the letter? Of course, Mr. Anonymous Respected Source above could be wrong (but I doubt it).

Posted by Alan at September 24, 2004 02:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments

What’s next? a report stating that Bush refuses to deny that he’s senile?

Once I saw the source (Atlantic) I dismissed the entire concept.

Posted by: skip at September 24, 2004 03:09 PM

Oh, for cryin’ out loud…..

How am I supposed to hold down a job, you guys? :)

http://harrisons.accessmedicine.com/server-java/Arknoid/amed/harrisons/co_chapters/ch362/ch362_p01.html

Or just go to Harrison’s (as in Principles of Internal Medicine) online.

I don’t know where Dr. Price obtained his medical degree, but a first year medical student knows that “confabulation”, which is more commonly associated with the end stages of Wernicke’s Korsakoff’s dementia (a dementia from long term alcohol abuse) would be difficult to construe in an otherwise normal, functional person. Confabulation refers to the unintentional making up of stories to fill gaps in memory incurred by neurologic damage, whether it is from alcohol (more commonly) or Alzheimer’s (less commonly). Now, you comedians out there can have fun with that in regards to (insert Bush policy here), but in no way can you associate a few, or even a lot, of “mangled” words or phrases into “confabulation” Dr. Price’s “diagnosis”, such as it is, reeks of opportunistic and meanspirited partisanship.

In other words, someone with enough neurologic damage to “confabulate” would be unable to give a speech to the UN, no matter how well they were coached.

Posted by: johnnymozart at September 24, 2004 03:57 PM

Hey Alan,

Good to see you giving Dan Rather a run for his job. He’s “vun ner ble” right now, so keep up the competition.

Opps.. sorry for the confabulation.. must be onset of presenile dementia.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 24, 2004 04:00 PM

This is NOT a news article Alan. This post belongs on the OP-ed page.

Personally I think it belongs in the trash. Who is this crank MD anyway? Has he ever examined Bush, or studied his medical record? How do we even know he’s a real physician?

Tell me, would you trust a doctor who said you were demented based on the subjective assessment of others who, quite apart from having no medical training themselves, apparently had an ax to grind against you - in other words, just because I told him you exercised poor judgment about the merits of a magazine article, that you used to do better and moreover that your face reminds me of a puzzled chimp? Honestly, this is pathetic.

Posted by: marymcl at September 24, 2004 04:06 PM

Jeeze, Texas Gal. I just post em … point the weaponry in a different direction.

Posted by: Alan at September 24, 2004 04:31 PM

I’m going to chime in for Alan here and say this piece does not belong on OpEd because it’s a strict news piece from a news source. It’s not Alan’s opinion, he’s just linking and exerpting.

I’m wondering how some of the same people would react if we printed an article that said John Kerry is crazy.

TCP is a news site, not a pro-Bush rallying point.

Posted by: Michele at September 24, 2004 04:58 PM

I’m wondering how some of the same people would react if we printed an article that said John Kerry is crazy

If you did that, I’d have to say he’s not crazy. Manipulative, egotistical, opportunistic .. but not crazy. Now if you find an article that says the Theresa is out of touch with reality, or that Terry McAuliffe is a crook, or that John Edwards is an amoral lawyer, I’d agree.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 24, 2004 05:11 PM

I agree that it is acceptable to post this as news. However, I see a lot of abuse of this concept in the mainstream media - reporters get around presenting their own opinion by “objectively reporting” only the opinions out there that support their narrative.

So, I think this is fine, but perhaps some special effort is required whenever you do it to make sure that you aren’t doing the same thing, along with some sort of explicit disclaimer.

One other thing that strikes me as weird is that I regularly read the transcripts of what verious political figures say, and I have been repeatedly struck by the difference between what Bush says, and what people say he says. If the transcripts are any indication at all (and I think they are because they generally transcribe mis-statements, ums, ers, etc), then he is an intelligent speaker that demonstrates constant awareness of the context within which his makes his word choices.

Perhaps he has a very strong fear of being misquoted and thus thinks too much about his word choices. I have seen some transcripts of sessions that became improptu press conferences, and I was struck by how fluid his sentences were when he was obviously relaxed.

Kerry strikes me as intelligent, but unclear. He tends to bog down in exceptions, counter-exceptions and tangents. I think this gives him an (unfair) reputation as a waffler. Bush tends to stick to the point, and he is (unfairly) criticized as being “simple” because of it.

When it comes to getting things done, I prefer someone who doesn’t get bogged down in trivialities, but is otherwise aware of them. I think Bush meets this criterion. On the other hand, Kerry may too - it’s just that his public speaking style doesn’t show it, and I don’t know enough about him otherwise.

Posted by: P.H. at September 24, 2004 05:28 PM

Then, in the current edition of The Atlantic, to which I subscribe, there is this letter to the editor:

it’s a strict news piece from a news source

NEWS, huh?

Posted by: TexasGal at September 24, 2004 05:36 PM

Sticking to the substance of the story for a moment….

If anything, y’all should fact-check the shit out of this and disprove it, if Bush is your guy.

Yup. And for anyone who is interested, Harrison’s or Cecil’s are the “gold standard” textbooks for Internal medicine. The citation I provided was directly to Alzheimer’s subheading of the neurology section. I also gave a textbook definition of “confabulation”. Unless someone would like to present an informed opposing opinion?

So … if we buy the premise that Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Mich. really DOESN‘T know what he’s talking about, doesn’t it seem a bit untoward for the Atlantic to print the letter?

Yup. See previous post.

The “confabulation” part tells me that the author didn’t know what he was talking about.

Yup. See previous post under “definition of confabulation” and Harrison’s description of Alzheimer’s type dementia.

-jmmd

Posted by: johnnymozart at September 24, 2004 05:44 PM

TG, the original article, which raises the issue of an organic cause to Bush’s apparent decline in lexical capability, is absolutely a news piece from a strict news source. Would it make much sense to post the letter to the editor, which offers a hypothesis about an organic issue, on Op-Ed seperate from the original item?

Give me a break. 1,937 posts on this page and now I’m a poor editor because you disagree on this one item. Sorry you disagree. I’m not going to change it.

I don’t think we should be above critique, but I also don’t have to stand for your snarky and dismissive tone.

Posted by: Alan at September 24, 2004 05:46 PM

“TCP is a news site, not a pro-Bush rallying point.”

True, but I also understood that it wasn’t a smear-Bush rallying point either. But I’ve been mistaken before.

Posted by: CERDIP at September 24, 2004 05:59 PM

Ok, ok, pugilists, let’s go to our corners here…..

The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

I think that everyone would agree, Alan, that we appreciate how much and how hard all of you admin guys and contributors work, and how much of yourselves you invest in this. And we get the advantage of using it for nothing. For that we owe you our many, many thanks.

I think you would agree, Alan, however, that the President has been on the receiving end of some extremely cheap shots in the last year, not the least of which is the oppostition resorting to forging documents to make him look bad. In addition, this article is the same thing they did to Reagan. And while I would never presume to speak for TG, for some of those of us who support President Bush, one more cheap, unfounded attack like this (not by you, I understand) tends to get taken a little personally; maybe too personally, simply because of the injustice of it.

That was part of what prompted me to post, despite my absence. I have provided, I think, sufficient information for informed individuals to judge that this theory is wholly without merit.

Thanks again.

Posted by: johnnymozart at September 24, 2004 06:02 PM

One last thing: it should be noted that while Alzheimer’s patients do sometimes insert things into gaps in memory, Alzheimer’s patient rarely have insight into their decline once its begun. Contrast this with confabulation, which is an intentional attempt to fabricate stories in order to divert attention from the fact that there is a gap in memory. ie Korsakoff’s psychosis.

Posted by: johnnymozart at September 24, 2004 06:11 PM

The Atlantic itself seems to have developed a severe case of Sullivan’s Disease or something, and taken a sharp editorial turn against Bush over the past year or so. Pretty much every recent cover has had a blurb like the one for their Tony Blair article (paraphrasing slightly): “Why is the great Tony Blair supporting an evil psychopathic fascist chimp? Details inside!”

Posted by: David C at September 24, 2004 06:15 PM

When we post a story like this (be it about Bush or Kerry) we full expect that our readers will critique the story. It’s a “we report, you decide” thing.

Critiquing the messenger, however, adds nothing to the discussion at hand. If you think the story is bogus, by all means, debunk it for us. But do not expect us to hold off on posting what we think is an interesting article because you see it as a smear job. It is not our job to present the candidates in a good light. It is your job, as a potential voter, to decide whether or not the article has merit.

Posted by: Michele at September 24, 2004 06:58 PM

I, like many others, am not a potential voter. I’m not American and I don’t live in the U.S.

The article looks like it might be a good one. But the thread title, and the posting of the pointed extract, is certainly an attempt to smear Bush. Just as the stories that brought up possible health problems with Kerry were smear attempts. Let the worm loose, and hope it does its work…

The article should have been posted in a more straighforward manner. Had that been done, it’s highly unlikely anyone would have objected.

Posted by: CERDIP at September 24, 2004 08:03 PM

*straightforward.

Posted by: CERDIP at September 24, 2004 08:04 PM

but I also don’t have to stand for your snarky and dismissive tone.
Me? Snarky and dismissive?

Let’s compare. How about this one Alan:
Jeeze, Texas Gal. I just post em … point the weaponry in a different direction

I was going to let it go since I know you are, after all, one who is responsible for enforcing the civil and respectful comment policy but .. y’know, I could have thought of a lot of ways to characterize my comment which was:

Hey Alan, Good to see you giving Dan Rather a run for his job. He’s “vun ner ble” right now, so keep up the competition.

Other than stereotyping me as pointing a weapon at you. Would that be a handgun, like maybe a Colt 45 strapped to a leg holster, or a 12 gauge shotgun, perhaps a 30.6 with a scope? Wait .. I know it’s a 22 rifle I carry in my handy dandy rifle rack in my pickup truck.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 24, 2004 08:06 PM

Time for a new thread? “Does CERDIP Have Presenile Dementia?”

/me ducks and runs like hell

Posted by: gus3 at September 24, 2004 08:08 PM

For the record:

But the thread title, and the posting of the pointed extract, is certainly an attempt to smear Bush. Just as the stories that brought up possible health problems with Kerry were smear attempts. Let the worm loose, and hope it does its work…

Cerdip, you’re a loyal reader, and I value your participation in the site. But only I can speak truthfully of my intentions, and I can tell you honestly that I did not post this item as an attempt to smear Bush. That is not my job, it is not Michele’s job, and it’s not the job of this site.

You can post all day about how that’s not the case, but only I can speak to my intentions, and I’m stating clearly and plainly that my intention was to post the item just as it was: a question that I intended to follow in the news to a point of clarification. I’d expect that clarification to be “no,” as it seems to be … and as I reported as people followed the facts where they led.

TG, you too have been a loyal reader, but I don’t even know what to make of your last comment, other than loyalty turns in an instant once one thinks we’re not posting something that’s supportive of their candidate.

All in all, I once again find myself wondering why I’m doing this. With Pat Tillman it was people from the left; now it’s coming from the right.

Sometimes this just isn’t worth the time and dedication it takes. This is one of those times.

Posted by: Alan at September 24, 2004 08:31 PM

Within 48 hours, Kerry is going to claim he had presenile dementia first.

Posted by: jones at September 24, 2004 08:35 PM

Alan’s posting of this does not bother me as much as a so-called medical professional doing some lame diagnosis without ever examining the patient.

I’ve heard too many times, “professionals” making all sorts of wild claims… that GW hates his parents and his religiousity is proof that he’s just replaced one addiction for another…yadda yadda yadda.

IIRC, the Presidents medical checkups are open to scrutiny.

Funny thing is, John Kerry’s are NOT. He refuses to release them, as he has refused to release his military records as Teresa refuses to release her tax records.

I find that a heck of a lot more troubling than GW fumbling words in hostile public settings.

Posted by: Darleen at September 24, 2004 08:51 PM

Alan,

Did you compare Texas Lady’s questioning of this article with glee that Pat Tillman was killed? A little perspective.

This guy wasn’t speculating if Lincoln had Marfan’s (sp) Syndrome or something. He is trying to scare voters by diagnosing a patient he has never met. That opens him to criticism to the hilt. I don’t think the burden of fact checking is on the Bushies. Would you allow yourself to be diagnosed based on speeches you gave?

I’m not chewing you, but I think we can both agree that to compare Texas Lady to the Tilman hating ghouls is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by: jones at September 24, 2004 08:52 PM

Jones, fair point on the Tilman thing. I’m just tired of being 100 percent wrong to some percentage of the people 100 percent of the time.

And on the doc’s letter being wrong: That’s just the point. If he really does not know what he’s talking about, then the Atlantic shouldn’t have printed the letter, yes? And if he does know what he’s talking about, it’s at least of note , yes?

That’s why I posted the article and letter together: it seems to me there was newsworthy tension either way.

Posted by: Alan at September 24, 2004 08:54 PM

Even if he does know what he is talking about, he has no clue unless he sees Bush as a patient. I am more worried about Bush having a super hero alter ego(Hulk, maybe) than anything this quack prints.

Just more monkey-talk from the loony left. I was glad to see it just for a chuckle. However, don’t you think the burden of proof is on the doctor, and not the Bushes?

Posted by: jones at September 24, 2004 09:02 PM

Alan,

I was going to say that I was just demonstrating to you how easy it is to misjudge someone’s comments. But I see you now have also misjudged my motivation.

Let me tell you why this article is total BS. I had Bush as a Governor for 6 years. (He was owner of the Texas Rangers before that). This is nothing short of seeding a conspiracy theory about him having some type of dementia and it is nonsense… He’s always talked like this! Most of the leadership in the Texas Congress .. both Republican and Democrat talk like this. That is why he refers to it as Texan.. it is! I’ve lived in Texas my entire life. We recognize that we sometimes speak in a different language, but we understand each other and don’t get all bent out of shape because someone gets words stuck in their mouth. (How about ol’ Ted Kennedy not knowing how to pronounce suburb?) We judge people on what they do. And at those times when Bush is slow in responding, it’s probably because he is going over how each response he considers is going to be portrayed by the media. Just watch any press conference and see how “reporters” set up their questions with editorializing comments.

ACTUAL TEXAS POLITICIAN QUOTES

“It just makes good sense to put all your eggs in one basket.” Texas Rep. Joe Salem speaking on an amendment requiring all revenues to go into the state treasury.
“Lemme give ya’ a hypothetic.” Texas Rep. Renal Rosson.

”Ain’t nothin’ in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.

“And now, will y’all stand and be recognized?” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis to a group of handicapped people in wheelchairs.

“Dallas salutes a person who can buy a piece of art, but not a person who can create one.” C. Greene.

“No thanks, once was enough.” Texas Governor Bill Clements, asked if he had been born again.

“Oh good. Now he’ll be bi-ignorant.” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower when told that Texas Governor Bill Clements had been studying Spanish.

“I’d just make a little bit of money, I wouldn’t make a whole lot.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis defending himself against the charge that he would personally profit from a bill he had introduced.

“Well, there never was a Bible in the room.” Texas Governor Bill Clements, asked about repeatedly lying about the SMU football scandal.

“I am filled with humidity.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis.

“If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want drillin’ rights on that man’s head.” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower discussing President George Bush’s policies.

“If it’s dangerous to talk to yourself, it’s probably even dicier to listen”. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.

“I move we recess to go outside and throw up.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis during a budget hearing.

“It’s the sediment of the House that we adjourn.” Texas House Speaker Wayne Clayton.

“Let’s do this in one foul sweep.” Texas House Speaker Wayne Clayton.

“This is unparalyzed in the state’s history.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis.

“I want to thank each and every one of you for having extinguished yourselves this session.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis.

“We’ll run it up the flagpole and see who salutes that booger.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty that’s not clear in my mind.” Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis.

“I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you.” Anon.

“There are still places where people think that the function of the media is to provide information.” Don Rottenberg.

BTW, thanks JM, you read me right, I’m sick of people making fun of the way we talk in Texas and characterizing the President as stupid much less demented. It’s a bunch of elitist snobbery as far as I am concerned.

And thanks for calling that comparison out for what it was Jones.

Like I originally said, this is right in line with Dan Rather and his smear of the President. Just because the Atlantic is a “reputable” news magazine .. don’t make it trustworthy!

Adios.

Posted by: TexasGal at September 24, 2004 09:40 PM

Hey Alan, we don’t have to discuss this here in endless posts. Any one of us can get it from the horses mouth, since Joseph M Price, MD is a doctor in Carsonville, Michigan and is in the yellow pages upon lookup.

Do you think he would like a phone call and go on the record as diagnosing the President of the United States without being physically near him or having any direct observations…other than he has a ‘chimp’ look. Bet if I call Mr Price I can cause him to have more than a chimp look…. ha ha

Posted by: dickmr at September 24, 2004 10:27 PM

Alan, you’re being a crybaby. What TexasGal and others have said here is in no way comparable to what certain leftists were saying about Pat Tillman. You on the other hand have been baiting her throughout this thread.

Michele, allow me to state on behalf of “some people” everywhere that if the article was instead about Kerry, it would still be partisan cant and the letter-writing quack would still be a fraud.

After all the wrist-slapping from on high about editorializing on these pages that we’ve seen in recent months, it’s something to watch how shrill and defensive you guys are about this.

Like it or not, the success of the CP (not to mention its attraction for MINERVA) is due in no small measure to a certain collaboration between the site’s owners and your readers. I’ve always assumed that you’ve credited the rest of us with the same intelligence you yourselves possess and I’ve often been baffled at the turn things have taken here in recent months. But the tacit assumption that Michele spells out for us here - that we’re a bunch of dimwit cheerleaders with no critical standards - explains a lot.

Posted by: marymcl at September 24, 2004 10:31 PM

..there is a thin line between sanity and insanity..question is who has more grip on reality..W gets my vote..Kerry`s waiting on the next comet..
…this mud wresting is intriguing…;-000)))..

Posted by: Rob_NC at September 24, 2004 10:46 PM

Mary, how did you come by that conclusion? All I was saying is critique the article, not the poster.

Personally, I don’t think the author’s theory is true and I find it a bit offensive that he analyzes a patient he’s never seen, much less the president.

Please see Alan’s update.

Posted by: Michele at September 24, 2004 10:49 PM

Johnnymozart - good to see you again!

“Confabulation refers to the unintentional making up of stories to fill gaps in memory incurred by neurologic damage…”

Let’s see who fits this description.

1) Christmas in Cambodia - well maybe not

2) “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

3) We have to spend “whatever it takes” to win the war in Iraq - vs.

The war in Iraq is the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place…it’s a waste of $200 billion.

4) Testimony before the Senate Committee in 1971 claiming that thousands of U.S. soldiers were committing atrocities in Vietnam vs.

John Kerry today: Well, that was a little over the top.

Seems to me that the guy from the Atlantic has his sights trained on the wrong presidential candidate.

Posted by: Jim at September 24, 2004 11:42 PM

It should not come as a surprise to anyone here that Alan Nelson, like any other Blogger lets his personal political preferences sub-consciously dictate what he thinks is news worthy enough to blog about.

Most Bloggers can be honest with their readers about their partisan preferences. Alan considers himself more a late budding journalist than your typical Blogger, but like most other journalist his left leanings manifest themselves here.

He has proven in the past he values terrorist leaving their POVs here, as much as he does patriots, and attempts to mask it under the guise of “Fairness”. And he seems quite happy with the results of his successful purging of these threads of voices that will raise themselves in defense of our nation from internal and external enemies.

Love that military insignia graphics though, and the name “Command Post” just screams pro-military dont it. BTW: has anyone heard from Jeffers since Alan ran him off?

Posted by: Banned Redneck at September 24, 2004 11:50 PM

Interestingly, I deliberately hadn’t posted about the various unsubstantiated or poorly-substantiated speculation about Kerry and his chances of long-term survival and remaining cancer-free. There was too much partisan bias in the stories for any hope of getting useful data. Besides which (to be brutally frank), as long as he lasts 4 years (and remember, prostate cancer kills slowly if at all), does it matter?

My own view - as a definite non-supporter of Kerry - is that anyone who can survive the big C as he has done has shown a degree of courage not evident in his public persona. It’s a plus for him in my book.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned “Christmas in Cambodia” in connection with “Confabulation” before now. Surprised and pleased. Sanity may be prevailing despite the partisanship.

In summary, Alan, you took a risk posting this article. You knew it, and had the courage to stretch the boundaries anyway. If you went too far, well, it was only a little way, and no harm done. I wouldn’t have done it - and that would have been my loss, as the comments on this controversial article have given me both factual data and (in the case of TexasGal’s quotes), gales of laughter. Bravo!

Posted by: aebrain at September 24, 2004 11:52 PM

Banned Redneck -

No; I haven’t seen anything from Jeffers since the great banishment of 2004. It’s a real shame, though. I really appreciated and looked forward to his posts!

Wish he were back. He certainly had more interesting and substantive information and commentary to offer than the nonsense in the article referenced in this thread.

aebrain -

”I’m surprised no one has mentioned “Christmas in Cambodia” in connection with “Confabulation” before now. Surprised and pleased.”

Why?

Posted by: Jim at September 25, 2004 12:07 AM

the ‘we post, you decide’ theme is alright. and leaving the refutation to us is good…

Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful

that’s a bit over the top for a piece of news. i’m all for refuting but it’s rare that i descend to the point where i counter a commenter here that chooses this language, author of the piece or not.

Posted by: waffletromper at September 25, 2004 12:38 AM

Does Kerry have a genetic brain disorder?

Kerry brain disorder?

I’m not saying he does. I’m mean I heard this.

I mean is it safe for a man with PTSD to be President? I’m not saying Kerry has PTSD. Just because his wife is afraid to sleep with him because of ‘Nam flasbacks don’t prove nothing.

Confabulations? How ‘bout Christmas in Cambodia. Or a number of other places. I mean where was he, really?

How ‘bout the magic hat. Nothing wrong with a magic hat. As long as you don’t eat the magic beans that come with it.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 25, 2004 06:20 AM

jeeze,

I wish I had seen aebrain’s post before I had at it.

Any way that stuff about Kerry not being able to keep his story straight on Iraq has nothing to do with his brain being seared in Cambodia.

His ideas just change. It has nothing to do with his brain.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 25, 2004 06:26 AM

Ya know… The President is not much older than I am. Can any one of you remember where you were for Christmas of 1968? If you can’t remember, are you willing to MAKE IT UP? How about confabulate? How about you just dig out your home movies and remind yourself?

I’ve been called some pretty crappy names on THIS page, and Alan told me to BACK DOWN. That’s a quote. When I felt that was asking too much, I said so. More importantly, it was what I see here that replaced what used to be some reasonable liberal voices that were willing and able to make me think. What’s left? Mostly rehashed and recycled crap.

I have become jaded with Senator Kerry’s various physical ‘issues’. We all have them, and if we don’t we will. Let me find a quote here that illustrates my point - “I’m just tired of being 100 percent wrong to some percentage of the people 100 percent of the time.”

When I’ve seen my words draw a reaction from you Alan, it has been warranted. I used to get angry, and like at least one commentor has told me, I was walking away from the keyboard angry. It wasn’t good. But to claim that you’re 100% wrong to some people 100% of the time is wrong as well. If you tell me I’m wrong and I don’t admit it and apologize, then I’m no better than the Trollery you’re left with. If however, I tell you that you are wrong and you are, and you say NOTHING, then I begin to suspect that there’s mischief afoot.

AFA the Atlantic printing crap… I’ve read ONE article from the magazine, and that was about OBL’s right hand man. Good article. This one? Crap. jmMD is correct. Doctors have a difficult enough time practicing with patients that they have close contact with, but sight unseen???

You have to be kidding me. Whatever inspired you to print this tripe? The SBVT puts a book in print which many in the MSM call a ‘pack of lies’, and (from Time print version: “for the most part, debunked…”) they (the Vets) get nothing but derision - not because they speak from ‘first hand knowledge’ to include legal affadavits, but because the Liberal Press (the Atlantic perhaps?) would like nothing better than to see our President get flamed out of office.

“That’s why I posted the article and letter together: it seems to me there was newsworthy tension either way.” I stand with the jmMD and the TexasLady on this one. I won’t give you any more grief about THIS ONE post, but you might want to rethink your own biases before printing something else like this. They both have enough years on them that they might be given the benefit of the doubt, and I’m sure they both have access to able medical help.

One last parting shot - I note that only one of them is getting Botox treatments. Vanity - thy name is…

The italicized portion Posted by Alan at September 24, 2004 08:54 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 25, 2004 08:07 AM

**slaps gus3 with a rubber chicken**

M.Simon: “His ideas just change. It has nothing to do with his brain.”

ROTFL

Posted by: CERDIP at September 25, 2004 09:37 AM

Like TG, I lived under Bush’s governorship. Frankly I don’t see any difference between Bush now and Bush then as far as articulateness goes, although it is apparent that he is under more stress now than he was as TX Governor.

Bush speaks the way his father does. If it were due to presenile dementia, it would seem that 41 would share the diagnosis and would be a rutabaga by now.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at September 25, 2004 10:38 AM

This is the fourth time I’ve tried to post this. My second post above had to be written seven times. Typekey is confused about whether or not I’m signed in, evidently.

So I’ll keep this short. News is facts and facts only. Bush went here, on this date, he said this. Period. No puzzled chimp expression, no keeping up the mask, no subjective observations of this sort. The reader is given the facts and left to decide for himself if the President is digging sown deep for NASCAR-type manliness. Or not.

Alan and Michele, I can’t believe you don’t know this, so your defensive obfuscating about criticizing the post and not the poster rings a bit hollow. And the fact you’ve insisted repeatedly that you don’t agree with the article only underscores the point that it is an opinion piece and not “strict news” as you insist. It is a collection of speculations about the President’s mental capacity based on conjectures and OPINIONS that flatter the prejudices of those who espouse what you coyly refer to in the comment policy as “unpopular opinions”.

It is not a fact that George Bush looks and sounds like a monkey, it is opinion. That you are trying to cultivate that share of the market which comprises those who want this to be a fact and proceed as if it were fact does not make it so.

Posted by: marymcl at September 25, 2004 11:58 AM

I too, noticed at at least three times this morning alone, I’ve been forced by TypeKey to repeat myself. I don’t cut & paste from a notepad or Word - I just comment. If I include a link, I do so with a couple of open windows. I know what fostered the use of a ‘door’ on this site, but I think it’s time for you to rethink the necessity for such a hurdle.

OT… Well, I’ve said my piece already. I don’t have a long-distance relationship with my doctor, so why you decided that this guy was offering anything but opinion escapes me.

‘Nough said.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at September 25, 2004 01:43 PM

Type key zapped me too.

Posted by: jones at September 25, 2004 04:27 PM

It’s not news that I think George Bush is a cretin. It IS news that the Atlantic Monthly published an article speculating that Bush suffers from prehensile dementyness. (The article isn’t news; the fact of the article is news.)

In the same way, it is news that there are rumors flying on the internet that there was massive vote fraud in the election.

In fact, this is how complete crap like the attacks on Kerry’s military record became the subject of news reports. It IS somewhat nefarious. If there’s no evidence Bush is senile, it’s kind of a cheat to publish the news that there is a rumor floating around to that effect.

Has anyone seen the comparison of Bush’s ‘92 debate performance and Bush’s performance against Kerry, though? You sure wonder what happened to that quick-witted, eloquent governor of Texas. Could be a mental problem, could be medication (like his dad), could just be a folksy, Texas act for popular consumption… but wow! Unfortunately, in the wake of the election I can’t find the site where the video is posted.

Posted by: Peter at November 21, 2004 06:54 AM