Yesterday, MSNBC's Jeanette Walls followed up on an ONLINE JOURNAL story and was told by the Texas DMV that such a change was "highly unusual," but that it was done for unspecified "security reasons."

The ONLINE JOURNAL's Linda Starr and Bev Conover previously reported that getting a new, low-numbered license, #000000005 and issued on 3/31/95 in Bush's case, did not appear to be a "common practice" of past Texas Governors, since none of the holders of lower numbers were in that category.

Writing in the LOS ANGELES TIMES last week, USC Journalism Lecturer Norman Miller commented on such concerns by asking, "If the cocaine-rumor story is valid, where does it end? Bush has admitted he was a heavy drinker until he swore off when he turned 40. Did he drive under the influence, an action probably more endangering to others than using cocaine? God save us from some scandal-hungry reporter asking that question, even though its hypothetical foundation surpasses the cocaine question."

"Republican presidential frontrunner George W. Bush seems to keep racking up stories about his Internet faux pas. (See bushsuckz.com.) An Aug. 19 story in the Baltimore Sun retells the story about how Bush strategist Karl Rove has bought more than 60 Web addresses hoping to head off more parody pages, such as the much ballyhooed GWBush.com. The Bush campaign’s obsession with buying up domains now has been noticed by editorialists at the Boston Globe, which wrote Aug. 30 that Internet satirists are exposing a major flaw in American politicians - - the lack of a sense of humor. The message to the Bush team: lighten up. 'Given the openness of the Internet and the imagination of its denizens, Bush has no prayer of preventing an abundance of needling, so his attempt to silence it with money is bizarre. Satire and cyberspace are a natural pair.'" PoliticsOnline, 9/1/99

see also...
AP: BUSH NAMED IN FREE SPEECH LAWSUIT. 8/31/99
AAS: PROTESTERS MARCH SAME AREA MONDAY, NOT ARRESTED. 8/31/99

POLITEX: IS GEORGE W. BUSH A "COLOSSAL BOOB" ? "Some voters may be less concerned with what drugs, if any, passed through Mr. Bush's brain than with what other traffic, if any, did," writes Frank Rich in Saturday's New York Times. "Though otherwise cooperating with a seven-part Washington Post profile this summer, this would-be education President would not permit either Andover or Yale to release his grades. Asked by a South Carolina elementary-school kid at a campaign photo op this week to name his favorite book as a child, Mr. Bush responded, "I can't remember any specific books." Amidst all the crackhead cracks on late-night talk shows was David Letterman's chilling aside, "I have the feeling that this guy could turn out to be a colossal boob."

It appears that between graduating from the 8th grade in Midland in 1959 and entering Yale as a history-major-to-be in 1964, our George spent 5 high school years as a so-so student, first at the exclusive Kinkaid private school in Houston, later at the very exclusive Phillips Andover Academy in Massachusetts. He was best-known at Andover for his interest in sports, not academics, and when he moved on to Yale, he added booze to his interests: ""George was a member of Deke, the fraternity known to be the drinking fraternity," John Lincoln, a Yale dorm mate, said, and he didn't consider Bush to be an intellect. When word of Bush's presidential hopes got out, Lincoln thought to himself, "You know, he's not all that smart. Which is maybe what the job takes." Even though it's been reported that at Phillips "the syllabus for History 4, a course required of seniors and purported to be the hardest at the school, ran 300 pages" and that Dubya successfully graduated from Yale with a major in history, his recorded statements and speeches throughout the years have been curiously devoid of specific historical references, let alone the larger thematic and philosophical views that students of history commonly bring to their experiences. In fact, when interviewed last spring in an hour-long C-Span dialogue, Bush could not remember a single favorite book he had ever read. The best he could come up with was a vague reference to some book on Mississippi floods he once read for an undergradute course over 30 years ago. What we're left with, then, is the assurance that he neither used coke nor read a particularly interesting book in 25 years. So it did not come as much of a surprise that Bush has been reading books to little kids as part of his campaign shtick since June, but said last week he couldn't remember the title of a single childhood favorite: "First, Mr. Bush said it was a book about Willie Mays - his childhood baseball hero. Then he said it wasn't that but rather one about Texas history he liked in the fourth grade at elementary school in Midland. Turning to his wife, Laura, he asked whether she recalled the name of the history book. She shook her head no. Finally, the governor conceded: 'I can't remember any specific book.'"

Un-Curious George uses Willie Mays a lot: he's also the person that George most often comes up with when he's asked to name his personal hero. In a recent Hardball interview Bush changed his answer to "Winston Churchill," a prepared-in-advance answer, knowing that the poli-Brit was Chris Matthew's hero. George said he admired Churchill's courage, but understandably said nothing about his superior use of the English language. In the infamous Talk interview, Bush was back to his usual blank look when it came to naming a hero: "I am surprised when Bush can't seem to come up with an answer," writes interviewer Tucker Carlson. " After thinking for an uncomfortably long moment, he names only one: retired baseball player Nolan Ryan." On the other hand, Bush does not hesitate for a moment in naming what he is not good at: "'Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something,' he says. Bush isn't ashamed to admit he's not a detail man. Sometimes he brags about it. 'I'm not interested in process,' he says, almost shouting for emphasis as he speaks. 'I want the results. If the process doesn't yield the right results, change the process.'" This explains how Dubya can support the teaching of Creationism in science classes. In short, Bush seems to have little respect for facts and data that lead to learning and understanding, not appearing to have done much of either during his studies as a history student. Perhaps he was watching a baseball game rather than listening to American History lectures on our concept of the separation of church and state. That would explain the blatant comments he's recently made on the subject.

When Bush is able to say that "a program's roots in a church, synagogue or mosque should not disqualify it from public money, even if religious obligations are imposed on those it helps," he's indicating that his desired results are more important than the "process" of the Constitution. (AAS 8/28/99) When Bush is able to assure a "born-again Christian" facility that won't accept Jews that "under his plan (it) would be eligible for Government funds -- even though groups that accept Federal money must comply with antidiscrimination laws," he is indicating that he is willing to change the Constitution to fit the results he has in mind. (NYT 8/28/99) Frankly, we're uncomfortable reading such statements coming from a presidential candidate who sees himself as an idea man who will leave it to others to do whatever it takes to carry out his plans. He's been very short on ideas his entire life and thinks so little of the ideas expressed in our intellectual and cultural traditions that he's at a loss to articulate any of them when asked. David Letterman's not the only one who is beginning to suspect that Bush is a "colossal boob." 8/30-9/2/99

POLITEX: WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT BUSH DURING THE COKE CRISIS. Critics on both sides of the aisle are correct in saying that it's Bush's lack of substance, not substance abuse, that they're worried about. However, it often takes a pop scandal such as the Guv's waffling about his cocaine experiences to bring out weaknesses in a candidate's chararacter that we need to know. That's been the case with respect to Bush. Some observers are beginning to become frightened, and not a moment too soon. Going back to the very beginning of his first gubernatorial campaign, when poli-guru Karl Rove decided to keep Junior away from the media and rival candidates, there has been a growing suspicion that Bush had a name, and with that a lot of campaign money, but a weak grasp of issues, an autocratic personality, and a very thin skin. We have seen all of these aspects of the Bush package this past week.

The Bush political and media apologists publicly ignored the real point about Bush's coke crisis last week, but things were different behind the scenes: "What had some friends worried was that the story wasn't just about cocaine," writes Nancy Gibbs in the 8/30 issue of Time. "Drugs and alcohol are, in the unchoreographed dance of candidate, reporters and voters, metaphors for something that actually matters: whether a candidate has the gravity and judgment to be President," and George was found wanting. The Bush campaign screwup "is especially dangerous for a candidate whose spectacular early success in raising Republican hopes and cash owes more to who he is than to what he's done--and more specifically, to who his father is and what the Bush brand has come to mean. For many in the Governor's camp, the race is about restoring a moral bearing to politics, a return to the days when people (named Bush) who were groomed for high office brought credit and honor to it...(They) placed their hopes in the son, and last week they were left shaking their head. As a longtime adviser put it, 'Why replace one self-indulgent baby boomer with another, who's trading on his daddy's famous name?'"

Without strategist Karl Rove and head-spinner Karen Hughes to pull him away from the mike and re-work his statements into an acceptable response, Bush demonstrated that his instincts and his temprement were found wanting. He grew testy with reporters and downright angry when interrupted. In an effort to paper over the embarrassment, the Bush camp passed out their edited video version of the interviews to the New York Times and other media sources, but to no avail. MSNBC had videos up on its web site, highlighting the heated confrontations. Another problem was that without Rove and Hughes physically present, media adviser Mark McKinnon and the others were ineffectual: "It was... a screwup, and in many private phone calls in and out of Austin, Bush loyalists admitted as much--just not to Bush. A long-distance ally says of the Austin staff, 'No one's got the brains or b____ to go in and say, 'Governor, you are really, really hurting yourself.''At his worst moments last week," reports Gibbs, "Bush looked not so much like Clinton, who was re-elected, but like his father, who wasn't. George Sr. had an expression that went like this: 'If you're so damned smart, how come you aren't President of the United States?' That cockiness surfaced like a genetic code in his son's handling of the drug questions. Even some aides who privately wished he would put the rumors to rest were convinced they'd be slapped down if they suggested it. 'The lasting damage to Bush is not that now everyone thinks he did drugs,' an adviser says. 'No one cares about what you did 30 years ago. The lasting damage is the way he's reacted, showing his annoyance and anger. He's beginning to look like a guy with very thin skin. And the problem is that it's true--he does have very thin skin.'" There is a growing fear on both sides of the aisle that this combination of limited knowledge, poor political instincts, smugness, an autocratic personality, thin skin, and a quick temper would be lethal in the Oval Office. 8/24-26/99

BRASIN'S BEAT: DUBYA CHOOSES DEATH OVER TAXES. Last week Politex reported that Bush backs the GOP plan that is slated to give much of the 20-year, $2.8 trillion in tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens: "Bush called the House-passed tax bill 'in the right direction,' writes Matthew Miller in an LA Times syndicated column, 'thereby tacitly endorsing a sop to wealthy heirs--including himself and his kids.'" "What Miller is talking about," writes Politex, " is the Republican plan to eliminate estate taxes, a plan Miller thinks is filled with 'deceit, injustice, and hypocrisy.'" Miller feels that the GOP is framing the issue as being "populist," when, in reality, only those estates with a value over $650,000 are required to pay estate taxes. This means that only the wealthiest two percent in the country, Dubya's natural constituency according to his record of campaign donors, pay any estate tax at all. And since the wealthiest would want other taxpayers to pick up the $25 billion bill that the elimination of the estate tax will bring, one assumes that the less wealthy, say, the middle-class, will be asked to pick up the slack. Politex goes on to report that George has even learned GOP-speak with respect to this issue. He calls the estate tax the "death penalty." Ironically, it appears that eliminating estate taxes will not negate the "death penalty." Just the opposite. A study suggests that eliminating estate taxes will actually create a death penalty, and we're not talking metaphorically, here.

"As any good supply-sider knows, revenue raising is at best an incidental side effect of tax policy," opines Jodie T. Allen in a recent issue of Slate. "The real reason to raise or lower taxes is to 'incentivize' behavior. If you wish to discourage something (say, cigarette smoking), you tax the bejeezus out of it. If you wish to encourage something (say, the educating of children, or the realization of capital gains), you lower the tax on it. And if you can't get enough of something, you cut the tax to zero." Allen goes on to determine that House Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Archer (R-Tex) "and his 196 Republican and 26 Democratic co-sponsors wish to encourage the supply of death. In the face of the current 55 percent tax rate on large estates, it's no wonder that most well-heeled Americans spend so much time and money avoiding the meeting with their Maker. With the prospect of Mr. Archer's zero tax rate, millions more Americans will decide to cash in their chips secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will not put his paw in the proceeds."

Slate fellow-reporter David Plotz decided to test the Allen theory against fact. To his surprise, he learned that her conclusions were correct. Plotz "obtained a chart of worldwide death-tax rates from the American Council for Capital Formation, grabbed life-expectancy data from Overpopulation.com, and got to work. Death tax rates in the 24 sampled nations ranged from 0 percent (Indonesia, China, India, and others) to 70 percent (Japan). Average life expectancy varied from 62 years in Indonesia to 80 years in Japan. Click here for all data. After much calculation and graphing, the amazing truth emerged: Low death taxes correlate with low life expectancy, and high death taxes correlate with high life expectancy." (The graph of the data may be seen at the beginning of this story.) Plotz concludes that his findings have "staggering implications for public policy. Death and taxes are no longer the inevitabilities of the human condition. In fact, Plotz's Theorem™ demonstrates that mankind can now choose death or taxes." On the basis of Plotz's findings, we believe that Bush will want to reconsider his support of the GOP plan to eliminate the estate tax, because no presidential candidate would want to be thought of as choosing death over taxes. 8/4-6/99