Talk:Bushism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ah uhnnerstahn

This article is about mis-uses of the language and not speach patterns?

Otherwise, the POTUS' frequent use of "I understand" / "I understand that" (or as pronounced "Ah uhnnerstahn") could be included; as he frequently uses them in stituations where it is clear that he doesn't or didn't 'uhnnerstahn'.

Rework needed

I don't see any need to delete the article, but it needs massive reworking and should focus on quotes. As it stands, it's far too quasi-academic and dead boring. I would use the articles on Yogiisms, Colemanballs, etc., as a guide for completely overhauling this article.

Scholarly article

See Weng Ming's scholarly article at http://www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf -- cached as HTML at http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:QHhkm7XTBhcC:www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf+bushism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Surely, Bush's domestic political opponents are focusing on picking out embarrassing remarks. But let's not conflate emerging ideology with off-the-cuff speaking style.

Or let's write an article explaining the POV of partisans that the totality of Bush's character, platform and administration can best be understood via soundbites. But that would only be one POV, and the Wikpedia should neither endorse nor oppose it, just report on it. --Ed Poor

Kyoto protocol

Bush about the kyoto protocol: "The Bush administration has stated that this would cost the economy up to $400 billion." Hey thats funny..Isnt that how much this Iraq war is costing? Maybe this is not real bushism..o wel,remove it if it is a problem.

Restoring this page with edits

Folks, at the risk of kicking up a storm, I have resuscitated the Bushism page, but in a very sensitive and careful manner. Knowing the bitter past of this and Goreism, I have kept this as balanced and analytical as possible. The term does deserve its own article, but only if it doesn't become a dumping ground for anything/everything embarrassing to G.W. Bush. That would be doing the page a disservice. Fuzheado 07:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In this spirit, I have put the following text into the article area:

<!-- It is important to keep this article NPOV and sticking to facts, and not to make this a dumping ground for everything embarrassing to G.W. Bush. There is merit in having this information here in its own article as a linguistic and neutral description of the phenomena. -->

I removed the comment from the article. Although helpful, it seems redundant, as it just restates Wikipedia policy. --Zigger 03:37, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

POV

Quotes from Bush's speeches that create an impression of incompetence are also called Bushisms. Many quotes include misconceptions about geography, history, political process and the world in general, but there is no easy way to tell how many of them reflect Bush's knowledge and opinions and how many are just results of verbal mishaps.

This should read as follows:

• Bush opponents select quotes from his speeches to create an impression of incompetence. Other politicians make just as many mistakes, but get a pass (see liberal media bias).

• Some books of "Bushisms" choose quotes to highlight what they claim are "misconceptions", etc. These books typically make no attempt to divide verbal mishaps from either (a) points they simply disagree with politically or (b) outright errors of fact. These books take a lighthearted tone but basically call Bush an "idiot" more from political motives than anything else.

Or am I just biased? Let's think about it over the weekend and try to find a neutral way to describe all this. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The version suggested above is more biased than the original, only in a different direction. It is not factual to state that "Other politicians make just as many mistakes, but get a pass (see liberal media bias)". Perhaps that opinion could be attributed to someone notable, but to simply state it definitively is not valid (I am relatively certain that Bush has made humorous errors in speech with significantly higher frequency than the average politician, but lacking data on the subject we shouldn't conjecture in the article). Also, I don't think its accurate to state that these books are "more from political motives than anything else". "Bushisms", at least in the context of the Bushisms book that I paged though at a bookstore, are more humor-motivated than anything else. The book I saw wasn't about disagreeing with the president as much as about laughing at him. I would not oppose including some of your suggested text if it can be NPOVed a bit, but for now here is my attempt at a more NPOV version of what was already in the article:

Quotes from Bush's speeches that create an impression of incompetence are often called Bushisms. Many quotes, sometimes taken out of context, seem to imply that Bush has significant misconceptions about geography, history, political processes, and the world in general. There is no easy way to tell how many of the quotes reflect Bush's actual knowledge and opinions and how many are merely results of verbal mishaps, but that has not stopped some of Bush's critics from using a number of embarrassing mistakes in efforts to discredit him.

~leif ☺ _HELO 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote my comment above with too much heat and not enough light. You put it so much better than I did, so let's drop my wording and adopt yours. Have a nice weekend! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

You guys have done a great job giving this article a NPOV, but what's left? I think this is pretty neutral and would say take off the POV label. What do you think? -Haon 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Quotes such as "Wow! Brazil is big." and "You forgot Poland" are a direct attack to Bush. According to the article "A Bushism is a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush", which means that Bush should be quoted on grammatically incorrect phrases, instead of the significance of these. Whether these quotes might seem semantically stupid or incoherent is beyond what should be discussed here. I suggest deleting this article or at least working on its NPOV. This article is clearly POV.--Sampi 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the removal of the NPOV tag. "You forgot Poland" is not an accurate quote, and should be edited. In fact, you're right, it should be removed, because there's no Bushism in the correct version, which is "Well, actually, he forgot Poland." However, "Wow! Brazil is big" does not push any point of view, and it is a Bushism in that it would seem to indicate that President Bush is entirely ignorant of the geography of South America. The reader will make his or her judgement based on President Bush's words, and that is all that we can do at present. NatusRoma 07:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we remove the NPOV tag. I couldn't find anything that seems to be biased one way or the other. --Pboyd04 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see "Wow Brazil is big" as particularly bushistic. it's just making awkward conversation. Reminds me of when you visit somebody's house and say 'wow, your house is nice". Gzuckier 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wow! Brazil is big" is not syntactically incorrect, it’s just redundant. The same goes for the following quote: "[T]he best way to find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data." That is certainly a very stupid thing to say but it's not grammatically incorrect. The article defines bushisms as

"a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush while speaking publicly and usually extemporaneously."

"Wow! Brazil is big" does not use a style unique to Bush. If we wish to create an article, we must first define what bushisms really are; if they are indeed stupid or redundant things that Bush has said, then bring back "You forgot Poland" and others; otherwise, stick to Bush's lousy grammar. --Sampi 21:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Actually, he forgot Poland" is not stupid or redundant. "Wow, Brazil is big" is. Even if I'm wrong about both of those, neither is worth an NPOV tag. NatusRoma 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is not that these quotes are stupid or redundant, the point is that they don't contain any sintactically unique style such as, for example "so we can more better do our job.". They are humorous when looked at semantically. When Bush said "Wow, Brazil is big" the obviousness of his statement created laughter in popular culture but it's not grammatically wrong.--Sampi 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say "Wow! Brazil is big" is redundant. There is no problem with the sentence at all. The fact that it is a statement of widely known fact doesn't make it much of a Bushism. Ordinary Person 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone ought to collect sources for these quotes so that readers can see what the phrase meant IN CONTEXT. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not volunteering for this. It would just be polite to readers, despite their own bias, to provide them with this information with which they may draw their own conclusions, not just from any existing (possibly not deliberate) bias in the article.

"It's your money. You paid for it." —La Crosse, Wisconsin, October 18, 2000

I didn't catch this speech, nor did I ever come across it before this article, but I'm (fairly, at least) sure that this had something to do with taxes, writeoffs, et cetera. I'm not certain about this particular quote, but all of the quotes on this list would benefit from at least a paragraph of context available... somewhere (if not just linking to the whole text itself). In my opinion, until context is provided for the quotes, NPOV stays.
--KyleP 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (Republican, of course ^^).

Fake quotes

Removed two badly faked entries from top of quotes section that were added by 205.149.177.3 in September. The "-Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005" from the previous entry had simply pasted underneath them. Fakes were:

"I'd like tuh say that John Kerry tried hard but losed fair n' square"-Washin'ton, D.C., May 31, 2005

"Our childrens is bein' misundereducated" -Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005

Of course, if anyone can prove them real, please re-add, preferably without the pronounciation insults like "tuh" and "bein'". No need for those. Tale 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I do believe they're fake... If there we any Bushisms like this I'm sure I probably would have heard them. :-)

Wikiquote

Most of the quotes can be found at Wikiquote, so I've removed them from here and provided a link to Wikiquote. I've left the ones that aren't on the Wikiquote page, as well as You forgot Poland since it has a Wikipedia article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

remove NPOV tag?

It looks like everyone is getting along on the language of this one... And its probably about time to remove the tag. If I don't hear anything in the next few days 'bout it, I'll remove it, I think... Seems like the page is pretty calm now.

Windsagio 00:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)windsagio

I think the sentence

but that has not stopped some of Bush's critics from using the unusually large number of embarrassing mistakes in efforts to discredit him.

is superfluous, and not entirely npov. "this has not stopped X from" implies that X was not deterred by a valid objection, while the preceding sentence only explores the possibilities that (a) Bush has really no idea about anything, or that (b) Bush is simply incapable of speaking for half a minute without butchering English grammar. Both possibilities entail a remarkably low intelligence on the potus' part. It may be a matter of opinion whether Bush is sent from God. It is certainly beyond dispute that he is essentially aphasic. I am not proposing the term aphasia is inserted (although it may be justifiable), I am arguing that the sentence suggesting that Bush is in some way "made look" (rather than simply making himself look, or being) stupid. 83.77.216.101 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does this belong here?

On a "serious" encyclopedia? I want this marked for deletion or disputed neutrality

Can you explain further? -- Cheers -- Svest 04:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does it belong here? Wikipedia is a wonderful encyclopedia, and I think on of the main reasons that it is is because it expands and talks about areas of culture and happenings that aren't found from other information sources. Most people in America have probably heard about the president's strange quotes before... for people looking for information like this that don't pick it up from living in everyday life, it is nice to have a factual, non-partisan source to give you information. And why is it so important to get it deleted? Or have its neutrality disputed? I thought the article was very non-partisan in its approach, and they taught it as a serious thing instead of something to make fun of the president about. And if you don't want to read it or think its stupid, you don't have to. Just let it stay up, for other people's sake, who want to read it.

obviously, documenting evidence of presidential brain damage is a serious issue, appropriate for a serious encyclopedia

Please state your evidence, and stop flaming

Bush may not have a damaged brain. It may just be due to a regional accent or due to people he grew up with. For example, people who speak ebonics don't necessarily have a damaged brain. (Not to imply that Bush speaks ebonics.)^_- Dzerzhinsky 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is our children learning

I've never seen any proof that the President ever said this. Sure he's quoted with it all the time, but verbal speech doesn't leave evidence in the air. Maybe he said, "Is...Are children learning?" When politicians speak freely, they often change the tense of the sentence in the middle of it. I know it would ruin everyone's day if "is our children learning" is a misquote, but I just don't see it. -65.66.103.43 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, now that I think about it. Politicians do switch tenses (and the subject) in the middle of the sentence. How else could they keep from answering embarassing questions and being caught in a lie? - FaustianDeal

From snopes (as referenced in the Make The Pie Higher section of the article):

That's not to say Bush hasn't had his share of flubs. Part of his stump speech focuses on education. On Tuesday, talking to a crowd of several hundred at a cavernous civic center in Florence, S.C., Bush decried those who ignore educational programs that produce no results -- inadvertently revealing a temporary shortcoming in his own grammar skills.

"What's not fine is rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?" Bush said.3

3. Miller, T. Christian. "With a Grin, Bush Answers Early Charges of Aloofness."

Los Angeles Times. 14 January 2000 (p. 20).

...so should that be re-added to the list of quotes? Owlswater 01:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Alcoholic Brain Damage

Article needs some reference to the theories that Bush suffered some degree of brain damage due to alcoholism which accounts for his inept language skills, as well as his Dry drunk personality disorder.

Did you know that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson also had horrible language skills? Did you know that Washington spent large amounts of his salary on booze? GASP! Maybe Washington also suffered from brain damage causing "inept language skills". Not everything anti-Bushites say must go on an encylopedia.

Well, maybe we should add that to Washington's and Jefferson's pages instead of deleting them from Bush's. We don't have to say it like a fact, we can say, "One of the theories floating around is that he's a drunk." Not that exact wording of course.

"Tacular Weapons"

I'd like to find the original quote where Bush used the neologism "tacular" (referring to tactical nuclear weapons). There are tons of Google hits for this phrase, and reputable sources such as the Washington Post and CNN seem sure that he said it, but I cannot find the exact quote or the speech it was part of. Can anyone help? Firebug 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You could try adding "transcript" to the search terms... Occasionally it is possible to find such things, although for old press conferences and speeches, the material is sometimes removed... Dzerzhinsky 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It might also be productive to consider what effects that his ingestion of cocaine might have had on his vocabulary and cognitive processes, as well as possible cocaine/alcohol polydrug interactions, perhaps? [User Calibanu]16.13, 15 November 2006.

uhfoolmuh

I can't believe the classic "fool me once" mangle isn't in the list... Gzuckier 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

added the following *"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." - Nashville, Tennessee, Sept 17 2002 [1]

however after repeatedly listening to the audio, it seems to me he says at the end 'cant get fooled again', not 'you cant get fooled again'. Those who add the 'you' are perhaps instinctively correcting him.

Examples

In general these example quotations seem reasonably referenced and chosen. I propose categorizing them in the interest of readability, perhaps by the issue that he is speaking about (Terrorism, Trade, Social Security, Iraq, etc.) Savidan 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Genuine or Just a Gimmick?

Some people regard George W. Bush's speech mannerism as a gimmick, employed to make him appear ordinary and in tune with the population (see e.g. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051207.htm) The view is backed up by at least three factors. In both the 2000 and the 2004 election, the Bush team strived to portray the opponnent (Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004) as being statemen, remote of the polulation. As Chomsky as pointed out, it is very unlikely that George W would speak this way, given his background: wealthy family, prep schools and elite universities (ibid.). Finally, no other member of the Bush family is known to speak in Texas twang or make similar errors as George W. PJ 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

interesting theory, but ignores his 20-30 years of extreme binge drinking alcoholism and drug use which have evidently caused real organic brain damage, added to the hereditary speech deficits of his father. Look at what it did to Ozzy Osbourne for an extreme example. Bush probably drank as much, but maybe for not as many years, hence not quite as bad as Ozzy, but there is difinitely a similar form of brain damage going on, and for all we know, Bush is still drinking, since he never admitted being alcoholic in the first place, so he is still stuck in the denial phase of alcoholism.

Actually, Bush has been sober for several years now.

Yes, but we aren't saying he is currently a drunk, we are saying that alchohol can affect the brain with longer-term effects.

" Finally, no other member of the Bush family is known to speak in Texas twang or make similar errors as George W." - Not so. There was even a book published in Summer 1992 devoted to his George HW Bushisms. Quoting from memory, there was the time he accidentally claimed to have had sex with Ronald Reagan ("We've had sex ... setbacks! I mean setbacks!"); remarks on Barbara ("They say that in Washington, if you want a friend you should get a dog. Well, I don't need a dog; I have Barbara."); and his perishless remark on visiting Auschwitz ("Boy were they big on crematoria!"). Garrick92 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples

Splicing words together in incorrect combinations, such as misunderestimated and musta could've

Those are both just dialectal forms. In particular, "misunderestimate" is not, as often thought, an error for "underestimate", it's specifically "to underestimate in a way that results in a disadvantage". For example, if I'm preparing my budget, and I underestimate my income, it's a good thing. I'll end up with more money than I thought I would. On the other hand, if I underestimate my costs, it could cause problems. The second would be an example of "misunderestimating", while the first would be simply "underestimating" Nik42 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, No - You either corectly estimate or you overestimate or you underestimate. There's no such thing as misestimateing. It's an accounting and mathematics term, so there's no ambiguity involved. Go buy a dictionary and look it up if you don't belive me.

Nik42, if there were a word with such a meaning it would be 'malunderestimate' not 'misunderestimate'. (which is awkward also since if you don't estimate correctly you're assumed to be doing something bad) Brianshapiro

Actually, the prefix "mis" doesn't mean you do something badly or puts you at a disadantage, it means that you do it wrong, or the opposite. Like, a misundersanding is the opposite of an understanding, not an understanding that puts you at a disadvantage.

okay apparently none of you understand how language functions. nik42 said it was from a dialect. i have no idea if this is true or not, but whether or not the prefix's original meaning is appropriate or whether underestimate originated in accounting/math has nothing at all to do with how the word is currently used. it may be prescriptively incorrect, but that doesn't mean it's not there, and being around for awhile is precisely how words come to BE correct. --dan 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no justifiable reason to attribute malapropisms to binge drinking. It is my opinion based upon observation that Bush's humor is self-deprecating. He likes to make fun of himself and to make others laugh. It would not be out of character for him to use such words for affect. Though some examples may be unintentional, he will play it for all it is worth.69.6.162.160 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Which Tower?

Didn't he say "Liberty Tower" instead of "Library Tower"? I figured it was because "freedom" features in so many of his speeches, and he's probably never been in a library himself, so... :-) Wouter Lievens 13:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dubbya said "Liberty Tower" when referencing the supposed foiled terror attack on L.A. "Library Tower". It was even shown on his Fox News channel. I also seriously doubt that dubbya has ever been in a library other than the kids library when he read that kids book to some children during the 9/11 attacks. -- Vinny 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disappointing

This has turned into a very disappointing article. It has been emasulated by those sensitive to Pres Bush's feelings and over scholarliness. The attempt at a scholarly approach has to a degree missed the point- a Bushism is something the president said that a number of people think are stupid or poor use of language. In some cases his may be unfair to him because they are taken out of context- but this doesn't make it any less of a Bushism if it finds it's way into a cheap paper back. A Bushism is not neccessarily well defined, scientific, polite or fair to the President. To discount any of his words because it is not one or more of these things ignores that fact that the growth in popularity and perception of the Bushism is popularist and often lowbrow. The detailed linguistic analysis, although interesting, is only half the story and Pres Bush defenders apparant denial of the phenomenum is unhelpful. Epeeist smudge 11:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been "emasulated", eh? "Something the president has said that a number of people think are stupid"? "In some cases his may be unfair"? "Finds it's way"? "Neccessarily well defined"? "Popularist"? "Apparant denial of the phenomenum"? Either you're one hell of a satirist or you win the "most ironic position ever held" award.

That has to been some of the bost milliant satirasims I've ever heard. People like Epeeist smudge make wikipeedea a petter blace for all they're hard work. J Shultz 08:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding context to a blatant grammatical error won't make it any less offending somebody who supports Bush. (Assuming they find Bush's speech errors posted on the Web offensive...) Besides which, "fair to the President" should not be a criterion because that can not be well defined across party lines. To a Republican, "fair to the President" might mean not highlighting any errors. To a Democrat, "fair to the President" might mean showing everything and anything that Bush said, whether it be complimentary or not. Dzerzhinsky 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

this article is of no encyclopedic use on wikipedia and barely cites (reliably) any of its sources. I think that an admin should propose it for deletion. -- Damien Vryce

• Yeah I agree with deletion, Wikipedia isn't a comic grab bag for bush quotes. I don't remember the 1911 Enyclopedia Brittannica having a detailed section of Teddy Rooseveltisms. And here is a quote that is suspect on top of that vote for deletion:

"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." —Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, 15 January 2000

Clearly that last line was delivered as "stay in" not "stain" and some reporter produced a malapropism from it. J Shultz 08:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wiki is good because, unlike most encyclopedias, it has no maximum capacity, so the arguement should not be "Is this relevant", but "is this factual?". The answer is yes, and 1: It may hurt Bush's feelings, but it is all just facts of what he said. 2: Many people are obviously interested in this, and 3:Bush makes these mistakes regularly enough to make an article about it. we have lots of tupid articles on Wiki, but they are mostly factual.

I agree with what every one above has said. This article, although comical (especially to those who disdain Bush), it is not in the least bit encylcopedic and does not belong on Wikipedia. Also, I think that by having an article with humorous Bush quotes and not having a "Clintonism" or "Goreism" one (Bush is not the only politician who makes senseless comments during speeches), clearly breaks Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Geoffrey Gibson 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bushism: 351,000 Google hits. Clintonism: 66,900 Google hits. Goreism: 1,830 Google hits. here's the deal: you get these folks to stop using the term "Bushism", then wikipedia won't have to have an article on it. Gzuckier 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "Bushism" has almost become a part of English. Although the word is not complimentary to Bush, the point of Wikipedia is to provide information. Even on controversial subjects. NPOV is hard for humans to adhere to , but face it, this page could be far worse.Dzerzhinsky 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You also have to consider that Wikipedia is an entirely new encyclopedia which contains things that no other encyclopedia had before. For example,theres countless pages on star trek and etc. Why shouldn't there be something about Bushisms?

I hope that in the event an admin deletes this page becasue some people just can't handle seeing this, that we delete all the pages on Nazis, the KKK, apartheid and evolution. 69.3.101.110 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment by 69.3.101.110 brings to mind a now famous theorem - "The longer a discussion on the net progresses, the greater is the probability that it tends towards a comparison with the nazis or hitler or holocaust, whatever may be the topic of the discussion." Comparison with Nazis or KKK to illustrate your point serves no other purpose but to trivialize the events during the holocaust, not to add any meaning to the present topic. Comparing those who disagree with your POV to hitler or Nazis is a rather poor and airy way to defend your POV.

I really wouldn't see the point in deleting this. Sure it this isn't a site for jokes, but a site for notable knowledge and information. Seeing as the amount of times I've heard bushism is about on par with the amount of times I've heard someone say google when they mean search the internet, and google is now a word... I'd have to say bushism is very near a word, and quite a part of todays popculture, much like star trek and all these articles people write about the latest band or new cd. --67.185.55.69 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though this page sounds funny, it is still fact. And that's what matters. Wikipedia didn't make up these words or mispronunciations. Bush did and that it sounds humorous to us, is not Wikipedia's problem, nor our problem, but only Bush's problem. And as long as this is factual information, described under one common name you need to categorize this information, which is commonly referred to as Bushism, then there is no justification for deleting this article.

Yes, it is true. Yes, it is called "Bushism". I don't believe however that an online encyclopedia that struggles as it is to be known as accurate should have this material. It is pointless and slanderous. Because of articles that don't get deleted, as much needed, wikipedia has yet to be reputable to anyone above a high school level. -- Damien Vryce 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mixing up 1956 Hungarian Revolution (which is celebrated on 23 October) with the revolutions of 1848, 15 March 2006

He didn't mix up the two annyversaries, it was a combined celebration of all Hungarian revolutions (or state holidays, I'm not sure anymore). It was falsly reported by the media, in fact they mixed it up. There was a lot a of talk about it here in Hungary, even an interview with the Hungarian ambassador to the USA, he said everything was allright with this statement.

Here is the article from index.hu [2] and in the bracket on the right side is what the ambassador said. The celebration's official name/title was: "In Celebration of Hungary's Historic Contributions to Global Democracy including the 50th Anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution" --Lstadler = Stadi

Decider

That smells like a real word to me. Vitriol 01:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is—you can construct a noun meaning "person/thing who/that X'es" for any verb X, and everyone will know what you mean, so in a sense all of these potential words are real. The point is that decider for "one who decides, the person who does the deciding" was rare before Bush brought it to the light, and it was immediately associated with him when he did. Of course, it could be the case that decider has been independently coined this way by less notable people dozens of times, but that doesn't mean it's not a Bushism. JRM · Talk 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

it's sound so much like deicider...it's fun 'cause around the globe there are lots of people starting to believe bush is an alien, or a demon, or an et, or a clone, or the beast, supporting that there is a guy who can't speak his native language and says "i'm the deicider". that's starting to freak me out! nah but it's fun the way his bad speech sometimes leads to a totaly darker context like "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we" or "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the — the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

For the life of me I don't understand what's wrong (on the syntactical level only, of course) with this statement. I have checked it in multiple dictionaries: all list it as a legitimate derived form of "decide," just like decidable and decidability. None list it as obscure, archaic, or rare, and the OED has a specific entry for the word. It seems many are so quick to mock or criticize Bush that even when he is OK, they pounce on him. Of course, like all of Bush's statements, it betrays his particular arrogance and simplemindedness, but this does not satisfy any of the criteria in the definition. Therefore, I move to delete this one from the list. nadav 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted "The Decider" quote. More justification: OED definition of decider: "One who or that which decides (a controversy, question, etc.)," and has the following list of quotes: "1592 W. WYRLEY Armorie 23 The Scriptures of God, the decider of all controuersies. 1764 FOOTE Patron I. Wks. 1799 I. 329 The paragon of poets, decider on merit, chief justice of taste. 1862 WILBERFORCE Let. in Life III. 106 The..danger of having..the Irish Bishops made the actual deciders of our doctrine." Contrastly, OED makes sure to mark as nonstandard words such as reigner, approacher, and recompenser. I think the reason The Decider phrase sounds so wierd is not because it is erroneous but because it is exceptionaly aloof and self-rightous. Notice how the OED quotations all have a religous flavor; Bush's statement is typical of his belief that he has been chosen to carry out God's will. nadav 05:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not the deciders of what bushisms are. If it is generally reagarded as a Bushism, then it is a bushism. --Ezeu 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "decider" should go back in. I seriously doubt that Bush had knowledge of the fact that "decider" is technically correct. I think to most people the word simply sounds odd, and I think Bush probably didn't realize that either. I think it's a Bushism simply because it sounds so odd and because it is generally regarded as one. Technical correctness shouldn't be the only measure of speech that's really fitting or appropriate for a President. "Decider" sounds odd and sounds like a Bushism. I doubt Bush was aware that it sounds odd or even that it sounds religious. I don't think it sounds religious - the OED quotes are all very old, from a time when most literature was religious. The OED justification doesn't hold water to me; the OED is full of very unusual words that haven't been seen in print in hundreds of years let alone spoken in normal discourse. I think the fact that "decider" is technically correct is really just a coincidence. Rlitwin 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly defines a Bushism as a linguistic error; it cannot just "sound odd" to you. My talk page includes a long list (which is but a small sample) of sources in which the word appears. It includes the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, John Kerry, and a decision-making textbook published last year. I used the ProQuest and Lexis-Nexis newspaper searches, which returned many more results. I think the burden of proof now lies with you for showing decider is a bad word. In responding, please identify exactly who thinks it is a Bushism and why.nadav 04:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

also, 'Bushisms' aren't minor grammatical errors. They are hilarious grammatical disasters almost inconceivable in a native speaker. There is no dearth of those, so I see no point in listing minor derailments. dab (ᛏ) 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that "The decider" still redirects here, to my initial bafflement. Ordinary Person 23:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I started an article "the decider" instead of the redirect in which I hoped to include the controversy about the phrase, but then I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decider. Many people had lazily not bothered to check a dictionary and decided to merge it with this article. So now I don't know what to do. Suggestions? nadav 23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Perhaps adding a section in Bushisms to explain that the phrase is not really a mistake but has become a rallying point for critics of Bush and his policies? I am concerned that such a section would detract too much attention from the rest of the Bushism article, so I am sad that the specific decider article was deleted. Any support for a Wikipedia:Deletion review?nadav 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if The Decider isn't technically a Bushism then I think that it should definately be given its own page and that we should ask for a deletion review. The original reason for the deletion was that people didn't like the idea of a single quote getting its own page. A single quote my ass!!! There are 2 cartoons and a song for it now and is quoted regularly on the news as a catchphrase. I thought the catchphrase might actually be an exageration but if you turn on a news channel they really do quote the president quite often on the it. Just today Larry King quoted it when I randomly turned on the television in describing making of the show Runway.

One of the arguements that got the original article merged was that people don't think that a single quote should get its own page. Well Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report (I am sure you all know him) came up with a hugely popular signature word known as "Truthiness", thats a single quote and its got a massive page, and Colbert only has around one and a half million viewers. How many viewers does bush have.

In fact, one of the people in the talk page in preventing Bushism from being deleted said that if you type Bushism into google you get 329,000 results, and that when you get those people to stop talking about Bushism then and only then should the page be deleted. Well type The Decider into Google... 7,280,000 results, and if you type The Decider +Bush you get 1,590,000 results. I think those results should speak for themselves. The Decider is a BIG THING. BTW Truthiness gets 1,100,000 hits... compare.Dark D 08:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey all. It seems there is support here for reinstating the The Decider page as something more than a redirect. Please vote on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_26 nadav 22:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

well according to that guy on the link you gave me, we have to vote on it right here. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't know how the voting thing works. Is there a Wiki veteran here that can get the ball rolling for me. Dark D 11:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure trialsanderrors is right. In any case, the procedure for voting is at WP:DRV#Decisions to be reviewed. nadav 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So what was the result? Where will information about the "I'm The Decider" quote appear? Are we still voting on this?

Well, there was almost no participation in the vote. The decision was "Merge closure endorsed; editorial discretion may always un-merge if warranted, subject to talk page discussion." So I think I will recreate (and hopefully expand) the page in a little bit, since that would be better than the current situation of no discussion of the decider phenomenon at all. nadav 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Make the Pie Higher edit

I reformatted Make the Pie Higher to expose grammatical errors so they don't get mistaken as wikipedia errors. Also changed mental -> mential apropos the actual speech, the same as was previously done with 'human being and fish can coexist -> can coexist peacefully'. While this isn't part of the poem as is generally found on the internet, it makes more sense in the context of a Bushism article to keep the poem closer to actual Bushisms so long as they don't interfere with flow or meaning in any way. If you don't like what's been done to it, by all means revert it -- I was just experimenting with a different way to convey the same thing and will by no means defend it to the death. Arrenlex 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like these edits. The poem is an original composition by well-known satirist; you can't change it as you see fit and claim it is the same work. The link to Urban Legends Reference Pages is enough for the reader interested in exactly how accuratly it quotes Bush. You are free to add notes following the poem that specify deviations from Bush's actual utterances. nadav 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness, and for the unalienable right of life.

Er, what's wrong with that one? I don't see a mistake.

"Unalienable" is not a word. Rlitwin 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not quite grammatical, but seeing the wealth of really hilarious material, it doesn't seem very notable. 'unalienable is de facto in common use. This isn't a Bushism, but could be average spoken performance. dab (ᛏ) 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unalienable" is a real word, which in fact appears in the Declaration of Independence. See Unalienable rights. The use of "of" instead of "to" is questionable, but it's not a very entertaining mistake. nadav 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's "Inalienable", not "Unalienable". Jeez, guys, do some fact checking before calling people stupid for being right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.199.251 (talk • contribs)

You should be sorry. "Unalienable" is an English word. American Heritage Dictionary Entry. The word "unalienable" DOES appear in the Declaration of Independence. Please check your facts next time. Ordinary Person 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Frank quote - can we compromise?

(Disclaimer: I am in no way a Bush supporter.) I think the summary leading up to the Frank quote is far more on-topic than the quote itself. The quote proceeds to talk about "untreated symptoms," etc., with some rather alarmist rhetoric. The lead-up, on the other hand, makes a relevant and sourced statement that this individual thinks the Bushisms may indicate certain specific conditions (though I'd remove the words "thought disorders," as it's a technical term and usually used to refer to psychosis-type conditions).Lawikitejana 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The rest of the quote seems more about Frank's politics than the reasons for Bush's bad speaking skills. (BTW, earlier I did not see the citation of Frank's book at the bottom) nadav 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Decider

Umm where is Bush's The Decider comment. Its bush's most famous remark yet and has inspired a comic book series on the daily show and a song based off of The Beatles song I Am The Whalrus "1", 2. Oops, almost forgot the set of online cartoons based on it 3 News men quote him regularly by calling him The Decider even 4. There is a multitude of news articles that were written because of the phrase, and has become a television catchphrase. If anything I would expect this one to have its own section.

The page even refers to the decider remark as an example of what sort of materials belong on this page "Adding agentive endings to words not usually accustomed to such treatment, such as "suiciders", "game changer", or "decider"", but doesn't actually state the sentence that Bush used it in.

I added the reference since no one objected to this. I gave a reference from CNN and personally I think that it deserves more than just a short reference on this article for the above reasons, but none of the other Bushisms have one.

Dark D 00:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark D, there is already significant discussion of this topic, further up this page.

The reason that several people felt that it should not be included is that this was already an established usage of "decider" before Bush said it. Ordinary Person 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but if thats true than shouldn't the decider be taken out of the "examples of what correct Bushisms are" section of the page? Haven't checked yet weather it's still up, but I will remove my reference along with that example. Infact shouldn't The Decider be included as being commonly mistaken as a bushism, but is actually gramatically correct or would that just be fluff? Dark D 07:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to include a section called "Often (but probably incorrectly) Identified As Bushisms", I'm not going to stop you. :-) Ordinary Person 08:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

ummm this is a section called bushism that we are talking in. I was not planning on creating a section called Bushism. I was thinking of creating some sort of a reference stating that The Decider is not technically a Bushism since as you say is actually a word, and SOOO many people think it is that it is almost certainly going to be brought back here.

Just something like (Quotes from bush such as "The Decider" are not technically a Bushism since it is actually a word and was used correctly.) Something like that. Dark D 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. :-) Ordinary Person 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my call above to vote on whether the Decider remark should have its page recreated. Please vote on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_26. nadav 22:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Each line contains some sort of grammatical or logical error"

I don't this think is accurate. Some of the lines are just chimeric idioms. "Make the pie [become] higher" is neither ungrammatical nor a logical error. One could conceivably take a pie and make it higher by adding another layer of crust. It's a Bushism because it mixes one idiom (a bigger piece of the pie, or some such) with another (reach higher or raise the bar, perhaps?) in a metaphorically awkward way. Similarly, "put food on your family"="put food on the table"+"feed your family", but it fine grammatically and logically. The pitbull at the pantleg of opportunity line isn't even a metaphorical mixup, it's just a weird metaphor.--ragesoss 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"game-changer"

This one also seems to be pretty common: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. It seems it's a common colloquialism. nadav

The Photo of Bush in the Article

Does anyone else think the photo looks funny? Has it been Photoshopped? His head looks disproportionate to his body. Dubc0724 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's identical to the photo on the White House website that is cited when you click on the photo in wikipedia. nadav 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was my monitor. On a different PC today and it looks alright. Sorry for the mixup Dubc0724 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about changing the picture to the cover of one of the many books that deal with Bushisms?--Roland Deschain 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the photo looks like he saying a "bushism". The photo seems a good fit. A book cover would make a cheesy article look even more cheesy ("..and if you like bushisms, here buy a book full of them"). --MarsRover 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Bushisms

Did all the list of Bushisms make it to wikiquote? The list here was more complete than what is there. --MarsRover 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Laughing out loud.

You know, I still can't believe what a mentally challenged man the Americans actually elected for president... Ah well. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is somewhat messed up

I suspect that the relative youthfulness of editors on wikipedia has produced an article that contains an underlying assumption that is false. Namely that the term "Bushism" relates only to George W. Bush. However, the first use of this term that I know of was in 1992 and it referred to similar linguistic problems by George Herbert Walker Bush. The underlying sense of the article (and some of the speculative conclusions) are, as a result, invalid. --Blue Tie 13:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Who could forget Bush I's "Nitty Ditty Gritty Nitty Great Speckled Bird"? Gzuckier 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there a page regarding famous persons' neologism, & famous mispronunciation, more generally?

I do think that this morning George Bush, the Second, called me " agnostarc" [ ignostic].

Thank You.

hopiakuta 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Decider?

Is everything that Bush says a "Bushism"? This section makes no sense in the context of errors. The word "Decider" is acceptable English. Why is this a "Bushism"? --04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regionalisms vs. mispronunciation

"nucular" for "nuclear" is not a Bushism. It's fairly widespread in the US and no more remarkable than dropping the 'n' in government or pronouncing "Wednesday" as two syllables. Whether you want to call it a mispronunciation depends on how much you believe in arbitrary rules of correctness in the face of actual usage.

Use of multiple modals is also widespread in some regions. I've heard "might could" and "might ought", for example. I haven't heard, or heard of, "musta coulda". It would be interesting to hear the audio. It might be a genuine innovation, or he may have said "must have" and changed his mind in midstream to "could have". This sort of thing happens all the time in real speech, which is why pretty much anyone's transcribed speech looks at least a bit incoherent. -Dmh 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right that "nucular" is not a Bushism, per se, but it is incorrect. The fact that it's widespread doesn't make it correct, nor does Bush's use of it.

Septegram 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nuclear" derives from nucleus. There's no such thing as a "nuculus". 71.162.141.218 02:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Tie has reverted my change of "stigmatized" to "incorrect" for this pronunciation, and referred me to dictionary.com. However, that site says the pronunciation "nucular" is derived from a metathesis. The wikipedia article on metathesis says: "Metathesis is one of the most common types of speech errors." (emphasis mine)

The wikipedia article on nucular says:

Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in [kjə.lə(ɹ)] have been found in 
widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, 
congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and 
one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been 
heard from British and Canadian speakers." 

Oxford English Dictionary:
"The colloquial pronunciation .. has been criticized in usage guides since at least the 
mid 20th century, although it is now commonly given as a variant in modern dictionaries." 

American Heritage Dictionary:
"The pronunciation [ˈn(j)uːkjə.lə(ɹ)], which is generally considered incorrect, is an 
example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one." 

Given the spelling, which in no way indicates this mispronunciation, and the general disapprobation it receives from academics, I stand by my position that this is not merely stigmatized but incorrect, and I feel I'm pretty well backed up on this by the above information. However, I don't want to seem to be getting into an edit war (at least not without backup), so I'm bringing this up here.

Septegram 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Merriam webster does not declare it incorrect. Oxford English does not declare it incorrect but as a variant. American Heritage says it is "generally considered incorrect".

Dictionary.com quoting Random House Unabridged says: "—Pronunciation note In pronouncing nuclear, the second and third syllables are most commonly said as /-kliər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-klee-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, a sequence of sounds that directly reflects the spelled sequence ‑cle‧ar. In recent years, a somewhat controversial pronunciation has come to public attention, with these two final syllables said as /-kyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-kyuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. Since /-kliər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-klee-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, the common pronunciation of ‑cle‧ar, might also be represented, broadly, as /-kləyər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-kluh-yer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, the /-kyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-kyuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation pronunciation can be seen as coming from a process of metathesis, in which the /l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation and the /y/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[y] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation change places. The resulting pronunciation is reinforced by analogy with such words as molecular, particular, and muscular, and although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many."

As from this survey, I would conclude that 1 in 4 declare it to be "Generally considered incorrect" while 3 in 4 suggest or say that it is "disapproved". Now, I quote a more detailed analysis by a Standford Linguistics Scientiest as it pertains specifically to Bush (and others):

But it isn't always easy to tell whether an error is a typo or a thinko. Take the pronunciation of nuclear as "nucular." That one has been getting on people's nerves since Eisenhower made the mispronunciation famous in the 1950's. In Woody Allen's 1989 film Crimes and Misdemeanors, the Mia Farrow character says she could never fall for any man who says "nucular." That would have ruled out not just Dubya, but Bill Clinton, who said the word right only about half the time. (President Carter had his own way of saying the word, as "newkeeuh," but that probably had more to do with his Georgia accent than his ignorance of English spelling.)

On the face of things, "nucular" is a typo par excellence. People sometimes talk about Bush "stumbling" over the word, as if this were the same kind of articulatory problem that turns February into "febyooary." But nuclear isn't a hard word to pronounce the way February is -- try saying each of them three times fast. Phonetically, in fact, nuclear is pretty much the same as likelier, and nobody ever gets that one wrong. ("The first outcome was likular than the second"? ) That "nucular" pronunciation is really what linguists call a folk etymology, where the unfamiliar word nuclear is treated as if it had the same suffix as words like molecular and particular. It's the same sort of process that turns lackadaisical into "laxadaisical" and chaise longue into chaise lounge.

That accounts for Eisenhower's mispronunciation of nuclear, back at a time when the word was a new addition to ordinary people's vocabularies. And it's why Homer Simpson says it as "nucular" even today. But it doesn't explain why you still hear "nucular" from people like politicians, military people, and weapons specialists, most of whom obviously know better and have been reminded repeatedly what the correct pronunciation is. The interesting thing is that these people are perfectly capable of saying "nuclear families" or "nuclear medicine." I once asked a weapons specialist at a federal agency about this, and he told me, "Oh, I only say 'nucular' when I'm talking about nukes."

In the mouths of those people, "nucular" is a choice, not an inadvertent mistake -- a thinko, not a typo. I'm not sure exactly what they have in mind by it. Maybe it appeals to them to refer to the weapons in what seems like a folksy and familiar way, or maybe it's a question of asserting their authority -- as if to say, "We're the ones with our fingers on the button, and we'll pronounce the word however we damn well please."

But which of these stories explains why Bush says "nucular"? Most people seem to assume he's just one of those bubbas who don't know any better. But that's hard to credit. After all, Bush didn't have to learn the word nuclear in middle age, the way Eisenhower did. He must have heard it said correctly thousands of times when he was growing up -- not just at Andover, Yale, and Harvard, but from his own father, who never seems to have had any trouble with the word. But if Bush's "nucular" is a deliberate choice, is it something he picked up from the Pentagon wise guys? Or is it a faux-bubba pronunciation, the sort of thing he might have started doing at Yale by way of playing the Texas yahoo to all those earnest Eastern dweebs?

(See: Going Nucular).

In combination with all of this, I suggest that this is NOT a Bushism (because it is not unique to him). Furthermore, while it is "generally disapproved" (probably because it is considered by those who look at such things as "errors", but who also recognize that English is a language that changes, and they recognize that changes do, in fact, become standard and not errors), it is only explicitly called an error or incorrect in one source. So, first of all, it should not even be listed as a Bushism but in the interest of WP:NPOV, it should not be said to be an error without some extended explanation of the issues involved -- which is a distraction in the article. So, to avoid that, a simple "disapproved" allows for possible incorrectness but does not insist on it. But really this all goes away if we realize it is not a Bushism.--Blue Tie 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is almost a proof that this is not a Bushism that there is an article on this word in wikipedia (Nucular) that describes its use by others since the 1950's. It also declares it to be increasing in acceptance. --Blue Tie 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Here we are arguing about whether it's incorrect or not, and what we should be considering is "Is it a Bushism?" I think it's pretty clear that it's not. I'm gonna yank it.

Septegram 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Background

I've taken out these two mistakes from the list, they were not sourced and Google was unable to locate any other hits for them other then Wikipedia-sourced sites.

• Use of two modal verbs, such as "musta could've."
• Slang and double negatives, as in "We've not got no better friend and ally than South Korea."

If editors can supply sources, they are welcome to put them back. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi and Prince Phillip don't get this much attention paid to their verbal gaffs, and they are all just as notorious for them. Naturally most Americans won't know who those people are with the possible exception of Putin, but I'd just like to point out that if Bushs misspeech warrants its own article, so does that of the people I mentioned. Damburger 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please write articles for those if you can. I am interested to see what kind of funny utterances the seemingly stoic Putin puts out. On another topic, I find it funny that the gigantic section of quotes (rightly moved to wikiquote) is now being slowly restored one quote at a time by various befuddled people (only this time without proper citation). nadav 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin speaks Russian; Mr. "Silly" Silvio Berlusconi speaks it : lingua italiana His term has prod{i}uced...

How often do I get to hear Prince_Philippos_of_Greece_and_Denmark_and_Edinburgh?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."

< http://pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html >.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vlad

George Bush, the Second, has declared that he has seen into President Vlad Putin's soul;

he's claimed to see Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's heart.

Please, what's your opinion??: Does he have x-ray division, or extrasensory prevarication??

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Famous Bushisms

Removed the following, as they've been attributed elsewhere, mostly to Dan Quayle:

• If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
• I have made good judgments in the future.
• The future will be better tomorrow.
• We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.
• Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.
• It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.

I believe most, if not all, of the quotes in this section have been attributed elsewhere, and earlier, but these are the ones I'm sure I recall.
Septegram 19:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think this whole section needs to be sourced. If Bush said these things, sources should be fairly easy to find.

*sigh* One more task...

Septegram 19:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most or all of this section should be removed. There was already an extensive, sourced list of quotes on this page, but it was moved to wikiquote because it was very long. Now new people keep coming and adding their pet unsourced quotes. This is frustrating to me and others that have worked hard to add citations. I've lost patience so I don't fight it anymore. nadav 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; kinda crazy-making. I don't mind quotes that demonstrate what a moron Bush is, but for Wikipedia purposes they need to be sourced. Accordingly, I've added the following comment to this section:

<!--PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE UNSOURCED QUOTES. IF YOU CAN'T DOCUMENT THE QUOTE, PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE IT. UNSOURCED QUOTES MAY BE SUBJECT TO DELETION -->

Septegram 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When in Rome...

The quote "When in Rome, do as the Romanians do" appears to be the work of professional comic Steve Bridges, not President Bush. It's a standard part of Mr. Bridges's Bush impression, as seen here and here. As such, I'm pulling it from the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch! —lensovet–talk –

Not a Bushism

This section was in the article but I have removed it. The word "Decider" is not improper english nor was Bush's use of the word improper english. Bushisms involve errors in usage and this is not one. I removed it here to keep the record straight. --Blue Tie 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Decider" is a world. Just not an English one. It's an Old French word. Since I rather doubt Bush was aware of this, it's a Bushism. 71.203.209.0 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please see the extensive discussion above. nadav 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

==+The Decider==+

"The Decider" is a self description of President George W. Bush which he made on April 18, 2006.

===+Origins of the Remark===+ The comment was made amidst speculation that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would resign, as many generals had been calling for his resignation. During one of President Bush's press conferences, a reporter asked him to comment on the speculation. He responded:

“ I say I listen to all voices, but mine’s the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense. ”

===+Reactions===+ This particular comment was widely parodied. Several episodes of The Daily Show have featured a parody comic book by R. Sikoryak depicting the president as a caped super hero capable of making decisive decisions that always turn out to be wrong.

The Google

It is a legitimate Bushism. But should they all go in here? A few examples are good enough for the article, with a link to other lists. I don't think it is that famous or that noteable. --Blue Tie 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added back in, with a disclaimer that the quote is not grammatically inaccurate. The quote is very famous and widely ridiculed.--Mr Beale 01:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So is a Bushism anything that someone makes fun of when Bush says it? That is not in the description of what a bushism is. The article should not include EVERY possible Bushim, but only some examples and if that is so, then it definitely should not include things that do not meet the definition of what a Bushism is. --Blue Tie 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. However, because of the phrase's great popularity, discussion of it in secondary sources, and its usage in the media, I believe it deserves mention on wikipedia. The quote used to have its own article, but an afd decision (see above for link) was to move its content to Bushism. I started a deletion review, but there was not enough interest to reinstate the article. So I think it is better that decider appear here rather than nowhere. nadav 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it deserves mention on wikipedia (I do not think it does) then it belongs in some other article. This is an article about gaffes and ordinary quotes are not appropriate. I do not think all Bushisms should even be listed. Just some representative examples. And when they appear, a simple list is enough, not a detailed discussion of the event. Maybe you should include it in wikiquotes. Then it would be part of wikimedia but not inappropriately part of this article. --Blue Tie 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate this article, and I definitely think it should be rolled into 'Bushism'. I understand that a Bushism is a word that Mr. Bush made up. I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it includes other speech related gaffes. Maybe, if there was a good 'Bush quotes' article, 'the google' could go there, but I'd lump it into 'Bushism' until that juncture is reached. 'The decider' should be included in some general 'G. W. Bushism/Quotes area', for lack of a better place, I'd propose to put it in 'Bushism', I believe it is widely viewed as a gaffe. 'Bushism' should contain gaffes until there is a better place to put them (someone create a Bush gaffe page). Tim Sailor 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Though you appreciate the article the issue is really: Is it correctly categorized as a Bushism? If it is not a Bushism, it belongs somewhere else. You are incorrect about the origin of the term. The term was originally created by the editors of the New Republic, specifically Jonathan Bines back in the early 1990's. There is a good "Quotes" area in wikimedia. It is called "wikiquotes". The Decider is also not a Bushism unless a Bushism is ANYTHING that Bush says. In which case we should include things he said to his wife and phrases written for him by speech writers. But wait... there's a place for that.. its wikiquotes! --Blue Tie 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is agreement on this page, I think, that decider quote is correct English (it has been in use since 1592). The question is merely whether Bush's comment and discussion of its use by critics deserves to be on wikipedia. Judging from the afd and deletion review decisions, as well as comments made earlier on this page, consensus is that it does. I urge you to reinstate the material. nadav 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know why I asked that?"

< http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061106-5.html >:

Well, let me give you an example of what that means for you. Anybody here got four kids, three kids? You got four? Four. Three, okay. Shhh. All right, wait, wait. (Laughter.) I don't know why I asked that? (Laughter.) Oh, I know why I asked it. When you're at dinner tonight -- and, say, you got four kids -- if the tax cuts are not extended, the child tax credit goes from $1,000 per child to $500, see.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)