President Bush’s iPod: 250 Songs, Downloaded by Others | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

President Bush’s iPod: 250 Songs, Downloaded by Others

Author's pic

By Jeremy Horwitz

Editor-in-Chief, iLounge
Published: Monday, April 11, 2005
News Categories: iPod

In an unusually detailed look at the music collection of a sitting President, The New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller reports that the “First iPod” has become the “indispensible new exercise toy” of George W. Bush, and is “loaded with country and popular rock tunes”, “heavy on traditional country singers like George Jones, Alan Jackson and Kenny Chesney.” Received from his daughters as a birthday gift in July 2004, the iPod contains only 250 songs, and is used “chiefly during bike workouts to help him pump up his heartbeat, which he monitors with a wrist strap.”

Most interestingly, The Times reports that Bush “does not take the time to download the music himself;” rather, he has had his personal aide buy songs from the iTunes Music Store, and “also has an eclectic mix of songs downloaded into his iPod from Mark McKinnon, a biking buddy and his chief media strategist during the 2004 campaign.”

This item now closed to comments

« Mix: Switch, Time 100, iPod graphics, iPod shuffle utility

Site updates continuing, comments welcomed »

Related Stories

Comments

41

Al Gore invented the iPod

Posted by yakman on April 11, 2005 at 7:06 PM (PDT)

42

ok…..the ipod is officially not cool anymore :(  ps. in regards to the bush, 1280 sat score. this is a man who’s father was and still is very powerful. scoring decently on any test is not a direct result of intelligence. if anything the fact that bush jr scored 1280 goes to show that anyone who studies and is tutored can pass…what i do think is worse, is that anyone who claims to be intelligent can tell u with a straight face that bush is not completely stupid smile

Posted by b6662966 on April 11, 2005 at 11:21 PM (PDT)

43

“President Bush is among the greatest presidents our country has ever had.”

.... ... .. .

Posted by johnnyb on April 12, 2005 at 3:39 AM (PDT)

44

I realize most of you are young but history will show that Bush is a very good president.  As a veteran, he has my respect.  That’s important because the military is what gives you the opportunity to sit behind your cozy keyboard and bash him.

Posted by jake01 in Dixie on April 12, 2005 at 5:39 AM (PDT)

45

I’m a veteran too and I say the man should be impeached~! 
I don’t care what agency came up with the pre-war intelligence…  Only one man was at the helm when the decision was made to invade a sovereign nation and that man was W. 
Whatever happened to the responsibility of the office?  Remember “The Buck Stops Here”?  Those were the days.  Now it’s just fingerpointing and rewriting history.  “We never said anything about WMDs… We went in to liberate the Iraqis”.  It’s BS! 
WE WERE LIED TO PEOPLE!  OPEN YOUR EYES!

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 6:42 AM (PDT)

46

... Does anyone remember Osama?  Wonder how he’s doing lately… Maybe someone should try to catch him… Nah, Let’s go kill some Iraqis instead.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 6:44 AM (PDT)

47

ha, “sovereign nation”.... that’s amusing…

you sound like you are trying to validate that shitstorm of a government they had before we came into town.

Posted by mrn121 in Fairfax, VA on April 12, 2005 at 6:46 AM (PDT)

48

I wonder if Osama has an iPod.

Posted by mrn121 in Fairfax, VA on April 12, 2005 at 6:47 AM (PDT)

49

MrBeer, as a veteran you sure do not know much about war. It is congress that declares war. So stop saying it is Bush’s fault we are there. Bush did not make the final decision to go to war, our representatives did.

Posted by jTizzle on April 12, 2005 at 8:43 AM (PDT)

50

McBeer,  We also thought Vietnam would be a small “police action”.  Because it wasn’t, should we have impeached Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon?  C’mon, snap out of it.

Posted by jake01 in Dixie on April 12, 2005 at 9:19 AM (PDT)

51

First ipod=Bush is an boring old fart.  And when you are the president, the public has the right to judge him on a personal level.

Posted by Sport283 on April 12, 2005 at 10:10 AM (PDT)

52

JTizzle;
Read the news once in a while… Congress never declared war on Iraq.  They authorized the prez to take action based on the (flawed)evidence that he gave them.

jake01;
The Vietnam war was a complicated issue very different than our current situation.  Perhaps learning from our mistakes would be a good lesson for tomorrow.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 10:15 AM (PDT)

53

Yes, they authorized him to do what he thought was right for the country. Say what you want…but imo it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Posted by jTizzle on April 12, 2005 at 11:33 AM (PDT)

54

“better safe than sorry”... That’s a great philisophy on which to base our foreign policy.
We are in fact less safe and very sorry.
We’re creating terrorists faster than we can kill them and the one who attacked us (remember Osama?) is gaining support with every bomb we drop.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 11:41 AM (PDT)

55

MRBeer,  I disagree.  Look what we might have dome if we had stopped Hitler in the 1930’s?  But no, we kept our head in the sand.  We would have saved 6 million Jews form a horrible death.  I think Bush is right in being pro-active with these Islamic thugs.

Posted by jake01 in Dixie on April 12, 2005 at 11:58 AM (PDT)

56

Saddam was a thug, but he was far from the next Hitler.  We had him contained.  He was no threat to the region or the US.
Meanwile, someone who is capable of attacking us (and has proven it) it is all but forgotten.
I wonder if we are attacked again if people will then open their eyes and see that it could have been prevented if Bush had stayed on target and punished those responsible for 9/11.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 12:12 PM (PDT)

57

mrbeer,

so saddam killing half a million people was alright, hitler killing 6 million wasn’t?

where, exactly, do you draw that line?  is it around the 1 or 2 million mark?

and how selfish is it to say that since he wasnt a threat to us that we shouldnt bother to help get rid of him?  seems a little bit self-centered to say “well, we have the resources to help this country, but it isnt our problem, so who cares,” doesnt it?

but i really want an answer to my first question.  obviously half a million innocent people is not enough for you to justify going in.  6 million people is (assuming, of course, that you were all for getting rid of hitler for his crimes against humanity).  where do you personally draw that line, and how do you come to that number?

i would also like to know if you were equally angry at bill clinton when he asked for UN support to go in and remove Milosevic (who posed NO threat to anyone besides his own people), was turned down, and decided to go in unilaterally and remove him just for the fact that he was a dictator killing his own people.  if you have any thread of dignity (that is to say, if your reasons are based on actual moral convictions, and not just standard bush-hating), you would have been as opposed (if not more so) to that military operation.  for the record, i was in favor of it because i am not a hypocrite.

Posted by mrn121 in Fairfax, VA on April 12, 2005 at 12:22 PM (PDT)

58

No.  Saddam was a thug and I’m glad he’s out of the picture, but
1)the ends do not justify the means.  We were lied to.  Also, see the discussion above for how many Iraqis our bombs have taken out and
2)Why did he choose to go into Iraq when he did?  Because with the fear in the nation after 9/11, we were scared and gullible.  He took advantage of our fear to put his own agenda into action while letting the real threat get away.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 12:30 PM (PDT)

59

i would love for you to directly answer my question about how many of his own people a dictator has to kill before you think we should step in.

you also didnt answer my question about milosevic.

ask most anti-war protestors why they dont support the war and here is what they say:

1) the u.n. did not support it
2) it was unilateral/unpopular in the world
3) it wasnt affecting us

then show them what clinton did in serbia and watch them shut up.  it works everytime.  they cant bear to admit that they ALREADY supported a military strike that broke ALL 3 of those rules.  find new talking points, man.  you are a hypocrite.

Posted by mrn121 in Fairfax, VA on April 12, 2005 at 12:41 PM (PDT)

60

So, you’re just going to go ahead and assume that I supported that action and call me a hypocrite?  Nice.

Honestly, I have to admit that I really don’t know enough about Milosevic to have an opinion.  I was in a very different place in my life back then and didn’t follow these things nearly as closely as I do now.  I am however paying attention to what’s going on now.

Posted by B.Mick in Austin, TX on April 12, 2005 at 12:46 PM (PDT)

Page 3 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.