and yes, I know that test actually doesn't work but the point should be clear

The general topic of the persistence of representations of outdated technology in speech and graphic symbols is one that has long interested me. Some still-used pictures of obsolete or becoming-obsolete technologies are: an old-style bell, an old-style metal key of a sort that has been obsolete for a very long time, old telephone or handset, paper envelope (e.g. to represent e-mail), a spherical black bomb, a boat anchor of a certain very old style which modern anchors don't much resemble, a circular 12-hour clock face which used to be used because of how a clock worked, but which is now displayed (when it is) partly for familiarity. And the even older technology: the hourglass! Still used to represent time passing.

I looked for the context of the quote, and it was an impromptu answer to a question from the audience. Clearly, on such occasions it's hard to expect anything else from a professional politician.

You are reading Bush as saying he won't update his priors on the evidence. But to me it is obvious that Bush is saying exactly what everybody says about themselves and about the people they support, which is that they won't shift with the political winds.

Here's an example of a person who follows Bush's advice. He is an atheist and a Darwinist. He enters a Christian Creationist community. Around him everyone is a Christian and a Creationist. They make fun of him for being a Darwinist. He has two options:

A) He can make life easy for himself by seeing which way the wind is blowing and becoming a Creationist, so that people will accept him better socially.

B) He can remain steadfast in his Darwinism, because he realizes that the mass of opinion surrounding him is scant reason to update his priors, when the physical evidence and the reasoned arguments of Darwin and others speak so plainly.

Bush is saying he's a B type.

Here's a common expression which is used to chide someone who has shown signs of being an A type:

If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

Social pressure is not the same thing as evidence and argument. Someone who succumbs to social pressure is not being a good Bayesian rationalist.

How do I know that this is what Bush really means? Because it's what pretty much every person prefers to say and think about himself. Everybody wants to think they have good reasons for what they do. Nobody wants to think they're a weathervane, a leaf tossed around by the social winds. It's a massively unremarkable statement. And it's especially applicable to politicians, who are at extra pains to say that they are people of principle and reason, and don't flipflop based on the latest popularity polls.

Bush says "I know what I believe in" instead of saying "I know what I know", because the former is the way we have all been taught to talk. We have been taught to be non-confrontational, so we talk to each other about what we "believe", what we "think", instead of about what is real or about what is right, since discussion about what is real or right will quickly lead to arguments, which we are at pains to avoid. It's not the right wing, by the way, that introduced this way of thinking, this relativism. It was not the right wing which taught us to stop saying "the truth" and start saying "my truth".

This has nothing to do with any assessment of Bush as President. I am reading Bush on the basis of my knowledge of humanity, on the basis of my knowledge about what pretty much everybody likes to think about himself.

Name an effective U.S. President who did not have great confidence in his ability to make decisions, though. Or name one who doubted his own goodness or questioned his basic beliefs or basic goals.

It's a good example, though. That makes a big difference. If anyone thinks the interpretation is strained, let them speak up.