I think that this discussion on Bush's role and overleaves has been really good work, as Michael might say.
There are several ways to discern roles (and other Michael traits). One is through intellect: comparing observable details with what we know about the roles. This is an essential part of validation--what is true should make good intellectual sense--but if it's the only approach taken, it can lead down the garden path of theory: we can come up with an idea that seems sound because it's supported by good arguments, but that's divorced from real life. There are several ways that the intellectual process can be cross-checked.
The most important one is to gain a sense of the look and feel of each of the roles, including facial expressions, body language, and, beyond that, the flavor or energy. If you're able to psychically see or sense the energy field, its shape and texture can also give clues: for example, artisans tend to have the largest, fluffiest auras, and warriors have the most compact, close-to-the-body auras.
Another tool is to note how different roles make you feel emotionally. When I find someone to be adorable, it's usually an artisan, and priests usually give me a warm feeling. Warriors and kings give me a bracing feeling. Of course, this doesn't always work--we're each complex, and there are exceptions to every rule--but it's a good supplement to other approaches.
The bad news is that with someone like Bush, with whom there might be mitigating factors, all bets are off. Then, it comes down to which channeling you most trust or what makes the most sense to you.
It's interesting that there wasn't even agreement among Yarbro channels as to his role. As Victoria shared, Yarbro herself got scholar, but one or two others got artisan, I understand.
This could be disheartening to students, especially those who are new to the teachings. It could appear that the teachings themselves aren't valid when something as fundamental as role can't be easily channeled or discerned. Older students are more likely to take discrepancies in stride, since we've seen a lot of them, but discrepancies do, of course, raise questions.
My controversial opinion is that the first one to channel specific information is most likely to be accurate, provided that the channel is good at getting that kind of material and was free of bias. However, there's currently no comprehensive way to know who got what when, when it comes to celebrity overleaves, and it's unlikely that there will be.
In terms of discerning Michael information rather than channeling it, in my experience some people are clear-cut and others are hard to read, for several possible reasons.
One is that some people have strong influences from other roles, through essence twin bleedthrough, casting, overleaves, or imprinting.
On the Gateway list, this pithy quote from Messages from Michael (p. 103) was posted:
"The life role often bears little relation to the essence role and if false personality is firmly in control, it will almost be impossible to detect the essence role."
I don't think that being President or otherwise successful necessarily equates with being in positive poles or true personality. In fact, being in true personality could hinder one's worldly success in corrupt circles.
Also, someone who has been through heavy mental/emotional trauma, either earlier in this life or in recent past lives, can be hard to read because you're seeing the distortion of the damage more than the true self. Physical trauma in this life could also mask the essence.
I channeled that Bush had "extensive brain damage due to drug and alcohol use added to learning disabilities that stem, in part, from a head injury at age three." Was this part of his pre-natal plan? "No. He was later drafted as a pawn in other people's game."
We can twist ourselves into pretzels trying to rationalize any role for any person, but if Bush is a scholar, this could account for him not looking like one, and being inarticulate.
My younger brother is a baby scholar who is mildly retarded. Still, you can see the scholar influence, such as in how he saves stacks of newspapers and other media--scholars tend to be collectors and packrats. Does anyone know if Bush is? My brother also has an encyclopedic knowledge of football statistics, and remembers small details from the past--the part of his brain that allows for that still works.
Also, if Bush is not in the intellectual center or part of center, he'd look less scholarly.
Bush probably has a strongly martial body type (good for athletics), and I understand he has a lot of Mars in his astrological chart. Mars was the god of war, and obviously there's a warrior connection here, but astrology and body type aren't necessarily indicators of role--they might relate more to life task, karma, etc.--issues for this lifetime only.
The chart item I have the least doubt about for Bush is his goal: flow/stagnation seems obvious. I've noticed that many people with this goal bounce around to a lot of different careers, and have (external) things easy. Another Messages quote: "Lawmaking is a stagnation activity."
I'd also vote for him being young manifesting baby. His life events look like Young Souls on Parade, yet his perspective has a black-and-white baby soul quality.
Scholar energy, being neutral, doesn't have a strong color, so other chart elements show up especially strongly. A small red plate catches your eye against a white wall much more than against a blue one. For example, a scholar with a discarnate artisan essence twin and casting, and soft overleaves such as emotional center and spiritualist, can look like a "watered down" artisan. He would lack the artisan's five inputs and creative chaos, but he might mimic them somewhat.
On the other hand, for the argument that Bush is an artisan, it's a mistake to expect all artisans (or any other role) to look a certain way. Artisans account for 22% of the world's population, according to Yarbro. The U.S. seems to be an artisan (and warrior) magnet, and it's probably closer to 30% here. 30% of the people I see aren't artistic or notably good with crafts, even discounting those of other roles who are (sages can be very creative, too, as can the other roles). Many artisans, like the other roles, work in a boring job, raise their children, flop down in front of the television at night, and get chores done on the weekend. Still, in many, you might see a particular flair for cooking or fixing things, for instance, that only comes out occasionally.
Also, artisans who practice practical trades such as construction or engineering are likely to look more grounded than those whose work is more purely creative, although they might take flights of fancy when they can. In addition to their occupation, other Michael chart elements as well as their imprinting and astrological chart can offer clues as to how stereotypical of their role people might be.
I think it's the MIchael Handbook that says that if you can't figure out someone's role, s/he is probably an artisan, because artisans are so chameleon-like. However, that's not my experience. Sages have a special resonance with artisans (and vice versa) and I often seem to be good at spotting them--I feel that affinity. For me, when I can't figure out someone's role and I later channel it, most often the person turns out to be a scholar. There are, of course, the stereotypical bookish scholars, but there are many scholars who take on other colorings. Spotting neutrality is harder than spotting a strong color.
My take on Bush is that no one's been home for a long time. Not only is he controlled by other people but his energy field is infested with psychic flotsam, such as fragments of earthbound souls. Heavy drug and alcohol use puts a lot of holes in the aura and make one highly vulnerable to being occupied by parasitic and sometimes controlling entities.
A friend who channels and who met both Gore and Bush said she got a warm, friendly energy from Gore, and a knot in her stomach from Bush's energy. It was probably not because of Bush himself, but because of the negative entities he carries.
I've never been able to really dislike the man, although I detest what he is doing and stands for. I think he's probably a nice guy; I'd feel fine about him fixing my car or selling me an insurance policy (although I'd shop around). One some level, he must feel very uncomfortable, that he's in way over his head, and I feel a bit sorry for him. The really sad thing, to me, though, is that so many people voted for him. Even if he didn't win legitimately, if more people had really looked at the man and his record, it shouldn't have been even close. Why was the media so gentle with him, for example, about his involvement in the S&L fiasco? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Carolyn Myss tells a story about man who had his business taken from him, and before he could tell his wife, she told him she was divorcing him. He told Myss that only God can screw up your life that much. In other words, it was too much to be coincidental. He figured that there was a higher reason for what was happening. He opened to guidance and made a decision to accept a settlement for his business that looked ludicrous at the time. It later made him rich and his life turned around.
I wonder if it's like that relative to the 2000 election. If any one of several factors had been different, Gore would be in office. If there had been no Monica, if Nader hadn't run, if Palm Beach hadn't used the confusing butterfly ballots, if the Supreme Court had had one more liberal...and, of course, if Gore had been a stronger candidate. He recently said in a speech that next time, he won't let his handlers and polls keep him from speaking out--I was really glad to hear that he got that. Both Clinton and Gore seemed to have lost their backbone at some point, believing that to win, they must only say what most people will like. Unfortunately, it's probably true to a large extent in these days of sound bytes and uninformed voters, but I'd like to think that the public could handle more frankness than we've gotten for a while, and that even someone of integrity who consistently speaks his truth could win.
I heard that, for a while now, every President who has won in a year ending in zero has been shot; in astrological earth years (as opposed to water, air or fire years) they've been killed. 2000 was an earth year. Maybe Gore was lucky.
Beyond that, the highest outcome I can see from having this disastrous administration (motto: Warren Harding for the New Millennium!) is that it will make people wake up and will function as a sort of inoculation against future reactionary backsliding. Maybe what is happening is being guided for the ultimate higher good. I'm not convinced of that, but I hope it's true.