Bush: Good or Bad

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Silverflame
American: No. But I agree with Sultans statement that it depends on how you define "america"

The only reason why he became president in the first place is because his brother and the senate cheated using the butterfly ballots. Now the only reason why he has support is because of war. He sucks on the economy which he said he was going to improve in the 2000 election.

They didn't change anything about those ballots, I don't think. People were simply too dense to use them.

I agree Bush's popularity is very high because of the war, but that is not the only reason. He would be doing no better or worse than any of our recent presidents wihtout it.

Don't blame the economy on Bush, or Republicans. Economic policies do not take effect immediately. They take years to come to fruition, so generally, the party that was in power last term is responsible for the economic conditions of today. And then we elect the group that caused the problem in the first place again, to solve it. That is politics, and why I don't give credence to anything I hear in political ads during an election year.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by eyrei
Don't blame the economy on Bush, or Republicans. Economic policies do not take effect immediately. They take years to come to fruition, so generally, the party that was in power last term is responsible for the economic conditions of today. And then we elect the group that caused the problem in the first place again, to solve it. That is politics, and why I don't give credence to anything I hear in political ads during an election year.

In my opinion, the state of the economy is the marriage between past policy and current leadership. Nixon wasn't totally to blame for the Carter years (although getting us off the gold standard and the price/wage freezes didn't help) just as Carter can't take all of the credit for the boom in the Reagan years and Reagan isn't totally to blame for the first Bush recession.

If I had had to rank the presidents from Carter to Bush on how they were viewed by non-partisans on competence in managing the economy I would say:

Reagan, Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Carter.

Only the first two were seen as positive with the other three being seen as negative. Bush II irresponsibly talked smack about the economy during the month before he took office in order to create the myth that his tax cut was needed to turn the tide of the economy. It is true that the economy started to turn south at the end of Clinton's watch, but then at that point a change in leadership was on the horizon and I don't think any of the major candidates (except perhaps McCain) were seen as inspiring. I think the Democrats would to well to find somebody like George Mitchell, someone seen as more "adult" that Bush without being seen as "nerdy" as Gore.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by JollyRoger
In my opinion, the state of the economy is the marriage between past policy and current leadership.

Well said.

Nixon wasn't totally to blame for the Carter years (although getting us off the gold standard and the price/wage freezes didn't help) just as Carter can't take all of the credit for the boom in the Reagan years and Reagan isn't totally to blame for the first Bush recession.

To correct time lines here a bit, Ford more than Nixon and OPEC more than Ford. Carter gets little credit for the Reagan recovery, other than nominating Volker, but full credit for the 1981 recession. RR was dealt a mess of a hand. The Bush recession was at the end of the term, so he gets full credit. Clinton managed to blow it out of proportion in any event. The '81 recession was FAR worse. Bush left sound fundamentals in 1992.

If I had had to rank the presidents from Carter to Bush on how they were viewed by non-partisans on competence in managing the economy I would say:

Reagan, Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Carter. Only the first two were seen as positive with the other three being seen as negative. Bush II irresponsibly talked smack about the economy during the month before he took office in order to create the myth that his tax cut was needed to turn the tide of the economy. It is true that the economy started to turn south at the end of Clinton's watch, but then at that point a change in leadership was on the horizon and I don't think any of the major candidates (except perhaps McCain) were seen as inspiring.

Reagan first and Carter last certainly. This year, polling leading up to the election showed Bush doing solidly on the economy. Most people thought that it had troubles, but the Democrats did poorly on how to deal with the problem. At this time public perception, according to polling data in October and November, has GW Bush at the middle or slightly better. Since this polling acurately predicted the election results, I tend to give it a great deal of weight.

Even taking the perception of Bush as uninspiring, at least in 2000, there was still the clear perception of his not damaging the system. The perception has seriously changed since 9/11, to Bush's advantage. While the left is uneffected, the middle now gives him the benefit of doubts and the right is solidly behind him.

I think the Democrats would to well to find somebody like George Mitchell, someone seen as more "adult" that Bush without being seen as "nerdy" as Gore.

Interesting. A left wing Newt Gingrich.

J

 

[Silverflame]

Originally posted by eyrei


They didn't change anything about those ballots, I don't think. People were simply too dense to use them.

Yeah they did. But I dont blame you for not hearing about it, because it came out like a day before 9/11. Also, it is appearant that if every vote had been counted, then Gore would have won.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Silverflame


Yeah they did. But I dont blame you for not hearing about it, because it came out like a day before 9/11. Also, it is appearant that if every vote had been counted, then Gore would have won.

False. If every vote were counted, Bush wins bigger. Most telling of the notes that came out is that Bush increases in the counties that Gore wanted recounted. So if Gore had received everything he asked for, Bush wins with an increased margin.

It is possible, barely, to rig the count so that Gore wins. It basically involves thowing out all the military ballots and giving Gore every butterfly, while leaving the original count untouched in other ways. Of all the scenarios presented before the Supreme Court ruled that the election should stand as certified, Gore does BEST in the original count.

J

PS Jeb Bush recused himself on the matter of the recounts. Claiming that he effected the recount in any way shows ignorance.

 

[JollyRoger]

Onejayhawk - I agree for the most part with your revision of my revisionist history. Maybe the Bushies also got stuck with the enevitable backslide of the good economies from the Reagan and Clinton years. I also perhaps agree with you that maybe non-partisans thought Bush would do less harm to the economy than others, but I do not think his image in that arena has improved since he was elected. I think the average non-partisan American supports his foreign policy iniatives, but is at best withholding judgment on his economic policies. If the economy stays bad (and it may already be improving), then the Republicans in congress, if not Bush himself, will take a hit in 2004.

 

[KaNick]

Bush killed our rights with the patriot act and homeland security. Plus he is a moron. He was successful at steering this country that much closer to facism. All I can say is that Canada is looking like a real nice place right about now. Oh yeah he also stole hundreds of people's medicine, much of those people needed it to live (I am talking about med. marijuana by the way). He called off the investigations on a possible threat of a terorist attack using a commercial jet (9/11 anyone?). Not much to be proud about with this man.

 

[klazlo]

Non American: NO.
Bush is bad for at least two reasons:
1.) he is a moron surrounded by quite smart corporate gangsters and this is a very dangerous combination;
2.) he and his buddies push the worst ideology for a strong country: "we don't care about anybody else" and I don't think that this is what the US is about.

And as for the Americans, I think Sultan had a great insight.

 

[onejayhawk]

JollyRoger, call me J. The Jayawks are for my school, the twice and future NCAA hoops champs.

Thanks for the review. I will quibble this much. When he was elected the numbers were soft inside the Republican party. Now they are rock solid, dwarfing anything Clinton, or GHW Bush had as President. Positively Reaganesque. Before the election the faithful had doubts as to his strength of character. Not anymore. I also think that the center is giving him a slight but noticable lean.

Nick. What can I say? No one with an MBA from an Ivy League school is a moron. If you want something that someone can be proud of, consider the recent elections. Contrary to popular wisdom, he stuck his neck out to get people elected. Had it failed, it would have gone a long way to getting him locked in the cellar for two more years in his only term. Now, for good or bad, he has the tools to build a future. If you are fair you have to respect someone that thinks of something bigger than himself.

J

 

[LuckyOrDead]

Prez Bush is good for everyone, but the bad guys

Die bad guys die :ripper:

FOUR more years

 

[VoodooAce]

Bush is bad, mkay.

 

[KaNick]

J, there is a huge difference between doing well in school and being intellegent.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by GrandMasta Nick
J, there is a huge difference between doing well in school and being intellegent.

And considering his family background I'm not 100 pct sure that he got in just because he was so intelligent. Let's be realistic...

 

[EdwardTking]

I don't know whether Bush II is good or bad.

But I have a very strong feeling that in 4 years time we
won't even be debating it. We will know for sure.

I don't think that Bush v Saddam & Osama will be a tie.

 

[newfangle]

Did Bush Jr. receive the Barbara Bush scholarship for Yale?

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by newfangle
Did Bush Jr. receive the Barbara Bush scholarship for Yale?

Anyone who knows Barbara Bush's name should know better than to ask that. When the President's daughter was caught illegally trying to obtain "mood enhancers", this is the woman who's comment was, "It's good for George to deal with some of this himself." He did it to her often enough. Barbara Bush is a tough cookie, and there is no one in Washington that did not respect her for it.

Grandmasta Nick
J, there is a huge difference between doing well in school and being intellegent.

He didn't do that well gradewise. He spent too much time partying. Suffice to say that he had to be intelligent, or he would not have earned the degree. There are more intelligent people around. Bill and Hillary may both be. But do not think that GW Bush is in any way slow. He is definitely not.

About the fumble mouth, well ... President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. The American President

J

 

[CurtSibling]

He is a president in an extraordinary time in our world.

He hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst.
I think he will be good for America in the short term.
The long term is too hazy to predict...

 

[Steve Winer]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Unless we take a stand, there isn't going to be an America, only a smoking crater where we used to be.

This is the wrong time to be screaming that the bill of rights is in danger, our ENTIRE way of life is on the block.

No, maybe if the United States got out of involvment in the Middle East conflict, we wouldn't have all these problems, now would we?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Steve Winer


No, maybe if the United States got out of involvment in the Middle East conflict, we wouldn't have all these problems, now would we?

There are so many factors, all fanning out from the ME crisis...

An issue I think should be tackled is the 'them versus us' attitude...it is moronic and damaging...solving nothing.

Perpetuation of hate is no answer to the crisis...

Unless the world is brought together, and unless we make an effort to see things from other's perspectives, we are doomed.

Also unless an end is borught to the literal and mercenary use of religion for people's politcal and terrorist aims, millions more people are going to die...

 

[The Troquelet]

My opinion on Bush changed as soon as he started quoting logical fallacies [in this case, "false dilemmas"] in his speeches: "You're with me or you're with the terrorists", etc. Isn't there anyone who dislikes both?