How has George W. Bush done so far as President?

[Ecthy]

I don't want to know how close he was to candidacy, I want to know whether he was a good politician or not

in Germany you can get McCain fries

[Carver]

63.26% give W terrible and poor ratings!

Too bad this isn't a real democracy where we can call early elections.

[Ecthy]

Not many Americans browsing these days.

[Jac de Molay]

I want to know whether he was a good politician or not

Well, "good' is a rather relative term, isn't it? He was a lot more moderate than Bush, and seemed to model himself after Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln. His big push was for campaign finance reform, and he also broke ranks in his support for environmental initiatives.

[Saint Marcus]

He's a moderate/center right

He's neither moderate, nor centre-right.

Powell is moderate/centre-right. Bush is way too the right of Powell.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The center in America is the far-right in the rest of the world.


Ned, I think it's untruthful to say that Bush holds the center. He is still utterly conservative, and far to the right of the "moderates" of the Republican party, like Powell. The people in his party that he is upsetting are the reactionaries, those who thought Bush would return us to the good old days of the antebellum South. What Bush is doing is trying to keep both wings of the Republican party happy.

Right now, I don't see the Democrats mounting a serious opposition to Bush. Heck, if Gore is the frontrunner, I foresee another four years of Bush.

Personally, I'd like to see Powell run for the Republican nomination. He needs to stick it back to the reactionaries like they've been sticking it to him. If Powell were a lesser man, he'd resign over the insults they keep throwing at him. Fortunately, he's patriotic enough to not let Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have complete control over the Administration. I'd lose all hope if it weren't for him.

Actually, I believe Powell is a liberal Republican. But on the whole, I tend to agree with your post. I just believe that Bush, although a conservative by instinct, has moved to the center. He is signing, not vetoing, liberal legislation. I believe this is very consistent with his "compassionate" conservative position. He also seems to be cooperating with the Democrats more than he has with Republicans. The only major difference between the Bush and the Democrats that I can recall has been on drilling in Alaska.

And, as I said, the conservative-Republicans, not just the lunatic fringe, are very angry at Bush.

Ecthelion and Saint Marcus, I don't think you are objective about Bush. Focusing on his alleged lack of intelligence is IMHO itself stupid. He has been very successful and has accomplished a great deal in the short time he as been in office. True, Clinton was a real genius. So was Kennedy. (Neither could keep their pants zipped.) But plodders like Reagan were very successful leaders. Intelligence is not the end-all and be-all for a leader. Courage, integrity and honor count as well.

One of our greatest presidents was FDR. He had all of the latter qualities. But I never heard anyone call him "intelligent." FDR was great because of his accomplishments and because of his inspiring leadership.

On the other hand, very intelligent presidents can be failures. I believe both Wilson and Carter were intelligent.

I would like to give you an example of a "great" leader from your area, Adolph Hitler. He garnered 92% and 99% of the vote in the last two elections before the war. He had taken Germany from the brink of collapse to the most robust and happy country in Europe. He was admired by many outside Germany, including Lloyd George and Joseph Kennedy, Jack's father (Neither appeared to be overly concerned about Hitler's anti-Semitism.) However, Hitler was no genius.

To date, George Bush has inspired and lead America well through a major crisis. He has the confidence of both sides in the ME controversy. This fact makes America the sole honest broker remaining in the world. (Europe's rabid anti-Israeli bias and out-of-control anti-Semitism essentially eliminates it from being considered as a neutral broker.)

George Bush's popularity in America, I submit, is well deserved.

Ned

[Carver]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I don't want to know how close he was to candidacy, I want to know whether he was a good politician or not

Clinton was the supreme politician. He rose from Governor of a small, poor southern state to challenge (and defeat) an incumbent President with historically high approval ratings after the "Gulf War".

After the Republican takeover of Congess in 1994 (when the Republicans thought they could nominate a monkey for Pres. and win) Clinton rebounded and proved to the American people that the Democrats are where the people are when it comes to the issues: education, healthcare, social security, gun control, sexual freedom (okay everyone can make the jokes in their heads - you don't have to post them ). Clinton came back and trounced Bob Dole in the 1996 election.

Clinton survived the Republican instigated impeachment process. The people saw impeachment for what it was: an attempt to tarnish a distinguished President with largely (not completely) untrue allegations, a la Paula Jones.

History will record Clinton as a far more honorable man than Ronald Reagan (who broke the law and sold arms to Iran, and broke the law by continuing to support UNITA in Angola and their Apartheid allies) and Richard Nixon (who tried to shatter the very foundations of American democracy for his own, selfish gain).

Clinton, love him or hate him, he is a master politician.

[Jac de Molay]

George Bush's popularity in America, I submit, is well deserved.

In the USA of an alternate dimension, perhaps? He's gutting environmental regulations, allowing the energy companies (enron included) to rewrite policy. His hands-off approach in the ME was a big factor in allowing the current firestorm.
He's blocking funds to UN sexual health initiatives simply because they mention abortion as a birth control alternative. His attorney general has pi$$ed on the constitution in allowing the unlawful detention of over 1000 people on immigration violations, among other violations of civil liberties.

I mean, come on, have you seen this guy do a press conference? He looks like a deer caught in headlights. I wont talk about that affable smirk of his

As for his support after 9/11, Gumby himself could have garnered 90% approval ratings.

[Ecthy]

I was talking about McCain...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I sure wish terrorists would pay a visit to Canada.

Any particular reason?

[Shi Huangdi]

I think it is safe to say that some people aren't being very objective here. I could understand a "Poor" Rating if you were very leftist, but I really don't think the "Terrible" Rating is justified.

He has done plenty of good so far. He has removed the Taliban regime and put the terrorists on the run. He built together a solid anti-terror coalition bringing key powers together. He came into office with the economy receding, and faced a further economic challenge with 9/11, but the economy is beginning to recover. He has greatly improved relations with Russia, in spite of cancelling IBM. He has also improved relations with Mexico. He has gotten the consent of the Phillipines and Georgia(The country not the state) to allow us to help them fight terror in their countries. He has improved relations with India. On the bad side side, Osama Bin Laden remains free so far, though I think it is hard to fault him for failing to catch one guy in such a big world. The Israel-Palestine episode continues to go in spite of him, but the amount of blame you can give him for that is also more limited. He made the axis of evil comments without yet backing up his actions forcefully. He has hurt our relations with Europe and the Islamic World, although in spite of how many PolyEuros here hate the US, our relations with Europe are fundamentally strong. And although the economy is beginning to recover, unemployment is still too high. These are all pretty straightforward objective plusses/minuses.

Of his more contorversial actions, I approve of his beating back the various UN efforts to encorach on our soverignty(Kyoto, Children's rights, etc.). I appove of having the Justice department stop arguing for gun control, I approve of the tax cut, of putting strong limits against stem cell research, of reinstituting the Mexico City rule banning US funding of foreign clinics that provide Abortion info, of getting out of ABM, increasing military spending, and inreasing aid to Colombia in it's war against communism. I disapprove of tarrifs, of pork barell legislation, of the amont of support he has given Sharon, and for doing too much against civil lliberties after 9/11.

I am sure I have missed some for both, but I think even if you disagreed with all his controversial actions, I would think his non-controversial good actions would at least give him a "poor" rating.

[KrazyHorse]

He has also improved relations with Mexico

Not really. The impression in Mexico is that he's been friendly on one-to-one basis with Fox, but that Mexico's basically gotten squat from it...

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Ned
However you should know that Bush has lost a lot of points in United States for his recent bias in favor of the Palestinians.

Bias in favor of the Palestinians is a very questionable term for his Middle East policy. In fact, he is still biased in favor of Israel, as the U.S. government has been for what seems like forever. Just because he is slowly lessening the bias against the Palestinians does not not mean he is biased in favor of them.

The conservatives in United States are very angry with George Bush.
Still, the left, particularly those in the EU, have not acknowledged Bush's massive shift to the left. They rather still degrade him as if he were a Neanderthal or monkey.

Just because he has taken one step in a one-thousand step gulf does not make him any less of a Neanderthal than the other conservatives in the United States.

It appears that George Bush has no friends at the extremes. Bush now squarely occupies the center. This is very normal for U.S. President, including President Clinton.

He is nowhere neer the center of the U.S. polical spectrum (nor was Clinton), he has just managed to draw himself more towards the center than his Neanderthalic extreme right voter base would like. (That's a good word, isn't it? )

George Bush's popularity in America, I submit, is well deserved.

And I respectfully submit that it isn't. I grudgingly voted poor for him, as so far he has managed to do some good in his co-called "war against terrorism", despite my deep suspicion about his motives. But domestically he has been very poor (although not a disaster yet). The tax cut was just the beginning. Poor environmental decisions, lots of pro-business bias, lots of high ground moral rhetoric to excuse the typically me-me-me Republican attitude, military build up, etc, etc.

Not that I think Gore (or a democrat) would have been a de facto improvement. I judge him by his actions (and, obviously, my standards), and while I must say he gives "tone" to the presidency, something that Clinton certainly didn't do, he has consistantly catered to the segment of the American population that only looks out for number one (ie themselves). I can't blame him, since he is a Republican, and therefore a member of a group almost exclusively composed that segment of the population, but that doesn't stop it from disgusting me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, he's easily the least competent president in my lifetime, which dates back to Lyndon Johnson. I think we'd have to go back to Hoover to find as clueless, incompetent, and out of touch President.

Hoover was a very competant President actually. The only problem was he had a crisis which no President really had to deal with before and he had no idea what to do with it. He tried with the Reconstruction Finance Commission (the precursor to the New Deal), but too little, too late. The ironic thing is that FDR campaigned against Hoover's spending on social programs and moving us into debt, and then did the New Deal .

Look a John F Kennedy or Richard M. Nixon. Neither man can be considered a great moralist, but they are both considered some of America's greatest presidents.

JFK was a horrible President. The only reason people think he was great was because he got shot.

What Bush is doing is trying to keep both wings of the Republican party happy.

Which you have to admit is a smart move. The Dems have no leader, really, right now, and Bush is deciding to shore up his base.

Unfortunetly, as Ned pointed out he IS pissing off conservative. As a Republican, I can definetly say that conservatives I know are getting mad at Bush, thinking he's going to be like his father, all moderate.

Not really. The impression in Mexico is that he's been friendly on one-to-one basis with Fox, but that Mexico's basically gotten squat from it...

You are forgeting the illegal immigrant amnesty dealy that Bush proposed.

[KrazyHorse]

You are forgeting the illegal immigrant amnesty dealy that Bush proposed

AFAIK, that still hasn't materialised...