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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, no... not yet... but having an American President say that really means something.

You just have to convince Congress now .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
He has greatly improved relations with Russia, in spite of cancelling IBM.

My understanding is that relations with Russia have actually deteriorated seriously, to the point that Putin is expected to be defeated in the next election (for being America's whipping boy), unless he cancels them altogether and decides to make himself dictator (which is possible).

He has also improved relations with Mexico.

I think we should credit Fox for that as well.

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.

The Phils had to be leaned on, and they still won't allow Americans to do the fighting (and Abu Sayeff aren't terrorists, they're bandits). Georgia isn't in the War on Terrorism. They want the US in to help crush some local uprisings as well as offset Russian influence in the region. This is one of the events that has really hurt Putin at home.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


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.

Detroit, you seem to have so issues that you care for passionately. Rather than debate the merits of these issues, I would just note that the idea of being in the center is to greatly offend as few people as possible. That is where I see George Bush now. Obviously, even you would not consider yourself in the center.

As to the press conference bit, I thought that Nixon was also atrocious, but many now consider him to have been a good president, albeit, a tragically flawed one.

Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Carver


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.

Revisionist.

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
what was McCain like then?

McCain is actually as far to the right as Bush, on almost every stance. What differentiates McCain from Bush is that McCain has integrity, and lots of it. Unlike Bush, McCain is not part of the old boys network, isn't beholden to them, and takes his stances because that's what he genuinely believes in, not because pollsters or lobyists or Daddy's oil buddies told him to say. While his politics are far to the right of the mainstream, American's love a man with integrity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My understanding is that relations with Russia have actually deteriorated seriously, to the point that Putin is expected to be defeated in the next election (for being America's whipping boy), unless he cancels them altogether and decides to make himself dictator (which is possible).

Say what? Putin is relatively safe... and as for examples of US/Russian working together, check the agreement on nuclear weapons today.

I think we should credit Fox for that as well.

Getting rid of the PRI would have made better relations between the US for any President, yes .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Fitz

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.


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.



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? )



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.

Fitz, I think you and I simply disagree on where the center is. As to the extremes on the left and right, I view the extreme left as deluded idealists willing to commit mass murder to advance their causes and the extreme right as racist Neanderthals willing to commit mass murder to advance their causes. There is a common problem with both extremes.

On the ME, I don't believe demanding that Israel stand down in the face of terror is pro-Israel at all. You and I will strongly disagree on that issue.

Ned

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the extremes on the left and right, I view the extreme left as deluded idealists willing to commit mass murder to advance their causes and the extreme right as racist Neanderthals willing to commit mass murder to advance their causes. There is a common problem with both extremes.

Good on yer! I love that characterization. Mental picurtures of dazed looking hippies and low-browed apemen popped into my head as I read that sentance. I agree there is a common problem with the extremes, so Bush p*ssing one of them off bothers me not in the slightest. That doesn't mean he is in the center though, just more centrist than before.

Originally posted by Carver
Clinton, love him or hate him, he is a master politician.

Hard to disagree with that. But I would have to disagree with your comments about Clinton going down as better than Reagan. I think half the U.S. will continue to love Clinton's guts and herald him as the second coming of christ, and the other will eternally hate and d*mn him as the anti-christ. Identical to Reagan really.

Although, I've personally managed to kick off my parents indocrination of Reagan being the worst president ever (to the point where I can say I think he was bad for the country). At the same time, while I think Clinton was generally good for the country, he wasn't no saint and I certainly wish there had been someone better in office (unfortunately we ended up with Bush ).

[Jac de Molay]

Detroit, you seem to have so issues that you care for passionately. Rather than debate the merits of these issues, I would just note that the idea of being in the center is to greatly offend as few people as possible. That is where I see George Bush now. Obviously, even you would not consider yourself in the center.

FYI, I'm a working-class Democrat, but I do cross the spectrum on some issues. The fact is you stated that intelligence was not the only criteria for leadership but courage, honor, integrity, etc. Fair enough. However, I fail to see how Bush possesses one iota of those attributes you mentioned. I dont give the man a free pass because of 9/11, and I thought your post was looking at his presidency through some rose-colored glasses.

McCain is actually as far to the right as Bush, on almost every stance. What differentiates McCain from Bush is that McCain has integrity, and lots of it.

A fair assessment. I especially appreciate the fact that he's attempted to distance the Republican party from the Religious Right. On that merit alone, I would probably cross party lines and support him again.

DAve

[Guynemer]

I'm with you on McCain, Dave (and Chegitz). All I'm asking is a little honor in our leaders.

I found a February 2000 (height of primary season) Newsweek poll very telling. They asked people who they would vote for between Gore & Bush. The result was a tie. They asked people who they would vote for between Gore & McCain. McCain beat Gore like a redheaded stepchild. And yet, the Republican Establishment put all their efforts, all their support behind Bush. They'd rather chance losing with an easily-manipulated puppet than be assured victory with a guy who won't be controlled by them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's disingenious, Guy... can't you see that the establishment agreed much more with Bush than McCain. It didn't and still doesn't like campaign finance reform or his belief on guns, etc. It was never about who to 'control', because frankly the establishment is getting a little pissy with Bush right now.

[Guynemer]

Of course the Establishment agrees with Bush. They bought every opinion he has.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's disingenious, Guy

Grrr. No such word. If you mean "disingenuous", then you're saying that Guynemer is insincere.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


FYI, I'm a working-class Democrat, but I do cross the spectrum on some issues. The fact is you stated that intelligence was not the only criteria for leadership but courage, honor, integrity, etc. Fair enough. However, I fail to see how Bush possesses one iota of those attributes you mentioned. I dont give the man a free pass because of 9/11, and I thought your post was looking at his presidency through some rose-colored glasses.



A fair assessment. I especially appreciate the fact that he's attempted to distance the Republican party from the Religious Right. On that merit alone, I would probably cross party lines and support him again.

DAve

Dave, I believe Bush has some core issues he fights for, but on most, he just stands above the fray and let's the Repubs and Dems hack away at each other. His core issues are the war on terror, taxes and education.

I believe his hesitancy on the environment is related to skepticism concerning the severity of the environmental problems vs. the a genuine concern about the severity of impact on the economy. For most environmentalists, this kind of thinking is heresy. I think his approach is "centrist." It is certainly not anti-environment.

Opps, I almost forgot: He seems passionate about "cloning." I think most Americans agree with him.

Ned

[CyberGnu]

I believe his hesitancy on the environment is related to skepticism concerning the severity of the environmental problems vs. the a genuine concern about the severity of impact on the economy. For most environmentalists, this kind of thinking is heresy.

And for people who has the intelligence of a five year old, it is also called 'stupidity'.

Before the election, I declared that I'd rather vote for a homeless crackaddict as president than Bush. The reason was that he declared that he believed in creationism. I was lambasted because I had such a 'one issue view'. But it is not only creationism par se, it is the kind of midnset one must have to accept creationism, namely to put belief over science.

And this translates DIRECTLY to the environmental scene. Bush doesn't believe in global warming, despite a more or less unified scientific body behind it. He might call it 'hesitancy' or 'just wanting to make sure' or whatever, but what it all comes back to is that he chooses to BELIEVE that global warming isn't real.

I'm just happy that his delusions aren't grander...

then again, I guess he's to dumb to have great delusions...