Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I don't think this will go down in history as a major accomplishment for this administration. However, as long as it's question time - Everything I'v read (including here), leads me to question this absolute obssession with Iraq.

So here are my conclusions. This smoke and mirrors administration has needed something from the start to put themselves in a favorable light with the public - and what could be more favorable than a successful war with an enemy, even if one had to be set up? The biggest numbers Bush has drawn have been in the fearless leader against attack mode. After carefully looking around, Iraq was chosen. But this administration, as in so many things, really took no account of anyone else's thinking, and therefore was taken by surprise by the negative reaction.

When you think about it, despite having all those seasoned ad people, and PR people, they are still trying to talk a sense of popularity into this. The feeling of urgency has passed. And if ever an enemy looked like its teeth had already been pulled, Iraq does. But still they go on. Selling this war, because the necessity of it has still not been bought.

There's a certain similarity to that long-standing obssession with Clinton's sex life. Are republicans by nature an obsessive group? Maybe what we should be looking for is a democratic president who is able to think of more things than one at any given time.

0 Replies

Re Clinton and Bush: Both could be wrong. When I back Clinton, I back someone whose agenda I agree with more than with that of the current administration. Cicerone's argument is a good one. That, taken with the fact that it was American corporations and the American government (including Donald Rumsfeld) who originally supplied Saddam's weaponry, suggests America should back off, act only as part of a UN team/coalition. No country or administration dumb enough to have armed Saddam should undertake the decision to strike at that nation in order to disarm it. No administration like the present one --which contains so many who were active in creating the Iraq problem -- can be listened to without suspicion. I voted for Clinton. Is there someone here who opines that Clinton is right all the time? Not me! Clinton may be right or wrong about Iraq -- but Clinton (I know how this hurts many Republicans to read this!) occupies higher ground than the Bush administration -- certainly in matters of foreign policy -- and should be taken more seriously. I think he's wrong, but I pay attention to him.

0 Replies

It seems people have an obsession of looking backwards at history to justify current and future problems. What I see of history is more mistakes than positive results. Shouldn't we be leery about looking too much at what occured ten, twenty, thirty years ago? This is a different world now, or haven't anybody noticed? c.i.

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

This smoke and mirrors administration has needed something from the start to put themselves in a favorable light with the public...

This ignores the simple fact that Bush and the administration were enjoying unparalleled favorable opinion from the American public before so much as suggesting going to war with Iraq. In fact, whether you agree with him or not, you have to recognize that Bush has remained committed to his agenda despite losing popularity points in the process.

With all due respect, I don't think your premise is supported by the facts.

0 Replies

What motivates people doesn't change much. Technology has changed the environment, reduced the size of the world, and expanded the amount of data available to more people. It hasn't reduced prejudice, chauvinism, or partisanship. People still are ruled more by emotions than reason. Love is still believed to trump hatred. Hope and fear still exist. Those who have not accuse those who have of greed and crime. Those who have are defensive and protective of what they have. The strong dominate the weak. People don't learn from the past.

The changes that have occured, and will continue, were not motivated by making the world worse. People want progress to reduce their suffering, to solve the problems of living and to promise a better future for their children. Every problem solved generates a new generation of problems. Some solutions spawn worse problems that those they "solved". One can't be sure of the effect. Was the development and spread of television completely a plus, or was it instead a mixed blessing?

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

mamajuana wrote:
This smoke and mirrors administration has needed something from the start to put themselves in a favorable light with the public...

This ignores the simple fact that Bush and the administration were enjoying unparalleled favorable opinion from the American public before so much as suggesting going to war with Iraq. In fact, whether you agree with him or not, you have to recognize that Bush has remained committed to his agenda despite losing popularity points in the process.

With all due respect, I don't think your premise is supported by the facts.

THIS ignores the simple fact that Bush and the administration were suffering from unparalleled disfavorable opinion in the summer of 2001.

Go back and look.

0 Replies

PDiddie
Tres is at it again. He has those rose colored glasses on. Bush was getting clobbered before 9/11. I should add that without the issue of terrorism and now Iraq his approval rating would be up the creek without a paddle.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

THIS ignores the simple fact that Bush and the administration were suffering from unparalleled disfavorable opinion in the summer of 2001.

No, my comments do not ignore this, because what you have written is not a fact, "simple" or otherwise.

Quote:

Poll: Most Americans have favorable view of Bush
From CNN Polling Director Keating Holland
January 17, 2001
Web posted at: 5:01 p.m. EST (2201 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his presidential transition, and six in ten have a favorable view of him, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Of course, that poll only speaks to approval. Since you wrote of "disfavorable" opinion, the following CBS news poll provides a chart that compares Bush's disapproval ratings (29%) was considerably lower than that of his predecessor (37%) at the same point in their administrations:

Poll: We Like Him

This is an especially interesting fact given that Clinton inherited an economy on the upswing and Bush inherited one beginning a downturn.

But of course, that was April, and you wrote specifically of the "summer" of 2001. Here's a CBS poll taken in August of 2001:

Americans Down On The Economy

The chart in this one shows Bush's disapproval rating has risen to 38%; clearly an increase, but just as clearly not "unparalleled disfavorable opinion" when compared to Clinton's 39% disapproval rating measured in May of 1993.

Of course, I'm not terribly enamored of opinion polling, but as far as polling goes, those are "the facts".

0 Replies

Now that trespasser has posted that fine correction of the polling results, we now return to our regularly scheduled topic:

"I've seen presidents in the past who wear religion on their sleeve as a political gesture, but that's not what we're seeing here. Bush has made it clear he feels that Providence intervened to change his life, and now he is somehow an instrument of Providence."
--David Gergen, who worked for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton

This is really scary stuff: that Bush thinks God is behind his dangerous motives. I mean, if God tells him to nuke North Korea, Iraq or San Francisco, Bush surely doesn't have the brains or the guts to tell God "No." He'll do what the voices tell him.

0 Replies

It's funny how many people today seem to think there are only two levels of spirituality: atheism and delusion.

I'm not particularly religious myself, but I'll take a truly religious man over someone who pretends to be religious when he thinks it politically advantageous any day of the week. I'm far more comfortable with the notion that Bush is guided by his belief in God than I was knowing that Clinton was guided by his crotch.

- TW

0 Replies

Well then, you must really be enamored of "Holy" John Ashcroft... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

This is really scary stuff: that Bush thinks God is behind his dangerous motives. I mean, if God tells him to nuke North Korea, Iraq or San Francisco, Bush surely doesn't have the brains or the guts to tell God "No." He'll do what the voices tell him.

PDiddie, it is quite possible that Mr. Bush is a religious Christian; that he is trying to act in accordance with the values of Christianity. But this does not mean that he has hallucinations. Let us not mix up religious faith and mental health problems. Mr. Bush does not make an impression of mentally sick, on the contrary, he is a wise and reasonable statesman and patriot of his country.

0 Replies

Cicerone is right. We are now in a different time period, although very little changes, as is apparent from reading about the Punic wars and other ancient events. And so much of history seems to have been series of accidents.

But trespassers - you can't have it just any way that pleases your thinking. The poll you quote from is dated Jan 2001. A late CNN poll (last week) was taken of the most admired president of the last five. Clinton gathered 63%, while both Bushes were lower than Reagan. And in the polls that say the people trust Powell more than they trust Bush - that is, when you think about it, not such a recommendation for Bush. As for religion - don't you get a wee bit suspicious of a person who seems to trot out a religious conviction when it seems to be needed for another purpose? It seems to be that a truly believing religious person would be paying attention to matters of the soul and conscience - and not in public sound and photography bites.

Tartarin - oh, I agree with you. Seems to be something of a glass house situation, in addition to other considerations.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Well then, you must really be enamored of "Holy" John Ashcroft...

Well, unlike some people, I don't dislike him because he's a Christian.

0 Replies

mama - Check the history of this thread. I only pointed to those poll numbers to refute statements made by another individual. His reference was to that specific time period, hence my choice to find polling from that specific period. I in no way intended to represent those numbers as being indicative of people's opinions today, which I think is clear.

0 Replies

tres, Bush's belief in god scares me. He hasn't learned the lesson of humanity nor compassion. Even though Clinton didn't control his zipper very well, I still rate him a better president than Bush any day of the week. c.i.

0 Replies

If we want to talk about unfaithful presidents, we're gonna have to include many favorite sons. I don't think we want to go there on this forum. c.i.

0 Replies

The question at hand is:

Quote:

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Sounds like a reasonable and sound proposition to me!

0 Replies

BillW, Gee, did I say that? Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

Is God on Bush's side...or the Pope's?

Pope takes issue with America's 'just' war

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know