kickycan wrote:
I totally disagree with your assertion that Bush is a skilled politician.
As defined by his inability to win elections right? Or by some other metric?
Quote:And when his answers aren't given to him, most of the time he comes off looking like a buffoon. A buffoon with heart, but still, a buffoon.
Ahh, here's the other metric. He sounds like a buffoon to you.
This is not the be all, end all in political skill. That he manages to get around this is a testament to other political characteristics in which he evidences skill.
He manages political capital well.
He selects and juggles political issues and positions well.
He has mastered thematic campaigning.
He selects themes well.
He selects and projects personal images well.
And though he would
never be described as eloquent he
does communicate well (as defined by speaking to his constituents in a way that moves them or is clear to them). And does so despite what seems to many as a learning disability combined with an inability to speak.
Kerry was a much more polished speaker, but he could not reach people as well as Bush did. Clinton blows Bush out of the water because beyond an even better ability to communicate he was a polished
speaker.
Blair is a much more polished speaker as well.
Thing is, you say it yourself without realizing it.
"A buffoon with heart, but still, a buffoon..."
At times, people will find the heart element you mention much more important.
Quote:
The only way you can see Bush as a brilliant politician is if you give the collective effort of the people around him the name "George Bush". In that sense, then I agree, "George Bush" is a brilliant politician.
Kicky, I can't find a way to say this that's not so simple that it seems patronizing, so apologies in advance....
Politics happens to have a heck of a lot to do with:
a) networking
b) aligning yourself with the right people
c) forming a good political team, since no candidate can win without a team
In a sense, your comment is like knocking a coach for having good players.
theollady wrote:Craven, I have really thought since the days of Abuzz and Raven's Realm, that you were a brilliant guy for one so young!!
Um.. thank you?
Quote:I would have never thought you would believe that using tactics as bad as Nixon & co., was the making of a "good politician", or a skilled candidate.
I don't believe this, you conflate what I said with your own opinion and come up with a hybrid that I neither stated or believe.
1) I don't think Bush's
political "tactics" are on par or worse than Nixon's (though I happen to think Nixon is over villified and would prefer him to Bush.
2) I credit him with political skill because of said skills, and if you can't see said skills due to the objections you have with what he's done with some of them we are likely to continue to disagree on this.
Quote:It does not make me popular to think so, but I believe GWBush HAS NOT been "elected" by the voters at ANY time. I think his team of 'slime bags' have stolen the election both times, and that does not take "skill". That requires criminal tactics.
With all due respect, I think this is an outlandish theory based on denial.
Quote:
And while being a successful 'criminal' that does not 'get caught'- could be loosely called skill, that is not the word I would use.
Sounds like your objection to my opinion can be summed up in that you don't find the use of any non-negative adjectives or descriptors for Bush to be appropriate.
I mean, the man can get up and say nothing and look like a number one jackass and still win an election...? 
