1
   

Why Do You Support Bush?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 07:01 am
blatham wrote:
For those of you who missed it, the recent interview of Bush by Lehrer on PBS... transcript and video.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/bush_12-16-05.html

I'm truly befuddled by how anyone can conclude other than that the man is seriously unqualified for his post.

At least he does the things I want him to do about 90% of the time. I would rather have this then Shakespeare quality rhetoric and seriously mistaken policies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
Well, of course we disagree regarding the prudence of his administration's policies.

But to suggest (and george did earlier too) that Bush's failings as regards 'competence' are merely associated with the frivolous matter of awkward or unfacile speechifying is to excuse far too much.

I am certain that, in person, Bush is for the most part a likeable fellow (even Clinton has expressed this). But one needs to be rather more than a nice fellow to be president of the most powerful country in the world.

Unless we are blind sycophants, we notice that Bush is incurious and surprisingly uneducated in comparison to most people in the congress and senate. But what struck me particularly in this interview was his lack of strength of personality. He is not confident of himself. And I don't take this as humility but rather as being seriously out of his depth. We've all seen people in that position, particularly if we have been responsible for administering large groups of individuals, and it is pretty easily identifiable.

We know from Woodward's book that Bush tended not to make decisions until he'd spoken with Cheney and Cheney's staff. I'm no longer surprised at all by that. I no longer believe that Bush is at the helm and doubt he really ever has been.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 11:53 am
I think I ought to add to that last post.

Since even before Bush arrived as the final Republican candidate, the degree of PR management of him was like nothing we've seen before in a candidate. A much better analogy would be the PR management of someone like Brittany Spears. He simply was not allowed to escape the protection of his handlers for ad hoc interviews (almost never - there's a famous exception where a Canadian humorist got him aside on his own).

That management has continued throughout. He has engaged in far fewer ad hoc questioning periods with reporters than any modern President. His public speeches are screened so that no dissenters are even allowed in. The few interviews he has given have come at points where political necessity demanded such and then in them, he has clearly been rehearsed to forward pre-memorized talking points.

A further evidence of my proposition is a bit less obvious, but consistent throughout Bush's tenure. When cabinet officials speak of what they are up to, they ALWAYS attribute their decisions and directions to the President. This has a particular effect, and it looks quite designed, to suggest that Bush is broadly and deeply knowledgeable AND in command.

Now, the thing of it is, an interesting picture emerges if one sits down and imagines a hypothetical. If a fellow were to become President who was visibly incompetent and unknowledgeable, how would you go about managing and marketing him so that these characteristics were kept hidden as much as possible? What would you avoid? What compensating strategies would you put in place?

That hypothetical exercise gets you to a projection which has few discrepancies from what has happened.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 04:10 pm
blatham wrote:
I think I ought to add to that last post.

Since even before Bush arrived as the final Republican candidate, the degree of PR management of him was like nothing we've seen before in a candidate. A much better analogy would be the PR management of someone like Brittany Spears. He simply was not allowed to escape the protection of his handlers for ad hoc interviews (almost never - there's a famous exception where a Canadian humorist got him aside on his own).

That management has continued throughout. He has engaged in far fewer ad hoc questioning periods with reporters than any modern President. His public speeches are screened so that no dissenters are even allowed in. The few interviews he has given have come at points where political necessity demanded such and then in them, he has clearly been rehearsed to forward pre-memorized talking points.

A further evidence of my proposition is a bit less obvious, but consistent throughout Bush's tenure. When cabinet officials speak of what they are up to, they ALWAYS attribute their decisions and directions to the President. This has a particular effect, and it looks quite designed, to suggest that Bush is broadly and deeply knowledgeable AND in command.

Now, the thing of it is, an interesting picture emerges if one sits down and imagines a hypothetical. If a fellow were to become President who was visibly incompetent and unknowledgeable, how would you go about managing and marketing him so that these characteristics were kept hidden as much as possible? What would you avoid? What compensating strategies would you put in place?

That hypothetical exercise gets you to a projection which has few discrepancies from what has happened.


Why is it that Liberal opponents of Bush insist on belittling his intelligence, much as they did with Reagan, Ford, and Eisenhower? Would you approve of his policies any more if he had the rhetorical skills of Condaleeza Rice?

This may come as a shock to you, but there is a fairly large part of this country where describing someone as common is considered a compliment, not an insult. I would not consider W common but the fact that he isn't glib quite impresses a lot of folks. I know that most of these people don't live on either of our coastlines, but they do exist, and they are not, by any means, stupid.

Personally I would prefer a more eloquent president, but that's hardly the most important of presidential characteristics.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 04:24 pm
Condoleeza Rice has "rhetorical skills"? Now she's what I would call glib. It didn't wear too well in Europe recently, but we don't really care what the Europeans think, do we?

To say Bush is "common" is to demean the average American. His speaking skills are worse than theirs...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 04:26 pm
I didn't think Squinney was requesting alternative viewpoints with the idea of belittling them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 04:37 pm
Yes, squinney's intent is being thwarted by folks like me. Backing out door...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 05:04 pm
Re: Why Do You Support Bush?
squinney wrote:
Please, if you support Bush, would you tell me why?

I'd appreciate thoughtful responses with clear explanations of what you like about what he/ his administration has done or why you support him as the president.

I just can't seem to get my mind around why some here argue so fervently in his favor.

Thank you in advance for keeping it civil.


I can't speak for all of his supporters, but for me:

Sometimes I am arguing more for the policy or principle that he and his administration are advancing than for him personally.

Sometimes I argue fervently in his favor because I consider the attacks against him so outrageous.

In certain circumstances I support him because he is our President and Commander in Chief, just as I did prior presidents, regardless of their party, under similar circumstances.

Specifically, I support his approach to combating what I believe to be real and present danger to this country: Islamist fascism, and I support his neo-con strategy for the Middle East.

I support his domestic policies like, cutting taxes, tort reform, No Child Left Behind, and social security reform.

I support his proposals on dealing with illegal aliens.

I'm disappointed that he hasn't done more to fight congressional pork, and I'm not sure what I think about the Medicare prescription plan (I need to see how it works).

I'm happy that he has never tried to run for president of the world, as I believe Bill Clinton did and John Kerry would have.

I think he's a sincere family man and I like that. His wife, kids, siblings and parents obviously love him very much and that says a lot about someone. I also like that he threw a strike as the first pitch in Game I of the post 9/11 World Series. I like that he gives people affectionate nicknames, and that he is loyal to his supporters.

I agree with the majority of his policies.

I don't think he's the greatest president we've ever had and I don't believe he is only man that I could have supported for president over these last 5 years.

I can understand why some people don't agree with his policies.

I can understand why some people don't find him likeable.

I can't understand why some people hate him.

Frankly, I also can't understand why some people hated Clinton or Reagan either. Now, Teddy Kennedy and Richard Nixon, there's a pair I understand how someone could hate.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 05:11 pm
Well, I voted for him, Squinney, and like Georgeob, it was mostly the quality of the opposition. Still, I've a fairly expensive arsenal of handguns, and this is still a strong point of Pres. Bush's, and a weakness (in my perception) of most Democrats. Bill Richardson (Dem governor of NM) sounds good in this regard, but I can't help the feeling his opinion will follow the polls.

If the election were done over, it would be a much tougher choice than last time.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 05:20 pm
I don't think I would ever have a tough time voting against John Kerry.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 05:22 pm
georgeob wrote:
Has he done too little to protect the country after 9/11?


If I hear that ridiculous line one more time I am going to set myself on fire.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 05:25 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
georgeob wrote:
Has he done too little to protect the country after 9/11?


If I hear that ridiculous line one more time I am going to set myself on fire.


Has he done too little to protect the country after 9/11?

Come on now, your promised.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2005 06:29 pm
Finn, Thank you for your list.

(Blatham and DrewDad - Fine gentlemen, you are.)

Roger, so if a Democrat, Independent or even (gasp) Green candidate had presented a strong "right to bear arms" policy you would have voted for him rather than Bush?

From Finn's list, there actually a couple of things with which I agree. I'm generally in favor of this administrations illegal alien policy, and would actually like to see it a little tougher yet.

I also would like to see more done about eliminating Congressional pork. I'd much prefer that every bill be about one thing, with no unrelated "riders" allowed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 8.9 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 06:11:11