as teh state of the union address nears. I am wondering what people think of Bush as a president vs Clinton, and for that matter compared to his own father.
lets hear it.
clinton was the master of manipulating the english language, Bush Jr. has been manipulated by the english language. I prefer Bush because leadership does not require playul words it requires the ability to get the point across.
I think Bush is a war mongering, lying, deceitful person who is a disgrace to what America should stand for. Clinton on the other hand was one of the most popular US presidents in history. He favoured diplomatic solutions to many issues facing the world. Unlike Bush, clinton had strong support amongst the ethnic vote.
Some say Clinton is the reason why Bush has to do what he has to do. If he would have kept his peepee in his pants and concentrated on nabbing the likes of Osama. We would not be in this situation.
DHP
but it was during clinton's time that bombings in iraq took place, and it was in his time that the pharma factory was blown up with no evidence that it produced anything except medicine.
so from an international perspective, their actions were not much diff, Clinton was able to bring more allies together in general though.
aside from that, lets also look at social, economic policies and achievments.
I still believe Clinton favoured a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi problem. He did not make the same mistakes as Bush has, i.e did not allow his foreign policies to be dictated by right wing 'think tanks' and corporate America. The Bush administration has strong links with the oil, tobacco and arms industries. Many key members of Bush's team have been directly linked to the corruption scandals that have plagued corporate America. The sad thing is that these 'corrupt' leaders like cheyney and Rumsfield are allowed to continue running America even with clear evidence showing their guilt. If these guys were in Europe they would of been investigated and punished long ago. But nope.. this is Bush's america we are talking about where there is one rule for the politicians and one for the public.
There isn't and will not be much difference between the policies of people who occupy that office.
While DHP says Bush is a “lying, deceitful person,” most Americans (even those independent Clinton supporters) would more attribute those characteristics to Clinton. Bush scores high on the honesty and integrity meters even among his detractors.
I think most people would also agree that Bush has more resolve in sticking to the principles that he believes in than Clinton. Clinton administration policies were far more geared to opinion polls than to principled stands on political philosophy. Some people may not agree that this is a favorable trait in Bush, particularly if they don’t share the principle he advocates.
Perhaps because of the disparity in measurable intelligence quotients, the decision making process within the Bush administration is fundamentally different than that of the Clinton years. Clinton was more engaged in the nuts and bolts of the decision making process than Bush. Bush likes his staff to engage in the nuts and bolts and he sets the tone and direction based upon broader ideological beliefs. Bush and Reagan are similar in this regard. I understand the Clinton decision making process was very unstructured and sort of like a free flow of thought at times. Bush’s is much more structured. Many books have been written about various forms of decision making processes used in various administrations. It is probably more important that the process utilized fit the strength of the man holding the office rather than trying to decide which process is best in the abstract. On a pure IQ comparison, Bush the Elder was probably a lot closer to Clinton than he is to Bush the Younger. But Sr. had a real hard time connecting with the American people on a personal basis. Jr. has no such problem.
With Clinton, you either really liked the guy or really disliked the guy. And there were lots of people on both sides. With Bush, most Americans like him and very few dislike him with the same vigor that Clinton seemed to bring out in people.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
There isn't and will not be much difference between the policies of people who occupy that office.
[/QUOTE]
Touche.
Digression, but Bush and "wife" have raised two wanton hoydens while Clinton and wife have raised a lustrous pearl. Their parenthood bespeaks loud and clear their personal moralities.
Side note - Dubya tries too hard to be his father.
MV you think Bush jr will win a second term? and would Cheney still be his running mate?
I agree with you that Bush Sr was unable to connect with ppl, especially after the ol' gipper who was an expert at connecting with the people, Bush sr could not match that level or even get close to it.
Clinton on the other hand was able to connect very well with the public. scandals and all aside he had a pretty successful presidency.
Bush jr, connects with ppl but maybe a diff crowd, and just as clinton had many ppl who really liked him or really loathed him and less of a middle ground, bush has many ppl who kind of like him or kind of dislike him but smaller groups of diehard fans or foes. which can be good or bad for him.
Looking at the democrats pres hopefulls, i dount that anyone has the ability to beat an incumbant, but i think the economy is going to play a larger and larger role. Most of my frineds consider themselves republican and most of them want to support a new face in the GOP primaries...but we dont know who from GOP will eve throw his hat in the ring..surely not Trent Lott.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
With Clinton, you either really liked the guy or really disliked the guy. And there were lots of people on both sides. With Bush, most Americans like him and very few dislike him with the same vigor that Clinton seemed to bring out in people.
[/QUOTE]
It would be very hard to match the "vigor" you speak of, there are many in the Republican camp that hate Clinton so much much they wish harm upon him.
Ana: Youc ould not be more wrong. Bush Sr. was more like Clinton than Bush Jr. GHWB was more of a centrist and his economic, domestic and foreign policies and team reflected that. GWB is more akin to Reagan. His politics rely on far right cconstituencies and this policy making team seems to be highly conservative.
I think W is more moderate than given credit. The reason he caters to the conservatives is that he doesn't have much else going for him and has to have that base to survive. Whatever decision making process is in effect for his foreign policy - it sucks. It comes across as arrogant as he and his team seem to be.
seminole cheney does not seem too arrogant, he kinda became a hermit after 9/11, and then more so after the halliburton fiasco
Cheney belongs in the self-righteous fold of the conservative right wing as he shoves his lesbian daughter into the closet.
If only the representatives could show some backbone and not just be lemmings clapping at the predictable rhetoric that will be thrown their way tomorrow..
Fraudia:
Much too early to predict or project a second term for George W. There are far too many unknowns right now:
1. Will economy rebound before next election;
2. Will there be another major terrorist attack in the US;
3. Will the war on Iraq be a quick and decisive victory or, better yet, can Saddam be deposed without a military attack;
4. Will the NK situation be stabalized;
5. Will OBL be captured or killed;
I am a Bush supporter, but I must say I am disappointed with him and the administration over the last month. He and his spokespeople need to get out there and make their cases to the American people in support of the policies they are advocating, most particularly in Iraq. It is uncertainty and confusion which hurts the economy, hurts the financial markets, and undermines consumer confidence.
IMO, every day that goes by without Bush providing a compelling case for invading Iraq makes it that much harder to rally public opinion the next day. If our troops are ready and the decision to depose Saddam has been made, we should set our own timetable and go ahead and do it regardless of the UN. We should give them a drop dead date to decide whether to join us in a coalition or sit on their hands. If Bush does not have enough information and facts NOW to share with the American public that would convince the majority to support an immediate invasion, just bring our troops home, let the UN play hide and seek with Saddam for a couple of years, let the sanctions kill a few more million Iraqis and forget about it. I do not believe we should keep our troops at a state of readiness for an indeterminant number of months waiting and hoping for the UN inspectors to find a smoking gun.
MV
I dont mean for it to sound rude, but I think that americans in general tend to change their points of view rather quickly and the public opinion can be managed much better than in other places.
If there was an iraqi caught here today with some anthrax or some al qaeda guy who had some weapon he claimed he got from Iraq, i bet within 24-48 hrs the public opinion would be firmly in support of war.
Bush is an okay president in my view. an okay leader, not bad, not good, just okay, how things go from now wioll determine whether he becomes as infleuntial a person as reagan or clinton, or a less impressive leader like his dad.
MV, u can safely rule out #5. Pretty kettle of fish Bush would be in if he managed to do that so soon. No more terror.. who would he fight then?
2.. nah, I don't think Bush has much time to plan another major attack b4 the elections. He's already got his hands full with masterminding Iraq and NK. Mebbe another anthrax-type scare.. let the general public know who should be charge.
Ch - yeah, Bush and team are pretty right wing.. but I wouldn't call Bush Sr moderate.. the first Gulf War took place under his adminstration.. don't give me the "it was because of Reagan's policies that he had to go in and clear up his predecessor's mess" runaround. It was Sr's tanks that went into the Gulf and are still there. Clinton tho, yeah, he was moderate.
Ana: You are wring. Bush 41 base of support is very different from Bush 43. The latter being supporte more by the "california republicans" than the former. The personell is quite different as well.