Something I find disturbing...
 

What is it about President Bush that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic.

I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people.

Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?

I'll just modify this a little bit to give some perspective:

What is it about President Clinton that some people find so offensive? I've seen people who are usually calm and reserved practically foam at the mouth at the mention of his name. I know there is room for disagreement w/policy, but there is something else going on here. I'm often surprised at the virulent and malevolent attitudes that some regard him with. Discussions about politics turn into blatantly hateful insults that have little to do w/the topic.

I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees w/the President is like this, but there is definitely an element of hate involved for some people.

Have you seen this also? Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?

I can see why the left hates Bush. They think he is everything they are not, and on top of it they hate him for being loved by so many of the American people (who they then think of as stupid). Now George is not far right by any means, but most of the left doesn't really look at deep, they see him as the quintessential evil, homophobic, white, male, republican. Now take that he barely won the election, ignored the precious Kyoto treaty, became greatly respected after 9/11, decided to stop playing the politics of the UN, and they hate him. They hate him because he, that cowboy from Texas, who can hardily speak in public, who is sooooo STUPID, can make them look bad at every turn or even utterly ignore them. He has pissed on everything they hold dear and most Americans like him for it. And now to add insult to injury the economy is improving! This lying, deceitful, stupid, evil, warmongering, buffoon is going to get re-elected!!! If ONLY the STUPID American people could see how WRONG GWB was!!! Oh how they hate him!!

But Bush is just a symbol of this hate. The real hate is for the American people and way of life. Anyone who voted for Bush must be stupid, selfish, and/or evil.

You mean there was a 'Hate Clinton' gathering and I wasn't invited?

I think it has a lot to do with the era in which we live. This is a time of great uncertainty. The cold war is over and the old paradigms do not apply in the same way. Great doubt has been cast on the ideas of what used to constitute conservatism and liberalism.

Bush is the representative or figurehead of a new right wing activism. One part of that activism during the Gingrich years of the 1990s, as Sparhawk alluded to, was a white hot and calculated hatred of Bill Clinton. Perhaps the left fears that this new right wing activism will destabilize the global order unless they can temper it with their own new perspective.

A large part of their currently unfocussed energy involves a visceral fear and loathing of George W. Bush and what will happen to international relations during his tenure. This energy should be focussed on finding and communicating a new left wing alternative perspective. The success or failure of this effort will dictate the future of political argument.

I didn't really have a problem with Clinton until the whole DNA evidence thing.

But anyways, there was a lot of hate for Bush before he even began his presidency. While he was running people were still foaming at the mouth. The "Bush is a moron!" mantra was evident even then, he got crucified for misusing a few words, and making one up.

I don't think it has to do with his policies, a lot of people just hate him on a personal level for whatever reason. Calling someone a moron/idiot typically does denote something personal, I probably didn't need to analyze in that context.

I hate that he is smug, intellectually challenged and proud of it (and I don't mean stupid, I mean intellectually incurious), assumes that he has a monopoly on moral truth, and couldn't give a shit what the 50.1% of the country who didn't vote for him think. I don't find him compassionate at all - quite the contrary. I think he is mean-spirited (go find that interview of him discussing granting a stay of execution for that woman right before the election), small-minded, lacks any capacity for nuance, and is easily led by the ideologues he has surrounded himself with. After 9/11 we needed a strong leader to bind us together, and he did that for about 5 minutes before he manipulated the situation to push through his and his advisors' vision of America's role in the world, which has been in the works (by Cheney and Wolfowitz) since his father's administration - they saw an opportunity to grab the hegemonic golden ring, and the grabbed at it, consequences be damned. He's at heart a selfish coward who ran from service on all levels and is callously expending our military for questionable aims.

That's it in a nutshell.

We mealy-mouthed liberals are often willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt. But Bush says one thing and does another -- constantly.

There was the No Child Left Behind initiative -- big fanfare, then most funding yanked.

Bush came out in favor of Americorps as a model institution ; then slashed funding.

Bush Administration talks about support for troops. Then slashes subsidies to public school districts that serve child from military bases (that don't pay property tax).

"I'm a uniter, not a divider," or something like that. That didn't work out, either.

The Bush administration was going to clean up Wall Street and protect the investor -- but aside from a couple of high-profile prosecutions, it's business as usual and the SEC is still a lapdog. How can the markets work if confidence is lost? How much of the current "good news" that hopefully will point to higher employment is actually due to cooked books and offshoring jobs?

We conquered Afghanistan -- are now are losing it because no money was originally put in the budget to rebuild it. (Republican congressmen put $400 million in the budget for it to avoid embarassment). We're losing the country again.

Too many Bush policies are obvious payoffs to Halliburton, energy interests, big corporations at the expense of the population and our armed forces.

I'm wholly in favor of a two-term Bush presidency -- because at the end of that time, this country will be so screwed up the people will be ready for socialism!

You made to many statements to go point by point, so lets take a big one.

I can’t think of anyway or anyone who could have bound us together better then GWB after 9/11. About the only people trying to change that are the democrats who are so desperate for a victory in 2004 they will oppose this president on all fronts including the war on terror, some going so far as to claim that Bush knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen for his own political gain, (tinfoil hats for everyone!). Also I find it amusing how everyone assumes he was manipulated into Iraq. You assume he is so stupid/naive that he was led around by the nose into Iraq, but maybe HE wanted to do it, and has Cheney and Wolfowitz working for him because THEY agree with HIM. You can’t even see him as a leader, even if the worst of your motives for him were true.

Like it or not GWB IS a leader, he is not the kind of man who worries about the current poll and what a focus group is going to say. He has good people around him, he does what he thinks is best, and he doesn’t just talk about what should be done, he DOES it.

I hate Bush. I hate him for reasons that affect me though, unlike those who hated Clinton.

I hate him for happily presiding over more destructive environmental practices.

I hate him for increasing my burden of national debt by giving our money back to rich people rather than those who would really need it.

I hate him for giving tax breaks to a dying breed of energy producers rather than give it to the future. To renewable energies. Upwards of 23 billion to fossil fuels in the current energy bill. What was it, 1.5 to renewables? And most of that went to ethanol, which is a waste of time. it's pork.

I hate him for screwing schools with No Child Left Behind. A clear effort to open the doors to vouchers. I hate him for appointing a man who has a 40% failure rate in Houston schools as head of the nations educaton efforts.

I hate him for literally ignoring information that goes against his already settled course. I hear information about how his own advisors say that once he latches on to something he doesn't even want to hear evidence to the contrary and can never be swayed.

I hate him for doing things he thinks is right, regardless of what the best minds of the field think. He doesn't care about what america would want. He doesn't listen to a balance of academics on the subject. He just does something. That isn't right.

That is not a leader. That is an opportunist.

There is an AMAZING article in last week's Time Magazine, and you can still get to it online: The Love Him, Hate Him President. Worth reading for everyone who either loves him or hates him, and wants to know why other people don't agree with them.

I won't say which side I fall on.

Hate is just misplaced fear. Its self-destructive and counterproductive. Look where all the Bill Clinton-hating got the republicans. Most people laughed at them for it.

That aside, hate can be a motivator if it is recognized as fear. But I don't think many people take that leap enough to say they are afraid of the "other guy" succeeding. Hating Bush or Clinton, for that matter, has always seemed like a waste of emotional energy. When you have a person in office that you disagree with, you swallow your pride, calm yourself down, and learn how to work with him to fix the problems you want fixed, while you bide your time until the next election. You do whatever it takes to get the problem solved, even if you can't take "credit" for getting it solved. If you want to see a solution to a problem, you work with him to get it done. If the solution isn't good enough? Tough shit, you go back to the drawing board and try to fix it again, and then you vote him out. If he gets voted in again? Tough shit, you rinse and repeat. You work your ass off and don't waste time standing around fuming about him which is where hate can easily lead you.

The nice thing about democracy is that things don't stay the same for too long.

The other problem with hate is that it can easily turn others off from your cause. Its fine to campaign on hating Bush, if you only want people who hate Bush to vote for you. People are suspect when it comes they see someone so filled with anger, as they should be. This is why I see it as a counterproductive emotion.

Vote.

sparhawk, thanks for hijacking the thread on the first response. outstanding.

rodney and superbelt,

thanks for your responses, but that isn't the thrust of the thread. see, you listed reasons for disliking the President. I don't share your viewpoint or trust the figures on many of the listed concerns, but at least you know why you dislike him and can back it up with examples from his policy. what baffles me is the volume of people who cite reasons like "He is stupid", "He is evil" or "He thinks he is a cowboy." Granted, the direction of this thread will tend to veer towards those who do not think this way (because who would admit to being so caustic?) but have ran into people who argue w/them like this. So, I suppose that most of the insight will come from observations rather than reasons from a person who attacks the President in this way.

irateplatypus, you asked "Do you feel this way about the President? What is the cause?" I'm not sure what you expected as answers, but it seems to me that people have pretty much stayed on topic. And I don't think Sparhawk threadjacked - I think he pointed out legitimately that you could probably apply the same statements to most presidents, particularly ones like Bill Clinton and GWB who seem to polarize people for one reason or another. The TIME article Redlemon refers to talks about the polarization of the American people, and like it or not, it's going to be very hard to find someone these days who doesn't produce fear and loathing in a large segment of society.

Well, it doesn't look like I hijacked it at all, actually.

My point is that if the right wants to understand why the left hates Bush, they need only look as far back as 3 years ago at how they felt about Clinton.

George Bush bases all of his decisions on religion and morals. He turns everything into a fight against evil. This just makes him seem close minded and stupid. If he didn't depend on religion so much, therefore being more of an intellectual, I would respect him more.

I think that people hate Bush just like they may hate their regional city councillors. When a councillor sticks his nose into other councillors wards,people get ticked cuz that councillor isn't honoring the counstituents who elected him.

I think if Bush was less interested in saving and changing the world to what he thinks is right and paid more attention to domestic affairs,he'd have more support.

If he is doing what he is doing cuz he feels people think he is an intellilectual lightweight,well then I would say that has backfired.He looks dumber now than before. He should have tried to shake the redneck image rather than promoting it.

Because he's a poor president, whether you agree with his policies or not. I'm sorry, but anyone in his position who not only admits, but is proud to state, that he purposely avoids reading any news papers, listening or watching any news casts, and instead relies on his advisors (read: Cheney and Rumsfeld) to tell him what's happening in the world is a dangerous man to have at the helm.

Let's look at an example. If you were driving down the road, would you rely solely on your passengers to tell you which way to drive and where the obstacles are, or would you open your eyes and look for yourself?


They hate him because he and his administration are a pack of compulsive liars.

Cheney said, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in an area around Baghdad and Tikrit." That's clearly a lie, because we have yet to find them.

The administration claimed Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMD's. If we can't find them nearly a year after the invasion, I'd say that's not true.

The administration purposely led the american people to believe that the 9/11 terrorists were iraqi, to the point that 70% of Americans believe it. In fact, none of the terrorsts were Iraqi.

The administration can't even tell the truth about a PR gift. They're all set to get heaps of great PR over the thanksgiving President in Baghdad stunt, yet they can't resist spicing up the story a little with the yarn about the British Airways pilot who "saw" Air Force 1 and asked about it on the radio. British Airways has categorically denied that any of their pilots saw anything. The white house has responded by changing the story to say that it was a conversation between a British Airways pilot and the control tower, and that they never saw Air Force 1 at all. Well, if that is to be believed, then the administration was lying about the BA pilot seeing Air Force 1. Sure, it seems trivial, but it points to the fact that these guys are compulsive liars.

Bush has invaded, taken over, and is now occupying, a country which had not threatened us, did not even have the capability of threatening us, and was even attempting to comply with our directives.

When Bush told Hussein "destroy the missiles that have too long of a range or get invaded," Hussein finally agreed to destroy his weapons. When Bush found out about that, he changed the rules to "destroy the missiles AND Hussein and his family have to leave the country or you get invaded." That clearly points to the fact that Bush wanted a war and he was going to get one no matter what.

We hate Bush because he has failed to do his duty of defending us. While he's dicking around in Iraq, bin Laden and al Qaeda are still free and are still working on their terroristic plans. In fact, Bush has made our daily lives MORE dangerous because, through his actions, he has pissed the terrorists off even more.

Bush is a foriegn relations moron. After 9/11 the ENTIRE world, except for the terrorists themselves, rallied in support of the United States. Even Iranians, who are well known for their dislike of our country, marched in the streets waving American flags and crying for us. How does Bush respond? He informs Iran that they are now in the "axis of evil." Immediately, the same afghanis who showed us such support rallied in the street calling for our collective heads. Bush has singlehandedly taken the best foriegn relations atmophere we have had in decades and has turned it into the worst.

Bush will, on reflection, go down in history as the worst president we have ever had.

Bush, I just don't like where he is steering the country, other than that he is doing an acceptable job.

G.W.B.; there's no there there. I don't hate him personally because I don't know him. The majority of policies which I've had the opportunity to examine are worthy of being loathed. He's Akron, Ohio without bowling or the NFL Hall of Fame.

Overall, imo, its blowback for twenty-five years of abuse heaped upon anyone not considered far enough to the right. paybacks are a motherfucker.

2Wolves

I think the whole debate is funny as hell. Some say that you either love him or hate him. I don't fall into either camp. Some of his policies I like and some I don't. I end up defending him on this board more often than not because the arguments used against him are so petty and without realistic justification.

It's amazing to me how many people stoop to personal attacks when that would never be acceptable in any real life situation. If you disagreed with the way your boss was doing his or her job, would it be acceptable to run around shouting "he's an idiot" "he's a coward" "he's a ___"? Of course not. But for some reason it's fully accepted in "political" discussions. Would you do that to a family member or friend? Again, no. Even to your worst enemy, it's looked upon by most people as either rude or tactless.

As far as the Clinton argument, again, I didn't love him or hate him. I accepted him for what he was. I didn't like his morality as I expect a leader to show more integrity. Go ahead and claim that Bush is as big a liar as Clinton, but IMO that's a load of crap. If I thought Bush was blatantly lying about things when he knew the statements to be absolutely false, I would rail against him as hard if not harder than the Bush haters. I haven't seen a case for that. The WMD argument, he chose to believe some intelligence over other intelligence, I don't believe he completely fabricated it. AND despite what his opponents want you to believe, that was not the sole justification used to invade Iraq. Clinton completely fabricated the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement, it was NOT open to interpretation. The "Mission Accomplished" banner flap, another case where Bush is said to have lied. He said it wasn't his people's idea, the military said the same thing. His people supplied the banner in the format of other banners, big deal. Different interpretations but not a lie.

Oh well, I guess it's all part of what brings me back to this board on a daily basis. Keep up the entertaining work, one and all.

I think hate is the last thing we need in politics. Its a roadblock. It pissed me off when conservatives did it, and it pisses me off now to hear it from the other side of the aisle. When you bring such a strong emotion to politics, it becomes a hurdle to any sort of compromise. Of course if you "hate" him, you can always blame him for your "hate". Its a vicious destructive emotion that needs to be curbed. It leads to blind frustration and partisanship that hurts us all and stands in the way of getting anything done.

I'm kind of mad that tax cuts and war are causing the NIH to cutback. Really in the end this means people will die, but it's tough to get from the abstraction of a percentage change in NIH funding to folks dead from research that couldn't happen.

i guess when it comes between guns and butter the guns are going to get the cash. It's also too bad i work for the butter.

(not that this is my largest complaint about the admin, because it isn't)

You might want to do a bit more research on this goppers.


The NIH budget wasn't cut. It has has a 15% growth or so for the last 5 years (this includes years with tax cuts), and this year it will have a 2.7% growth. The only real cuts are to new building funds, everything else still has growth. Every year the funding for grants has increased.

But please, won't somebody THINK of the children.

These are good points however what most people forget is the amount of asinine false claims made by the Pakistani,Kuwaiti and Isreali intelligence agencies.

The Pakistani's wanted a foot up on India and would say anything especially concerning Iraq's so-called WMD to patch up the strained relations with the U.S regarding their own WMD program.

The Kuwaiti's,..well who could blame them. They're a little country right next door to Iraq and haven't forgotten the Gulf War yet.

And who could forget CNN running paranoid clips of Isreali's duct taping their doors and windows, sitting in candlelit rooms and hysterically almost trampling people to buy gas masks. Even Ariel Sharon said Mossad had iron clad evidence that Saddam had 45 scud missiles pointed at Isreal, with between 19 and 28 carrying biological agents.

Yet now the only ones with tarnished images are the U.S and Britain. You certainly don't hear a squeek coming from the aforementioned countries.

Here's an interesting response to the "hate bush" meeting coming from a liberal opinion. I agree with her, that its not going to do the party any good to advertise their hatred.

Story Link

Get rid of the hyperbole and what is left, factually, to hang your hat on in that piece?

Nothing, its an opinion piece. I just stated I agree with her. It probably won't help with getting any swing voters.

I don’t hate him; I despise him and his administration. I can’t even watch him on tv anymore. I get so upset I have to turn it off and do some relaxation exercises…

You know, this allegation that the email was titled "Hate Bush 12-2 Event" was a <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/matthb.htm">Drudge Report "Exclusive".</a> Drudge was the primary media source for this information that Susan Estrich incorporated in her article.

<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/12/04/hollywood/index.html">Laurie David said she never called it that.</a> Matt Drudge said she did. I have considered Matt Drudge to be a lying scumbag ever since he slandered Sidney Blumenthal as a wife beater in 1997. I have not, on the other hand, ever been given reason to not trust Laurie David. You can see who I would be inclined to believe in this situation.

For the sake of a well rounded discussion though, here's a different perspective on this so-called "Hate Bush" meeting:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ood/index.html

I'm sort of new here, so please excuse me if you are an expert on this field and im wrong about what im going to say. It looks to me like you just googled NIH Budget then read the first 5 or so paragraphs of a year old doccument.

at some level you are correct though. The NIH will get more money this year than last. The large increases of the past were a comitment made to double the budget over 5 years. That ended in 2003. and you are correct that the planned increase for the year after that is 2.7%, which does beat inflation by a whopping .6% if im not mistaken. You could say that funding increases that go from 13%ish a year to 3% a year is a cutback as I did. You could also call me crap for saying that when a budget goes from $X to $X+$Y a "cutback." Thats fine. Also, it's fair to say that my war and tax cuts thing is incorrect, but money for those things does come from somewhere.

Those numbers aside I'll give you two things to support what I was saying from the start.

A) on a conference call yesterday i was told by a representative of the NIH that all studies were being evaluated for anything that could be cut to meet budget restrictions.

B) an article that says some of what im thinking - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/201534.shtml

Again, you don't have to buy it, and you can joke about who will think about the kids, but bush is throwing 27 billion it must be pretty important. I just think it's closer to 10% a year important than 3%.

All of this said, this isn't my largest issue with Bush. It's just one i hadn't seen brought up in this thread.

Interesting.

Whether or not that event was billed by anyone as a "Hate Bush" fundraiser, it certainly turned into one.

What I think the left fails to realize is that the swing vote, Ma and Pa Kettle in Iowa, isn't impressed by Hollywood shinanigans and that such meetings only further convince them that the left is out of touch with their concerns.

If the Dems want to win in 2004, they need to abandon these sorts of tactics and give good reasons why the rest of the country should vote Democratic and not Republican.

Unfortunately for them, because they "hate Bush", isn't going to work.

The whole point of the 'new groups' is to avoid the campaign finance laws and to shield DNC money from Howard Dean since everyone assumes if he gets the nomination using it will be a waste of money.

No matter how someone tries to spin the 'Hate Bush' event, it can only hurt the democrats.

Its assumptions like these that lose swing votes.

I think the big assumption 'Reps' are making is that only Democrats are angry.

Maybe. Its easy to get the angry votes, and if the majority is angry, then the dems are fine. If the angry ones are just a smaller, and louder minority, then they're in trouble. Its hard to say.

From what I understand, and I may be wrong, traditionally 30% vote dem all the time no matter what, and 30% vote rep no matter what, its that 40% that decide elections. If that 40% is as polarized this time as they were in 2000 were in for another nerve-racking election.

But statements like "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention," are somewhat insulting to those that lie within that 40% that aren't angry, but may be open-minded to someone new in office, maybe there aren't many of these people though, but there is no need to cut them out, expecially when it comes down to a tight election.

If I may disagree; In my recent experience the G.O.P. believes only the far left is dissatisfied, as always. Unless painting with the broad brush any who are angry as extreme leftists is a tactic and not an error in judgement.

2Wolves

Check out Superbelt's quote for the answer as to whether it's a tactic or an error in judgement...

If that were true, GWBs popularity would be declining rather than increasing in the polls.

True, the Green, Commies, and Luddites are angry too :lol:

Also the psycho right is a bit miffed.

http://cbs11tv.com/investigations/lo...330180036.html

2Wolves

Politics gets very sad when every move is considered a move toward the election.
If you need to say what the 40% want to hear to get elected, I think it's definitely not worth it.

89% approval rating in March
52% approval rating in November

Pretty self-explanatory...

Approval ratings are tricky to interpret (lies, damned lies, and statistics).

One, it depends on who's asking the question. Various polls use different questions, different wordings, different methodologies, have different samples (registered voters vs. adults nationwide), etc.

Two, "presidential approval" usually falls into two categories: your approval of the president as a person, and the approval of the president's job performance. I think, regardless of the absolute numbers, it's pretty clear that the president's JOB approval ratings are falling, although they seem to be holding steady somewhere on average in the mid-50s over the past few weeks (pollingreport.com moved this info - can anybody find a similar poll tracking site with this info?). His personal approval ratings have traditionally been slightly higher than his job approval ratings.

Three, it's not just his approval ratings that are important, but also his DISapproval ratings, which have been climbing steadily. You have fewer and fewer people who are "uncommitted," and more of them are falling into the "disapprove" category than the approve category.

Four, as someone pointed out, absolute numbers are less important than trends, and he seems to be trending down or holding steady, though things can change in a matter of weeks depending on circumstances.

Five, right now, regardless of approval ratings, Gallup's predicting an even race in 2004 with an as-yet-unnamed democrat. Doesn't matter if you approve or not if you don't go vote.

Just to update the figures....

Gallup polls are fun:

<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/">Gallop's State of the Nation</a>

George W. Bush Approval Rating

50% Approve
47% Disapprove

2003 Nov 14-16

"State of the Country" Satisfaction Rating

44% Satisfied
54% Dissatisfied

2003 Nov 3-5

Economic Confidence Ratings

30% Excellent/Good
70% Only fair/Poor

2003 Nov 3-5

We're due for another one from gallup in the next several days...

Hooray for propaganda! Anyone who doesn't agree with the president must actually hate America. They're all Communists, Hippies, Terrorists, Islamofactists, or whatever other group the Republicians try and use to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Thats just for the leftist elites who seem to hate Bush and for them, it appliles.

Nobody in American politics hates America. Thats the most absurd thing I've ever heard. You make it sound like there a bunch of liberals plotting a way to "bring down" America.

Elite Leftist #1 - "Our plan to destroy America is going as planed!"
Elite Leftist #2 - "Yes, then all of our money and status will be completly useless! Ha Ha Ha!"

tman144, i don't think that is necessarily true in all respects. there are plenty of people (extreme left elitists as well as right-wing extremists) who won't admit to hating America, but they do admit to undermining values that the United States have stood/fought for during our history. So, no... they don't hate America's name, or her wealth... but they sometimes do hate what she can represent or stand for. But yes, there are people who deeply hate America if you define America by what she historically holds as her values.

Yep. That's the trend I was talking about. Throw in that when he's put against the Dem candidates he is by far the choice of those polled.

Not long ago there was a thread which showed that it was around 50/50 that people would choose "anyone" over Bush for reelection. Apparently it was "anyone" except the Dem candidates.

While I am not a big fan of polls to draw specific conclusions, they can be useful when combined with other observations for general trends.

Anyone who thinks that Bush has been slipping in his approval in the last couple of weeks hasn't been paying attention. The prescription plan, his trip to Iraq, an improving economy, even his revocation of steel tariffs have made him look Presidential. His Democratic rivals have had most of their strategies gutted by the economic strength and it's leaving them with only Iraq and Afghanistan to talk about. Unfortunately for the Dems, that is not enough to oust Bush.

Like him or not, Bush has not let the Iraq/Afghanistan situations be the sole focus of his administration. This also takes away the Dems ability to say "he's neglecting domestic policy".

I dont hate anyone but I can see why one would hate GW.
I deal with facts and little speculation.

1. NO real proof of his victory in the election and no real investigation into the theft.

2. No real proof of 9-11 and no real investigation into the allegation.

3. NO real proof of WMD and no real investigation into their existence.

4. A whole lot of proclomation and finger pointing being validated by the above unverified points.

5. He uses the word freedom a lot, when the climate here in the US is like antifreedom...you cant get your point across when/where it matters. (But this has been the same for all presidents).

6. People may hate him because Clinton was up for impeachment for a sexual act while the military is busy fighting in the Middle East for UNVERIFIED reasons.

Boy, you are misinformed.

1. He received the most electoral college votes. With the exception of one counting of the votes in Florida Bush won every recount done by certified firms AND countless newspapers. You think they wouldn't have loved to come up with the story that said he actually lost?

2. 9/11 happened and every major intelligence agency and country in the world agrees that it was an Al Qaeda attack. Links between the attackers and Bin Laden have been proven.

3. No proof that they currently exist is absolutely true. The fact that they existed in the past is simple fact. They could not have been used in the Iran/Iraq war if they didn't exist. No investigation into their existence is absolute bull. Teams have been searching for them throughout the conflict.

4. Huh? Details please.

5. What are you not free to do? You're not free to make a point? Feel free, I give you permission, make your points here. Is it that your points can't get across or is it that a majority of people don't agree with them?

6. Clinton was not up for impeachment for a sexual act, he was up because he LIED under oath. Get over the sexual aspect of it. You are denegrating Bush because he allegedly lied about WMDs and yet fully disregard that Clinton blatantly lied?

1. Prove it.

2. Prove it.

3. Well there needs to be proof to invade no?!?!?

4. Read again, GW has blamed and accused on info which has not been proven.

5. Really?? Google the terms "Ellen Mariani"

6. Pure semantics, the point is "LIE". Lie about a blowjob or a war.

The point is things are not adding up and we are headed into dangerous territory in the world. A lot of people believe without PROOF!

I tend to agree with Conclamo Ludus on this one. Hate will not get Bush out of office, it will only drive those swing voters away. If a Democratic candidate wants to win the elections they need to take lessons from Clinton. Economic Conservative-people like their tax cuts and generally, most are economic conservatives. Social liberal-everyone is a social liberal to some degree, and a Republican Congress was able to keep Clinton's laws pretty much middle of the road (tho I disagree with Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Marriage Tax). So far, there isn't really a candidate that exemplifies what a good politician Clinton was. Back in '92 the GHWB Camp tried to portray Clinton as a dumb ol' boy from Arkansas, that backfired big time. '96, Dole's camp tried to do some more, criticizing the person. Not to mention Perot helped to suck some votes away from the two candidates (Clinton never got 50% of the vote if I may remind the people on this board). Also, the Dems are using a shotgun approach to politics, they're going wholesale instead of retail (lots and lots of people compared to good service to an individual in a line). Bush is taking lessons from Reagan on this one, he has a 6,000,000 name e-mail list in which to run a part of his campaign. Clinton won because he focused on issues, not people, if the Dems do that again, Bush is gone. But it's not happening, none of the Dems seem to have the ability to retail their product to the American people, and Bush does.

I've decided not to be mean, though it was very, very, hard for me. I think I'm growing as a person, that or I'm just sick of being warned :p

Everytime, it is perpetual...seriously, one can't have dialogue about this issue without meeting people who will begin by trying to prove or illustrate how stupid/crazy my questions sound.

Where is the proof? Are we to believe whatever we are told?

If it has been proven, why have the people's investigation been blocked?

Humbra, pokemon is a slave trader and pikochu is a slave owner . . . lets keep this crazy train rolling

I guess the only way you will believe anything is if you see it yourself, or perhaps only if the results agree with your predetermined "truth". Unbelievable can be used to describe more than just the reporting you seem to doubt.

Agree with a fair number of your points but Bush has done a good job of eliminating the issues the Dems could use. The economy is gaining and people know it. Medicine for old people is good. National Debt doesn't get people out to vote.

i've got to say it...

some of the posters on the board have really crossed the line IMHO. why does every thread have to devolve into more Bush bashing? ok, you don't like bush... we get it. we ALLLLLLLL get it.

from stupid, to babykiller, to fascist, to moron, to a horseman in the apocalypse, to hick to warmongerer... it has all been said. we've all read it hundreds of times. do you get it? nothing is left. why say it over and over still?

there isn't a person alive who i would say those things about, yet some of you feel fully qualified in your presumably average lives to criticize the President of the United States in such familiar terms.

there is certainly room to disagree with the President. i'm a conservative and i do myself at times. i'm not advocating that he be given a pass... the President should be held to the highest level of intellectually honest scrutiny. the problem comes in when you do not afford the President the same level of respect the mods require you to display to other TFP posters.

if you're a poster who does this chronically (and there are many out there), please rethink what you're adding to the TFP community. if you decide to keep on doing this, at least don't be pretentious enough to complain about the mudslinging in politics. don't martyr yourself, you are part of the problem.

Irate,

I'll simply point out that you've ressurected a thread that was essentially dead.

it's human nature to dislike somebody who doesn't share your views. I really disliked the arch criminal Bill Clinton and I can understand but I don't agree with people who hate Bush

Ok....Mr. Bush is not my boss....he works for me, therefor I am HIS boss. Still I would not resort to calling one of my employees names. I would however evaluate performance issues and attempt to correct deficiencies. Also Mr. Bush is not family, and I have no idea why I would consider the President as a member of my family in the first place. I would however, be honest and forward with my brother if I felt he was in trouble, as Bush clearly is.
My biggest problem with this administration (and thus Bush) is the poor relations they have with a little place called "the rest of the world". I am embarassed for the bully atmosphere my beloved country has portrayed to the rest of the world.

Civility is civility no matter who you're talking about. Calling people morons, stupid, etc should not be acceptable. Disagree with a policy? Make points about the policy not the person implementing it.

There is a difference between name calling, and repeating a political statement. While I do agree my post was somewhat borderline, and I suppose an apology would be indicated(sorry), this was meant as a statement about the ability of a politician to articulate, and think on his feet.
I was also trying to set a point, which is:
If a diplomat from another country , feels compelled to risk retribution to express disatisfaction with the intellect of "the leader of the free world", and very few dipute the accuracy of such a statement, there may be some truth to it.
I will be completely honest with you. I do question the capabilities of GWB when it comes to setting the direction of my country, as this is a relatively important priority for the president. My interpretation of Mr. Bushs' intellect was not intended as a personal attack, but as a statement of concern.

I would hope, that the man who is leading this country, is at the very least smarter than myself. And I do believe most Americans would hope for this as well. Again if my post came off as an attack on the president, this was not my main intent (although in reflection, you are correct it was an insult an regratable) But, watching him address the nation was embarassing for me, and that pissed me off.

Someone's ability to handle a press briefing doesn't factor into my calculation about their intellect. I agree that his performance last night in the beginning was pretty bad. IMO, there were points where his intellect and his conviction shone through however.

That forum was one that he's not been heavily exposed to and one that he should be. Towards the end when he got away from trying to stick to the talking points and spoke from his heart and off the cuff he did remarkably better.

While not artfully articulated I enjoyed his story about the conversation with the Japanese leader about North Korea and how he one day hopes a similar conversation could take place with a freely elected Iraqi leader.

I have yet to meet a stupid or moronic military pilot and those types of comments put me (and a lot of others) off as far as further discussions go. You can make some very insightful and interesting comments but, I think, when you throw in the "typical" diatribes about Bush personally it really tarnishes the rest of your points.

As far as the Canadian politician being compelled to risk retribution, I disagree. It wasn't a thought out planned statement but an instance of a politician being off their game and not understanding the implications or impacts of their words. While I don't expect politicians to be perfect, I expect them to be a little bit better at avoiding the blatant pitfalls that have ruined so many other political careers.

I don't understand how the average person on this board can call Bush unintelligent. How many of us can boast his educational background? How many of us were smart enough to get elected governor then president? Yes, his family background gave him a huge advantage but there are lots of other privileged children in our society who don't accomplish nearly as much.

I think the left hates Bush because he's a fantastic, charasmatic leader who's about to be re-elected without catering to every popular public opinion and poll.

So you are saying we hate him because we "know" he's a great, principled person. Did that even make sense to you as you wrote it?

little more than biased but some good points in there http://www.votebushout.biz/99reasons.asp

How can you not be angry at a time like this? :D

Can you please tell me why you think he's charasmatic?

If he was charismatic, I believe the polls would reflect his desires. That is, his charisma would encourage people to agree with him.

I don't like what Schwarzenegger is doing with my state. I don't like the policies he is enacting--but the majority of the voters are behind him. There's no doubt about the fact that polls reflect his agenda, he has popular public officials supporting his programs (and ex-governors, from both sides of the aisle), and his policies are voted into action in one of the more politically liberal states--now that's charisma.

Well in this case it should. We're talking about the President of the United States. A large part of his job is to project a solid and intelligent image of America to the world. If the man can't string 5 phrases together without stumbling or inventing new words, then he's not doing a very good job. There has not been one single elected president since the advent of radio and television broadcasts that was a terrible public speaker (Note, I said elected, so Ford does not count). Most of them have been pretty damn spectacular public speakers - we're talking FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan, hell even Nixon came off brilliantly in his "checkers" speech. Public speaking skills have been a big part of most of our presidents. There's a reason for that.

I couldn't stand Reagan myself, but one thing I always gave him credit for was his speaking ability and to make even the most asinine proposals sound pretty damn good to his audience.

Now we've got a guy who, whether he's intelligent or not, sounds like a bumbling fool every time he opens his mouth - especially when it's not scripted as in the Q/A session of the PC. What kind of image does that project of the administration, and of America itself to the rest of the world. When the leader makes an ass of himself, the troops get nervous, and the other side loses respect for you - not that we have much chance of having respect - we lost that pretty well with Bush's handling of post-9/11 foreign policy.

I would not characterize Bush senior as a spectacular public speaker. He agreed with the joke that english was his second language.

and speaking from years of personal conversations and experience... the troops were much more nervous with the well-spoken Clinton at the helm than they are with the current President.

Nor would I, which is why I included the modifier "most" in that part of the statement He was not a BAD public speaker though. W is a BAD public speaker.



when I said troops, that referred to the american public, not the soldiers. And I roundly disagree with you anyway.

Were I a soldier, now would be the time I'd be the most nervous because soldiers now are much more likely to die or get injured than under Clinton. War tends to have that effect.

Especially when the man calling the shots is playing cowboys and indians in Afganistan and good cop bad cop in Iraq.:lol:

Sorry, I really don't mean that. Just thought I'd make a funny.:rolleyes:

But your point shakran is well taken.

Superbelt- Yes, I am saying something like that. Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged?' It would help with you understand my statement and your confusion.

Smooth- I will concede that Arnold is a better example of a charasmatic leader than Bush as defined by the 5th edition of 'Leadership in Organizations' by Gary Yukl.

Sorry but it still doesn't. I've known fabulous public speakers who are buffoons and I've known incredible thinkers who couldn't talk their way out of a one word argument. Apparently Bush is doing okay in the "perception" category with those who matter since, despite his "stumbling or inventing new words" he's got about half the voters on his side.

As far as the rest of the world judging him on his public speaking, it doesn't matter. It's what goes on in private that influences policy most.

I suspect you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that the troops have (or will) lose respect for Bush based on his public speaking skill.

So have I. What's your point? I frankly expect excellence from the commander in chief. Are you saying you're fine with mediocrity in the highest office in the nation?

Down from 89% of the voters on his side after 9/11. I call that a pretty damn big slide. What could possibly account for it other than voters (who matter) losing faith in him?





No, it's both. Do you think that had Bush Sr. been shot and Quayle had become president, that people would have taken him seriously? He made such a total fool of himself every time he opened his mouth in public that people went in to private sessions already looking down on him. Public appearances effect what happens in private.



And that wasn't the only complaint I had about him in this thread (or others) either. The troops (the smart ones anyway) are losing faith in him for many other reasons. Even the ones who supported the war cannot appreciate the fact that Bush did not send enough troops to support the invasion force. That attack the other day on the 20 truck fuel convoy that was being guarded by all of 3 humvees is a shining example. There simply aren't enough soldiers over there, and it's made the situation far more dangerous for the ones that are there as a result.

I'm saying that ONE area of mediocrity does not make the man mediocre.

Imagine that, the numbers fell in the years since a massive tragedy. Who'd have thunk it. No one expected it to remain that high and there is no possibility that it could have. We won't know how much faith they've lost until the election results are in.

It's what goes on behind closed doors that influence policy most. Obviously I didn't say it doesn't matter at all.

Please show me your evidence that the "smart" troops are losing faith in him. There's no question there were enough troops to support the invasion force, if there wasn't how could it have been successful? Citing one example of a successful attack as evidence of too few troops in the entire country is not exactly strong proof of your theory.

Um. It wasn't successful. Successful invasions do not have major battles going on every day for a year after "major hostilities have ended." Successful invasions do not wind up with more people killed after the war is supposedly over than were killed during the war.

Anyone who calls this little adventure we're having in Iraq anything close to successful is either misinformed or deluding themselves.

Umm, Yeah they do.

There were Japanese and German guerilla fighters after WW2 even though we won (I am guessing you won't dispute that). The Germans successfully invaded France and there was still a resistance.

major battles... everyday? and yet the news media refuses to report a single one. i wish they'd quit talking about these car bombs. rogue clerics, and hostage situations and tell us a bit about these major battles.

I would state that the "Invasion" was a success in that the ruling faction was removed, and there were more than sufficient troops for that purpose. There seem to be major problems with the plan for Iraq after the removal of government. Perhaps the body count would be lower every day if we had decided to put a post invasion plan into place, instead of wingin' it.
I can only hope that what we are currently experiencing was not planned, as that would be worse than no plan at all.

I have to wonder about the plan going in,...or were they so arrogantly 'winged' in such instances that nothing but ultimate success was a guarantee.

A few years ago I would have doubted that, now there is very little benefit of that doubt.

I had really hoped a little bit more thought would have been allotted pre and post invasion after it was deemed necessary to invade.

Eh hate to nitpick but successful invasion and successful occupation are two different things honestly

You can succeed in taking your objectives of invasion - say removing a regime, a city, etc.

But what happens after durign the occupation can be successful/unsuccessful in itself

But anyways one year later the line is still "just a bit longer, its not that fast"

Historically, America stood for white, anglo-saxon, protestant, slave owning males age 25-60 having a majority of the power/wealth/influence/ect and everyone else being SOL.

I guess I hate America too...

You can not see why Bush is truely evil unless you watch the news and read the paper. Bush is evil because he is taking away the rights of American citizens and claiming it is to protect us. He has ruined enviromental laws that have taken years to put in affect, and I dont care about this so called economic improvment. Our country is still in debt. We are in debt because of these seemingly good incentives like no child left behind, but they are all underfunded. Kerry is not the best person to become President, but he is certainly better than Bush. So if you want to vote Bush go ahead, im moving to Canada to escape Americas Stupidity.

Well, let's see...

I seem to recall all the predictions just before we invaded. Hundreds of thousands dead, oil fields burning, environmental disasters, bloody battle after bloody battle for every meter of ground gained, American and coalition troops suffering tens of thousands deaths, surrounding countries taking the oppotunity to seize border lands in the confusion, etc, etc, etc.

The invasion ended up taking days rather than months and years, Baghdad was taken with minimal casualties, there was relatively little infrastructure damage, and in about a year, there is a hell of a lot of progress.

Occupation is always a PITA. Major battles are almost non existent with the vast majority being hit and run attacks. Yeah I'd have to say overall it has been an outstanding invasion and it will appear in military texts for years to come as an amazingly well coordinated attack which took advantage of significant opportunities as they arose.

Bush isn't as disarming as say, Reagan. Reagan would have made a good proctologist; although he's sticking an anal probe up your ass, he makes you feel trusting and happy. Forget about that cold rod of steel spikes he sticking in you hoo-hoo. He's just such a nice guy.

Laughing my ass off! Laughing my ass off! Good one Jizz-Fritter. Right on the money.

Do you have any source for german guerillia fighters? I know Hitler dreamt about a resistance, but as far as i know it was close to non existant and nowhere comparable to the resistance now in iraq.

There's a thread about this from way back, but what we figured out was there were around 40 US military deaths in Germany post WWII, and 0 US military deaths in Japan.

Man, back then countries knew how to surrender... *said in crotchety old man voice

i certainly wouldn't want to limit the media's free reign over iraq but...

a distinct difference between post WWII and now-a-days is the constant round-the-clock hunt for a shred of news to plaster over every front page.

if a couple village idiots end up picking up some poor contractor over there and holding him hostage... it is broadcasted worldwide. late night talk shows and internet boards :p talk and talk about the implications of their actions.

back then, there would be nowhere near this exposure... eleminating much of the motivation for the terrorist's actions.

i mean seriously, if it came down to it... anyone of us could pull a civilian off the street and parade him around. there is nothing especially groundbreaking about that. All you have to do now is find a journalist wandering the country looking for a story and give him a 10 second interview from the back of your nissan.

we give these jokers an international platform by our insatiability for context-free news. this is something the post WWII forces never had to face.

Can't quite let this one go by...

This means to me that you can only argue or refute one point. The rest must be true.

And...

The truth is that no one else had a chance to. GWB was the guy in the hot seat at the time, and he did an OK job (some would say great, not me.) But who's to say that someone else wouldn't have done better? I mean Rudy Guiliani did a pretty good job, what would things have been like if he had been president at the time? What if (gasp!) GWB made a few mistakes? He couldn't have done better? To me that statment sounds like slaveish unquestioning devotion to our president.

Just because someone believes it's unlikely that someone else could have done better, it isn't slavish unquestioning devotion. Further, Giuliani has been quite complimentary in Bush's handling of the situation, so, given that he knows a thing or two about managing the after-effects of a terrorist strike, do you think, that maybe, just maybe Bush did do an outstanding job?

Just because Guiliani has been complimentary doesn't mean I have to be too. It's his job to be complimentary (and he probably thinks that GWB did a good job, which is fine, but I don't have to agree.) So, no, I do not think he did an outstanding job. GWB is not a great public speaker. His use of the english language is deplorable. Listening to him say 'evil do-ers' made me cringe and think that while the whole world's attention was focused on us, we should have had something better than a semi-functional illiterate to speak for us. Among others, I think Guiliani would have done a better job. Hell, what about that Blair chap? Why should we restrict ourselves to Americans? Nobody better? I think he was talking about nobody-better-who-was-President-of-the-United-States-at-the-time. Lame.

I avoided this thread the first time around, because it seemed like a wonderful nesting ground for Trolls. However, with its recent resurgence, I began to try to determine when, exactly my displeasure with President Bush began.

When I think back, it was actually when I read a magazine article that my mother had cut out(I forget the magazine) about then Governor Bush. The article was complimentary and hinted that the Governor was mulling over the idea of running for president. My mother, a staunch conservative, was intrigued by him and liked the tone he set during his interview. I, on the other hand, immediately disliked his tone and demeanor and the subtle arrogance that pervaded his comments. My mother was so surprised that I felt that way, she just didn't see it. She continually asked me how I could feel that way and how could I not see his virtues.

Time and experience has only strengthen my dislike of the man. Obviously, I have political and philosophical differences with him, but that is not the issue, there are many who I disagree with, but for whom I have a great deal of respect and even revernce. There is something, on a very basic, gut-instinct, emotional level that disturbs me about President Bush. I am not sure why this is, but it seems to me that he has that effect on a great number of people and if you add in philosophical differences it can really raise the level of dislike or hatred. For those who do not experience this discomfort, it must seem infuriatingly irrational, but I cannot deny its existence.

I also uphold the people's right to criticize their elected officials. Do I think that "Bush is a fucking moron!" is an effective critique of this administration's weaknesses and blunders - no, but you have the right to say it.

Nuff said - thanks for readin'.