Bush Intrigues...

[tottynathan]

For me Bush is the only US president who has failed to grow into a role that inspires trust and security. Bush senior and Clinton both failed in this respect at the begginig of their terms, but within a year or so I felt they had become an American president. Four years later the feeling of worry and anticipation that always accompanies a new presidency still remains fresh for me with respect to Bush.

Interestingly The Economist named him man of the year 2003, and with good argument, but I still cannot buy into it. I think maybe it a failure of spin, of an inability to project the correct image. I wonder if it is not this single fact, combined with diplomatic inability that has not caused the anti-american sentiment around the world. The most worrying of which is the transatlantic drift.

Bush may very well be able to fill the presidential shoes, international policy in its actions has over the last few years has been tough, realistic and progressive (not forgetting that the reasons given to the public for these actions were totally wrong). iBut the world remains oblivious to these achievments. I believe the administrations inability to project their leader as a president poses a far greater danger than any of the actioned policies so far. I hope he follows in the footsteps of his single term father.

 

[Bern80]

Welcome,

Image has absolutely zero to do with how any President actually does their job, though our liberal media would certainly like to convince you otherwise.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you're probably a liberal. Being a conservative of which a major trait is appealing to logice and reason it is difficult to understand why people don't "buy into" good arguments. It is quite the paradox when one recognizes truth yet still refuses to acknowledge it.

As far considering Clinton an "American President" well, if you mean getting your wang sucked in the oval office, cheating on your wife, and lieing, well i guess i can't argue with you.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by tottynathan

Bush may very well be able to fill the presidential shoes, international policy in its actions has over the last few years has been tough, realistic and progressive (not forgetting that the reasons given to the public for these actions were totally wrong). iBut the world remains oblivious to these achievments. I believe the administrations inability to project their leader as a president poses a far greater danger than any of the actioned policies so far. I hope he follows in the footsteps of his single term father. [/B]

We cannot control other countries' perceptions of the President of the U.S. - nor should his performance standard be to win a global popularity contest.

Considering the sick and destructive values of many cultures in the world, the fact that we piss them off is a good thing.

 

[tottynathan]

Thank you fo rthe welcome,

Image i'm afraid is everything. We live in a democracy run by us all, some less informed than others. The lowest common denominator choses the president and it is too these wich a president must play.

In the same vain, whther yuo like it or not, you, the US, elect the most powerful man in the world, whose policies are brought to bear on the whole world. Simply6, you must realise this - your hard line, realpolitik behaviour in the world is spot on, but failure to project an image as you would in an election year, toward your domestic polis, is just stupid.

I have huge respect and admiration for the US,especially in these trying times, but I hope sincerely that this initialey isolasionist government can get a grip on its true responsibilities. You (the US) CANNOT exist alone. You must work with us all.

 

[tottynathan]

If then, as you imply, the values of America are so great, who (minus the odd dictator) can you possibly be 'pissing off'?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by tottynathan
If then, as you imply, the values of America are so great, who (minus the odd dictator) can you possibly be 'pissing off'?

Hello? Have you looked at the value systems of much of the rest of the world. The majority are collectivist monstrosities which have no respect for individual rights. Of course they are pissed off. American values threaten the power monopoly of their ruling elites.

 

[Zhukov]

hope sincerely that this initialey isolasionist government can get a grip on its true responsibilities. You (the US) CANNOT exist alone. You must work with us all.

The United States can in fact exist alone, and if it suited us we wouldn't work with the rest of the world at all. American history is replete with examples of us attempting to retreat back into isolation, only to be roused again and again by turmoil on the continent across the pond. I believe a retreat into isolationism was precisely what Pres. Bush had in mind before the events of Sept. 11 caused him to rethink that plan.

Image i'm afraid is everything.

Image is everything? Well, image is not everything but unfortunately it is quite important. It has become so important over the past few years that a President who accomplished so little of any lasting value, really hardly anything at all, is still considered by many a great american leader. What's more, he is held in higher esteem globally than he is here, which would lead me to believe that image is even more important abroad than it is here. What can be done to rectify this obvious (and likely inherent) flaw in our democratic processes? For starters, I would suggest you examine Pres. Bush's accomplishments and failures before you criticize his 'image'.

As far as the President failing to "project an image" in your opinion in this election year, I'm sure he's quite content letting the democrats maul one another without his assistance. Once the democrats have selected their man, you can be sure the heavily funded juggernaut of Bush's re-election campaign will go into full effect.

The lowest common denominator choses the president

Considering that less than half of our eligible voters traditionally participate in presidential elections, it is safe to assume that these people are, if only slighlty, more informed than the average american. Having said that, it is true that many who do vote are sadly ignorant of a great deal of pertinent information.

I hope he follows in the footsteps of his single term father.

I hope not. I didn't vote for him the first time, but I likely will be voting for him this time. He's shown me one thing for certain, and that is his ability to lead. Previous administrations have attempted to lead and be loved by all. This is impossible, as the two are mutually exclusive.

I hope sincerely that this initialey isolasionist government can get a grip on its true responsibilities

And what, precisely, constitutes our "true responsibilities"? Policeman of the World? Understand this, most americans don't want anything to do with the rest of the world.

We don't want our jobs being sent abroad, and we don't want our products being undersold by foreigners. Unfortunately these are the attendant evils with trying to spread the benefits of a market economy to the world. Ultimately we do this for purely selfish reasons. We feel wealthy nations produce content citizens who are less likely to attack us or each other, and because the majority of americans believe capitalism and competition raises the standard of living for all people. Many americans believe we are the best hope for humanity.

We don't want foreigners attacking our country, physically or verbally, and we don't want to send our children around the world risking their lives to drop bombs on other people and kill foreigners. Unfortunately the former continually requires us to do the latter. Although there are those in our country who still believe in the failed theories of Appeasement, eventually we do get around to doing the right thing, however long it may take and whatever resistance, international or domestic, we may face.

Our interaction with you, i.e. the rest of the world, is purely out of intelligent, long-term, self-interest.

Originally posted by Wonderwench
Considering the sick and destructive values of many cultures in the world, the fact that we piss them off is a good thing.

It certainly is, in my mind, an indication that we're doing the right thing. Considering the moral wasteland that is the UN, I dread the day they start praising the US.


EDIT: I later realized I forgot to address the comment that initially prompted me to respond.

I wonder if it is not this single fact, combined with diplomatic inability that has not caused the anti-american sentiment around the world.

The 'anti-american sentiment around the world', which itself is a biased generalization, existed long before the current administration came to power in our country. The obsequious nature of our previous President served to mask the underlying disdain with which many foreign administrations held for our country. His constant apologizing and pandering served to inflate their ego's while simulataneously increasing their contempt for our country. Upon the ascent to the position of President, previously held by a fawning weakling, of a dynamic leader unwilling to bend to their desires their ill-will promptly resurfaced.

 

[NightTrain]

Zhukov :

That has to be one of the best posts I've ever read.

 

[wonderwench]

I second that Zhukov. Well done indeed!

 

[tottynathan]

Respect. That is indeed a fine answer. Progress, and, especially understanding is a fine goal of free debate. I think on, the shackles of a Eurpean dogma I hoped I never had, have been pointed out. I hope to be able to articulate the European view as well as you have just done for the American side. It twould be a shame, although not so suprising, if our disagreements came down to the old 'Realpolitik'.

To spur the debate in the mean time...

'Realism hinders progress' ...?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by tottynathan
'Realism hinders progress' ...?

Sorry. Unfortunately I'm not inordinately interested in philosophy, or perhaps it is more truthful to say: in other people's philosophies. Naturally I have formed my own opinions on life and reality, but these opinions aren't based on anything I've ever read, as I've never read a book on philosophy, and consequently I'm unfamiliar with the full scope of the meaning of 'realism' in the way you have used it. I have however read some few small snippets (quite inadvertently, I assure you ) of some of Aristotle's mental meanderings and we seemed to agree.

So (unless you'd like to rephrase a little bit) I'll go with whatever he says.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Bern80
Image has absolutely zero to do with how any President actually does their job,

What rock have you been living under? If not about image, why has Dubbyuh trotted out proposals to go to the moon?..And beyond...? Why is he busy touting his jobs proposals? Why is he busy touting Medicare reform (uh huh)? Especially when there's no money to pay for them in this, or any other, budget.

If you think image doesn't affect the way this, or any other President does his job you're incredibly naive.

 

[Jeff]

Trust hmmmm lets see is I have this right......trust ... we trust Clinton when he tells he has smoked pot but never inhaled..lol... we trust clinton to tell us look into my eyes I never had sex with that woman...lmao.... the one thing he did that I do like is taught me a blow job isnt sex...LOL... but I still cant get my wife to understand if I get a blow job from another woman that it isnt cheating cause it isnt sex....LMAO...as for him being a American President well if ya think so....LMFAO!!!!!
Jeff

 

[tottynathan]

Ok so lets me get the straight - You'd prefer a president with no sexual experience, no life experience, no social experience, basically no human experience. I think you should turn to religion for your icon rather than the real world of politics. I, for one, could no possibly respect, or relate, to such an idealised person.

As for keeping these things from the public, when was the last time you randomly announced to the world all you dirty little secrets? Oh, and of course image doesn't come into play here what so ever..

 

[Jeff]

I definatley dont want the pope to run the US... lol... but at the same token I dont want my president to come on TV & tell me oral sex isnt sex either! What I was saying about Clinton was not that he has done things wrong ( we all have secrets we wouldnt want the world to know) but that he thought the American ppl were stupid enough to believe him...When one takes on the job as president his life becomes very public like it or not, so at least they can do is say yes I am human I have made a mistake.
Jeff

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by tottynathan
Ok so lets me get the straight - You'd prefer a president with no sexual experience, no life experience, no social experience, basically no human experience. I think you should turn to religion for your icon rather than the real world of politics. I, for one, could no possibly respect, or relate, to such an idealised person.

As for keeping these things from the public, when was the last time you randomly announced to the world all you dirty little secrets? Oh, and of course image doesn't come into play here what so ever..

I want a President who doesn't abuse the power of his office to sexually exploit subordinate employees on company time and on company premises.

I also want a President who doesn't lie before a Grand Jury.

If he wants to have an affair, let it be with someone who is not in his chain of command and at a motel.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by tottynathan
Ok so lets me get the straight - You'd prefer a president with no sexual experience, no life experience, no social experience, basically no human experience. I think you should turn to religion for your icon rather than the real world of politics. I, for one, could no possibly respect, or relate, to such an idealised person.

As for keeping these things from the public, when was the last time you randomly announced to the world all you dirty little secrets? Oh, and of course image doesn't come into play here what so ever..

Actually, it's not so much what he did that got me angry. It's the misogynistic way he looked into the eyes of the American public and said "I did not have sex with that woman." No offense, but when a man says that, in the way that he did, as if to say "The slut's lying." - I cannot have respect for him.

No one could have faulted him and a lot of time and energy could have been saved if he wasn't such a misogynist and liar. He should have looked at the camera and said "I'm an adult. I will not answer questions about my sex life, especially with Miss Lewinsky. As it pertains specifically to the Paula Jones harassment case, I asked Paula Jones to have some fun with me. I meant no disrespect nor do I believe she was harassed. When she showed no interest, the matter was laid to rest. End of statement."

But instead he chose to lie, defame the character of two women (who, in my opinion need not be as pure as the driven snow to deserve respect) and perpetuated the belief by men of this country that it's okay to vilify women for having sex or speaking out when they don't want to have it. That's why many of us were angry. That's why many of us have a problem with that whole sex scandal. His treatment of the women, his lying under oath and his facilitation, ney collusion, with such a waste of time and money from the sex in the office thing to the court case. All these things should not have been allowed and do not become the president of the united states.

 

[wonderwench]

Excellent post, Moi.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
Actually, it's not so much what he did that got me angry. It's the misogynistic way he looked into the eyes of the American public and said "I did not have sex with that woman." No offense, but when a man says that, in the way that he did, as if to say "The slut's lying." - I cannot have respect for him.

No one could have faulted him and a lot of time and energy could have been saved if he wasn't such a misogynist and liar. He should have looked at the camera and said "I'm an adult. I will not answer questions about my sex life, especially with Miss Lewinsky. As it pertains specifically to the Paula Jones harassment case, I asked Paula Jones to have some fun with me. I meant no disrespect nor do I believe she was harassed. When she showed no interest, the matter was laid to rest. End of statement."

But instead he chose to lie, defame the character of two women (who, in my opinion need not be as pure as the driven snow to deserve respect) and perpetuated the belief by men of this country that it's okay to vilify women for having sex or speaking out when they don't want to have it. That's why many of us were angry. That's why many of us have a problem with that whole sex scandal. His treatment of the women, his lying under oath and his facilitation, ney collusion, with such a waste of time and money from the sex in the office thing to the court case. All these things should not have been allowed and do not become the president of the united states.

I think we all agree that Clinton has the morals of a goat. And he disgraced himself, humiliated his wife and treated Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones like trash. But lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office and lying to justify a war are not even comparable.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I think we all agree that Clinton has the morals of a goat. And he disgraced himself, humiliated his wife and treated Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones like trash. But lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office and lying to justify a war are not even comparable.

An admitted lie and a conspiracy theory aren't comparable either.