George W. Bush: The Pros and the Cons

[Isaac Brock]

He is the most powerful man in the world at this moment. I'd like to see if what people like in this man and his views and what people hate. I hoping for some plurality in views here.

A few quick opinions myself:

Pros:
- Excellent orator geered towards to common man/woman
- Has exceedingly intelligent staff for the most part
- Appears to have high personal moral values and is very consistent with them


Cons:
- Deplorable attitude towards environmental issues
- Polarizes his international allies and destabilizes western alliance system, with black or white view of the world (ie the only way to be truly friendly to the US is to agree with them on everything)
- Spends more like a fiscal liberal than conservative, deplorable debt management ethos.

Just some views! I think it would be great if EVERYONE could put both pros and cons. Give the debate some validity.

 

[jimnyc]

Pros:
- Economy - I think his administration is responsible for upswing
- Security - Lots of changes after 9/11, Iraq included, and I like his attitude
- Capable leader
- Disciplined
- Great business sense
- Strict on crime

Cons:
- Not the greatest public speaker


I feel like a homer for not including more under the 'con' section but I honestly can't think of anything else right now.

 

[Big D]

Bush is the worst president I have seen at selling out America for his own personal gain.

It seems as though politicians are getting away with ripping off the people more and more every year.

 

[Comrade]

Just my 2c

Pros:

"- Excellent orator geered towards to common man/woman"

Yes and no. Not very convincing unless he is personally engaged. The WOT speech given was one where you knew you had a leader with conviction and heart. But in other areas he sounds robotic and uninspiring. Still, you know he cares about the big issues.

- Has exceedingly intelligent staff for the most part

Most certainly. But they do clash (Rummy/Powell). Notice how Powell has fell in line with the rest of the heads since the UN evidence presentation, so obviously Bush had a "talk" with him. That is also a sign of his leadership.

- Appears to have high personal moral values and is very consistent with them

Oh I'm sure there is still some flaws, and some of the values are not considered quite moral by some (ie. Death Penalty).

Cons:
- Deplorable attitude towards environmental issues

Not really. Just a realistic attitude about the severe handicap that adoption of certain non-mandatory treaties (ie Kyoto) would mean to the United States compared to those who don't even pretend to adopt it (ie. China).

I prefer a president who doesn't surrender all our economic advantages to rapidly prospering, and still totalitarian countries who really don't give a shit about the evironment, and will spell our economic and perhaps our military defeat if we shoot ourselves in the foot trying to "save the doomed world" all by ourselves first.

- Polarizes his international allies and destabilizes western alliance system, with black or white view of the world (ie the only way to be truly friendly to the US is to agree with them on everything)

What I'm thinking you mean by black and white, is in fighting terrorism. Surely now that France opposed us on Iraq (why?), left NATO (Wait...they did that already NATO!), and is just disputing our methods not our intent to depose threats (surely the UN would have eventually), they are "against us". And they were so supportive of all our efforts before that!

Now refusing to be part of treaties concieved of and to the benefit of Europe? Well that is just us being bully-like, right?


- Spends more like a fiscal liberal than conservative, deplorable debt management ethos.

Fact is the recent spending by the government on credit has only seen reverses in the economic slump. Lowing taxes in a recession, helps fund the next cyclical recovery in the private sector, where the deficit becomes a surplus which insures for the the next downturn.

Also please remember it is CONGRESS, not BUSH, who handles our money. I can't say how many times I've had to point out this simple fact, let alone convince others the economy is indeed mostly independant of government action in a non-socialist government in the first place.

 

[5.10 leader]

As a European my views are obviously coming from a different perspective to those of US citizens. However I do hope my comments are of interest

Pros:
- Excellent orator geered towards to common man/woman
This is true although he is also portrayed as a Dan Quayle character due to his linguistic errors or inaccuracies.

- Has exceedingly intelligent staff for the most part
Generally people do not hold high office through being an idiot. However one or two members of staff do not project themselves too well, particularly Rumsfeld and Rice.

- Appears to have high personal moral values and is very consistent with them
Would not disagree.


Cons:
- Deplorable attitude towards environmental issues
Undoubtedly true. Bush is getting very bad press over here on this issue at present.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

- Polarizes his international allies and destabilizes western alliance system, with black or white view of the world (ie the only way to be truly friendly to the US is to agree with them on everything)
He has certainly alienated much of Europe with this opinion and has a low rating in Britain as well. It does appear, though that, at the present time, Europe needs the support of the US rather than the opposite.

- Spends more like a fiscal liberal than conservative, deplorable debt management ethos.
Can't comment on this issue.

 

[5stringJeff]

My only major beef with Bush is that he is a big-spending conservative. By this, I mean that he is more likely to spend money on gov't programs that seems more socially conservative (i.e. faith-based programs). He is not a fiscal conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes considerably more than Bush has, and who wanted to halt all non-defense spending increases.
If Bush would grow a pair and quit spending so much, I would love it. As it is though, he is the right man for the major task at hand - fighting terrorism.

 

[Moi]

Pros:

1. I believe he has morals- I may not agree with everything for which he stands, but he seems to be wedded to a moral code. Before anyone complains about his drunk driving, etc., I'll just say that he learned from his mistakes. None of us walks with clean hands.

2. I believe he is dedicated to his wife, children and family. There are many people for whom other things are more important but to show such dedication to your family - including your citizens if you will - shows me he's intelligent and powerful at the same time. I believe that how you treat your women is the single most indicative factor in a man's character.

3. He hires and listens to qualified people.

4. He is strong on national defense and taxes.

5. He is leading towards economic recovery - you may not agree that his methods will work but that's semantics. He's greatly concerned about economic recovery and anti-big business corruption.

6. He treats people equally...whether he's speaking with a king or a "commoner" he's just W. That may put off some, but I think he's completely without airs. And after 8 years of the high and mighty, it's refreshing to me.

Cons:

1. Way too soft on immigration problems.
2. Way to generous to the poor, undeserving.
3. Not enough creativity in searching for economic reforms.
4. Allows people to criticize his rather mundane points by engaging them...if I were him, I'd just ignore the morons.

 

[acludem]

My take:

Pros:

- nice guy, seems to be genuinely nice and decent
-assembled a good cabinet and staff, with Karl Rove being the primary power behind the power
-good campaigner
-effective in raising nation's morale after 9/11
-good taste in women

Cons:

-can't deliver a speech without teleprompters or staff whispering in his ear - just reads it
-has no clue how to deal with the rest of the world
-too cozy with big business; allows them to make most policy decisions
-deplorable record on the environment and economy
-no fiscal responsibility - spends like it's going out of style and cuts taxes on the wealthy at the same time
-can't listen to someone who disagrees with him without that arrogant smirk (ok. so that's my personal observation, and that smirk drives me nuts)

 

[ironeagle]

HowardDeanLies.com is a good site that deals with Mr. Dean's "loose lips".

 

[remie]

Pros

Follows his beliefs and governs accordingly

Good speaker (replay post 911 speeches) definately from the heart, no teleprompters needed.

America first....cant see much wrong with that

Has done a good job with the economy

Follows through on campaign promises


Cons

Spends like a democrat. Too much additional social spending.

Immigration policy is lacking

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by remie
Pros

Follows his beliefs and governs accordingly

Good speaker (replay post 911 speeches) definately from the heart, no teleprompters needed.

America first....cant see much wrong with that

Has done a good job with the economy

Follows through on campaign promises


Cons

Spends like a democrat. Too much additional social spending.

Immigration policy is lacking

Love the avatar and quote! Welcome aboard...

 

[wonderwench]

Pro: He is not Bill Clinton

Con: His usage of grammar and pronunciation

 

[Annie]

Have to jump in here, I worked on his campaign, was asked to come down to FL to count 'chads'.

Pros:
1. To my surprise I can't imagine a better post 9/11 leader.
2. Since 9/11 a pretty effective orator, though reverting to earlier
form recently.
3. Has been able to co-opt many 'Democratic issues', which I find
related to cons, to follow; nevertheless a masterful political
coup, just ask William Jefferson Clinton.
4. Has been able to get anything he deems 'truly important'
through Congress, with the exception of judicial nominees.
5. Has remained true to pledge to try to change the tone in
Washington. He has been civil, in spite of rabid hate on the
part of many Democrats.
6. Has been very clear in his serious objectives, both here and
abroad. I think everyone knows 'he means what he says.'
7. His tax cuts are helping to boost the economy.

Cons:
1. He has pandered too much to 'liberals' and illegal aliens, for
political gain. I don't think either will work, yet they may well
harm the country.
2. Following the liberal agenda, under the guise of 'compassionate
conservatisim', he is getting the fed involved in issues that
should be left to the states, especially education.
3. He has failed to use the 'bully pulpit' to hold the Democrats
responsible for their obstructionism, especially regarding
judicial nominations.

 

[NightTrain]

Pro: He is not Bill Clinton

I love you! Let's elope!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I was thinking about making a thread on this very topic:

Pro
-actually religious
-has Colin Powell on his cabinet
-"Rummy" Rumsfeld gives us a daily laugh
-nice person
-economy recovering even after the 911 hurt
-fought the war in afghanistan
-made sure nobody is going to hijack an airplane anytime soon
-the Color Code!!!!!
-blowing off the UN will probably force them to reform into a productive agency
-took out Saddam
-nice wife

Con
-6 million jobs lost
-largest deficit ever
-overall, bad homeland secuirity(amnesty for illegals, little protection of chemical facilities)
-the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft
-the war in Iraq
-europe will probably elect some severe US haters
-hasn't dealt with NK
-doesn't read newspapers
-terrible speaker
-lousy environmental policies

 

[Bullypulpit]

Pros:
- Excellent orator geered towards to common man/woman
<i>Actually a piss poor orator, barely capable of reading the telepromter without tripping over his own tongue. His oratory is geared towards the lowest common denominator, not the average person.</i>

- Has exceedingly intelligent staff for the most part
<i>His staff is also vicious, duplicitous, underhanded and vindictive. We need look no further than the outing of Mrs. Plame-Wilson as a CIA agent for the proof of that pudding, violating several federal laws in the process.</i>

- Appears to have high personal moral values and is very consistent with them
<i>Key word here, "<b>...appears...</b>". For a man who claims Jesus as his personal role model, he killed alot of people as Governor of Texas. A growing body of credible evidence is showing that he, and his administration, lied about the justifications for war in Iraq. When Iwas growing up, it was drummed into my head that the more one proclaimed his/her religious virtue, the greater the sins they are trying to hide. Juudging by the proclamations of Bush and some of his staff, they have many sins to hide indeed.</i>

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually a piss poor orator, barely capable of reading the telepromter without tripping over his own tongue. His oratory is geared towards the lowest common denominator, not the average person.

He's just not an overly dramatic person. His point gets across, I'm not sure what more you need than that. I don't need an actor reading the press conferences, just someone who can tell us the facts. You don't get this far in politics without knowing how to effectively communicate with people.

His staff is also vicious, duplicitous, underhanded and vindictive. We need look no further than the outing of Mrs. Plame-Wilson as a CIA agent for the proof of that pudding, violating several federal laws in the process.

Unfortunately, you have just that, no proof!

Key word here, "...appears...". For a man who claims Jesus as his personal role model, he killed alot of people as Governor of Texas. A growing body of credible evidence is showing that he, and his administration, lied about the justifications for war in Iraq. When Iwas growing up, it was drummed into my head that the more one proclaimed his/her religious virtue, the greater the sins they are trying to hide. Juudging by the proclamations of Bush and some of his staff, they have many sins to hide indeed.

All I've seen concerning 'lies' about justifications for war in Iraq is theories. You say credible evidence, do you have anything other than peoples opinions? And do these 'lies' apply to all the other countries that had the same intel pertaining to WMD?

 

[jones]

Unfortunately, you have just that, no proof!

Yes we do, and they've admitted to it. Claiming they dont know who it is.
I thought I made this clear to you earlier but oh well.


Concerning Bush.

Pros
- entertaining to watch
- will do exactly what you say and sign almost anything without reading the fine print, but only if your name is Dick. Oh wait thats bad.

Cons
- drunk driver
- bad choice in women, wife looks like a mentally challenged cat.
- says the stupidist things ive EVER heard consistantly. "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003



- - - - - TODAY - - - - - -

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill likened President Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts on Friday from a CBS interview.

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4101890

 

[rtwngAvngr]

pros:
1.Has rejected modern liberal thinking, including their assinine theories of moral relativism, socialism, and eurosuperiority.

2. Willing to take the risk of alienating conservative supporters by embracing a few key liberal issues to take them off the table and utterly crush the democratic party for short term power consolidation during a time of war, the wrong side of which the dems, except lieberman, are on.

cons:
1.He's maybe a little to whacked out on jesus for my tastes, but this is America, and we respect the rights of an individual to believe in religion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Yes we do, and they've admitted to it. Claiming they dont know who it is.
I thought I made this clear to you earlier but oh well.

So someone saying "I don't know who it is" is proof? LOL

Do you understand what 'proof' is? In other words, proof would most likely be acceptable in a court of law. What you have said is not only laughable as proof, but wouldn't even come remotely close as 'evidence'.

And furthermore, nothing was admitted. Saying you don't know who the responsible party isn't an admission of complicity.