It seems we are suffering from a raging case of painfully low expectations. That he was able to get through a whole press conference without sounding like an asshole or a moron is not “impressive” in a president, it’s the absolute minimum we can expect.
Please note, I did NOT say he DID sound like an asshole or a moron, I said he did NOT, I’m just not impressed by that.
I’m also amazed by people who were unquestionably anti-Bush 2 months ago who are now, because he’s managed to stand up straight and speak clearly without a teleprompter, seeing him completely differently. How does that work, exactly… we get horribly attacked by terrorists and suddenly his tax cut is peachy? His decision on stem cell was “just right”? Kyoto was cool? He’s not * really * a tool of the oil industry after all?
As I’ve said quietly once or twice already, there’s a part of me that is actually relieved it’s his team running the show right now, I think they are better at making war. That’s always been so, it’s a truth about Republicans in general, and these Republicans in particular.
But is that going to be the definition of the President’s job in perpetuity? Given that we are supposedly looking at a “war” (read: national security problem) that will stretch for years into the future, are we supposed to also be maintaining this “He’s our leader and we approve of him completely” thing for years into the future as well? At what point exactly does it again become acceptable to not be exactly thrilled with George without being considered a traitor? Because frankly, this is starting to creep me out.
I am reminded of another one of my favorite faux-Onion headlines from a few weeks ago:
Actually, Stoid, I think you’re being a bit harsh on the sudden “conversion” of supporters. Most people who didn’t support Bush’s Faith Based Initiative probably don’t now. But what they do support is his current actions stemming from 9/11. And also I think that people are showing their support for our government and way of life, the sort of things you can’t find in every nation. The posts on this thread refer to how well he handled himself at the press conference, but I don’t think that that anybody’s gonna support any old thing he proposes.
Good point there. And it’s another example of how this administration is forcibly dispossessed of its isolationist instincts. Now, if Bush could reconcile the above statement with his other one, that he doesn’t believe in “nation-building”, I’d be happier. Simple military occupation is in no way a superior strategy.
I won’t resist pointing out what he claimed he learned from Vietnam, and it’s not just that you don’t send conventional forces after guerrillas.
Reminds me of the Gomer Pyle episode where Gomer chased down a criminal, hollering (in his Gomer accent): “Citizen’s a-ray-yest! Citizen’s a-ray-yest!”
I think most Americans have come to view the President as being on “our” team now.
Bush has had to deal with the friggin’ WTC and Pentagon being attacked, as well as an unprecedented multi-front assault on an enemy that historically has been horrendously elusive, and in only a month I think we’ve seen more progress on those fronts we know about than we’ve ever seen before by any President’s administration. And the best some people can do is criticize Bush’s dialect? I’ve heard (perhaps not here, but on another message board) some people who criticized Bush’s address to the nation immediately after the attacks, saying that the remarks were too obviously rehearsed and devoid of emotion; then I heard those same people criticizing Bush because he was speaking more candidly! I think panzermanpanzerman was right when he said that some people would criticize Bush for not swimming if he was walking on water. I have never agreed with 100% of what any President has done while in office, but I think Bush has done extremely well with a situation that most of us would have long since crapped our pants over.
That’s an illogical straw man argument. Who said they’d decided to support the restrictions on stem cell research because of the WTC attacks? Just who the heck are you talking about?
The fact is that Bush and his administration have done a remarkably, surprisingly good job of handling this. Their policies are logical and sound. They’ve been remarkably patient under the circumstances, have done a great job on the diplomatic front, and (unlike their predecessors) appear to actually know what they’re doing militarily. Those are admirable achievements, even if you don’t agree with Bush on other issues (and for the record, I don’t.)
The important issue right now is the war, so it’s only logical to ascribe the bulk of your judgement of Bush to his handling of the war, which, IMO, has been stellar. That’s not new. When WWII broke out, there was a lot less criticism of Roosevelt’s various unconstitutional and boneheaded New Deal policies, and a lot more emphasis on his (impressive) handling of the war. Or consider a negative example: when Vietnam became a fiasco, there was a lot less talk about Johnson’s admirable stance on civil rights and a lot more talk about his getting Americans killed in Vietnam. People hadn’t changed their minds about teh New Deal or civil rights; they just realized priorities had temporarily changed.
If you’re going to apporach this from your “Bush is bad, therefore whatever Bush does is bad” that’s your call, but it’s not a logically sound position.
That was exactly my impression of Stoid’s statements. I’m sure she’ll be along soon to clarify her point of view.
…
For those nitpicking Bush’ delivery – please. I’d rather a President make sound decisions and speak like a baboon than be a great orator, but make dubious decisions. If you harp on his oration and how he makes you “feel”, you might as well harp on the color of his suit.
Bush does seem to be doing a good job, and I give him credit for how he’s handling the current situation.
Partly I think this is because of a crisis of low expectations concerning him. If people think you’re going to do poorly, it’s tough to underperform.
The other part is that the situation is making him a good leader. The nation really has no choice but to look to him as the leader, and the very weight of that responsibility may be “bringing out the great man within (if you’re a knee-jerk Republican”) or “Remaking an inferior product into a sufficient one (if You’re a knee-jerk Democrat”)
All political considerations aside, he’s doing a better job than I would have expected, and I voted for the guy.
To be fair though, I think Gore would have done us proud here, too.
Why should you be amazed. We’ve been there before with famous leaders. Remember the revered Churchill? He is the pinnacle icon of war time leadership. He certainly wasn’t famous for his domestic policies, and booted out of office shortly after the second world war.
When you are up to your ass in alligators,what’s on the menu for lunch isn’t much of a concern.
I thought he did a great job on the speech. I have always thought he is a better speaker without a script. I have also been impressed with his handling of the situation. This is from someone who’s mind was NOT made up to like Bush before hand. I did not vote for him and do not consider myself a Republican. I always put him in the “Doofus” category before this. I also still do not agree with some of his other policies. I am surprised to find myself saying it, but I think he is doing a fine job leading our country in this difficult time.
I keep feeling like I am living in a parallel universe since Bush got in.
He gave a reasonably passable speech and answered a few questions with out falling on his face. For those of us with doubts he continues to give little hint that he has any deep understanding of what he is talking about with his continual resort to repetition of platitudes and over used statements. How people can find this type of performance comforting is beyond me.
Performance is a different story and on the international front I remain cautiously supportive of his actions. His administration does seem to have learned that unilateralism isn’t always the best policy and there appears to be some understanding of the potential problems. If anything, I am now becoming slightly concerned that the fear of complications will lead to a lack of needed action.
On the domestic side he seems to have learned from his fathers mistakes that the economy cannot be ignored. Unfortunately his only answer to any economic situation is tax cuts and more tax cuts.
Oh, Scylla, surely you remember such Republican luminaries as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and, er . . . oops. Nevermind.
I suppose in fairness, we should count James Madison, Abe Lincoln, Ike Eisenhower, and Dick Nixon, but really.
Nice job ending a needless, useless war that was started by Democrats. Probably the best that could have been done under the circumstances. I don’t expect you to acknowledge this, since this would take away your mental crutch of “X is bad, therefore anything X does is bad” (as RickJay pointed out). Damn that Nixon for going to China!
You’re exhibiting a consistent pattern, Stoid, and it ain’t impressive.
Sorry, I thought I was talking to Stoid–didn’t pay attention to the poster. Kind of saddens me to see that more than one person is using the same crutch.
I’m saying that Republicans haven’t historically been war-mongers, nor are we especially good at war. I’m pointing out this is a pretty ignorant standpoint when you look at History.
Nixon did poorly in Vietnam IMO. We abandoned allies, and wasted resources and basically gave up after not having supported our troops or allowed them to actually do their mission.
I don’t think this has anything to do with Nixon being a Republican candidate, I’m just using it as an example of ineffective Republican wartime leadership.
Being “better” at something does not mean you do more of it, it means you are * better * at it. More skilled and able. More comfortable in the role. Note, as someone else pointed out, the fact that apparently 90% of the military votes Republican. That certainly says a lot to me.
Being * better * at something is generally perceived by * most * people (who aren’t constantly spoiling for a fight, that is) as a ** compliment ** . I didn’t say Republicans are better at murdering women and children, I didn’t say they were better at torturing people. We are in a war now, yes? Most people approve of this war, yes? Don’t you want the guys who are * better * at doing that? I know I do.
I hope that people who were not happy with his domestic policies are not going to be swayed into thinking he’s a great president because they like his handling of this crisis. That was my point. We do not live in a state of perpetual crisis…at least we never have before, let’s hope we don’t start now.