You know, I picked choice 2, but I think what you’ve said is closer to how I feel. I think he had the best interests of the country at heart, but had no idea what actions he might do that would achieve the country’s best interests. So he picked a bunch of guys who were smart and who he trusted and who he should not have trusted.
I’m not going to give him this out. Contrary to what many other’s think I believe that Bush was quite intelligent. He may have been disinclined to be a wonk and stumbled over his words occasionally, but he was not an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. He was (IMO) a gifted small “c” one on one communicator.
The real problem I have with Bush is instead of working in good faith as President for the betterment of the US WRT to foreign policy, he brought an agenda to the table that was hungrily looking for any excuse to put the smack down on Saddam Hussein and instead of considering the wisdom of this plan jumped with both feet into this folly. The emotions surrounding the 9-11 attack were raw and aching for revenge and he cannily manipulated those to point the most powerful military in the world at a nonsensical goal and toxic tar baby of a mission.
He squandered (and squander is the perfect word here) US lives and resources for nothing, but an endless financial and emotional drain on the US that left our international reputation in tatters. It was far less an issue of IQ and more one of arrogance that brought him to that pass.
I think Bush had the best of intentions but lacked the ability to do the job well.
I agree. The fact that he got the degrees he did, while playing beer-drinking frat boy bears this out. If their IQ’s were tested I’d not be surprised to see Bush rank ahead of JFK! Bush is also said to have excellent “people skills.” Frankly, I think it’s silly to think that high-ranked politicans might have low IQ’s: Quayle, Gerald Ford are other examples that come to mind.
The problem is that intellectual traits other than raw intelligence are needed, such as curiosity, character, sense of justice, and, yes, “vision.”
The Price of Loyalty gives a good insight into the Bush presidency. The man must have known all along he was in way over his head, but seemed happy to let Rove and Cheney run the country as they chose. The fact that Presidency involves more responsibilities than following a party platform and hiring old frat buddies seems to have completely eluded him. (Apparently the Texas Governorship is such a trivial figurehead job, which may have lulled Bush into thinking he was qualified.)
I vehemently disagree with Bush’s beliefs and methods, but he was doing it for what he perceived to be the good of the country.
“I believe that as President, George Bush did what he thought was best for his Country.”
I believe he didn’t think very much about it, and I don’t think “did what he thought was best for his [c]ountry” necessarily equals “was a good and honorable man.” But I don’t think he deliberately set out to be bad at his job, nor do I think he saw himself as the slave of his corporate masters or any such thing.
I think the comment was made once here that Bush had rolled high on intelligence and low on wisdom. I’m sure he knew a lot but he lacked the capacity of knowing which pieces of information he should be applying in a given situation.
He also seems to have fled completely into reclusiveness. No ribbon-cuttings, no lecture tours, no endorsements, no public appearances, not even golfing. Even more astounding, there’s not the slightest public, media, or political interest in what he’s doing or thinking now.
Didn’t he take part in the Haiti relief efforts? Or was that his father?
Not really. Being the privileged type he was, it didn’t matter how smart he was or whether he learned a thing; he was going to get those degrees.
As for him becoming reclusive; without sitting-President levels of security, I expect he fears jeering crowds and assassins. No more “free speech zones” for him.
Yeah the degrees never was what annoyed me… What annoyed me about bush was what a non-accomplished man he was. It was as if a smoke filled room just picked out a patsy to run the show… ie Warren Harding…
Prior to being “APPOINTED” Gov I always challenge my elephant buddies at work to point out what thing of significance that he achieved…I have no love of Reagan but can continue with the supposition of his being a self made man to a large extent… Ford… a long record… service to his country etc… Daddy Bush… service to his country… cia director… one of the the first rep to support the civil rights bill…
But Shrub? Everything was a charade… even the ranch…
I voted “He was motivated by something other than his country, and he never gave the US a second thought” because my impression of him was that all he wanted was to help turn the “haves” into “have-mores” and the “have-mores” into “have-even-mores.”
From this comment:
“This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores,” quipped the GOP standard-bearer. “Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”
in this stump speech:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml
I chose the third option. Bush was a drunken frat boy who never grew up. Some kids in college think it’s cool to cheat on tests and play nasty pranks just because they can. Bush brought the same attitude to the presidency. Why would he appoint Michael Brown to head FEMA? Or Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? Or stuff 15,000 earmarks into the budget? Or try to close the federal AIDS office? There’s no way those things and a hundred others could possibly be seen as helping the country, even by a dimwit.
He did his best, but his best wasn’t very good, and, being in denial of that, refused to admit that he made mistakes.
He only realized how out of his depth he was at the very end, when he withdrew from work on the crisis and let those who more or less knew what they were doing handle it, giving whatever feeble support he could.
He was of course surrounded by those telling him how great he was, while they did what they wanted (especially Cheney.) I think his lack of visibility now is partly due to reflection on how badly he performed, and partly on being basically lazy, especially intellectually lazy.
Cheney should take a page from his book.
OK, I don’t really have a strong opinion, I don’t know what was in the man’s head, I think he was largely motivated by family psychology.
But I tend to assume that somewhere in there, albeit very possibly not as a primary concern or motivation, he did sort of, almost, kind of, care about the USA.
So I voted for the second choice: He loved his country, but he was motivated by something else (personal gain, religion, etc…).
Maybe I should have thought about that more.
Yeah, I swore off the GOP when they renominated him. Not because I blamed him for running again; I blamed them for not having the sense to pick someone more competent to be a war president.
Definately James K. Polk.
If the neo-cons continue to get their way, we will always have war presidents.
I read a magazine article once (sorry I don’t remember where) which discussed the actual “smoke-filled” GOP room in 1999 or 2000. They went around the room suggesting Governors: “No, we can’t pick so-and-so. He supports abortion rights.” … “Not so-and-so, he raised taxes” … “Not so-and-so, he cut taxes and screwed his state’s schools.”
They ended up picking Bush precisely because he lacked ideas, he hadn’t done things in Texas, he was tabula rasa! :dubious:
Closing thread-will decide future of political polls in IMHO.