I am not a U.S. citizen, but I’ve been watching the elections from a distance, following it carefully. In a country, which you often refer to as the greatest democracy of the world, how can a man like George W. Bush get this close to becoming a President? He is obviously not capable of handling the job, and seems to me both stupid, prejudice, and power-seeking. The way he deals with crime in the State of Texas with executions goes only to show that he has no respect for the nature of life. I sincerely believe that he will do The United States a great harm if he becomes its President.
The rest of your post is a clear case of envy.
Freedom I’m surprised at you. I was actually penning a reply to the OP. Your reply, well, I’m just disappointed with you (I know you’ll not be able to sleep tonight, but what the hey)
regarding the OP:
Your take on the executions in Texas is wrong, in that :
a. Texas has a long standing pro death penalty stance, regardless the party affiliation of the governor (who isn’t always Republican by the way)
b. Even so, the governor by Texas law, has very little effect on death penalty cases (see the thread about ‘why do Blacks hate Bush’ for more details)
As to the question in the OP. you assume that folks who voted for him merely did so because they ‘couldn’t see through’ him. That isn’t a fair assessment (god, why am I in this position?)
We in the US vote for our president for a variety of reasons. Both Bush and Gore got roughly the same percentage of popular votes (Gore got a few more, but that’s irrelevant). Many people specifically voted against one or the other guy, or for 3rd parties 'cause they didn’t like either. Bush’s message of “tax cuts for all” certainly resounded with quite a few folks. If you or I don’t particularly believe that the tax cuts will trickle down to all doesn’t really mean that the others were ‘taken in’.
Shrug. I have to go wash my hands now. 
elgur- keep in mind that an election is about issues as well. No matter how ‘stupid’ Bush may seem, or how ‘competent’ Gore may seem (and I would argue that Bush isn’t as stupid as the media likes to portray him, nor is Gore as competent), a great many people in this country would never vote for Gore simply because what Gore wants to do regarding policy is anthema to them.
Quite frankly, the Republicans could have nominated bubblegum wadded on a stick and I still would have voted for it so long as their platform called for lower taxes and at least partial privatization of Social Security.
There seems to be some sort of conception among foreigners that Bush is entirely responsible for the death penalty. Texas, and most of the rest of America, supports the death penalty. Al Gore supports the death penalty. Clinton supports the death penalty. It’s not going away.
The laws in Texas relating to the death penalty were supported by the people and passed by the legislature. It is not the duty of the governor to judge whether these people deserve the death penalty. There is a very specific sequence of appeals that a person on death row has. The governor is simply a last resort, to serve as one final check on injustices in the process, not a judge of whether the person deserves to die.
Bush can certainly be criticized for the choices he makes in the appointments to the various boards that oversee the process. But the death penalty situation in Texas cannot be blamed on him. Or, for those that support the death penalty, credited to him.
Another look at GWB from a foreign perspective–
Although there have been a few UK commentators who point to the record of executions in Texas (The Mirror newspaper being the most obvious example), the real concern here in Europe is Bush’s foreign policy. The newspapers I read from EU countries (both liberal and conservative) seem to be wringing their hands over Bush’s lack of understanding of foreign affairs. Nearly every media source here regard’s Bush’s handle on foreign affairs to be the weakest of any presidental candidate in living memory.
Now, I know that Bush has advisors who can help him out in most diplomatic situations. However, there are many cases where the intervention of the President (in his office as President) has been crucial in brokering recent peace and weapons negotiations. (I’m not just trying to talk up Clinton’s role here in Northern Ireland and the Oslo peace agreements here–what about Reagan’s role in negotiations with the Soviet Union?) Will Bush be able to take on the expected role of the US President in such negotiations? Considering his lack of knowledge of foriegn affairs, I’m very doubtful.
You mean, weaker than Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s? That’s kind of surprising- I think Bush has just as good a grasp- if not better, by virtue of association- on foreign policy as Clinton did.
Agree. Many Americans simply vote along party lines rather than for the person. So the question is, how was GWB able to escalate his political career to the point where he was able to win the “primary” (where the party candidates are selected)? I don’t know the details, but my impression is that was due to his money, personality, and surname.
Phobos said:
I’d change the order of those, but I think you’re right on the mark. Personality, Surname, Money.
The personal relationship of these two with the media cannot be overlooked. All of the following is MHO.
Gore is apparently viewed by many in the media as a pedantic, condescending know-it-all. This is why they delight in pointing out little innacuracies in his public statements. He has that “smartest kid in class” syndrome and the press corp’s reaction to this is the same as the high school mainstream- they are vaguely jealous and continually annoyed by it. Gore can’t slip up, because this huge group of people who don’t personally like him very much are following him around looking for slip-ups.
Bush is the normal, cool kid in school. He is a charming person, when the camera’s not on him. He has nicknames for everyone. Members of the press joke with him and gush their own contributions. It’s like a big posse following him around. He has cultivated these relationships and they’ve served him well, because the media seems to be overlooking the seemingly obvious fact that at times he isn’t all that on top of the situation, policy- and facts- wise.
The impact of the media on this election cannot be denied. They allowed Bush’s good qualities to shine and hauled Gore’s shortcomings into the limelight. You can argue either way on which personality is better suited to run the country, but it’s difficult to say that Bush didn’t get more than a fair shake.
Agreed. And I’ll also be the first to admit that I don’t think Bush was one of the better candidates the Republicans could have nominated (though I do think he was one of the better ones running- most of the Republicans I really wanted to see nominated sat this one out).
But- general election-wise- I don’t see why anyone should be laughed at or mocked for not supporting a candidate who is intelligent, experienced, and promises to oppose most of what they support and support most of what they oppose.
[hijack] Does anyone else find it ironic that the OP’s question was answered much more skillfully by a Democratic supporter of Mr. Gore than by one of the staunchest defenders of all things “Bush” and “Republican” to be found on this board? The sort of churlishness and narrow-minded anti-‘furriner’ attitude displayed in the second post has no place in rational debate. It actually makes me think the poster belongs in the same room with the Democratic supporter on this board who attacked one of our Canadian members by asserting that being Canadian made the person unqualified to have a reasonable opinion on our election.
Hats off! to wring for swallowing partisanship and providing a reasonable and rational answer to the OP. 
John:
If you argue along these lines, you could say that Reagan’s grasp on foreign policy, at the time he was nominated, was the same as GWB’s. Indeed, of our last four presidents, the only one who had a real career grounding in foreign policy was, of course, George HW Bush.
The difference between George W Bush and Clinton, and, indeed, between GWB and Reagan and Carter, was that GWB didn’t seem to pick up on foreign policy during the course of the election. During their election campaigns, Reagan and Clinton seemed quite happy to field questions on their foreign policies, whereas GWB seemed to evade them. From the standpoint of most of the European outlets I’ve seen, GWB seemed the most evasive of all the “recent” US presidential candidates. Bear in mind, of course, that Europeans are going to concentrate on the foreign policies of potential US Presidents to a greater extent than Americans will. I’m just wondering about GWB’s ability to pick up on foreign-policy issues.
The one other thing that concerns me about GWB’s foreign policy ability is his skills in negotiation. Although Clinton’s record in foreign policy matters was relatively sparse, even his opponents agreed that he was a good negotiator, a skill he shared with George HW Bush. I wonder what sort of record GWB has in negotiation with “hostile” opponents–say, with Democrats in the Texas legislature.
Lastly–why didn’t anybody in the US seem to talk about stuff like this before the election? All the US media outlets seemed silent about foreign policy, whereas it was all the European papers could seem to talk about. When will US media outlets realize that some US citizens live abroad (such as myself) and might be concerned about the image of the US in other countries?
Another foreigner’s view - and FTR a pinko lefty one at that.
I suspect one of the issues here is that GWB’s wholehearted support of Theatre Missile Defence scares most non-US citizens silly.
My impression is that most people in Europe think that TMD is a bad idea on so many levels (globally speaking) that to favour it means you are not the sharpest tool in the box, or are in the pocket of the arms industry, or are in favour of a new arms race, or haven’t thought the issues through, etc.
This is certainly my view, and in that neither Bore or Gush have mentioned foreign policy to any real degree in their campaigning, the rest of the world has seized on TMD as a big issue - certainly one that affects the whole world.
I guess it doesn’t really matter to Americans that GWB can’t name the Indian PM or the leader of Pakistan. I guess it wouldn’t matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that America sets the global agenda.
I think the points about voting for parties and policies rather than people are very well made, but the candidates rather than their policies tend to make the news outside the US.
I would point out that a significant part of the second debate was spent on foreign policy and you can review that to find out if GWB has learned anything about foreign policy. IMHO he acquitted himself very well and his opponent seemed incoherent and rambling. Aside from that exchange it did not come up much because Americans as a whole do not care much about foreign policy anymore. Our current president seems to have gotten along fine without one.
**
This isn’t meant to be rude or a shot at Europeans in general. But most Americans couldn’t care less what the citizens of other nations think of our policies. It simply isn’t a factor in the way most of us think. Sometimes we do have to consider what other nations will think particularly our close allies such as France, Germany, and England. But if Americans think that the pros of a missle defense plan outweigh the cons of having our allies miffed then we’ll build the darn thing.
**
We’re rather self-centered here in the states. We’re more concerned with what goes on here then what goes on a few thousand miles away.
**
As I said we’re self centered. How many Americans really care who the Indian PM is? How much do Americans know about one of our biggest trading partners Canada?
I find that rather fascinating. On the news here there just isn’t much to be said about elections in other nations. Unless of course its some new democracy or something.
Marc
Several possible reasons why I have failed to see through George W. Bush:
-
I am biased in favor of the more conservative candidate, and possibly judge him in a more favorable light.
-
Beyond this, I tend to vote on ideological grounds. I would vote for Gore if he was the conservative candidate.
-
I first read about Bush before he entered politics, when he owned the Texas Rangers baseball team. At the time he was extremely highly thought of by those who dealt with him in that capacity. Even more recently, I’ve heard apolitical people who knew him in that era speak of him well. As a result, I tend to believe that later attacks on his intelligence and the like are mere partisan raving, and judge him favorably.
This post was made by someone who was really arrogant and had no real knowledge of G. Bush obviously or even the American system of goverment. You see we have this thing called the balance of powers. Which is why the governer cannot affect executions too much. Which is why he signed so many executions. Maybe when the OP learns what the president does he will realise just how little his statement is based in fact.
I am told that many people find Dubya extremely likable. (I find him creepy, but I didn’t vote for him, either.) Approachable, friendly, a good ol’ boy. In this regard, it is said of him that he is much more like Clinton than Al could ever hope to be. (After all, Al is pedantic, robotic, and profoundly lacking in personal charm. I like him a bunch and I admit that.)
Americans tend to be, shall we say, less than rigorous when deciding whom to vote for and why. While there is certainly a segment of the American population that tries to apply something more than a gut reaction to such meaningful decisions, I don’t think that is true of most Americans. If it were, Nixon would have been perceived to have won the debate with Kennedy by the TV viewers as well as the radio listeners.
Additionally, note what Bush said the other night and what is now rippling through the troops as an answer to the fact that he did not win the popular vote: he would have if he’d wanted to, because he would have used a different “strategy” - that “strategy” being to simply * show up* in more heavily populated areas, including his own state. Apparantly he believes, and I am not disagreeing with him, that simply appearing somewhere will get him votes.
Well, that says quite a bit about the way Americans make decisions, doesn’t it? Let’s see… I can read about their policies all over the place, I can watch them debate each other, I can see them on TV day and night…I know! I’ll pick the one that drops by to say hi!
So you see, your question is flawed to begin with. It assumes that US citizens pay attention to anything resembling substance when they decide who to vote for. I venture to say most don’t. They vote for the one they’d rather have over for dinner.
Because, “Yankee can-do Spirit” often doesn’t actually mean “Protestant work ethic” - put another way, Americans like to get something for nothing, and admire those who’ve figured it out.
If my family friends loaned me a couple millions to start businesses, most of them failing - and they continue to give me money, just check the actual record on GWB’s ownership of the Rangers - I’d be thought of as a heck of guy too, just like the Ivy League jocks whose classwork I did (and thus paid my tuition). Honest work ? Bah… Remember. P.T. Barnum is a primarily American phenomenon. [FTR, I supported McCain]
tax cuts for all"
Inflation anyone???
Didnt about 47% of americans vote in the elections? Wasn’t it one of the highest voter turnouts in the USA ever?
It should be compulsory to vote…
In the Words of Jello: The USA is basically a one party state masquarading as a two party state.