Hate me. Love me. Your choice.
I just call them as I see them.
So, if the government didn’t take as much of my money, it wouldn’t be worth as much? This is, quite frankly, stupid.
Freedom2, sometimes when I start to think you couldn’t possibly say anything sillier, you top yourself once again. I am in awe!
The question should not be, “Why can’t you see through George W Bush”, but rather, “Why can’t you see through the superficial media stereotypes that plague all our politicians?”
One of the victims of our 24-hour news culture is that the media has gone from reporting the news to manufacturing it. Competition is fierce, and they have a lot of air time to fill. Hence, they are always looking for new ‘angles’, and once they find one they grab it and hang on for dear life. Thus, we have Bush the moron, and Al Gore the liar and pedant.
The truth, of course, is much different. Al Gore may have been caught in a few exaggerations, but by and large the guy has a fairly distinguished record after over 20 years in the public eye. You just can’t achieve that by being a compulsive liar. But the media managed to ‘tag’ him with a label, and it stuck.
As for GW Bush, let’s not forget that this is a guy with a graduate degree from an Ivy-League school, and an ex-fighter pilot. If he was your neighbor, you’d think he was awesome. But he was tagged as a dumb hick, and it stuck.
The sad part of this is that the beating candidates take in the media these days is going to drive the best people away. People of substance generally are not going to be willing to put themselves and their families through that kind of abuse. So I think you’re going to see two types of people gravitating towards politics in the future: Those who seek power in itself, and mediocrities who see it as their best shot at success.
Finally, GW’s foreign policy - neither you nor I really have a clue how smart he *really is in this regard - we’ve heard a few sound bites, and watched a two-hour debate in which he seemed at least adequate. The rest of our opinions have been shoved down our throats by the talking heads on CNN and ABC.
However, it’s important to remember that the best quality a president can have is to be able to select competent people and then delegate authority to them. Reagan had that ability. So did Clinton, at least in his last four years in office (after a disastrous first two years he got MUCH better at it - he’s a smart guy). I think GW Bush has that in spades, and look at the people he has surrounded himself with - Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice… Bush will have one of the strongest administrations in foreign policy since… well, since Bush. The last person (Condi Rice) is especially interesting. She’s a powerhouse in foreign policy. Formerly Provost of Stanford University, she’s an expert in foreign policy and helped shape the transition of the Soviet Union from Communism. She was a member of the National Security Council at 33 years of age. That Bush is planning on placing her in his cabinet speaks well of his judgement.
I admit that I stay up at night trying hard to think of ways to top the previous day. After the GW Wins In a Landslide!!! thread, I was in a slight depression thinking I could never top that one, but I am glad to see that I am still alive and kicking.
Is that elgur2000 or AlGore2000?
Perhaps one or more of the foreign governments wringing its hands over GW’s perceived lack of foreign policy knowhow could take some initiative in world events, instead of continually waiting for a U.S. bailout.
Geo does seem like a relatively empty suit and I didn’t vote for him. But I’m not so impressed by those dynamos across the pond either.
First, yes, it’s a bad rap on Bush to call him stupid. I think he’s actually pretty intelligent, just intellectually lazy and incurious. Yes, they can coexist; it’s a type I know well. He’s spent most of his life having things done and problems solved for him by other people while he was out drinking or generally indulging himself, and it even takes some intelligence to do that.
That said, I think the spirit of the OP question can be taken to be “Why did nearly half of US voters prefer Bush to Gore?”. Here’s a try:
-
Party affiliation Part A - Republicanism is mainly synonymous now with a conservative viewpoint (limited government, strong military, evangelical Christian, antiabortion, gun possession, etc.), and Bush hinted at really being that while trying to keep a moderate image. It’s easy to underestimate the size and strength of the conservative segment of the US electorate, and their willingness to support any Republican.
-
Party affiliation Part B - Unlike in parliamentary countries where it’s not possible, we have a strong tradition of ticket-splitting. For most of the last 50 years, we’ve elected Presidents and Congresses of opposite parties to try to force them to cooperate in the larger national interest. When that breaks down in times of peace and prosperity, they at least can’t screw up anything big. Notice that we also gave the Democrats a split in the Senate and a big gain in the House.
-
Party affiliation Part C - Along with ticket-splitting, we have a tradition of rotating party control of the 2 elective branches. The Democrats have had the Presidency for 8 years, and there’s a common sentiment, rational or not, that it’s time for a change. That helped Poppy Bush lose in '92. Only rarely will a party have the Presidency for longer than 12 years. The hypocritical scandal-mongering targeted at the current administration has also hurt Gore’s support and added to the time-for-a-change feeling.
-
Image - Face it, Bush seems friendlier and may wear better after years on TV. Gore just doesn’t come across as well. But that’s how most of us interact with the President.
-
Anti-intellectualism - This may be an unfair rap against the voters, but face it, to a lot of them, Bush seems smart too. There’s a natural human mistrust of people who not only are smarter than you but show it too, like Gore but unlike Bush. Clinton is a genius at having the common touch, and NOT showing that he’s smarter than most people even though he is.
-
The feeling that smarts matter less than personality - This has some substance. Any President depends mostly on his staff to get things done and even make decisions, and it’s easy to argue that his judgment in who he hires matters more than his own judgment on policy matters. Bush has been careful to surround himself with people who at least look and sound like they know what they’re doing and can keep him out of trouble, while he exerts his personal leadership.
I’m sure I’m leaving out some key points.
Id dissagree, gore doesent seem smart, he seems like a pesudo intelectual that is very arrogant and smug. Bush only seems stupid to a small amount of people, people who have no idea why they think he is stupid other than “he is a moron”.
Sorry, but I don’t see how anyone can say GWB did OK on foreign policy in the debates. Whenever forced to stray from his memorized catchphrases he was like a deer caught in the headlights. It was pathetic – I almost felt sorry for the guy. I’m no big fan of Gore either (I voted for Nader with no regrets). But face it, he’s vastly more competent in this area.
It’s not just a matter of experience. To grasp world affairs, a leader needs to have a cosmoplitan outlook. Clinton may not have had much foreign policy “experience” when he took office, but through his travel and study abroad he clearly demonstrated an interest in the world beyond our borders.
Lastly, “Dubya” got into the his Ivy League school on a C average and his father’s name. His business dealings have involved a lot of family help. Is there anything this man has done that doesn’t deserve an asterisk next to it? Now, if he does become president, looks like that will have an asterisk next to it, too.
All I have to say about it is this graphic I designed tonight: link to picture
I agree with you, but to most voters, I really don’t think it mattered and was possibly even a positive. Bush was saying some things that many voters agreed with - let’s whack Saddam again, and get our troops out of Bosnia and let the Europeans take care of their own problems. That’s about it, but that’s about the extent to which most of us seem interested in international policy - now that we’re back in a time of peace and prosperity, we can indulge our traditional smug isolationism again.
It’s been interesting to see the remarks by others on this thread about how their coverage of the campaign was based mainly on what the implications would be for their own part of the world. In fact, our campaigns historically have almost nothing to do with any other country or region unless there’s something about bringing the troops home. That was especially true this year. It isn’t right, but it’s real.
What is this Theater Missile Defense stuff? I can guarantee that nearly nobody outside of a few professional think tanks has even heard of it here, or would think it was something they needed to know even if they DID know.
FTR–I voted for the other guy, Pedantic Man.
That said, I think what’s fundamentally flawed with the American election system is not the electoral college, but the primary system. Often in primaries, only registered voters of that political party are allowed to vote for the candidates before them. Thus, Republican primaries often attract the most conservative, staunch Republicans while the Democratic primaries attract similarly alligned Dems. This isn’t always the case, but a generalization that commonly holds true (correct me if I’m wrong!)
This structure causes our problem: in order to win the primary, candidates must portray themselves as the most "party-line"ish of their respective party. This is why McCain lost–he was too moderate of a Republican and so couldn’t attract the conservative primary voters. Remember all the guffufle about Democrats storming Republican primaries where they were allowed to vote and turning the tide for McCain? Anyway…after these primaries, the winning candidates must do a 180 and portray themselves as your moderate, joe blow American to attract the mostly moderate American population (i.e., the ones that either didn’t or couldn’t vote in their primary). Unfortunately, we’re left with the ones we might not have voted for due to their primary loss. I know I would’ve voted for McCain every day and twice on Sunday had I the chance, and I’m a card-carrying Democrat! But, sadly, they gave me Dubya. Ick.
I think the problem with third party candidates is that no third party has actually put forward someone with a viable chance of winning. If they’d put forward someone who actually had a chance, maybe then we’d see a shakeup. I’d certainly welcome it.
And about the current version of Reagan’s “Star Wars” defense–I wouldn’t worry about it. It won’t work. Not ever. The physics is too complex for our machines to handle now and every test of the damn thing has failed. Unfortunately, Congress won’t find this out until they’ve spend who knows how much more money. However, I’m with y’all–the implications of the stupid system are worrysome, and I for one wish we’d stop its development.
If “pro-” is the opposite of “con-”, what’s the opposite of “progress?”
This entire campaign has boiled down to a single dispute;
The brilliance of George W. Bush versus the integrity of Al Gore.
Boy, now there’s a case for small claims court!
Quote:
Perhaps one or more of the foreign governments wringing its hands over GW’s perceived lack of foreign policy knowhow could take some initiative in world events, instead of continually waiting for a U.S. bailout.
/Quote
The rest of the world would love to take some initiative - cf. european force debated at EU summit in Nice last week - however america is convinced that a) it knows what’s best for everybody and b) it has the moral high ground and so can act as global policeman.
Therefore america becomes upset when it doesn’t get to take the initiative. As the richest nation it can lean very heavily on other nations (sanctions, anyone?).
Lets not even start on the list of nations that america has “bailed out” by taking the initiative.