Seems like these days the message is “Kneel before Zod”.
There is no evidence that shows he himself has any political savvy whatsoever; rather, his “advisors” have all the savvy and simply steer him.
How about he’s savvy for surrounding himself with savvy advisors?
As World Eater says, whether that savvy lies in choosing advisors who tell him to speak like a hick, or whether he knows to speak like a hick is irrelevant. Either way, he has what it takes to have been elected POTUS, none of those in this thread telling him what he should or should not do have.
Are you saying GWB is… Cecil? Think of the similarities! Both seem to be ego-driven, both surround themselves with savvy advisors (Rove, Zotti)… err… help me out here… there have to be more similarities…
What a front! Pretend to be an ignorant redneck while writing a supersmart, snarky fact-finding column!
Say… that is savvy.
Princhester, are you seriously saying no one in this thread (which, by association, must include everyone who’s read it but not posted) is not qualified to be president? On what do you base this wild assumption?
I should make clear that I don’t like Bush to put it mildly.
But if Bush acts folksy, and people then vote him into the presidency, who am I (and more to the point, who is LaurAnge to say “a president shouldn’t be folksy”.
People didn’t vote him into the presidency.
OTOH, you make a good point. If he had X personality during a campaign, there’s no reason for him to have a Y personality once he assumes office.
OTOOH, there’s a certain degree of professionalism that should be expected of your CINC, and to me addressing people properly is a part of this professionalism. Now, if he had gone to visit the front lines of the war and called a soldier “Sarge,” I don’t see the problem; the circumstances would dictate a certain informality. But calling a doctor “doc” makes him look more of a rube than he needs to look. Even he should know better.
By the way my main concern isn’t what the world thinks of him because he speaks like a hick. This man will probably start WW3, maybe we should worry about that.
For the love of Cecil and the sake of the hampsters, please please please please PLEASE don’t start this again.
I don’t think he will start WW3, so I’m not particularly worried about it.
Sure, how he speaks is way, way down on the list of things to worry about, but still…
dantheman are you seriously saying that this comment is anything other than a strawman of the highest order? On what do you base the wild assumption that it is my position that no one who has read or posted in this thread is qualified to be president?
My point is that out of Bush and all readers and posters participating in this thread, only one has behaved in a way that has resulted in them being elected POTUS and that is Bush. So, many of us might be able to get elected, but only Bush has been elected.
And yet we have people here who think they know better than him how a president should behave. Well, OK, in an absolute moral sense that’s fine, but my cynical line of thinking was that the realpolitik (sp?) reality is that what a president should do is what his voters want him to do, and he seems to have picked that better than the opposition. Or he’s picked advisors that have picked that better than the opposition. Whatever.
As I’ve said, I don’t like Bush. But credit where it is due. I think a lot of people underestimate him. If you had a bet with me that you had the savvy to become the Pres, and then you got voted in as Pres but I refused to pay up because “you’d just been well advised” I think you’d be pretty well justified in asking me just what the fuck you’d have to do to prove the bet to me.
Yes folks, Matchka will be here all week.
"…in speaking of some Iraqi doctors he has been meeting with in regards to rebuilding Iraq’s health infrastructure, he calls them “docs.”
I’m surprised Aldebaran hasn’t started a thread thundering about this insult to Islam and predicting riots, floods, etc.
Give him time.
It’s not a strawman, so please don’t call it that.
You said: “Either way, he has what it takes to have been elected POTUS, none of those in this thread telling him what he should or should not do have.”
I merely asked if you were suggesting that people here do not have what it takes to be president. In what way is this irrelevant? Your post was all of two sentences long, and I commented on the second of the sentences.
You simply misspoke. What you meant to say was what you said in your most recent post, that of all of us here, only GWB is president, and therefore he knows what it takes to be one.
Now, you comment that the president should do what the voters want him to do, and that’s usually the mandate. What we don’t know is if the voters (who are an awfully diverse group, after all) want him to act “presidential” or to just be himself. We can only comment on how we personally wish he would act.
Indeed. It would be a sticky situation, to be sure. I’d probably be a bit miffed. But still, you’d have a point. 
Hopefully, we would have hashed that bit out before we made the bet.
Dan you could always send the secret service over to break his kneecaps. That might convince him.
Don’t be too sure. Let’s see how far toward fascism Ashcroft can push the Patriot Act …
No it was a straw man. It was subtle, but it was.
You see, what I said (check it out again if you need to) was that he had what it takes to have been [past tense] elected and that none of us in the thread have.
Which is precisely correct.
But you changed it to suggest that I was suggesting that none of us were qualified ie that none of us could be [future tense].
A totally different proposition, and one that was easily attacked by you. I didn’t mispeak, you misread.
Whether you meant it or not, you misrepresented what I said, then attacked the misrepresentation, which is a classic straw man.
Gotta go to bed.
No, you’re again misspeaking. I’ll break it down for you. When you get up in the morning, you’ll have it all nicely explained. No need to thank me; it’s all part of my plan to foment better international relations.
You did say “have been” elected. This is certainly not disputed. Yes, he had what it took to have been elected (or whatever).
But then you went on to say, “… none of those in this thread telling him what he should or should not do have.”
Meaning that none of the people in this thread who were telling him what he should say or should not say have what it takes to have been elected. As I said, you certainly don’t know this.
Your sentence was klunky, to say the least. Perhaps next time you could be a little more clear.
As far as stupid threads go, this is one.
Hold on a minute there. I didn’t say what he should or shouldn’t be, I said that in making a formal speech he should speak in formal English. As, frankly, should anyone making a serious speech to a large audience.
And who am I to state this? What the hell kind of question is that? I’m someone who can have an opinion on how the world should work.