In a time of crisis -- Bush or Clinton?

Great Debates
21

Famed business writer Peter Drucker would ask, “Are you doing things right, or are you doping the right things?”

Most of the posts on this thread have addressed whether Bush or Clinton would do things better.

To me, a more important question is what policy they’d each follow, and which of those policies would more likely be successful.

I’m hawkish. I want to see the Taliban defeated and then Saddam Hussein overthrown by force. YMMV. I think Bush is more likely to follow this course than Clinton would have been.

22

Whatcha talking about, Willis? We Democrats are the hawks. With the exception of Persian Gulf, we Democrats got us into every war this century.

It’s you Republicans who constantly go all dovish and end things before getting the job done, see Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf (cough Saddam cough).

Sua

[sub]tongue in cheek implied[/sub]

23

which is exactly why i’m scared to death that all the republicans want to go to war! it seems like they can’t possibly know what they are doing, and that they would also be more willing to fight blindly in the name of patriotism. while bush is doing a better job than i thought he would, his political stances still seem absent-minded to me.

24

ROFLMAO.

Seriously, a few months ago, I would have said Clinton hands down. He had the experience, the communication skills and the presence that Bush lacks. However, I have to say that Bush has impressed me with his handling of the matter. I like how he is fighting the “war” on an economic and political front as well as a military front. Clinton doesn’t strike me as being patient enough to form alliances.

I think we’re beginning to see what people have said all along: Bush surrounds himself with really smart people. And it shows. And I find myself leaning towards preferring him over Clinton. One Donald Rumsfeld is worth 200 Barbra Streisands.

25

As far as the actual actions go, I can’t imagine there would have been a whole lot of difference. I think Clinton would have launched the same military response that Bush has. If Bush has one advantage, it’s that his John Wayne routine is far more effective than Clinton’s would have been. (Of course, Clinton has it all over Bush in every other area of public speaking, but his attempts to be forceful always seemed, well, forced.)

I agree that we’re probably lucky that Bush is in office, because I can’t imagine the current Washington Republican leadership rallying behind Clinton the way the Democrats have supported Bush. That says nothing at all about Republicans or the people who hold similar opinions, but everything about the current party leadership. The Democrats may have their Trent Lotts, but fortunately, they’re not in charge.

Dr. J

26

Now that’s totally unfair. He clearly cared from day one about making his oil buddies richer.

I agree that the Republicans wouldn’t rally behind Clinton, but I think it in fact does say something about how a lot of Republicans have demonized the Clintons.

27

This survey seems about as valid as a CNN online poll. From what I have read on their page they only surveyed 330 registered voters over 3 days and the last survey was 15 days ago. Also there is no mention of where or how they got their call list.
I’m not saying the results are necessarily skewed, I just think that a poll of 1,000 people may not reflect the true feelings of a nation of millions.
Oh, and I’d much rather see someone besides Bush in the White House right now. I get worried when the “leader” of the “free world” banties about words like: crusade, vengence, hunt them down, sustainable war, evil vs. good, misunderestimated, etc.

28

Several points of agreement: Republicans would have likely given Clinton a much harder time than democracts are giving Bush - there is bickering going on, but for the most part he can get things done.

Bush does fumble words, and that can make people nervous.

But as far as policy, and actual actions so far, I don’t think Bush has given us much cause for concern, and has put in place policies that were needed - airport security, new review of people with expired visas, additional safeguards for sensitive areas where possible. Not that he has been perfect - much more can be done in the way of keeping potential terrorists out of the country.

Clinton would undoubtably do a better job schmoozing the foreign heads of state. This could be a big plus. But he was also not very respected by many military men, and that could be a severe disadvantage.

In the larger scope, it’s probably a wash, since the people who surround the president make most of the reccomendations, but I see no reason to question Bush yet, although I would push for more to be done sooner. Like a few people have said, this thing is probably far from over, and we need proactive policies.

29

You said it, man. The night of September 11, when Bush came on TV, this country needed someone strong, confident, and reassurring to be our President.

(See FDR, and some speech he made once upon a time.)

Angry, too, would have been okay.

We got nothing. A blank.

It scared the holy living hell out of me.

He’s done a much better job since. He was a lot better during the State of the Union, and he’s been strong in all the little clips and segments since.

Still, September 11th continues to bother me more than a little. I’m sitting there, shaking my head and watching Bush talk, and I turned to my wife and said:

“Clinton’d be able to do this.”

I think every sentence coming out of that guy’s mouth would have been a home run.

Still, my feeling is the foreign policy people and military people and national security people Bush has around him are better than Clinton’s. So, for where we are now, I think we’re better off with Bush.

And I try to remember that when Abraham Lincoln took office, many believed him to be a slow-witted gorilla. The press was pretty hard on him, too, going to great lengths to paint a compelling picture of a guy who was both hairy, cowardly, and none too bright.

Lincoln did all right.

The argument that Clinton had it harder because Republicans were meanies has gotten to sound like so much crying over spilt political milk.

Oh, if only Bill had his fair shot…if only…if only…

The Republicans may have been meanies. But they got burned more than a little for their political miscalculation.

I mean, you know, I don’t see Newt Gingrich around much, anymore…

30

True, Clinton is the superior orator to George W Bush. But having him in the white house during a crisis of this magnitude would scare me. Not because I disagree with his politics and his personal behavior. But because in his constant attempts to have high approval ratings he never seemed to have any ideas of his own.

Think about this question: Did Clinton ever do anything while in office that more than 49% of the country disagreed with? I don’t think that he did. Every decision he made was based on what was most popular at the time. This attitude would be especially dangerous at a time where public opinion polls are in favor of doing just about anything to get justice and make the country secure. I have seen polling that Americans would favor special ID badges that only muslims would have to carry on them at all times, as well as favoring using nuclear weapons on suspect states harboring terrorists.

I am not saying I am against national ID badges or using weapons of mass destruction under certain circumstances and after careful thought, but I think Clinton would be capable of anything in order to increase his public opinion numbers.

31

While I will agree that Bush has gotten better at public speaking since Sept. 11, he simply doesn’t have the charisma to inspire confidence. He too often comes off as a spoiled child with that smirk and poise. This may not seem as important as ‘enduring freedom’ (whoever chooses these names should be taken out back and put out of theie misery), but a leader needs many attributes including an ability to instill confidence. Bush falls flat in that area.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith *
**

You need to check out this thread. :wink:

As for the OP, I have to agree with BlackKnight.

33

One big advantage with W being President is that when he visits with muslims and talks about respect for muslims, Bubba has to pay attention. If Clinton had done that, Bubba would have ignored it or written it off as mushy liberal BS.

…and do you remember how Clinton reacted to the embassy bombings? A few cruise missiles into some tents in Afghanistan, and one to a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Not very impressive.

Long range, Gore would have a better grasp of where we should go with energy policy…alternative power sources, mass transit…That oil addiction keeps biting us in the ass.

34

Clinton would just lob a few cruise missles and call it a day.

35

Well, when Clinton had to react to a major tragedy on our own soil, the OK City bombing, he performed splendidly. Upon recieving news of the bombing, he went straight to OK City and gave a rousing speech, inspiring everybody who heard it.

On 9/11 Bush looked scared and confused. He has looked a bit more leader-like since then, but has often looked weak and disorganized.

I have never seen Clinton look scared.

I’d take Clinton if I had the choice. But, since W has the job, I am rooting for him. I hope that he will be able to hold this fragile coalition together, and that he will have the foresight to help build a workable government in Afghanistan so that the cycle of bloodshed doesn’t continue. But, since he has repeatedly said that he is against “nation building,” I am not so sure that he is willing to do this.

Keep in mind that the whole mess in Afghanistan could have been avoided if we had helped them get on their feet after they were decimated by the war with the USSR. We basically just abandoned them. After the USSR was gone, Afghanistan was forgotten. I hope we don’t make the same mistake twice.

36

Bush.

Clinton would have done a fantastic job of rallying most Americans in the wake of the attacks. His presense and skill as an orator, his influence over people at an emotional level and his ruthlessness would have been put to good use in this crisis. It’s even possible that most of us wouldn’t have the creeping sense that the President and the military is overwhelmed by the situation we’re in. Doesn’t matter.

Once these attacks happened, we all set our agendas aside for a while and supported Bush–even if we didn’t really like him or agree with him on most issues. We’re in a crisis, and in a crisis you rally. I don’t think the Clinton haters would have shown the character needed to do this, and there would be substantially more division in our ranks than there is today. Not really Bill’s fault, just a fact of life.

37

Democratic support seems to be waning a bit. On Oct. 22, the top Democratic foreign policy lawmaker publicly compared the US to a “high-tech bully.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011025-541140.htm

38

december, could you please indicate to us specifically which of Biden’s comments, in context, you disagree with, and why you disagree, with some explanation showing in what way those remarks constitute “waning” Democratic support for Bush. Thanks very much.

39

OK. I think the phrase “high-tech bully” sounds like a way of criticizing the US war effort.

I think when Biden said “he did not know how much longer President Bush’s ‘honeymoon’ or ‘unquestioning period of unabashed support’ for the president’s policy will continue,” that statement itself would tend to contribute to the ending of the honeymoon.

I didn’t mean to address the veracity of Biden’s statements. I simply think that they indicate less than unquestioning support of Bush’s policy.

I was glad to see that Tom Daschle and other leading Democrats chose not to come out in agreement with Biden. I think Biden’s comments were inappropriate at this time.

40

Well, I’ll go along with you on the “end of the honeymoon”, but again, please tell me why you consider Biden’s comments to have been inappropriate. You’ve cited the term “high-tech bully” twice now, but you haven’t provided the context, so I’ll do so for you:

So, what was inappropriate? The fact that Biden spoke against “stereotypical criticsm” of US foreign policy? His belief that continued bombing in the absence of visible military targets fuels the other side’s propoganda more than it supports our diplomatic goals?

Or are you upset by his later remarks that Bush “[could] go down as a great President”? (I, for one, take umbrage at that ill-considered remark.)