Never liked Bush but the shrub grows on ya

Never really liked George Dubya Bush all that much until he started getting beaten on. Then of course I felt compelled to defend him as the saint he clearly was.

He’s rich and he’s got a powerful dad, true. This isn’t his fault though. Privilege carries it’s own pitfalls and he certainly fell into them.In this he’s similar to JFK who was a bit of N’er do well in his younger days.

In his personal life, you got to give him credit for facing up to his misspent youth and his drinking problem, for being open about it, and having the strength to (so far) beat it. It’s certainly commendable.

As for his misspent youth, and poor grades, well that goes back to the child of privilege thing. Not everybody is lucky enough to have life present them enough challenges to strengthen their character. Too few challenges, and you become a rich wimp. Too many, and they can break you. Few of us are fortunate to meet adversity in the proper proportion. So, I don’t blame him for that too much either.

He’s too overtly religious for my tastes. I want to pawn this off as one of the handles he’s had to grasp to beat his alcohol problem, but I’m not sure how well that fits.

While I think it would be untrue to call him stupid, he’s not blindingly intelligent either. I’d have to think both Gore and Clinton were smarter.

But, this might be a good thing. I’ve known people like him. Experience has taught them that they’re not smart enough to get away with lying or pulling a fast one, so they stop trying.

On the other hand I always felt that Gore and Clinton thought they were pretty smart, and thought we weren’t, and were used to getting away with things.

So, I was kind of voting for George, with the idea that it’s be a return to the Reagan era, except the Wonder Years version.

It would be like eating chili the third time around. With Reagan it was fresh out of the pot and too spicy. The next time around with George Sr. was like leftovers from the fridge when the spices mellow, just right. George jr. would be that third day, where it’s weak and bland and overfamiliar. This of course is the last edible day. No second term, scoop it into the dog dish and cook something else.

And, if I was a Gore fan, I’d be real pissed. All year long we’re thinking how easy this is gonna be. “Who’s this George kid?” “Ahhh, don’t worry about it, he’s worse than Dukakis ever was.”

With George winning you’d have to feel like I would feel if Dukakis had won. “That guy beat our guy?”

Of course Gore makes this teensy little error and decides to divorce himself as much as possible from Clinton because he’s afraid some of the Lewinsky stink will rub off.

Big big mistake. Nobody in recent memory campaigns like Clinton. You want him in your corner. Shouldn’t matter though. Gore’ll win easy.

But wait there’s a problem. What state is it in? Florida? Doesn’t George’s brother hang out down their? Isn’t he Governor?
NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
And these freakin’ Chads!
What is this, some kind of curse?

So, it seemed like fate was conspiring to keep Gore out of the House. And it didn’t seem fair at all, and the worst part was that there was nobody to blame it on.

So this big-eared, snot in the nose, Texas, Bible thumping rich rednecked kid, gets into Gore’s White House not on a fluke, but on a string of 'em, and the first thing he does is stick his tounge in his cheek and repeal all the last minute executive orders that Clinton did as if to say:

“Nyahhhh, Nyahhhh, Nyyyyahhh.!”

Yeah, we know all those orders weren’t such a great idea but to rub it in like that?

You couldn’t help but be pissed.

So, you settle in for four years of this cracker, figuring he’ll hamstring himself pretty quick, or maybe we’ll help him along in that regard when all of a sudden…
We get the worst International and Domestic Crises in 60 years.

Let’s face it. This does a lot of good for Bush’s credibility. It’s pretty clear cut. We have to pick up the pieces and go kick some ass, and George is there on a fluke and he gets to do it, and he’s gonna get the credit, and don’t tell me that in this clear cut a situation Elmer Fudd wouldn’t be able to see what the right course of action is.

Because he’s gonna get to look so good doing it, and playing Superman he’s gonna get to get a lot of other stuff done too that he’d never otherwise be able to pull off in a million billion years. We’d never let 'em. But right now. In these circumstances. The surreal has come alive and anything is possible.

And it’s not really fair because Gore could do it just as well, if not better, and our guy’d be the hero and he’d get all the credit, and he’d be able to get all of his programs and other impossibilities actualized.

Another Fluke.

Not only must Gore be cursed, it’s like Bush just blunders blindly into perfect opportunity, like a fucking leprechaun with a drawl. It’s just not fair.

And it’s gonna happen, too. Bush will be more effective and things will change more than they would otherwise and the GOP led by this grinning idiot will make lasting effect on the political landscape for no good reason other than blindingly dumb luck.

So, yeah. I’d be really pissed.

To make it even worse, this whole big economic disaster occured at the end of Clinton’s term and everybody’s probably gonna blame that on the Democrats and forget about the wonderful prosperity we enjoyed all through the Clinton years and don’t you know it, it’s all probably gonna get a lot better in the 2nd half of Shrub’s term through no doing of his own, and not only is he gonna get the credit for the making the world safe for Democracy and oil interests, he’s probably gonna take credit for the coming recovery, and that juuuuuuuuuusssssssst might be enough to kick him over into a second term.

I’d be really pissed. I’d hate him.

I feel your pain.

But consider this. Kennedy wasn’t so hot either at the outset. His brother Bobby was a better man, I think. JFK was kinda fast and loose. But, I firmly beleive that we needed a JFK right then, and somehow we got him when we needed him. His weaknesses and character flaws were the right ones for the times.

The old college essay on Shakespeare contains an interesting idea. Consider Hamlet and Othello. They were both ok guys with major flaws. Hamlet was too wishy-washy and Othello acted too quickly, and circumstances and their own failings brought them to tragedy.

The neat thing though, is that put Hamlet in Othello’s shoes, and lickety split, problem solved. Give Othello, Hamlet’s problems and he’d run his father in law through with a sword in about five seconds flat, end of story.

So, I understand how pissed I’d be if I was a Democrat, but History has an odd habit of putting the right guy in the right place at the right time. Or, maybe, it creates him.

Maybe the shrub will grow into a mighty hedge.

Wow

First, I want to complement you Scylla on your wonderful post. To me it seemed very well thought out and plesently optimistic.

I really only have one thing to comment on. I don’t really believe that Gore would have handled this situation well. To me he seems much to impulsive and might act on a situation without having enough information to act on it.

However, he is also an obviously inteligent man with many redeming qualities, so I wonder if he’s capable of handing the current situation any better. I’ll leave that question to others.

In closing I’ll say that you’re most likely correct when you said the following:

We will see.

This deserves a more lengthy response, but I happen to be pressed for time. Hence, the first thing that comes to mind:

Perhaps, but it seems more likely that the people surrounding him will prove themselves to be competent (while, ideally, GWB does nothing to slow the ship).

::shrug::

It amounts to the same thing, really, but I like it better my way.

!!!High Fives Scylla!!!

:slight_smile:

President Hoover would have loved that analysis.

OTOH if one reads the British press and other overseas news one finds how our “free” press is pumping the current president. But I do not dislike Bush; I just do not trust him. One reason for me actually occurred before the Florida thing:

In an USA today intro, a photo of Bush’s office in Texas appeared. Bush explained that the portrait in his office was of the former governor of Texas during the civil war, Bush’s considered him a hero because he was kicked out of office for refusing to raise the confederate flag in the Texas capitol. When the primaries reached the Carolinas Bush just dodged the confederate flag issue. I thought then that if a person disposes of his heroes ideals, when convenient, he might as well do the same when president. Right now, the majority of Americans wanted federalization of our airport security; the Senate did pass the measure unanimously. The house, with the encouragement of the president, voted to demolish that idea.

I just feel that while he is doing good (so far) overseas, he is still looking to benefit his people, not the majority of Americans that did voted for a president that would have done differently in those and many other cases.

Actually, I’ve been feeling sorry for the litle topiary. The Republicans had decided Gore was weak and the Democrats’ chances hurt by the Lewinsky scandal, and polls showed GWB trouncing anyone they matched him against, and he had been all but anointed when John McCain takes the wind out of his sails; he goes on to take the nomination but without the original aura of invincibility. Then Gore refuses to roll over and die in the polls and finally battles him to a tie, the result of which give Bush the nod but under a disreputable-smelling cloud of inauthenticity.

Then a disgruntled Senator bolts the Republican party and the Senate majority goes Democratic as a result, and guess who gets the blame for that one? And gets to try to be effective in office with an even more divided Congress.

Just as he was starting to settle in a bit, some nut arranged for kamizake hijackings to park themselves in the side of NY’s tallest skyscrapers. Attack on America…by someone…somewhere…and George, you gotta DO something, you gotta look decisive and presidential. What a mess. No clearly defined enemy, no clear-cut sense of what would constitute a “win”, and very large prospects for coming out of this looking like a bumbling idiot.

And oh yeah, the economy, which was already tanking, does a Pavlovian face plant, and he already refunded all the free money from the budget and has little to work with.
I can’t say he has grown on me, although he did manage to pull off a couple of surprisingly good speeches in there. I still think that for the most part he really IS a bumbling idiot, and for the remaining part he’s a social conservative and a fiscal reprobate.

Poor Schlemazel in Chief!

I voted for Bush, and felt Gore was the wrong man for the job.

However, I feel the above is a mischaracterization of a high order. Everything I’ve ever read about Gore suggests he works - hard - at mastering the depths and breadth of problems. He is not one to fly off impulsively; indeed, I would suggest that OVER-analysis, not under-, would be his flaw.

Gore had a sterling reputation in the Senate, and the White House, for being the guy who studied. He knew the issues, forward and backwards.

I didn’t often agree with him - but the reason was a basic philosophical difference, never a sense he didn’t understand.

  • Rick

I dislike his economic policies immensely. We’re going to be paying for the tax cuts and the big fat slices of pork to big business for years. I would also appreciate bringing God into Presidential speeches a little less.

Scylla hit the nail on the head by saying that Bush had an exceedingly long run of dumb luck to squeeze him into the white house.

I have to say that while he came out of the chute pretty poorly on his China policy, he has improved a lot and I thought he handled APEC very well. But he’s not growing on me.

Geez, Scylla, you’re gonna wake up Stoid! More subdued, please!

I don’t understand where people get the idea the Dubya is not extremely smart. He’s a Yale graduate and holds an MBA from the most prestigious university in the world, Harvard.

Speaking as someone who has been in management for 30 years, I am impressed with W’s effectiveness in personnel selection. He seems to have really worked at it. Clinton is a lot smarter. Gore may be a bit smarter and is much more knowledgable about federal issues. Still, I think Bush will do pretty good job because of his staff, and he deserves credit for having chosen and recruited them.

By comparison, Jerry Brown as California Governor was a smart guy with execellent knowledge and some interesting ideas. However, his appointees were disasters. It was their actions that destroyed the reputation of “Governor Moonbeam”

This one made me laugh.

But I’m with AHunter3. Dubya’s getting popular support right now. But LBJ was from what I read a decent and honorable man, and look at his popular rep as a result of Viet Nam. Failed wars don’t make you look presidential. If Dubya craps out on Afganistan, and lets face it, it has a history of being entirely crap-outable, he’ll be remembered poorly, no matter what he does afterwards.

Helping Cuba to democracy? Fantastic.

Extending NAFTA to Chile? Brilliant.

Setting Africa right (Gore’s big project)? Excellent.

Hopelessly chasing bin Laden through the caves of Afghanistan for 4 years, in the middle of a recession? Not so good.

Too bad he couldn’t pick his bouts.

Well, (surprise, surprise!) I have to completely disagree with your unfocused, rambling OP.

It’s funny how everything Bush did before age 40 is characterized as “youthful exuberance.” While it is true that Kennedy was a bit wild, he matured before he reached freakin’ forty. Bush seems to have just floated around life on his father’s name, and suddenly decided, in middle-age, that he should have some political power.

Bush is completely unqualified to be president. He is perhaps the least qualified person to ever reach that position. Cany you think of anybody less qualified? Harding, perhaps? It is so important that the man in charge have a firm grasp on how the government operates, which makes Bush’s selection so infuriating.

But what is really amazing here is how people rally around this extraordinarily mediocre man. Bush is nothing if not completely banal. He is completely lacking in intellectual curiosity. He does not understand the subtleties of any issue, or if he does he is incapable of communicating them. He is an utterly superficial man who has lived on the surface of existence his entire life. Once he got through telling about the insider’s view of the white house, a conversation with Bush would be so boring I would have feel like killing myself to get out of it. He just has nothing of interest to offer.

His much-vaunted “personel choices” are due more to his awe of the people he picked than a careful consideration of the best person for the job. He has appointed the people he is intimidated by, basically. While this MAY turn out to be a good thing, if it does it will be no fault of Georgie boy’s. It will be luck that the people he is in awe of happen to be competent. It could also turn out that these people will make some disastrous decisions, as seems to be the case with the current handling of the war effort.

The whole world seems to be swooning for Bush, the media included. The media, ever since Bush ascended to his throne, has fairly fallen over themselves in sucking up to him.

Those who voted for him jump at every excuse to praise the man. And, all too often, it apears as if they are anxious to rationalize their choice of vote. Deep down, maybe, they realize what a horrible, horrible mistake they made.

I’m not a fan of the man nor his policies, but you need to clarify some things:

He was governor of Texas. That’s not a bad thing to have on your CV when it comes to running for president. He has a higher degree in business. What other qualifications do you need?

You have something to back that up? I know next to nothing of the man’s personality.

Hmm. His Secretary of State and his VP are very experienced. I don’t think its luck.

You could attack him for appointing his dad’s advisors and taking no risks in his appointments, but not for lucky choices.

What’s wrong with the current handling of the war effort? Its only been going a month.

The future handling of the war effort doesn’t seem at all clear nor coherent to me, but I’m not privy to what the Pentagon is up to.

Media, at least outside of the US, has been pretty even in their view of Dubya. For example, he got a lot of criticism for hiding when the planes hit the WTC, while Rudy was out doing the presidential thing in the ruins (see this week’s Economist).

Attack him all you like, but you should back yourself on it, in this forum. You haven’t done that. You aren’t doing your position nor your politics a favour. Conservative posters will tear your post apart with more vitriol than I have, and justifiably.

Yeah, he was governer of Texas, got a degree from Yale, ran a baseball team, yadda yadda yadda.

Do you really think he could have done any of these things without his name and connections? Do you really give him credit for doing these things in such an unremarkable manner?

He is just an incredibly average man. He has done nothing extraordinary in his entire life, and nothing that would qualify him to run a country.

I really wonder at the people who defend him. I mean, really, are your standards so low? Go ahead and stand behind him, fine. But to try to pretend that there is something in this zero to recommend your favor makes you look petty.

As for his handling of the current war, he has been attacked from the left and the right. Mind you, these attacks have been few and far between, as most of the politicos in this country are sniveling cowards, afraid to voice any opinion that might be seen as un-patriotic. But, a few have had the courage to speak up, such as John McCain and John Kerry. Both have criticized the less than aggressive attacks on the Taliban, and the sloppiness in letting bombs stray onto civilians.

There was a good article on Salon about the criticisms from these two:
Brothers in arms

One thing that really bothers me about this “war” is the lack of a clear objective. What are we going to do here? Are we going to leave once the Taliban has been deposed? If so, how will we know they have had their ability to wreak havoc taken away? What is the long-term goal? Are we going to help build a nation in Afghanistan that has a possiblity for lasting peace?

The only signs of any long-term thinking have come from Powell, who seems to favour installing another tyranny under the old king. Great.

JFK, who I loved and campaigned for, was less qualified, at least on paper. He had been a Representative and a Senator for 16 years, which is OK. However, his legislative record was described as “undistinguished”. He had no experience in the private sector. He had never held a management position in government nor in private industry. His military rank was not a high level leadership position.

He had no graduate education, unlike W. His undergraduate record was not impressive. His achievements (such as they were) had been helped by money and family connections, just as W’s were.

Nevertheless, he was a good choice as President, in my opinion. Early on he made balls of the Bay of Pigs, but he was growing rapidly. Had he lived, he would have been an outstanding President IMHO.

Actually, I think he is somewhat more than average.
I posted these links in another thread and not much came of it. However, perhaps there is time to look at them now to see the high caliber of integrity our President has:
Concerning the President as a Oil Businessman:
http://bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#harken
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading

Concerning his dealings with the Rangers:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insidertrading
http://www.public-i.org/story_01_011800.htm

Concerning his Role as Gov’ner:
http://www.progressive.org/ivins9906.htm

The Carlyle Group and Bush family history:
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1706/pg1/

These are some quick examples to look at. George W. Bush seems to be a somewhat savy politician, silver spoon or no.

I don’t understand… Why do we think Bush is handling this crisis well? Is it just a rally 'round the President thing? Or has Bush done something that I missed?

Somebody enlighten me.