On just plain not liking the US President.

I plan to vote against George II next year.

I doubt that there’s a damn thing he could do to change that decision.

It’s not about the economy. It’s not about Iraq. It’s not about the environment, the Florida electors, John Ashcroft, or anything else that might be termed “a matter of policy.”

It’s about the fact that I just don’t care for the guy.

But let me be clearer. I just don’t care for the guy as President of my country.

It’s a little bit like what marriage counselors must hear during session #1. I just don’t like his LOOKS…that irritating lift to his eyebrows…that ever-smirky mouth…those thin little lips…his short stature…that whiny nasal voice…those Texas-isms he uses…his stay-on-message cock-suredness…the oozy religiousity…the hair…those water-colory suits…the nicknames…I mean God, Doc, I just CAN’T STAND 'IM!! (sob!)…

If I were forced to go deeper into philosophy and policy–or anything at all of relevance to governance–I think I would lite upon the (apparent) fact that he never stands up to any of his “backers” or “key constituent groups” or (let’s spit it out) to the Religious Right. Not no-how. Never. Medical care, abortion, gay-rights…mustn’t offend the conservative establishment.

Somehow he doesn’t seem to function as The President. He’s more like an Ari Fleischer hired by the REAL landlords of America to stand up and say what he’s told to say, and then sit down. I can imagine Dick or Rummy or Colin saying “Yeah, thanks for your input; say goodnight, George.” (“Goodnight, George.”)

They say he’s mighty stubborn. Alas, he adheres to all the wrong things. Does the man ever dream?

As I say, it’s AS PREZ that I can’t stand him. He’d probably be a pleasant enough guy to have as your neighbor, or as a second-level TV news-reader, or maybe your boss (in that you can “get around him” with practice). But the President is, among many other things, the symbol of the nation. Ronald Reagan, for all his many flaws, was kind of an inspiring symbol. Bill Clinton, for all his many foibles, really seemed to be in there thinking and asking questions. I’d vote for those guys.

But George? Pliz.

So whattaya think, Dopers? Should I be ashamed of myself? Am I a bad American? Am I what’s wrong with our country?

Pathology? Or intuitive insight?

I know exactly what you’re going through and sympathize with you…I felt that way in the late '90s about our president too…

To be honest, that sounds petty. It’s the issues that should matter.

You know, I think this paragraph best sums up my feelings about GWB these days. He seems like many things (ideologue, parrot, easy target), but “leader” is not one of them. That’s been my problem with him ever since the 2000 campaign.

Of course, I’ve discovered other problems with him since them, but they’ve only served to confirm my first impression. :confused:

He’s not so beholden to his “backers” as you think. Conservatives have their beefs with him and his administration.

On balance, though, I like him and appreciate what he’s trying to do.

I think you’re right about the marriage counselor analogy. When you dislike someone and you’re forced to be in that person’s company you grow to hate every aspect of the person’s looks and personality.

I wouldn’t say you’re a bad American. Just a sore loser who dislikes the fact that his guy lost. My advice is the same as what a marriage counselor might offer: Sit down and think of the things you have in common, not the differences. In any event, you only have 5 more years to suffer thru this difficulty.:slight_smile:

Rex, I’m with you. I didn’t care much for Willie either, but hey, politics isn’t really a divisive american issue, is it?

I know what you’re saying here, and certainly the issues matter. However, I’m not sure I agree that they are all that matters.

“The issues” are the things people disagree on, and most of them are certainly important. To me, whatever his/her stand on “the issues” is, a President should be a good leader, first and foremost.

A good leader recognizes conflict within the group they lead, and they work to resolve that conflict through compromise. I haven’t seen Bush do that. For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen any recent President do that, from Nixon on up. Carter, maybe.

A good leader understands the people he/she leads. I don’t see that evident in Bush either. While Clinton has his own problems (and was only a so-so leader), he had this part right. He seemed to understand the people he led.

A good leader knows when to act, and when to take time to make a careful decision. Bush seems to favor an “act first, don’t ask questions later” policy.

A good leader is honest. Not too many examples of that in the last few decades. 'Nuff said. :confused:

Again, to me, being a good leader is the President’s first and foremost duty, whatever their political affiliation or ideology. Where they stand on “the issues” of the day comes somewhat secondary to that, for me.

Still think that’s petty?

Okay, call me old-fashioned (lord, I don’t believe the number of times I’ve written that…), but I’ve always believe that, at minimum, the President of the United States should work to make a positive difference in the country.

I look at Bush Jr.'s record, and it’s nothing but a crazy right wing hack-and-slash job from start to finish. Granted, a lot of it’s been instigated by his party, but they wouldn’t have gotten their way so often or so fast if he hadn’t let happen. He just doesn’t have any idea how to say “no”.

What really cheeses me off, however, is the unbelievably low bar the media (which is about as liberal as Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf) has set for him. Ooh, he made it through two sentences without falling on his face! Oh, he went completely against the wishes of the UN, but the loudest complains came from France, so it’s actually a good thing! And we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we’ve completely destabilized the country and paved the way for a takeover by anti-American Islamic fanatics…but Saddam was a bad man, so all is forgiven! And anyone and everyone who criticizes him is…ANTI-AMERICAN! This guy gets free pass after free pass after free pass, and no one seems to want to hold him to even the most marginal standards, a luxury not even his father had. Can I help it if I plain not like him for that?

I have one good thing to say about Mr. Bush: I dislike Mr. Rumsfeld even more.

You know, I remember my Republican father saying virtually the same thing about five or six years ago.

Scott, I agree with you that the main point of the Presidency is to be a leader for the country. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to vote against someone. I think it makes more sense to vote for the right person.

Let me ask you a question. What will you do if the Democrats put up someone you think is even worse? Do you dislike GWB enough to be willing to put anyone else in office?

Is this even possible? I mean, anyone who’s even worse than George W. Bush doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Iraq of surviving the primaries, I’d imagine.

>> But I don’t think it’s a good idea to vote against someone. I think it makes more sense to vote for the right person.

Often there is no right person running and you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Very often.

I find it funny when I hear statements like this. If you realy think the media leans more to the right than to the left I sure would like to see some proof of that.

It sounds to me like you define a good leader as someone who institutes the policies you favor. Bush is pretty much doing what he said he’d do on the campaign trail. (With the big exception of the war on terror, which no one saw coming back then.)

I’d say a good leader is someone who is clear on what his principles are and acts accordingly. A good leader knows how to surround himself with good people. We haven’t had a lot of good leaders in the modern ear. FDR, Kennedy, Reagan come to mind. I think Bush is not up to that level, but he’s a lot better than most, including his father. I never knew where Bush I was going to stand on an issue. Bush II is very clear. It’s often said, even by those who dislike him, that if you want to know what he’s gong to do, just listen to him. And we all know who invented the “triangulation” school of leadership.

Unfortuantely, he’s a terrible speaker, and many people don’t seem to be able to get past this. It’s hard to be a great leader when you not a good public speaker. But don’t confuse his poor preformance in this area with a lack of intellegence or a lack of leadership skills.

My wife feels exactly as you do. She finds Bush smug and arrogant. These are personality traits she particularly dislikes. No matter what he says or does, she just doesn’t like the guy.

Should you you be ashamed of yourself? Not at all. You’ve recognized your problem. That’s the first step toward curing it. If you turn yourself over to a greater power and learn to take things one day at a time, you can learn to live with your addiction to Bushophobia. I offer my support, if you need it. I know you can do it, Scott! :stuck_out_tongue:

Well as a fellow doper, I feel strangely close to you now… :wink:

I have a similar aversion, to the point that I tend to avoid watching GWB on tv, I’ll just listen. It’s annoying enough to listen to what he’s actually saying in substance without getting the entire smarmy delivery.

Of course I had a similar reaction to Clinton after a while, so I prefered to read what he’d said rather than listen. But at least there was some substance there usually. I might disagree, but at least the guy was doing SOME explaining .

But with GW the substance of his speeches seem to be more a series of pronouncements than arguments.

frinstance, I don’t want my patronizing uncle George telling me what he thinks I want to hear is going to happen, I’d like to know how he plans to get there. And I’d like an explanation of the tax plan to have to some actual numbers in it that AREN’T “what the average family of four will get back”, or “what the new rates are”. It’s obvious that a tax cut is going to involve, like, some tax payers paying less tax.

I’d like to know how it’s going to change tax revenue. And how they project it will increase spending and therefore grow the economy to make up for it. And if it isn’t, why going into lots and lotsa debt isn’t going to be a drag on the economy in the future. And show your work,damnit, or you don’t get any credit!

Because I know I want a tax cut. Everyone wants a tax cut, duh.

****simplistic analogy alert[sup]tm[/sup] *******
I want a new car. To get it, I’m going to adjust my budget and add a whopping car payment. But I don’t need to figure out if I can actually afford that car, because , besides that fact that I orgasm at new car smell, that new car mojo is going to boost my confidence so much that I’m sure to get that shiny new job I’d like. And don’t tell me education is more likely to get me a bigger salary, or that I can avoid running up my credit cards to 30000 if I buy a beater, because, HEY LOOK! shiny new car good!

I’m going to try not to let just the “ick” factor affect my voting, since we haven’t yet seen which gormless wonder the Democrats will shovel forth.

Like, if it was Al Sharpton or GWB? I would either have to vote for GWB or abstain due to uncontrollable projectile vomiting.

I would have a considerably better feeling about Bush if we had a Democratic party worth a crap these days. I cannot believe what he gets away with and they are too timid to call him on it.

I mean, seriously: we spent how many years with Monica Lewinsky as the focal point of all Republican hatred of Clinton? We nearly impeached him because he lied about having sexual relations with someone not his wife.

But if you want to lie about terrorist connections, weapons of mass destruction, and leaning on dependent allies until they join the “Coalition of the Willing?”

Eh. No big deal. I’m sure he only has our best interests in mind.

And, with the exception of Robert Byrd, who has even taken a stand against this guy? Who even dares to question him? Almost no one.

Do I hate him? No. I dislike Bush’s policies and his manner. I dislike being represented to the international community by someone who can’t pronounce “nuclear.” I don’t like being lied to when lives are at stake, American or otherwise. I don’t like to see anyone take a tragedy and use it as a tool with which to manipulate people who want someone, anyone, to pay for causing it.

Amen. I think I’d write-in Cthulhu at that point and get it over with.

“Why settle for the lesser evil?”

Not necessarily. Someone can be a good leader and not be someone I agree with on issues. I see them as two separate things.

I’ll agree. However, I would say that Bush waffles quite a bit on his “principles” when it suits him. YMMV.

True, to an extent. However, I would also say that Bush has failed here. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, for example, are not what I would term “good people.” Not even competent in their positions, really.

Now we’re back to “issues” again… Frankly, I find that Bush’s stance on the issues changes largely depending on who he’s talking to. Not to the extent of lying, but his clarity on many issues important to me could be much better. Clarity is important, but I don’t think Bush has it.

I honestly don’t confuse those things, but as you yourself said, it’s hard to be a good leader when you’re as bad an orator as Bush is. My impressions of Bush are that he’s a smart politician but a poor leader. I’d rather have it the other way around, if a tradeoff has to be made.