Av:
I really don’t see how Bush is worse than Nixon, Carter, or Clinton in terms of the “clarity” issue that you say is important. Those guys drove me nuts trying to figure out what their principles are and how their actions derived from those principles.
But I can agree that it would nice to have a good leader, not a good politician. Realistically, though, we all know you don’t become president w/o being a VERY good politician.
“his short stature”
Scott:
You’re betraying yourself here somewhat. Bush is 5’ 11". Shorter than dad, but taller than average. Just FYI.
well I hate to be the fire starter here, but I like the guy. I think he has handled everything just fine and is doing as well as he possibly can. Some of the outter things are not the best, but to me they are not what protect us, it is how he runs the country, and in that aspect, I think he is doing the US just fine, IMHO:) Also, to start some more discussion, I think that we would be in worse shape if Gore was running our country right now, again just IMHO 
Agreed, completely. As I tried to say earlier, we haven’t really had what I would consider a good leader for some time in America. Kennedy and Roosevelt were probably the most recent two who I could have respected in the regard.
Yes… sad but true. It’s rare to find someone who is both. 
lillyflower, I think it’s safe to say that no amount of conjecture can give us any idea of whether this country would be better or worse off with Gore at the helm, at this point. Too much has changed since 2000, that we can’t know what he would have done or how things would be different. Any thoughts on what Gore might have done in the face of 9/11, for example, is nothing more than idle speculation, with no supporting evidence.
And as for Bush’s “doing as well as he possibly can”… if that’s true, it’s still not good enough. Hell, I don’t think I’d make much of a President either… the difference being that I recognize that, and I have no plans of running.
All valid dislikes except “his looks” and “his stature” IMO. That should have nothing to do with the president. If it did FDR wouldn’t have been president… “just don’t like the damn cripple in the wheelchair… sorry.”
That being said, ever since the 19th amendment came into effect, looks have been vital to a viable (male… and they all are) presidential candidate. Of course, only when TV came about did that really start to make a huge difference. 19th Amendment + Mass Media = no ugly presidents (regardless of qualifications).
Am I saying the 19th amendment was a bad idea? As long as males are the only ones running for president, yes. if women were the only ones who ran, then men shouldn’t be allowed to vote. We’d just end up with a stupid blond, big titted bimbo leading the free world. I think we should alternate male/female every time a candidate has had his/her 2 terms and cannot run again. And only the same sex votes. What about homosexuals? Ehh… I think it’s a small enough minority that it just won’t affect the outcome.
Oh… anyway. Yeah, looks shouldn’t matter. Don’t be so petty.
Any evidence that this is correlated with the 19th amendment? I can think of several pretty-boy Republicans who more than likely got a higher percentage of male than female votes.
Kalt: The whole thing with looks is due more to television than women voters. Sure, Kennedy was seen to be attractive. But Nixon’s appearance on the famous t.v. debate has been widely felt to be a major factor.
Bush makes me cringe. I think his administration has been dead wrong on almost every significant issue, and watching the man himself makes me squirm in my seat. Nonetheless, I fervently hope that he remains in good health for the remainder of his term, and even for his entire second term, should he be reelected. Why? The phrase, “President Cheney,” scares me even more.
It’s not just “looks”. It’s in the mimes, the body language.
Bush, and Rumsfeld for that matter, just OOOOze deceit.
If the guy showed up to clean my pool, I would watch him closely.
If he sat next to me during an exam, I would show my work.
If he showed up to teach the class, I would change majors.
If he ended up as my boss, I would update my resume.
The mere thought of any more power that that, frankly, scares the crap out of me.
I wouldn’t trust him with anything more dangerous than string.
Why is this guy always laughing or smiling like a retarded? I can’t stand how he looks. I just can’t stand it… I always have the impression as if he is stoned 24/7.
I’m not taking sides here, but how about providing some proof to the contrary? That’d show those dastardly liberals.
Thing of it is, I remember the election too well. I remember being relatively calm about it. GeeDubya was running as a centrist, so it was center-right against center-left. Not a big hairy ass deal. Wouldn’t have voted for him if his opposition was Carrot Top, but still, nothing to get all upset about.
Boy, did he fool me! His Admin isn’t center-right, its absitively and posolutely reactionary.
I see a mediocrity, surrounded by flatterers and manipulators, who slap him on the back and wax eloquent about his international brilliance and profoundly moral character. And he believes them. He’s the kind of man who all his life believed that he had greatness within him, just waiting for the right circumstances to evoke it.
Its not so much he has fooled us, he has fooled himself.
Perhaps our only real hope lies with Laura Bush, who may rescue us in the same manner as the wives of Great Men have many times before: roll over in bed, nudge him awake and say “Honey, you know I love you. But Churchill? Give me a break!”
That explains why I voted for Nader. He’s hot. 
I’m another in the “I just don’t like him” camp. He doesn’t seem trustworthy, and that’s not a good feeling to have with a president. I could have possibly gotten over it if it wasn’t for his support of the death penalty, the whole stupid drilling for oil in Alaska thing, and of course, John Ashcroft. (And he’d look a lot more trustworthy if he’d stop handing out big contracts to Halliburton.) At this point, I’d vote for just about anyone to get him out of office.
Except Al Sharpton.
Perception is a funny thing, ain’t it? I like everything about Bush and his administration. I like that his policies are announced and THEN discussed, not leaked and discussed to death in the press, and THEN some version of it announced as in the previous administration.
I like that he seems honest. I like that, so far at least, he has followed through with everything he had said he would do. I like his cabinet, and the people he has appointed. I like his policies, and I will be voting for him next election.
It might not be a trait of a good leader, but it’s what gets people elected. I can’t on good conscience vote for a warmonger. If anything, being stubborn and actually following through with all schemes made in the “capgain trail” is even more a reason not to vote for Bush.
I could really give diddly squat about the looks or personality of any Presidential candidate. I do not vote for a President to be my mommy or daddy, or my best friend. I vote for a president to run the U.S. It’s a JOB, people!!! I care about qualifications, experience and the issues. The rest is a bunch of nonsense.
In short, I’m a grownup, and I vote like one, and yes, you now know what I think of all of you who vote on the basis of personality.
For the record, I do not think Bush is even close to being Presidential material. He is clearly a poor speaker, not very bright, and a reactionary.
From my POV, you’re always gonna see what you want to see. Those who are happy with him see an “upright, honest, take no prisoners” kind of guy, who says what he means and follows through. He may not be the brightest bulb, but he’s smart enough, and the people around him are intelligent and trustworthy and provide Bush with the support he needs.
Those who are unhappy see someone who is “narrow-minded (single-track mind), slow-witted, deceitful” etc. He is completely unable to handle any non-scripted event, has only a basic black-and-white grasp of the issues, little sense of history and of foreign culture, and may be simply a mouthpiece/puppet for others.
I fall into the latter group. For me a President first and foremost needs to be independent-minded and have the intelligence to understand all the ramifications of policy, and make decisions thusly. The impression Bush gives is that all considerations of consequences of policy decisions are made by others, and then explained to him in a manner he agrees with.
And as for not being a great orator, I firmly believe that a strong knowledge and ability to use your own freaking native language is an indirect reflection of intelligence. Especially from someone who was hand-fed the opportunity to attend the best schools in the nation.
Wow, the media said all that? I’ve got to stop reading these liberal rags like the New York Times – they’re clearly glossing over the issues.
That being said, ever since the 19th amendment came into effect, looks have been vital to a viable (male… and they all are) presidential candidate. Of course, only when TV came about did that really start to make a huge difference. 19th Amendment + Mass Media = no ugly presidents (regardless of qualifications).
WHAT?!? You’re trying to tell me that Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon were swept into the White House by armies of female voters swooning over their LOOKS?!?
:wally