I’m not a Republican, but I think that’s your answer right there. The criteria that these people are using to judge the quality of a president are ones that Bush fits in their eyes, with true Christian being the most prominent. If a person believes that being a Christian who openly expresses his faith, and taking conservative Christian positions such as opposing gay marriage makes someone a great man and a genuine humanitarian, then by that definition, Bush is a great president. As far as I can tell, the people you spoke with are not saying that he’s made great policy decisions, that he’s stood up for the fundamental values of democracy, that he’s helped the country to gain respect from the rest of the world, or any of the other criteria that someone else might use to judge a president. They’re saying that he shares their religious beliefs, and that makes him great in their eyes.
I honestly don’t know why you would find it “disheartening” that Louis’s anonymous friends, who already think Bush is great, include his religion in the reasons why they think he’s great. Their opinion doesn’t change what makes a president great and doesn’t have to change your opinion of what makes a president great.
It’s some unknown person’s third-hand opinion. Don’t let it get you down.
If Bush could create peace in the Middle East, he would indeed be one of the greatest presidents ever. And personally I would agree that the most assured way to bring peace to the Middle East would be to occupy it.
The problems are that:
- Bush thought that besting the armies of Afghanistan and Iraq would be enough to “bring peace.” He never thought he would have to occupy either nation.
- He attacked Iraq more out of vendetta against his father than because he thought it was strategically important.
- He now believes that if he can just kill or imprison everyone who is against “peace” that this will bring peace–even though he’s severely underpowered to do this, and unable to do since it would require acting like Saddham Hussein or any other tyrant which no one would allow.
- He actually has put no thought nor effort into figuring out how to manage and lead an occupied country to rehibilitate and better it so as to make it solve its own problems.
So if you accept that what he is doing is the right path towards accomplishing what he says he wants to accomplish then you’ll think he’s great. But if you think there’s more to fixing the problems in the Middle East than simply hitting back harder, you’ll come to the conclusion that regardless of intent, Bush Junior is incompetent.
(Bolding mine) As neither Democrat nor Republican, I would have to disagree on that first point. Partisans of both parties are both quite capable of demonizing the other side. When Reagan was in office, I got the impression from my Dem friends that he ate babies for breakfast. Ditto for Pubs and Clinton.
I can’t see it. While Democrats certainly do demonize the other side, they also demonize their own side, something that Republicans don’t do. Republicans are known for always being “on message”, repeating the talking points. The right owns talk radio, where one person talks and talks and talks, always parroting the party line, and millions listen to this every day, sometimes all day. Democrats own the internet, where people can say whatever they want, and they do. Go to any left wing blog and you’ll see people arguing visciously with each other about all kinds of positions. Many right wing websites don’t even allow people to comment.
There is a fundamental difference.
Yep. We’re chaotic and unleadable, they’re a well-oiled machine, and we’re going to lose. 
Democrats demonize their representatives not just any other Democrat and certainly not their own ideology. And they do so because their representatives are rather gutless at the moment. Republicans have never had gutless representatives so it’s not fair to say that they wouldn’t be ragging on them if the tables were turned.
Agree. Also, more recently, he’s doing the right thing regarding Burma. Not that this was a particulaly hard or costly call, or that the US can or will be the major actor on who things work out over there.
But in general, he’s just been a terrible president. I mean, even by conservative standards, what has he actually done for you? The man had Congress and the US popular opinion handed to him on a silver platter following 9/11 (not by any conspiracy mind you, people just naturally ran to support the president) and still, what has he done?
All sorts of reasons. Because they are moral cowards who can’t bring themselves to take responsibility for what they have done by putting him in power. Or because they are mindless followers who would drink poison if he told them. Or because they are just as evil or stupid or insane as him. Or because they have immersed themselves into the right wing media, to such an extent that they don’t even know that he’s doing badly.
Yes, especially since being a true Christian makes it impossible to be a great, or even semi-decent anything.
Because he was actually guilty of great evils. Sometimes, people get called bad things because they actually are bad people, you know.
And, right on schedule, Der Trihs stops by to take a huge steaming dump in the middle of the thread, so all must be right with the world. :rolleyes:
I’d always assumed that Der Trihs was a pun on detritis.
I’ve thought this before too, but Lincoln governed during a civil war, which by definition are divisive. His unpopularity was inevitable in some corners. Bush, on the other hand, had to deal with a crisis that united the entire country, whose perpetrator was clear, in a situation where countries around the WORLD were lining up to help us. In five years Lincoln found a way to win the Civil War. In the same amount of time Bush managed to squander or destroy every bit of unity or goodwill 9/11 created, both for himself and our nation. We have virtually no friends left around the world now because of his policies.
I’d say the jury’s in.
As for me, if anyone said to my face Bush will be regarded as one of the five greatest U.S. presidents, I know I could not keep myself from chortling out loud.
So gutlessness is the only fault a rep is liable to be guitly of? Not ideological extremism, say?
I think it’s a mistake to assert that the way things are now is the way it’s always been. It’s nice and easy to say “lots of democrats say that GWB is the worst president ever because they’re democrats and democrats hate republicans and republicans hate democrats yada yada yada…”. Except that there have recently been presidents whose opponents did NOT particularly hate them, with the clearest recent example being GHWB. GWB isn’t as hated as he is simply because he’s a republican. There are plenty of actual reasons. Now, those reasons might all be specious, but this is not just a case of pure unbridled partisanship. A different republican elected in 2000 who had handled 9/11 differently would certainly be opposed by many democrats, but wouldn’t automatically be the target of the level of hatred aimed at GWB.
To come at the OP from a different angle, there are some position that I disagree with but can easily see how a well-meaning intelligent person can come to believe that position is correct… for instance, being pro-life. There are other positions that I just can’t for the life of me imagine how any intelligent well-meaning person could actually hold, such as believing that gay marriage threatens to destroy society.
“Reagan was an excellent president” is in the first category. So is “Voting for GWB in 2000/2004 was the best decision given the information available at the time”. “GWB is an excellent president” however, is in the second category.
Which is why I’d be interested in hearing someone actually explain why they think he’s an excellent president. Shodan: do you in fact so believe? Care to step up to the plate and actually express your viewpoint rather than just sniping snidely?
If it’s a woman, then say, “I’m going to call you Cleopatra - 'cause you’re de queen of de Nile”.
Please go far away and never come back.
I’m saying that the only demonizing I’ve seen Democrats doing of Democrats was them complaining about was that. Certainly they’ll fault their nutters as nutters, but Republicans do that too.
I don’t think anyone demonizes nutballs. They just shake their heads, more.
No, of course not. But there was only one rescue attempt, a lot of hand wringing, and no sanctions, threat of invasion, etc. (IIRC. I was about 12-13 at the time). We let the regime hold our citizens hostage for more than a year and barely said “boo” to them. And now, some of the former hostages believe one of the kidnappers is now the President of Iran (has that been determined one way or the other yet?)
Sometimes, you need someone to strap on a gun and get all John Wayne on their ass. Carter wasn’t it.
Der Trihs, you know where the Pit is, I believe. Keep this style of commentary out of IMHO, please.
:dubious: No four letter words, no personal insults . . . I don’t see what makes that Pit materiel.