I know I’ll be pilloried for this, but* to the extent it was ever possible*, I think FDR did, first with Social Security and the National Recovery Act, and then with selling WWII. At least that was a war that most Americans were behind. The Korean conflict began to divide Americans. The Viet Nam war nearly tore us apart, and every subsequent adventure, no matter who was in office, has tended to separate Americans rather than unite us. If GWB is so damn smart why hasn’t he realized that only one war in our history has served the purpose he would like Iraq to serve? Just MHO.
Bush has been the worst divider in my memory (I was born during the FDR administration). His attempt to unite us in a “war on terror” has backfired because he and his minions have bent every effort to stifle dissent. Americans need to be convinced. They don’t like being told that unorthodox (read un-Bush) opinions are un-American.
:eek: I thought you were being a bit harsh for a second because I never read anyone’s username .
Re: The OP: I can’t think of a president that was thrown a bigger chance to unite since Pearl Harbor and Bush is still a divider. I’m curious to see the voice of dissent in this thread.
If Bush kept you folks happy, then the other half of the country would be pissed. It’s not like you are gonna make everyone all happy and united when it comes to gay marriage, taxes, gun control, foreign policy, etc. Legalize gay marriage? Piss off a lot of folks. Raise taxes? Piss off a lot of folks. Et cetera and so forth.
Only if complicated issues like those continue to be reduced to empty non-sequiturs, targeted at the fearful, the superstitious and the intellectually lazy.
We are then left in a world where the threat of gay marriage or repealing of a few ill-advised tax cuts is a clear and present danger to society as we know it - much more than freely available assault weapons, reckless warmongering via falsehoods, disdain of global enviromental standards, detentions without trial … adopting a first-strike nuclear option, institutionalized secrecy, the merging of corporate and government power … etc.
These days there are fewer and fewer truly moderate politicians running around out there. Yes, Bush is a divider. If Kerry wins in November, he’ll have about half the country behind him and the other half despising him.
The country itself is split. Doesn’t matter who’s in office.
And that is what I am talking about. Some things strike you as a bad (or good) idea, and you just can’t comprehend why anyone would agree (or disagree) with you. Other than, of course, they are all bigots, homophobes, warmongers, cobblers, whatever. No real effort to see the other side, and no feeling of acceptable compromise on so many of those issues. Anything short of total victory is viewed as defeat. I, of course, am just as guilty. As are most partisan voting Americans, I daresay. (And at SDMB-GD, partisanship is order of the day.)
Hence, there ain’t going to be any uniterization, only divideratude. But I wouldn’t take a doom-and-gloom ‘can’t we all just get along’ attitude towards the situation; About ~140 years ago we saw a country that was truly divided.
Truisms. The point of the OP to me is that Bush claimed he would work to unite the country on such issues. The only way he could do that would be to work hard for a consensus on programs and policies. Not programs that all could enthusiastically support, you understand, but programs and policies that most people would be willing to go along with as being at least adequate.
He has made zero attempt to do that. His whole approach and that of his minions seems to me to be; Aha Democrats, gotcha!
The difference is, if Kerry wins in November, his foes will be against him from Day 1, using whatever imagined excuses they can concoct to vilify him (cf: Bill Clinton).
When George W. Bush won the election, there was some grumbling about the Florida fiasco, but AFAIK most folks were taking a “wait and see” approach before judging the guy’s presidency. If Bush had been more of a centrist President, there wouldn’t be as much venom against him as there is now.
Someone explain to me how the POTUS has any say in legalizing gay marriage. I want to know how the WH can amend the constitution. I thought it was between the Congress and the States. Or does Bush believe that the hillbillies don’t understand how the process works and is playing the homophobic high school dropout crowd?
It’s not like I’m a fan of Bush, and maybe the internet isn’t representative of what ordinary american people think, but at this time, I didn’t notice much of this “wait and see” attitude expressed online. And the disagreement about the elections appeared to be a little more than “grumbling”…
I wonder, does anybody think that his stem cell decision was a decent compromise? I didn’t think it was perfect (which a compromise never is, pretty much by definition) but I’ll give him a bit of credit there in the ‘Uniter’ column for not completely banning embryonic stem cell research outright.
But, the “Divider” column still outweighs the “Uniter”, much like a feather is outweighed by a neutron star.
But still, unless my memory is getting hazy in my old age, I don’t recall seeing any sort of “We’re going to hate everything Bush does even without seeing it” movement from the political left. Folks were skeptical and on hair-triggers, but they were at least willing to see what George would do before flaming him for it.
Eh. It sounded great on the surface, until you poked deeper and realized that he lied about the number of stem cell lines available – Bush claimed there were 60, more than enough for continued research, but the real number of viable lines turned out to be around a dozen (see item #7 on this list.).
Well, I suppose. But even Nancy Reagan thinks he catered too much to the Religious Right on that one. If compromise means compromise between conservative extremists and just plain conservatives, I suppose it could be viewed as a decent compromise.
Well, the President still has a lot of power to lead Congress, particularly those in his own party…So while he may not have a direct role to play, he can still play an indirect one. But, I think the main thing he is doing is trying to appeal to people who will vote on the basis of the perceived “morality” of their President and base this perception more on how the President postures on such “moral” issues as gay marriage and who he messes or doesn’t mess around with than on whether he lies and deceives on serious policy issues.
Yep…well, kind of…
it isn’t just the hillbillies and the highschool dropout crowd, a surprisingly high number of people have no clue as to how the Constitution gets amended - people you would expect should know.
I have a sneaking suspicion that he’s one of them. :-p
Seriously, a “uniter” would NOT randomly propose a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. He probably would let the status quo rule and leave it to the states. He polarized the issue in a huge, mind blowing way - as he has many issues. Once again, NOT the work of a “uniter”
And those redneck idiots think that Democrats are made up of cultural elitists. Can’t imagine why.
You don’t do liberals any favors when you show such contempt for so many people in our country, you know. If you referred with such contempt to “ignorant Christian conservative black people,” you’d be excoriated; referring to ignorant Christian conservative white people is no better.
There are plenty of poor Christian whites with little formal education who are still very good people; despite your best efforts, I hope you fail in driving them away from the Democratic party.
I was going to stay out of this thread because it’s so obviously subjective and prone to partisan ranting. But the irony of this post was just too much. What a fantastic way to unite the country: Declare that there are two Americas. :rolleyes:
I don’t see the implied irony. The point, and I think well taken, is that Bush and the Pubbies have created two Americas. The tax policies that have made the rich richer have increased the gap between the haves and have-nots. Kerry and Edwards, with our support, will build one America. It works with me and I think it will work with those who are worse off than they were 4 years ago.
.