I was trying to invision a scenario in which I would shake his hand, and finally came up with one. But it would involve my team winning Nationals and going to the White House on a special visit. In that situation, I would shake his hand because he would be acting as the personification of the nation as ceremonial Head of State, not as Chief Asshole in Charge of the Decline of My Country. But I wouldn’t smile, and I’d make it a point to wash my hand afterwards.
I’d shake his hand and hold on for as long as it took me to tell him through gritted teeth that he’s destroying my country.
Then I’d go quietly with the nice Secret Service men, I’m sure.
Maybe you could imitate Tybalt in Zefirreli’s R & J: shake his hand, smell yours, go “Yecccch” and rush to the nearest fountain to wash. Or better yet, what the Joker did to the gangster in the first Batman, with a 10,000 volt joy buzzer…on second thought, there’s Cheney lurking…
B. or C.
I had a chance to meet former President Clinton in Japan during his book tour of Asia a few years ago. It was supposed to include a meet-and-greet and photo opportunity and book signing. However, right before the event, he went to the hospital for his heart surgery. Needless to say, that event was postponed, but never re-scheduled. Sigh.
“God bless you, sir, and may he shake some sense into you.” If this were on camera somewhere, I’d likely never be seen again.
I know what you mean, to a certain extent, but I’ve been thinking about that.
IF (if if if) a president is getting people killed and trying to half-ruin the country, why should he be allowed to just plow ahead? Why should he be respected? I’ve had little fantasies about doing a lot more than not shaking his hand. This is the kind of thinking that let the German generals say, “Well, he’s the chancellor.”
Sure. It’s not going to hurt my hand any, and would be a great story. I presume FDR shook Stalin’s hand, if it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough me.
I shook hands with the Prince of Liechtenstein last year, and didn’t even bother to check whether he has ever killed anyone or not.
I shake the hands of all sorts of people, including politicians, with whom I disagree. With Bush, however, it goes far beyond political disagreement.
The fellow is an unindicted war criminal. He invented reasons to invade a country, which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He supports torture, and detention without rule of law. Those are not simple political disagreements – those are heinous crimes. That he is not being impeached is a stain on the USA.
No, I would not shake his hand, and yes, I would speak my mind to him.
BTW, I’m a Canadian – as in the citizen of a nation that was threatened with “repercussions” by Bush’s ambassador when we refused to go along with Bush’s depravity.
This idea that people should be allowed to press ahead with their agendas because of their position just drives me crazy, no matter which side of the political spectrum they are on.
And just what happened to all the troubadours and the Czar’s children?
If I shook his hands that would be taken as a sign of respect or recognition of him as a human, neither of which I would care to convey. I simply wouldn’t get close enough to shake his hand. If forced, I would shake it and then immediately wipe it on my pants as though I had just touched a dangerous chemical.
Given the self-defeatingly aggressive nature of most American diplomacy these past six years, this wouldn’t surprise me in the least, but… cite, please?
I would choose option e), but it was removed from this list on legal advice and at the very strong urging of the Secret Service.
I’ve noticed something odd here. Option c was
How is it less insulting to discretely refuse to shake someone’s hand than to shake it “in a grudging and not particularly manly way” while “smiling feebly, shuffling my feet and wishing I were elsewhere”? Frankly, given a choice between the two options, I’d find the honest refusal much less insulting than the foot-shuffling and obvious distaste. Also, from what I’ve seen of Mr. Bush’s like of playing power games, i.e. the neckrub incident and the incident with the new congressman who’s son was serving, option C seems too much like giving in to him.
My opinion stands. I’d prefer not to shake his hand, but if I had to, I’d do so politely and graciously with an ordinary, not feeble smile. If I felt the urge to wash my hands afterwards (I doubt I would), I’d slip off to a restroom and do it discretely rather than make a public show of my dislike and distaste.
The threat was made during a media question session following the audience question session following a speech that USA Ambassador Cellucci made to the Toronto Economic Club, on 25 March 2003, at breakfast, in which he expressed the USA’s disappointment over Canada not joining the USA in its war against Iraq (although, of course, Cellucci deliberately misstated it as the “global war on terrorism” http://ottawa.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=embconsul&document=cellucci_030325 ).
The Associated Press | 3/25/03 5:17 PM | By TOM COHEN, as reposted by the FReepers
“The ambassador warned there could be repercussions against Canada in U.S. policy, but he refused to elaborate. However, Cellucci said several times that security would be the top U.S. priority, more important than trade and economic issues, as Canada and the United States negotiate border issues.”http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/875542/posts
National Post editorial, March 26, 2003, as reposted by the FReepers
“A lot of people in Washington are upset that Canada is not fully supporting us,” he said. Asked about repercussions, he added Canada would have to “wait and see,” and that “security trumps trade.”
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/876329/posts
BTW, here is what was being said by our Parliamentarians in the months preceding the threat. As you can see, they were onto Bush’s ways. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/26/232618.shtml :
[Cabinet Minister] Herb Dhaliwal, March 19:
“I think the world expects someone who is the President of a superpower to be a statesman. I think he has let, not only Americans, but the world down by not being a statesman.”
[Member of Parliament] Carolyn Parrish, Feb. 26:
“Damn Americans. I hate those bastards.”
[Prime Minister] Jean Chrétien, Feb. 13:
“Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith.”
[Member of Parliament] Colleen Beaumier, Jan. 29:
“This is a war against children. No matter how you slice it, there is more to this war than the Bush regime and the Saddam Hussein regime. How many children are we going to kill to replace that regime?”
[Member of Parliament] Benoît Serré, Jan. 29:
"George Bush is very trigger-happy. "
[Prime Minister’s Communications Director] Françoise Ducros, Nov. 20, 2002:
“What a moron,” she said, referring to Bush.
Note that with respect to Bush being called a “moron”, the Prime Minister did not consider it worth making an apology, and his letter to Ducros upon her resignation was glowing http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/11/26/ducros_resigns021126.html :
“Dear Françoise, I have read your letter of today and your decision to leave your position as director of communications and re-integrate into the public service a few weeks earlier than anticipated. As you take your leave, you can be proud of the fact not only that you have filled one of the most senior positions ever held by a woman in a Prime Minister’s Office, but above all, of the exemplary manner in which you have carried out your duties. In your almost four years as director of communications you have served the government as a whole, and me personally, with extraordinary skill and dedication. I have always placed the highest value on your advice and counsel. And I am, indeed, pleased that as a public servant you will continue to bring these fine qualities to the service of Canada and Canadians. Aline joins me in wishing you and Ian continued success and happiness in the future.”
I’m not in love with Bush nor do I despise him. I would definitely shake his hand out of respect for the office he holds. I think if I were shaking the hand of a person I admired it would be done warmly, with a big smile, whereas if I were shaking the hand of a person I disliked but whom protocol dictated I refrain from insulting, then it would be done coolly, with an impassive face.
But circumstances also come into it. Has he stuck his hand out to be shaken or is it up to me to initiate it? And are we in private or in public?
If it’s merely a matter of me not offering my hand to the Distateful Politician, then I can simply refrain both in public or private.
If it is in public and he offers his hand, then I would not refuse unless I disliked and disrespected both the Distasteful Politician and the office he holds.
If it’s in private and he offers his hand, then whether or not I refuse depends on how much damage my insult is likely to do to whatever cause I am there to discuss or advance. So assuming my primary reason for wanting face-time with Distasteful Politician is not to piss him off, I probably shake.
Protocol is hugely important in any negotiation and the thin veneer of civility counts for a lot. You can theorize the most monstrous war criminal in the history of the world, but if I am meeting with him there must be a reason, and treating him with minimal respect surely can only advance whatever goal has prompted the meeting.
It’s a social convention that, if done, means nothing, IMO. It only means something when ostentatiously not done, when it’s obviously insulting.
I’m not much for gratuitiously insulting people, so, yeah, I’d probably shake pretty much anyone’s hand, assuming I couldn’t refuse without publicly insulting him or her. I don’t see any basis to read into that a ringing endorsement of his/her agenda.
Thank you, Muffin. I was very interested to read that. I don’t actually see the word “repercussions” in a quotation directly attributed to Amb. Celucci, but perhaps I overlooked it. It seems that it might have been a paraphrase by the AP reporter.
Thank you, very true.
Back to the OP:
I’d shake his hand, glad to have the opportunity to see the man irl. Maybe I can learn something.
I would not shake anybody’s hand who voted for him the second time. they are evil/stupidity/ignorance personified. (And given their mental capability’s I couldn’t trust them to not soil their hands).
Perhaps in the past not shaking a Republican Presiden’t hand meant you were a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Not now. Bush has transcended the old paradigm – plenty of hardcore conservatives hate him, and what he’s done to the country, or so they’ve told me. Since generally hardcore conservatives are ruder and meaner (okay, that’s opinion, but no moreso than “arrogant liberals”, :)) the proportion of people mad at Shrub might be weighted more toward rudeness than back before he alienated so many of them – in other words, the tone of the anger might be harsher because of conservative disappointment than it would have been from mere liberals.
People who still support him unthinkingly probably just do so out of a reluctance to change, inability to break out of “us vs. them” thinking, or they’re willfully uinformed. He’s not very conservative these days except in rhetoric – his direct, calculated assaults on rights conservative Republicans hold dear ought to alienate any who are paying attention.
In short, it’s Bush, not “the presidency”, “liberals”, or “respect”, that generated the anger you’re seeing in this thread. An anomaly. Come back when Rudy or Condi is president and see if the trend is the same, or more civil.
Sailboat
I think those that have said they would express some kind of discontent with Bush’s policies should read this story first. The Assistant Dear Leader does not take kindly to this type of thing. Even though the charges were eventually dropped, this guy was cuffed and stuffed in front of his kids.
Oh, and about the OP, it’s moot. I would never put myself in a situation where I would meet him, and I doubt he’s going to be seeking me out.