Is Bush doing a good job as president.??

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Weren't you in grade school when Clinton was in office?

Like I said, life got a little better.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's asking for the near-impossible. The last time we had one of those, the Boston Pilgrims baseball team was in the World Series.

I agree.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Like I said, life got a little better.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My military experience is nearly 6 years in special forces, and I have a hard time saying the word the right way. "Nukular" was about the only way I heard it pronounced in that time. I have heard Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter pronounce the word "nukular" as well. Having said that, it is possible that Bush is simply incapable of pronouncing it correctly. I think it's more likely that it's a form of macho posturing.

From your response and in retrospect of the other people I have ever heard the "nukular" pronunciation from leads me to think its a dialect problem. Perhaps those of southern decent or uppringing should learn to enunciate properly =)

Ike and Carter were both southerner/farmstead raised, and the president is also a southerner, so were a few people I remember using the term in that way.

I think its a failing of basic education.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

From your response and in retrospect of the other people I have ever heard the "nukular" pronunciation from leads me to think its a dialect problem. Perhaps those of southern decent or uppringing should learn to enunciate properly =)

Ike and Carter were both southerner/farmstead raised, and the president is also a southerner, so were a few people I remember using the term in that way.

I think its a failing of basic education.

I suppose it's possible in his time earning degrees from Harvard and Yale than nobody ever taught GWB how to say that word correctly.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I suppose it's possible in his time earning degrees from Harvard and Yale than nobody ever taught GWB how to say that word correctly.

LOL...sorry, you put the terms EArning, and degree in the same sentence with GWB.......


seriously though. His language usage is pathetic. Nukular is just his most famous vocal oddity.

[RendeR]

DOLA: and I said BASIC education, Harvard and Yale do not teach speaking or pronunciation/spelling classes.

[st.cronin]

I understand.

As I've said before, I think our President is much brighter than his detractors give him credit for.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I understand.

As I've said before, I think our President is much brighter than his detractors give him credit for.

See thats just it...I honestly don't. I think he is the single stupidest president we've ever elected, and he got elected because there are VERY intelligent people with latex gloves shoved FAR up the man's ass =)

[Edward64]

Jari. Your response to premise #2. I am not a lawyer but I have to believe some sort of 'reasonableness' test is given in the situations you are referring to. I just can't believe a CEO is culpable for 'the actions/inaction of those below' ... where does it stop? There has to be a certain level of negligence or intent. I consult in big companies and I see all sorts of inappropriate things, none that I can remember should be a CEO's fault ... it is his underlings, which leads to...

JPhillips. Your response about Bush hiring the wrong people etc. It is not a CEOs reponsibility to hire 2+ levels down (ex. you can hold Bush accountable for Chertoff (and cabinet members). This is not to say CEOs do not "okay/sign-off" 2+ levels down but clearly Level 1 does not hire Level 3, Level 2 hires Level 3. Also, there are alot of people he inherited (ex. Tenet and CIA/FBI infrastructure).

I have done recruiting before in my business which is very specific software consulting and I know my stuff. I can tell you that sometimes, regardless of your best effort in interviewing, you don't know you have a dud or a mediocre performer until they get on-site and start working, even then it may take awhile to find out. Its not easy to hire the right people all the time, especially for jobs with soft skills (ex. not easily accessed like programming).

Therefore, Bush clearly is accountable for cabinet members. I do not concede you can blame Bush (all the time) for levels below that.

About comparing Bush to Gore/Kerry instead of Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan etc. In consulting, sometimes things happen or go wrong that was caused by a user or another consultant. I tend to ask myself as I am analyzing the situation 'could/would I have done something differently'.

If I cannot clearly say, 'yes, I would have done things differently that would have avoided this problem from occurring', then I chalk it up to 'shit happens, lets move on and fix it'.

I know it doesn't change your mind but just so you know why I gauge accountability the way I do.

Therefore, specific to the Bush grading methodology, an important consideration is:

If no one else could have done better, I cannot fault Bush.

You're absolutely right there is no way of knowing for sure what Gore/Kerry would have done differently but I think there is 'conventional wisdom' that Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Afghanistan or into Iraq ... would you disagree?

Therefore, my argument for pro-Bush in Afghanistan is:

Bush went into Afghanistan. Gore/Kerry would have gone the UN route to futility. Afghanistan is still not secure/stable/democratic/homefree but the Gore/Kerry alternative would have been worse. Therefore, I put Afghanistan as a 'pro'.

TwinCitiesFan. I just read your response to my 5-pros. Wry sarcasm is not going to be productive in this conversation (and I really want this to be professional, non-personal and educational). I would ask that if you participate, please state your case plainly and explain it without the extras.

[Edward64]

Please keep my 2 premises in mind (even if you disagree with them) as you read my explanations for pros. Also, in many passages I have conceded I don't know but suspect/assume, keep that in mind and allow me some wiggle room.

I did started commenting on the 5-cons but decided to drop it. I believe I could spend an hour commenting and find out that I was not really rebutting the real meaning behind the 5-cons. Therefore, before doing so, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the 5-cons. Fair enough?

Here goes...

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.

I will concede initially I was wondering if Afghanistan was the right path ex. I was not sure how firm the linkage was. In my mind, there is now no doubt there was direct linkage between Taliban-AQ-911. It was our right to unilaterally go in there and handle the situation. Period.

Gore/Kerry would have (conventional wisdom) gone the convoluted UN/diplomacy path into futility. After a year or two of fruitless negotiations, they would probably have gone in also after slowly building up domestic support.

Bush=Y. Because it was just the right thing to do and ends clearly justify the means.

(2) Military intervention in Iraq.

I concede no linkage and (most) probably no WMD and definitely no widespread WMD. My belief (developed from reading op-eds from Thomas Friedman) is one of Bush's primary goals was to create the dynamic for change (in addition to personal reasons, and misplaced belief of WMD) in the region.

Although I am currently not optimistic that Iraq will turn out well, I believe the $ and 2000+ US lives and thousands of Iraqi lives *may* well be worth the gamble. It will be interesting to read this in the history books 20 years from now.

(thinking about my d20 days in college, who knows we could still roll an 16-20).

ex. with imminent invasion, Saddam was still playing chicken ... I infer from this that UN/diplomacy with Saddam would never have been productive.

ex. on the bigger question of bringing US-Muslim relationship back to neutral, I just don't see it. Even if we forced Israel's hand into concessions, even if we withdrew from Saudi Arabia, the adverserial relationship would still have been there. Radical muslims would still have found *something else* to hate the US for.

ex. even with Bosnia Muslim intervention, even with Indonesia aid, even with Kuwait rescue I see very little evidence of Muslims population giving US some 'credit'. Our perceived 'cons' far outweighed the quantifiable good things we've done for the Muslim world.

To hopefully create (at least) a neutral relationship, we need to acknowledge (1) current Muslim generation is a lost cause (2) create an 'example' of western democracy in the region (3) do a much better job of 'propoganda/education' and yes (4) bribing with whatever it takes.

There is no doubt Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Iraq. They would have tried the UN/diplomacy path along with half hearted efforts at propoganda ... in my opinion, this would never have worked.

Look at it this way. If there was WMD, if Iraq had elected and reunited under a sectarian government ... I think the majority of US would have said it was worth it.

Unfortunately, that is not the case ... yet, I still have hope for that roll 16-20.

Bush=Y. Because Gore/Kerry would still be talking and the $ and lives is worth the gamble to change the region in the long run.

(3) Anti-abortion stance.

Can we all agree that abortion is not a good thing? Not talking about rights of women etc., just on the face value of it, abortion is not a good thing?

Under the assumption we can all agree on this, the next thing is to consider what is/would have been done under Bush vs Gore/Kerry.

Bush clearly wants to restrict abortion. Gore/Kerry would have given some lip service but not have done anything to lower it. I think conventional wisdom tells me that the Democratic special interests would never allow this.

Here's my opinion. I don't know when life begins but I clearly know life exists in a 8-9 month fetus (I have 2 kids). Late term abortion *even* in the case of the health of the mother should never be allowed. I know this steps on some civil liberties but sorry, killing an innocent to save your own life should not be allowed.

With that said, not encouraging morning-after pills, allowing first trimester abortion in case of rape, incest, mothers health is clearly not reasonable in my opinion.

Therefore, 1st trimester = probably okay, 2nd trimester = probably a bad thing, 3rd trimester = most definitely a bad thing.

Bush=Y. Although I do not fully agree with his methods, he is trying to actively reduce abortions. I am okay with this (for the most part) even if it steps on some civil liberties ex. overall social good > individual civil liberties. Gore/Kerry would not have done anything to reduce abortions other than to pay lip service to it.

(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)

Before 911, Bush was well on his way to help Mexican's illegals/day laborers become legit. Hispanics now (legal + illegal) exceed the population of African Americans. This shows Bush being very inclusive of Hispanics. I agree one reason is to ensure a large Republican political base for years to come. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason, his intent was clear.

Other minority groups like the American Chinese and (not native) Indians, who tend to be more affluent in general, most probably are more Republican than Democrat. I concede I have no proof of this but believe its true via non-scientific polling of co-workers. (Interestingly, the Chinese and Indians that are foreign born, new immigrants, H1-Bs tend to go Democratic).

The only minorities that have not responded well (I think) are the African Americans. As per my theory, this may be self-imposed.

I don't really know what Gore/Kerry would have done here. I suspect that although they would also want the Hispanic vote, however the African American vote they currently already have would have resisted in allowing a greater Hispanic influence in the Democratic party.

Bush=Y. Nothing will stop the growth of our hispanic population. The future is clear and he has (or wanted to take) steps to include/integrate the hispanic population into our country.


(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

Bush's cut in social programs (or at least not increasing the funding to keep up) will either force the less fortunate to actively try to do better for themselves and/or increase the hopelessness felt by them.

I know this is a brutal and selfish point of view but I believe social programs (in general) tend to encourage a give-me, its-my-right, feed-me type mentality.

Please do not extrapolate this to me saying all social programs are bad.

ex. Public school education is a social program. I'm for this.
ex. Universal healthcare would be a social program. I'm for this, different thread.
ex. Medicare/SS is a social program. I'm for this, with some modifications.

I am saying, many social programs are bad, many social programs are good, most social programs should have reduced funding.

Bush=Y. Conventional wisdom tells me where Gore/Kerry would have gone with this. Bush is trying, don't know how successful he will be.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I understand.

As I've said before, I think our President is much brighter than his detractors give him credit for.

I love this video:

hxxp://www.break.com/index/presidential.html

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See thats just it...I honestly don't. I think he is the single stupidest president we've ever elected, and he got elected because there are VERY intelligent people with latex gloves shoved FAR up the man's ass =)

Why would you say that?

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." —during a Dec. 2002 Oval Office meeting with Rep. Tom Lantos, as reported by the New York Times

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

[st.cronin]

I've said and done some pretty stupid things myself, over the years. You all are entitled to you're opinions, but I definitely think GWB is smarter than me, and malaprops won't convince me otherwise.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's asking for the near-impossible. The last time we had one of those, the Boston Pilgrims baseball team was in the World Series.

So what was it like to watch Cy Young in his prime at the old Huntington Avenue Grounds, Buc?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Here's where I'm coming from. The title of the poll 'is Bush doing a good job as president'. We are doing a subjective rating of his presidency. The general framework I use to grade Bush (and will use in this discussion with you guys) are:

Premise #1. I don't do an assessment whether Bush is better than Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter etc. I do an assessment whether Bush is better than what Gore/Kerry would have done. It is easy to point out the bad points, but we have to ask ourselves if anyone else (ex. Gore/Kerry) could have done better based on the then-and-there situation that was presented to Bush? This of course presents other challenges, how can we know what Gore/Kerry would have done ... don't know for sure, but (thats what makes this fun and) its definitely more fair to grade Bush against those 2 during/for the same time period.

This is not to say I will not refer back to past acts as examples and indicators of their actions (ex. Gore), however my grading system is what would the other guy have done.

As JPhillips said, I don't think this is a fair litmus test at all. We really have no idea what Gore/Kerry would have done if they were in office. There have been some previously stark raving liberals go completely the other direction on foreign policy following 9/11 (Dennis Miller comes to mind). There are quite a few staunch conservatives who have been fed up with the current government spending which flies in face of their view of their party and have voted against it.

It's just not a legit basis to judge whether the current president is doing a good job. "I really didn't like who I was voting against" versus "I didn't like who I was voting against a little" is no basis on how to judge how the current guy is doing his job. You're then handicapping the job performance based on the opposition.

Presidents should be judged based on the job they do not on how much you liked or disliked the job they did and not whether you thought they are doing a better job than Gore/Kerry as opposed to Carter/Mondale.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You're absolutely right there is no way of knowing for sure what Gore/Kerry would have done differently but I think there is 'conventional wisdom' that Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Afghanistan or into Iraq ... would you disagree?

Therefore, my argument for pro-Bush in Afghanistan is:

Bush went into Afghanistan. Gore/Kerry would have gone the UN route to futility. Afghanistan is still not secure/stable/democratic/homefree but the Gore/Kerry alternative would have been worse. Therefore, I put Afghanistan as a 'pro'.

And this is a perfect illustration of the previous post. I think that Gore would have had to go into Afghanistan, considering the political climate of the time. Remember the Patriot Act was signed by a really strong majority even if now there's been a ton of squabbling as things have gotten back into their "normal" ruts again.

However, I don't think he'd have stepped anywhere near Iraq as it really had nothing to do with the war on terror and, frankly, to this day, I'm still not entirely sure the real reason we did it.

But it's all just conjecture as we don't have anything that can tell us whether you're right or whether I'm right. That's why I don't think it's at all a good test of how good a job the President is doing.

By that same token, look at Katrina. Frankly, I don't really spread a lot of blame around on that as it's a crazy situation of unprescedented magnitude. There's no telling if Kerry would have appointed someone more competent for the post. Well, likely he would have because Brown was on the low rung of the competency ladder, as we're now seeing. Does Kerry nominate someone a friendly Democrat from the Arabian Horse Association (or whatever it's called) or does he go after someone more qualified?

However, what's to say he nominates an old Massachusetts emergency relief official who he thinks can do a good job. Does it matter in the end? Or was the handling, although botched pretty good, fairly inconsequential to the fact that a city was pretty much going to be wiped out anyway?

If you really want to boil it down to a single point, does his FEMA head manage to coordinate better than Brown did, find out earlier about the breach in the levee and is able to do something about it before it becomes too massive and floods the city between Monday afternoon and Tuesday? Or was there simply nothing that could have been done and we're just shifting around blame because everyone wants an outlet?

Frankly, I believe more of the latter which is why, if I made a list, the handling of Katrina would not be on the top 5 botches because, while people can argue a lot more he could have done, I'm not convinced it would have helped a whole lot. However, rampant cronyism certainly would be in the top 5 and that was evidenced in the Katrina handling as well as in many other appointments.

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I've said and done some pretty stupid things myself, over the years. You all are entitled to you're opinions, but I definitely think GWB is smarter than me, and malaprops won't convince me otherwise.

This is my take as well. He most definately isn't a gifted orator, nor is he quick thinking on his feet. Those things are not the sole traits of intelligence. You can be smart, and not quick a quick thinker. I think he's probably of above average intelligence, he just doesn't come off all that well in public.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This is my take as well. He most definately isn't a gifted orator, nor is he quick thinking on his feet. Those things are not the sole traits of intelligence. You can be smart, and not quick a quick thinker. I think he's probably of above average intelligence, he just doesn't come off all that well in public.

Of course you can.

Unfortunately, his thought out decisions haven't turned out all that well either!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you really want to boil it down to a single point, does his FEMA head manage to coordinate better than Brown did, find out earlier about the breach in the levee and is able to do something about it before it becomes too massive and floods the city between Monday afternoon and Tuesday? Or was there simply nothing that could have been done and we're just shifting around blame because everyone wants an outlet?

Frankly, I believe more of the latter which is why, if I made a list, the handling of Katrina would not be on the top 5 botches because, while people can argue a lot more he could have done, I'm not convinced it would have helped a whole lot. However, rampant cronyism certainly would be in the top 5 and that was evidenced in the Katrina handling as well as in many other appointments.
SI

sterlingice. Your 'boil it down to a single point' above is why I believe it is useful to compare like-with-like, same time period, same event and try to hypothesize what the other guy would/could have done.

When it comes down to it I think we are closer than you think because my rationalization of grading Bush on Katrina is your viewpoint expressed above.

Can we at least agree that it is a helpful indicator (however theorectical it is) but not the full grading system?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

sterlingice. Your 'boil it down to a single point' above is why I believe it is useful to compare like-with-like, same time period, same event and try to hypothesize what the other guy would/could have done.

When it comes down to it I think we are closer than you think because my rationalization of grading Bush on Katrina is your viewpoint expressed above.

Can we at least agree that it is a helpful indicator (however theorectical it is) but not the full grading system?

I agree, I don't think we're that far off in our assessment of that particular situation. However, I do think we have a fundamental disagreement in that I strongly believe using "what Gore/Kerry might have done" as a barometer is a severely flawed methodology. The only logical reason I can come up with for doing it is to "grade by a curve", so to speak.

SI

[TwinCitiesFan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Jari. Your response to premise #2. I am not a lawyer but I have to believe some sort of 'reasonableness' test is given in the situations you are referring to. I just can't believe a CEO is culpable for 'the actions/inaction of those below' ... where does it stop? There has to be a certain level of negligence or intent. I consult in big companies and I see all sorts of inappropriate things, none that I can remember should be a CEO's fault ... it is his underlings, which leads to...

JPhillips. Your response about Bush hiring the wrong people etc. It is not a CEOs reponsibility to hire 2+ levels down (ex. you can hold Bush accountable for Chertoff (and cabinet members). This is not to say CEOs do not "okay/sign-off" 2+ levels down but clearly Level 1 does not hire Level 3, Level 2 hires Level 3. Also, there are alot of people he inherited (ex. Tenet and CIA/FBI infrastructure).

I have done recruiting before in my business which is very specific software consulting and I know my stuff. I can tell you that sometimes, regardless of your best effort in interviewing, you don't know you have a dud or a mediocre performer until they get on-site and start working, even then it may take awhile to find out. Its not easy to hire the right people all the time, especially for jobs with soft skills (ex. not easily accessed like programming).

Therefore, Bush clearly is accountable for cabinet members. I do not concede you can blame Bush (all the time) for levels below that.

About comparing Bush to Gore/Kerry instead of Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan etc. In consulting, sometimes things happen or go wrong that was caused by a user or another consultant. I tend to ask myself as I am analyzing the situation 'could/would I have done something differently'.

If I cannot clearly say, 'yes, I would have done things differently that would have avoided this problem from occurring', then I chalk it up to 'shit happens, lets move on and fix it'.

I know it doesn't change your mind but just so you know why I gauge accountability the way I do.

Therefore, specific to the Bush grading methodology, an important consideration is:

If no one else could have done better, I cannot fault Bush.

You're absolutely right there is no way of knowing for sure what Gore/Kerry would have done differently but I think there is 'conventional wisdom' that Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Afghanistan or into Iraq ... would you disagree?

Therefore, my argument for pro-Bush in Afghanistan is:

Bush went into Afghanistan. Gore/Kerry would have gone the UN route to futility. Afghanistan is still not secure/stable/democratic/homefree but the Gore/Kerry alternative would have been worse. Therefore, I put Afghanistan as a 'pro'.

TwinCitiesFan. I just read your response to my 5-pros. Wry sarcasm is not going to be productive in this conversation (and I really want this to be professional, non-personal and educational). I would ask that if you participate, please state your case plainly and explain it without the extras.

Get a life!!!

[flere-imsaho]

Well, looks like Bush can't hit 35% on FOFC. I wonder how many votes he lost to trout, though.

[Greyroofoo]

I don't like the Gore/Kerry barometer because you don't KNOW what Gore/Kerry would've done.


And I just thought of 2 more positive things about Bush
2. Comedy Central's now defunct show "That's My Bush" (although Absolute Al would've been good too)

3. The video of Bush trying to open the locked door at the Chinese press conference is pure comedy gold.

[Edward64]

Greyroofoo, Sterlingice. I respect you disagreeing with my methodology. We will just have to agree to disagree here. In the defense of my methodology, I do believe we do can assume (with high probability) how Gore/Kerry would have reacted to 3 of my pro issues

(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude

TwinCitiesFan. I get from your response that I have offended you. That was not my intent and I apologize.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I agree, I don't think we're that far off in our assessment of that particular situation. However, I do think we have a fundamental disagreement in that I strongly believe using "what Gore/Kerry might have done" as a barometer is a severely flawed methodology. The only logical reason I can come up with for doing it is to "grade by a curve", so to speak.

SI

I like the "grade on the curve" analogy. It is pretty much the only way Bush can make much of a case. "Hey, the other guys suck too."

My thing with Bush is that while a lot of his decisions have sent him spiraling out of control, he does have an agenda. He set out to accomplish something, and eventhough he hasn't been all that effective in implementing it along the way, he has stuck to it. Like it or not he isn't a "do nothing" president, and he doesn't govern by public opinion poll. I think I'm getting what I expected out of my vote, at least with regard to his overall style. He is leading, and although I don't like all of the places he is wanting to go, I give him credit for leading. I'd give him a hell of a lot more credit if he did a better job implementing, or at least hiring the right people to implement his agenda.

My grade for him. I'd say he balances out right now to a low C in my book. He's not doing a good job, but is doing something. In twenty or thirty years we'll know more about how successful he was.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh dear, it looks like SFL Cat & EagleFan have run away.... And after all the time I took in responding to them, too....

[JPhillips]

Glen: I don't get the myth that Bush doesn't use public opinion polls. We know that they use pollsters and we know that they create policy around public opinion. Bush is most certainly not a guy that just follows his gut. He polls and uses those polls as much as any in the last thirty years.

He does have a couple of issues that he has stuck too, but every President does. Clinton's healthcare package didn't poll well, but he believed in it. The idea that Bush governs from his heart is at best pure fantasy, and more likely a calculated attack on Clinton.

We can go through policies that came from polls, but I don't think that;s going to get us anywhere. Lets just remember that the whole WMD sales pitch for Iraq came from polling.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I like the "grade on the curve" analogy. It is pretty much the only way Bush can make much of a case. "Hey, the other guys suck too."

Hear hear. I agree 100%.

Like it or not he isn't a "do nothing" president,

This would be a more compelling statement if it were not for his complete inaction regarding Katrina.

and he doesn't govern by public opinion poll.

I find this hard to believe. One of his closest advisers, Karl Rove, has made calculated responses to polling an art form. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that and expect it to be true.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glen: I don't get the myth that Bush doesn't use public opinion polls. We know that they use pollsters and we know that they create policy around public opinion. Bush is most certainly not a guy that just follows his gut. He polls and uses those polls as much as any in the last thirty years.

He does have a couple of issues that he has stuck too, but every President does. Clinton's healthcare package didn't poll well, but he believed in it. The idea that Bush governs from his heart is at best pure fantasy, and more likely a calculated attack on Clinton.

We can go through policies that came from polls, but I don't think that;s going to get us anywhere. Lets just remember that the whole WMD sales pitch for Iraq came from polling.

I'm not saying that Bush doesn't use opinion polls. I'm saying that he has an actual agenda that he is working to implement. He has a master plan, and he continues to work on it, even in the face of public resistance.

I dunno if I would characterize what Clinton did with his healthcare proposal when it was polling badly as sticking to his guns. That is just a nit-pick though. I'm a little surprised you'd take my "governing through opinion poll" bit as an attack on Clinton. A bit of a sensitive area, is that?

I do see Bush as quite often going against public opinion. Stem-Cells, the Schiavo "incident", the Torture debate(although he did give in eventually, due almost certainly to public opinion), the FISA/call intercept/wiretap "scandal", and Jose Padilla. I'm sure I could come up with more, but it is my impression that this president is doing what he feels is right, whether it is popular or not. I'll note that I don't agree with the President's position on a lot of these issues, but I do give him some credit for

On the WMD bit. I actually agree that the admin made the choice to hold up WMD as the poster boy for war in Iraq was done to "sell" the war. That the decision was specifically and directly the result of a poll, I'm less sold on. In any case this is not an example of governing by public opionion poll, it is an example of selling a piece of hte administration's agenda to the public. Not the same thing.

[JPhillips]

Glen: First let me say I'm sorry if the Clinton reference seemed directed at you. It was really a criticism directed at a volume of right-wingers who quite often end "Bush doesn't govern by polls" with "unlike Clinton". Its been a rather constant talking point and I quite obviously think its ridiculous.

I guess I don't see the master plan that you do. I hear a lot of rhetoric, some I like some I don't, but I see very little evidence of a grand plan either at home or away.

What is the Bush economic plan, for example. Someties it includes free trade and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its prime the pump spending and sometimes its no government handouts. I don't think I could find a short description of the Bush economic plan that matches reality.

The same goes for his foreign policy. We hear democracy promotion, but that doesn't seem to matter outside of Iran/Iraq/Syria. We hear non-proliferation, but N. Korea and India can have nukes without any action taken. We hear that our image is important unless we're telling other countries to fuck off. Again, I don't know how to summarize the Bush foriegn policy in a way that matches reality.

I'd also question some of your specifics that show Bush isn't making policy based on polls. The stem cell position was polled to death to find something that appeased the base and didn't piss off too much of the rest of the country. It most certainly was not a principled decision made without thought of politics.

Perhaps the Schiavo position wasn't polled nationally, but you can't tell me this wasn't political payback based on polling. The base ate this up and it seemed like a no-risk way for the President to earn points with the base. Notice how quickly he backed away from the issue when the polls showed how unpopular it was.

I don't think Bush has no principles, he certainly does, but to claim that he governs without thought to polls is ridiculous. This admin is incredibly savvy and they know the political implications for most everything they do. They poll a lot and they have a ton of pollers and political advisors on the payroll. I don't think that makes him any worse than those that have come before him, but it sure as Hell should dismiss the notion that he governs without thought of public opinion polls.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glen: First let me say I'm sorry if the Clinton reference seemed directed at you. It was really a criticism directed at a volume of right-wingers who quite often end "Bush doesn't govern by polls" with "unlike Clinton". Its been a rather constant talking point and I quite obviously think its ridiculous.

I guess I don't see the master plan that you do. I hear a lot of rhetoric, some I like some I don't, but I see very little evidence of a grand plan either at home or away.

What is the Bush economic plan, for example. Someties it includes free trade and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its prime the pump spending and sometimes its no government handouts. I don't think I could find a short description of the Bush economic plan that matches reality.

The same goes for his foreign policy. We hear democracy promotion, but that doesn't seem to matter outside of Iran/Iraq/Syria. We hear non-proliferation, but N. Korea and India can have nukes without any action taken. We hear that our image is important unless we're telling other countries to fuck off. Again, I don't know how to summarize the Bush foriegn policy in a way that matches reality.

I'd also question some of your specifics that show Bush isn't making policy based on polls. The stem cell position was polled to death to find something that appeased the base and didn't piss off too much of the rest of the country. It most certainly was not a principled decision made without thought of politics.

Perhaps the Schiavo position wasn't polled nationally, but you can't tell me this wasn't political payback based on polling. The base ate this up and it seemed like a no-risk way for the President to earn points with the base. Notice how quickly he backed away from the issue when the polls showed how unpopular it was.

I don't think Bush has no principles, he certainly does, but to claim that he governs without thought to polls is ridiculous. This admin is incredibly savvy and they know the political implications for most everything they do. They poll a lot and they have a ton of pollers and political advisors on the payroll. I don't think that makes him any worse than those that have come before him, but it sure as Hell should dismiss the notion that he governs without thought of public opinion polls.

When I say that he doesn't govern by poll, that shouldn't imply that polls aren't used. I'm saying that many of his policy decisions aren't made in reaction to polls.

His plan to address the Middle East is clearly to spread democracy to that region. I think the plan has merit. Time will tell. Admittedly, it certainly doesn't look like a bed of roses right now.

I'll give it to you on the economic plan. I don't see it. Although things like the administration's position on the outsourcing of jobs show that there, too, he is taking a position squarely opposite of the opinion polls.

For nuclear proliferation. India has had nukes for some time. Nothing can be done. North Korea. The cat is out of the bag, and it is really too late to address the issue.

On the Schiavo case and appealing the base. Does it really help to appeal to the base, when something on the order of %85 of the public is going the other way?