Guest Loss Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Why do you think the anti-Bush crowd is so decidedly against him? Why do you think he's so reviled in some circles? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Here's a simple answer. I don't care. And for the love of God, how many of these threads have we already had?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Because he's Republican and they're not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted September 17, 2004 I can hazard a few guesses, but then again, I'm not sure. First off, the concept of him as a "lying scumbag" is up there. I know some have called him stupid and then turned around and said he was a diabolical bastard, which leads to my second point: he's of the other party, which has basically come to be the devil, even though the two parties aren't THAT far apart in policy. Third, I have no doubts at all that it comes from the 2000 election. Nevermind what the post election recounts said, I know, at least around here, there are so many Dems that still hate him for it, never mind that it was four years ago. Oh good God, I just opened a can of worms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Why do you think the anti-Bush crowd is so decidedly against him? Why do you think he's so reviled in some circles? Any President who actually does something is usually loathed. Doing nothing generates a lack of hatred --- but doesn't make one a historically great President. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Because he's Republican and they're not? I don't remember 150,000 protestors lining up against Reagan and Bush Sr. in the streets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 They also didn't hold their conventions in one of the most liberal cities in America. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted September 17, 2004 I don't like him because he's a religious psycho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Why do you think the anti-Bush crowd is so decidedly against him? Why do you think he's so reviled in some circles? Any President who actually does something is usually loathed. Doing nothing generates a lack of hatred --- but doesn't make one a historically great President. -=Mike Bush is not an historically great President. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Because he's Republican and they're not? I don't remember 150,000 protestors lining up against Reagan and Bush Sr. in the streets. Reagan definitely had that. Missed those nuclear freeze marches? Bush is not an historically great President. People seldom appreciate greatness in its own time. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Thread Killer 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 I have a few answers to this question: 1) The decline of public respect for the presidency. I feel that the overall level of respect for the office of president has declined drastically, since JFK. At one time, the president of the United States was an office that carried with it a certain modicum of respect, regardless of who was in power, and what party they represented. The press would even afford a minimal level of privacy to the president, and simply not report stories which were common knowledge or easy to confirm. For example, I do believe it’s been documented that the press were well aware the JFK had some serious health problems, and was also reportedly habitually unfaithful to his wife…yet none of these stories ever made it into mainstream media or were trumpeted on the front page of newspapers. The media didn’t look the other way because they wanted to…they’re reporters…but they didn’t report these stories as sensationally as they could have because the general public wouldn’t have stood for it. There would have been a backlash. The adults of that era wanted the president to be somebody who was admired and had the appearance of integrity. It is my opinion…and my OPINION ONLY…I am not stating this as a FACT…that after JFK the media stepped back and removed their “kids gloves” when it came to reporting on the presidency. Vietnam and Watergate became stories which showed big media that it was now acceptable to the public to report stories which showed the president in an unfavorable light. Every president since then has had to endure an increasingly harsh media spotlight, which has removed layer after layer of “mystique” from the office of president. I would bet that if JFK was president today, he’d be characterized as a crippled, lying, skirt chasing Massachusetts Liberal, not the iconic demi-god the 60 generation has romanticized him into. Nobody could withstand that level of negative press, not JFK, not Nixon, and not GWB. 2) The Internet and 24 Hour News It’s my honest opinion that there is too much damn news today. You can turn on any channel, and find out where the president had breakfast for gawd’s sake. With the increased technology of digital radio, the AM stations were forced to change formats to survive, and the answer was politics. 24 hour a day cable news, and now…TALK RADIO, and plenty of it. Do the public have a right to know? Sure…and that’s one of the foundations of democracy and freedom, but with increased information and increased scrutiny comes increased negativity. In my opinion, the further we get into the information age, the more every little action of the president is reported upon, and picked apart by any idiot with a keyboard. They can dissect a story, spin it (left OR right) and then post it up in cyberspace for all to see. I’m not saying this is bad…it’s just a fact…but even Reagan and Bush Sr. didn’t have to endure every little thing they did being editorialized by every left or right wing website out there, after being covered by one or two 24 hour news networks. Here’s what I feel is the kicker. Who are the main people that live online? Young people, aged 10-Twentysomething. What political belief system do most people that age subscribe to? Liberalism. Here you have information, constantly flowing, (skewed or unskewed) and it is being received by a demographic that are largely liberal, angry a lot, and starting to develop their own sense of political conscience. Many people have heard Churchill’s old saying that “he who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart and he who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brain.” The fact is that it’s easy to be Liberal when you’re living at home with mommy and daddy, or away at school. When you get a full time job, start paying taxes, and start to consider the long term ramifications of liberal thought, many change their tune. Many don’t (and those people go to Hollywood where you can afford to be liberal.) I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being young, and liberal, ( I was once both myself) but I am saying that statistically, when many people get older, and enter the work force, they become less idealistic, and abandon liberalism. However in the meantime…it is these angry young liberals who are digesting this constant flow of 24 hour news, and Internet political discourse…and it is these people who then take to the streets in protest. 3) Bill Clinton It is my opinion, that whatever shreds of respect that the general public and the media had for the presidency was destroyed by “Slick Willie.” Now keep in mind…I firmly believe that he was held to a much higher level of scrutiny than his predecessors, but he sure didn’t help himself any. I think if he had been president 20 years earlier, Monicagate would never have broken. But regardless, here we had a guy who was involved in shady land deals, got hummers in the oval office, lied under oath, and as the coup de grace, pardoned all sorts of people who probably didn’t deserve it on his way out of the office, with little or no concern for how it looked. In my opinion, the polarizing effect of the Lewinsky scandal has had a negative effect on the GWB presidency. How many times did we hear the argument that the president’s private life was none of the public’s business…or that he should be allowed to cheat on his wife and lie about it, because that’s what “normal” people would do, and the president should not be held to a higher standard than you or me? I think Bill Clinton’s questionable conduct nailed the final nail into the coffin, closing the door on any possible respect the public ever may have had for the presidency. I knew that whoever followed him, Democrat, or Republican would now have to suffer under even MORE intense scrutiny, and open criticism, and as I said, Willie made it easy for that to happen. 4) Religion GWB is a professing born again Christian, a religious profession that is bound to alienate almost everybody who ISN’T a born again Christian. Christianity is not one of those religions where people sit around in circles, hold hands and hum in order to gain a higher level of consciousness. In Christianity, if you don’t believe what they believe…you go to hell. If you don’t do what they feel the bible says…you’re a sinner. People can handle their president getting a polish from a fat chick…what they don’t like is their president subscribing to a belief system that automatically condemns many of them to an eternity of fire if they don’t agree. So, I basically feel that it’s not so much GWB…I think that whoever would have been president right now, be it Republican or Democrat would be under a microscope that few other presidents have been…and those that have such as Clinton have not done well, and set the bar even lower. Combine that with a value system that by it’s nature alienates people…and you got yourself an unpopular president…but we’ll find out in November how unpopular he really was. That’s just my opinion Loss. Feel free to disagree. - Dave Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Wow. I pretty much agree with all of Thread Killer's points. This thread looked as though it was gonna be quite a big flamebait (No offense, but the question posed was very loaded, imo), but very nice response. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Wow. I pretty much agree with all of Thread Killer's points. This thread looked as though it was gonna be quite a big flamebait (No offense, but the question posed was very loaded, imo), but very nice response. It was an honest question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Wow. I pretty much agree with all of Thread Killer's points. This thread looked as though it was gonna be quite a big flamebait (No offense, but the question posed was very loaded, imo), but very nice response. It was an honest question. I believe you. It just come off very rhetorical when I initially read it, that's all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 I'll preface this by saying there are some things I do like about Bush, but here are the major things I don't like about Bush 1. The War on Indecency 2. Faith Based Initiatives (and essentially everything TTK said under "Religion") 3. His overuse of glittering generalities and buzzwords like "freedom" and "liberty" in his speeches... This blame falls more on his speechwriters, I'm sure, and it's not a reason to vote against him, but dammit it's annoying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 1. His public speaking skills always irritate me. Bush's grammar skills are constantly and consistently pretty bad, his choice of wording suspect, and his metaphors almost always terrible. It makes him look less than intelligent, and probably doesn't help our standing with the rest of the world. 2. Bush often extolls the benefits of the "family values" he and his party represent... and then his daughters get busted multiple times for underage drinking. Compare this to the "immoral" Bill Clinton, whose daughter has done nothing but quietly pursue his studies. 3. "Iraq HAS weapons of mass destruction." Oops. 4. The whole Election 2000 thing, but not in the way that pisses off most people. My problem was that not only did Bush win the election despite losing the popular vote... but that he's the FOURTH president to do so! And yet, nobody's made a peep about fixing the electoral college and election procedures. Do we simply not want to help this country's problems? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 17, 2004 2. Bush often extolls the benefits of the "family values" he and his party represent... and then his daughters get busted multiple times for underage drinking. Compare this to the "immoral" Bill Clinton, whose daughter has done nothing but quietly pursue his studies Shame the press' decision that the Presidents' children would be off-target changed when Bush took office. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesse_ewiak 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Well, there is the fact Chelsea was 12 when Clinton entered the office and the Bush twins were both in college. But, I mean, it didn't stop ole' Rushie from attacking Chelsea, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Well, there is the fact Chelsea was 12 when Clinton entered the office and the Bush twins were both in college. But, I mean, it didn't stop ole' Rushie from attacking Chelsea, right? While Rush was wrong for doing what he did, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a member of the mainstream media or press. He is biased and gives you the conservative slant. You are warped if you get your "news" from him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CronoT Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Well, there is the fact Chelsea was 12 when Clinton entered the office and the Bush twins were both in college. But, I mean, it didn't stop ole' Rushie from attacking Chelsea, right? While Rush was wrong for doing what he did, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a member of the mainstream media or press. He is biased and gives you the conservative slant. You are warped if you get your "news" from him. Out of all the talk radio personalities, I think G. Gordon Liddy is the least hardcore right-wing out there. That's probably why they dropped him in my market and put on Sean Hannity. That guy's so flagrantly dishonest, it's disgusting. After Hannity, it would be Bill O'Reilly. he's less lying sneak, and more school yard bully. At least O'Reilly never tried to claim that the Chelsea/"White House Dog" joke was an editor's mistake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Shame the press' decision that the Presidents' children would be off-target changed when Bush took office. -=Mike Wait a minute, Mike, that just ain't right. Simple fact is, Chelsea never did anything newsworthy. She never got arrested. She never got in trouble. She never did much of anything other than do well in school and have really big hair. And since when, in our recent past, have the First Children been "off-target" to anyone? I don't care which President is in office, if his children get arrested for flagrantly breaking the law, that is a legitimate news story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 4. The whole Election 2000 thing, but not in the way that pisses off most people. My problem was that not only did Bush win the election despite losing the popular vote... but that he's the FOURTH president to do so! And yet, nobody's made a peep about fixing the electoral college and election procedures. Do we simply not want to help this country's problems? I, and many others, don't exactly see that as a problem. A president shouldn't be able to win an election by campaigning in a select few states. There were definitely problems with the 2000 election, but I don't believe the Electoral College wasn't one of them. That's for another thread, though... Threadkiller pretty much covered a lot of very good theories about the situation. Obviously there are many reasons, differing from person-to-person. Personally, I think the strongest reasons are Iraq, the way he's presenting in the media (whether honest or dishonest), and his actual political affiliation. The youth-dominated pop-culture of ours usually is biased against a Republican politician anyway...however, one waging a war perceived as unjust, with many swarmy stories constantly printed about him? How about a president that many folks believe "stole" the election? Such a president is not going to be that popular. As established, Bush is a pretty piss-poor speaker, and his speech writers aren't all that hot, either. While a Bill Clinton had the charisma to even get plenty of his detracters to respect him, Bush doesn't. That makes him easy prey for opponents and media that don't like him or his policies anyway--which is part of my "how he's portrayed" point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Why do you think the anti-Bush crowd is so decidedly against him? Why do you think he's so reviled in some circles? My best guesses: 1. Fallout from the close and highly-charged 2000 election 2. Opposition to the Iraq war 3. General pissed-off attitude towards a Republican-controled House, Senate, and White House 4. Opposition to Bush's unabashedly Christian viewpoints and comments Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 What makes it worse is the fact that they abuse their Secret Service detail. That's bound to piss some people off. If they want the press off of them, they should like, y'know, not do anything newsworthy. It's their own damn faults that they decided to be a bunch of hellions and embarass daddy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 17, 2004 Well, there is the fact Chelsea was 12 when Clinton entered the office and the Bush twins were both in college. But, I mean, it didn't stop ole' Rushie from attacking Chelsea, right? Yes. And ole' Rushie got blasted for it, and rightly so. And ole' Rushie later apologized... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 18, 2004 What makes it worse is the fact that they abuse their Secret Service detail. That's bound to piss some people off. Like swearing at one who you claim knocked you over while skiing? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2004 Actually, they've treated theirs worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2004 Gotta add the thousands of families that have been hurt by massive joblosses under his watch to the list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoes Head Report post Posted September 18, 2004 People seldom appreciate greatness in its own time. -=Mike Whether it was his fault or not, the war in Iraq was based on misinformation given to him. At best it's one of history's biggest "errors." EDIT: Main point is an error of this magnitutde disqualifies him from greatness immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2004 People seldom appreciate greatness in its own time. -=Mike Whether it was his fault or not, the war in Iraq was based on misinformation given to him. At best it's one of history's biggest "errors." EDIT: Main point is an error of this magnitutde disqualifies him from greatness immediately. It's an error right now... If it turns out that those WMDs ended up in Syria, it won't be an error anymore because Saddam moved them there right before the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
