News Your perception of Bush compared to 2001/2002?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Perception
Click For Summary
Conservative criticism of President Bush is increasing, with many feeling his leadership has changed from the confident response seen after 9/11 to a more detached approach amid ongoing crises. Liberals argue that Bush remains consistent in his unawareness and pursuit of personal interests, as evidenced by his handling of events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Some conservatives express disappointment in his leadership style, noting a decline in his effectiveness and connection with the public. There's a shared sentiment that his administration has failed to address pressing issues adequately, leading to a growing disillusionment among voters. Discussions also highlight the complexities of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, with varying opinions on the U.S. role and the need for Iraqi autonomy. Overall, the thread reflects a deepening frustration with Bush's presidency, alongside concerns about the future direction of the Republican Party and the political landscape.
  • #31
Townsend said:
It's the same thing with nearly all democrats!

I would love nothing more than to be able to vote for a dem for next election but they need to represent my views before I will vote for them.

Too many people cannot stand the idea of anti-gun, anti-hunting, progressive tax, bigger government,... the list goes on. On a whole tonne of issues I go the way of the dems... I want funding for stem cells, I want to give women the right to choose if they want to have an abortion,... and the list goes on.

I really don't like the idea of having a religious president in office. I want a president that can actually give a decent speech without making an a$$ out of himself most of the time. I also know that Kerry or Gore would have been those things...

Alas I could not vote for either...why? Government is downward inflexible. It is a lot easier to make laws than it is to repeal laws. I have always been fearful of some ultra left wing president taking away too many of my personal liberties. Increasing taxes on income, sales, and investments, making more government programs...more bureaucrats, less private industries...and the list goes on.

Frankly that scares the crap of me!


You might not understand that but I hope it answers your question to at least some degree.

Well, what I understand is that you're willing to sacrifice about anything you value in a "good" president for some ideology which comes down what you call "personal freedom", but which are in fact just a few abstract illusions, like having the right to walk with a gun over the street to the next bar (but anyways not having the right to shoot the bastard who insults you :-), and have the very rich not pay a bit more taxes for you to get better comodities, and not asking people to be slightly respectful of the ecological system on which we all depend. Maybe a bright and right person cannot resolve himself in advocating this.

What I find strange is that you prefer to have a person that a) is quite dumb and b) goes against about half of what you value in office, rather than have a person a) that is quite bright and b) goes against about half of what you value in office. I'd prefer the bright guy.

I mean, even if I don't agree with my boss, I prefer a smart (and right) guy (or girl) over a dumb cheater, because I would be confident that even if he takes decisions that *I* personally don't like, they will be well-thought out and will be beneficial in some way.

EDIT: there's something else that struck me in your argumentation, about the impossibility to repeal laws: don't you think that you got a lot of VERY STRONG ANTI-LIBERTY laws now, which are much worse than preventing you to hunt a certain kind of bird a certain time of the year ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Townsend said:
Increasing taxes on income, sales, and investments, making more government programs...more bureaucrats, less private industries...and the list goes on.

Frankly that scares the crap of me!
Bush only cut taxes on income for the very wealthy, sales taxes are going up where I live, the government is getting more involved--not less, private industry within the nation is struggling to compete with cheap labor elsewhere, and the list goes on.

It would be great to see candidates of other parties, such as an Independent candidate (a centrist, not Nader), a Libertarian, etc. But if not, just vote a Dem ticket next time if for no other reason but to regain balance in this country and to send a clear message that we'd rather see politicians carry brief cases instead of Bibles in Washington.
 
  • #33
vanesch said:
May I ask what was so repugnant in Gore ? Here I saw several articles that with Gore, they "finally" might have an intellectual in the white house. Was that it ?

I ask so, because several posters indicated that they voted for Bush because they couldn't stand the idea of Gore in office ?
Three things turned the public off: Eight years of Clinton! (Gore was his Vice President), Gore was too stiff and didn't seem to connect with people, and Gore got lumped in with Bush as a politician riding on his daddy's coat tails (this was only somewhat true with Gore - while he benefited from being Al Gore, Jr, he'd personally accomplished more in his life than Bush had).

Mostly, I think people were ready for a change. Clinton was about average in job performance, but his personal habits were embarrassing. A lot of people just didn't want reminders of Clinton hanging around for four or eight more years (Bill Clinton living in the White House is going to be a problem for Hillary Clinton in 2008, as well).
 
  • #34
BobG said:
Mostly, I think people were ready for a change. Clinton was about average in job performance, but his personal habits were embarrassing. A lot of people just didn't want reminders of Clinton hanging around for four or eight more years (Bill Clinton living in the White House is going to be a problem for Hillary Clinton in 2008, as well).
And yet didn't opinion polls at the time show that if Clinton could have stood for re-election he'd have won by a landslide?
 
  • #35
SOS2008 said:
Bush only cut taxes on income for the very wealthy...
That's simply not true. http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

We've had discussions of Bush's tax cuts before, and I thought you had participated? Those discussions are always about why the tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
BobG said:
Three things turned the public off: Eight years of Clinton! (Gore was his Vice President), Gore was too stiff and didn't seem to connect with people, and Gore got lumped in with Bush as a politician riding on his daddy's coat tails (this was only somewhat true with Gore - while he benefited from being Al Gore, Jr, he'd personally accomplished more in his life than Bush had).
Too bad that. Gore lacked charisma for sure. He should have chosen his words more carefully and worked on his presentation.

While I believe he would have been better than Bush, I still have to wonder about hold overs from Clinton's administration. On the other hand, I believe Gore was planning a fresh group.

BobG said:
Clinton was about average in job performance, but his personal habits were embarrassing.
I agree on his personal habits - he strayed way to far. His foreign policy was poor (and Richard Holbrooke ), and parts of his domestic policy, e.g. energy were not that great.
 
  • #37
Townsend said:
Frankly that scares the crap of me!


You might not understand that but I hope it answers your question to at least some degree.
You're probably better understood than you think. :wink:
 
  • #38
SOS2008 said:
Bush only cut taxes on income for the very wealthy, sales taxes are going up where I live, the government is getting more involved--not less, private industry within the nation is struggling to compete with cheap labor elsewhere, and the list goes on.
Actually it was across the board cuts and politically very astute.

I didn't participate, but I remember reading that the rebate checks came with a propaganda message.
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
That's simply not true. http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

We've had discussions of Bush's tax cuts before, and I thought you had participated? Those discussions are always about why the tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor.
Your link entitled "Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich" and the way you phrase it: "the tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor" is basically what I said, just worded a little more accurately. As usual semantics derails the point being made, that taxes on income are not an issue where Bush/the GOP shines.
 
  • #40
SOS2008 said:
Your link entitled "Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich" and the way you phrase it: "the tax cuts benefit the wealthy more than the poor" is basically what I said, just worded a little more accurately. As usual semantics derails the point being made, that taxes on income are not an issue where Bush/the GOP shines.
In such a discussion, precision of wording is extremely important. Statments like yours are how misunderstandings happen and perceptions (apro pos for the thread) change over time. If your loose wording is allowed to stand, the next time the topic comes up, people may actually believe that the way you worded it was factually accurate because they remember it and don't remember a challenge.

The discussions about Katrina are another perfect example of this: the perceptions about what exactly happened changed in days and we had people saying all sorts of factually inaccurate things. Such errors/misperceptions are self-sustaining and have to be corrected before they overrun the truth.
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
The discussions about Katrina are another perfect example of this: the perceptions about what exactly happened changed in days and we had people saying all sorts of factually inaccurate things. Such errors/misperceptions are self-sustaining and have to be corrected before they overrun the truth.
Yes I know what you mean I have had to correct 3 of your posts for factual errors in the past couple of days. :biggrin:

Russ don't you ever get bored being the unofficial apologist for the GOP? Seriously is it like a religion thing where the party faithful must show blind faith or they're cast into the wilderness? Can you direct me to a single post by you wherein you criticize the Bush administration? Do you really believe they are that perfect that you can find no fault at all?

I'm sure deep down you don't believe a lot of the propaganda you peddle so why not try to adopt a more even-handed approach once in a while. I'm sure you will find moderation will breed moderation.
 
  • #42
I think the bigger question here, which clearly fits with how we perceive Mr Bush, is how the American society commited the biggest gaffe in the century? How were they influenced? Why was their trust put in the Bush administration?
 
  • #43
Art, you're getting awfully close to the line. Our patience is not without limits.
 
  • #44
Art said:
Russ don't you ever get bored being the unofficial apologist for the GOP?
That's a wee bit personal don't you think?

I however agree with Russ. Wrong information clouds the picture - and I don't believe anybody here at PF has been there in NO. We see pictures in the media, but don't know the whole story.

I heard from my sister, a doctor in Houston who has been treating people from NO. She mentioned that there is a lot of wrong information out there, and the rest of the country may be getting the wrong story.
 
  • #45
Don't care for his politics. Can't stand his speeches. Sickened by his opportunism.

That said, 9-11 was primarily a psychological crisis. IMHO, the reaction has been much more damaging that the attack, and it's not at all clear to me that Bush was particularly effective (aside from PR), or, for that matter, that there was a whole lot for him to do other than to be seen, since other people seem to have handled the situation very well in general.

Really, it seems like the big differences between Katrina and 9-11 is that this should clearly have been anticipated as a problem, and that there is no bogey-man for Bush to blame this time around.
 
  • #46
Clearly there was a breakdown in the government - local, state, federal, and it will take some time to sort it out.

A friend on another forum, who participates in emergency response, pointed out that there is a protocol - local, state and federal - and it appears that things broke down locally.

Perhaps the state and Feds were waiting - rightly or wrongly.

The lines of communication were severely dysfunctional.

The matter about the levees is a whole other matter, and that also needs to be understood.

And insulting participants in the discussion adds nothing to the understanding, but certainly hurts people unnecessarily. Each is entitled to his or her opinions, as partisan as they might be, and as much as one might disagree with another.

I am critical of the Bush administration and I have good reason to be.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
In Russ' defence, many were saying similar things about (what's his name?) the brazilian who was shot in london that Russ is now saying about the Hurricane.
 
  • #48
Smurf said:
In Russ' defence, many were saying similar things about (what's his name?) the brazilian who was shot in london that Russ is now saying about the Hurricane.
Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January 1978 – 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian electrician living in Tulse Hill in south London, England. Mistaken for one of the suspects in the previous day's failed attacks, Menezes was shot and killed by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground. Menezes had no explosives, had not been behaving in a suspicious manner, and was later found to be unconnected with the attempted bombings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Menezes
 
  • #49
russ_watters said:
Art, you're getting awfully close to the line. Our patience is not without limits.
I'm not intending to cause offence Russ. My point is that you do appear to always spin the GOP point of view no matter what and that if you were to be more critical of the Bush administration when they deserve it you would probably find that the anti-Bush folk here would also become less inclined to paint things quite so black and white. I'm sure you would consider me to be anti-Bush and in general rightly so :biggrin: however I have been known to praise him in posts on this forum when he deserved it.
 
  • #50
Smurf said:
In Russ' defence, many were saying similar things about (what's his name?) the brazilian who was shot in london that Russ is now saying about the Hurricane.
? I'm not sure what you mean? There are some clear statements being made about the event that are factually wrong. Still others are misleading (whether intentional or not is irrelevant). Maybe I'll make a compliation thread, but here's just one example (name purposely omitted):
...we can airlift aid to a disaster half-way around the world in 2 days and it takes 5 days for aid to reach people in a disaster in our own country that had advance notice.
The wording is somewhat soft ("reach people" is a little vague), but the implication is that no aid whatsoever got to the people of NO for 5 days. That's a statement that has been made a number of times on this forum since then (often with the comparison to the Tsunami). It is factually incorrect - is is a trivially obvious fact that there aid reached NO before the hurricane hit: that's what was going on in the Superdome! It is also a fact that FEMA had people and supplies positioned outside the city (to avoid the flooding) before the hurricane hit. It is also a fact that the Coast Guard (a federal agency) prepositioned units near the affected area before the storm hit. It is also a fact that the National Guard was on scene before the storm hit (550 in the Superdome alone).

Now, with what I said about precision of wording, do not read something into that that I didn't say: I did not say that the response (federal, state, or local) was adequte, because I don't believe it was. But when people say there was no response for 5 days, they are factually wrong.

edit: I just responded to another one in another thread where someone implied strongly (but didn't come right out and say it) that there was no prepositioning of equipment by FEMA for this storm.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one. It would be good to see it laid out hour by hour as to who did what and when as there are so many conflicting reports floating around it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
 
  • #52
Art said:
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one.
Has anyone found a credible source?
 
  • #53
Astronuc said:
Has anyone found a credible source?
:smile: Exactly... At the moment you can find equally valid sources that say there are still 1000's of folk starving whilst others claim everybody has been eating chocolate sundaes and sleeping in featherdown beds since day 1 (well almost :biggrin: )
 
  • #54
Art said:
Has anyone seen a timeline of this disaster from a credible source? I've looked but can't find one. It would be good to see it laid out hour by hour as to who did what and when as there are so many conflicting reports floating around it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, there's a lot of spin going on. A lot of flat out lies. I don't think there's one comprehensive source for all events, given that there's so much that happened.

Much of the misinformation seems to be centered around Governor Blanco. Much is being said that she never asked for federal aid, or did so days after the hurricane. Apparently there was a mistaken Washington Post article, that has since been corrected.

Gov. Blanco requested federal assistance on Sunday, Aug. 28th.

If there's a specific question about when a specific event happened, I'll be happy to look it up.
 
  • #55
Excerpts from Newsweeks Sept. 12, 2005 issue "The Lost City - What Went Wrong..."
A few rescuers were ready, but precious few. On Monday morning, as the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast, Col. Tim Tarchick of the 920th Rescue Wing, Air Force Reserve Command, got on the phone to call every agency he could think of to ask permission to take his three rescue helicopters into the disaster zone as soon as the storm abated. The response was noncommittal. FEMA, the federal agency that is supposed to handle disasters, told Tarchick that it wasn't authorized to task military units. That had to come from the Defense Department. Tarchick wasn't able to cut through the red tape until 4 p.m. Tuesday—more than 24 hours after the storm had passed. His crews plucked hundreds of people off rooftops, but when they delivered them to an assigned landing zone, there was "total chaos. No food, no water, no bathrooms, no nothing." There was "no structure, no organization, no command center," Tarchick told NEWSWEEK.
----------------------------
What went wrong? Just about everything. How the system failed is a tangled story, but the basic narrative is becoming clearer: hesitancy, bureaucratic rivalries, failures of leadership from city hall to the White House and epically bad luck combined to create a morass. In the early aftermath, fingers pointed in all directions. The president was to blame; no, the looters. No, the bureaucrats. No, the local politicians. It was FEMA's fault—unless it was the Department of Homeland Security's. Or the Pentagon's. Certainly the government failed, and the catastrophe exposed, for all the world to see, raw racial divisions.

Bush's many critics will say that the president was disengaged, on vacation, distracted by Iraq and insensitive to the needs of poor black people. The White House blames the magnitude of the storm itself, patchy information on the ground and a confused chain of command, according to a senior Bush aide who requests anonymity in order to speak freely about internal administration discussions. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Bush is fighting a war, and he is sometimes slow to react, and he may have been lulled by early reports that New Orleans had been spared the worst of the storm. These are all legitimate excuses. Still, we expect more from a president.
-----------------------------
For years, the Army Corps of Engineers has asked for more money for New Orleans and not received it. The Bush administration, strapped by the war in Iraq and eager to hold down spending and cut taxes, actually reduced funding for bolstering the city's levees.
-----------------------------
On Wednesday night, Mayor Nagin ordered 1,500 policemen—virtually the entire city force—to stop trying to rescue people from attics and rooftops, and to turn instead to stopping the looting.
-----------------------------
Nagin himself had problems of his own. He had opened up the Superdome to thousands of people—but nobody seemed to have had a plan to care for them or to get them out of there. There were promises of buses that never came. Some 500 National Guardsmen showed up to keep order, but the nervous young soldiers waved their weapons about.
-----------------------------
Washington, too, was slow to react to the crisis. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was reluctant for the military to take a lead role in disaster relief, a job traditionally performed by FEMA and by the National Guard, which is commanded by state governors. President Bush could have "federalized" the National Guard in an instant. That's what his father, President George H.W. Bush, did after the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Back then, the Justice Department sent Robert Mueller, a jut-jawed ex-Marine (who is now FBI director), to take charge, showing, in effect, that the cavalry had arrived. FEMA's current head, Michael Brown, has appeared over his head and even a little clueless in news interviews. He is far from the sort of take-charge presence New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani conveyed after 9/11.

...after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

While Washington debated, the situation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast deteriorated. ...Saturday, Bush pledged to return to the region on Monday—and to deploy 7,000 additional active-duty troops under the Pentagon's control. But for many, the help was arriving too late.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/site/newsweek/

As far as the blame game goes, this includes Bush and the Whitehouse, so he cannot take a higher moral ground than anyone else. And to this point it is inappropriate for him to head any investigation IMO: "Bush to oversee probe into what went wrong" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9228086/

In all fairness to all, information is lacking, and inaccuracies have been reported even from some reliable sources. For example, per the article above: "Rumors flew. There were alligators swimming in the ghetto. And sharks from the flooded aquarium downtown." But I doubt it will cause the end of the world, and we will have all the facts soon enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
I just heard a press conference in which Bush apparently plans to head an investigation into what went wrong with the disaster response. Hmmmm - I don't know. I would like to believe he will get to the bottom of it, but can he be impartial?

Meanwhile we are now up to Tropical Storm Nate, with Maria veering to the North Atlantic and Tropical Depression 16 about 180 MILES... 290 KM. . . SE of Cape Canaveral, FL. Watch out if this one gets into the Gulf.
 
  • #57
Astronuc said:
I just heard a press conference in which Bush apparently plans to head an investigation into what went wrong with the disaster response. Hmmmm - I don't know. I would like to believe he will get to the bottom of it, but can he be impartial?

Meanwhile we are now up to Tropical Storm Nate, with Maria veering to the North Atlantic and Tropical Depression 16 about 180 MILES... 290 KM. . . SE of Cape Canaveral, FL. Watch out if this one gets into the Gulf.

Well, I'm sure he asked himself if he did everything he could and he said yes.

End of story.

:rolleyes:
 
  • #58
TRCSF said:
Well, I'm sure he asked himself if he did everything he could and he said yes.

End of story.

:rolleyes:
So after telling everybody else to back of - that now is not the time to look back - he has used the space gained to manouvere so that although he is one of the leading characters being accused, he will head the inquiry?

He obviously learned something from his years of association with Saddam. :rolleyes:

If he gets away with this the US will be the laughing stock of the world. Truth, Justice and the American way :smile: You have got to be kidding...

Not that given the current regimes history I'm surprised. That is why I said on the other thread that an independant judicial inquiry should be set up to investigate this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Art said:
:smile: Exactly... At the moment you can find equally valid sources that say there are still 1000's of folk starving whilst others claim everybody has been eating chocolate sundaes and sleeping in featherdown beds since day 1 (well almost :biggrin: )
Actually, Art, what is happening is that people are falling into anecdotal evidence extrapolation trap: if a person says they haven't eaten in 5 days, people extrapolate that that means there has been no aid to anyone. But one person (or 1000 people) saying they are starving does not contradict the fact that there was aid there before the hurricane.
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
? I'm not sure what you mean? There are some clear statements being made about the event that are factually wrong. Still others are misleading (whether intentional or not is irrelevant). Maybe I'll make a compliation thread, but here's just one example (name purposely omitted):
Yes, which is exactly what all the liberals were saying about the media around De Menzes. It was a response to Art's comment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 238 ·
8
Replies
238
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
9K