Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

Bluesman, you know my main complaint is the same as yours. I can't imagine a presidential administration mishandling media and "the message" more than this one if they tried.

Very disappointing on that front.

-dale

I agree with you guys. PR is horrible with this administration

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

Whereas if the message had been: "We are going into Iraq to transform it from a brutal tyranny into a democracy which will send a signal to other tyrants that their days are numbered, and by triumphing we will both deliver a crushing defeat to the terrorists materially and ideologically, and prove to the Muslim world that we are devoted to freedom not just when it suits us" I think far fewer people would have a problem with what we are doing now.

That about does it for me

Originally Posted by parihaka

That about does it for me

The really sad part is that is why we went in, and that was the initial main message for about a week.

Oh, and spending. On pork. I mean, couldn't the Prez step in and say "I'd really like it if, considering the regional hardships this nation has endured over the summer, each senator could find $5 million in things they've already got promised to them, say in the latest Highway Bill, and cut it out of their requisition for this year. At $5 million a Senator, give or take, that's $500 million we could use in areas that really need it right now."

$500 million is Chump Change out of that bill. How hard is THAT to say?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

The really sad part is that is why we went in, and that was the initial main message for about a week.
-dale

I read a rant on this in a sci-fi book recently. What the author was saying was that the concept of 'hypocrisy' was elevated to a major sin in the middle to late 20th century, much to everyones detriment. Instead of being a minor transgression, anybody who had a moral opinion about anything could be accused of being a hypocrite because at some time in their life they may have done something that didn't comply with that moral. I think the US Govt. fell prey to that argument so instead of stating what ZF said above they started on the whole WMD thing.
Instead of that they should have just weathered the whole "but what about all the other dictatorships/nasty people that you haven't dealt to" argument with a "yeah, so?" Just because you once weren't moral doesn't mean you can't be moral now. Sorry I haven't explained this very well, I'll find the original argument and post it.

Illegal Immigration

Bush's performance on this issue is almost criminal. The only positive thing I can say about it is that at least he didn't lie to me. He was clear about his views on it during the 2000 campaign. I voted for him for other reasons.


TANCREDO '08

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It galls me that Clinton managed to unite the allies for Kosovo and Bush Jr failed for Iraq.

The French weren't sucking on a big fat Balkan oil teat that time. No way Chirac was ever going to go into Iraq.

-dale

As a person, i'm sure he's fine. As a man of power he is horrible.


Lied about the reasons for Iraq, made up some BS connecting Iraq to 9-11.
played on the emotion of the nation at a bad time.
he is bad with Foreign policy, no one wants to talk to him.
Among many other things.
bad PR, and when he does it is horrible, a damned "Mission accomplised" banner? wtf.


but even with small things, just the person that is Bush.
Chokes on pretzals, falls of bikes, fake townhall meetings, getting drunk in Georgia, staged troop conversations.

and he doesn't exhibit any sense of ambition at all. (at least to me)

Using religion to get to power as well.

Just some things.

I agree with you guys, everything about the Bush Administration's message screams "we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons." Now I'm not saying they are doing it for the wrong reasons, but when their message is so unclear and unfocused it looks like they are trying to hide and/or obscure things, making it seem like they have alterior motives. People want a clear focused message, and Bush chose WMDs as his message for Iraq, so when it didn't happen the way they thought it would, it seemed like he was "stuck with" helping Iraq become a democracy and "stuck with" fighting terrorists in Iraq. Whereas if the message had been: "We are going into Iraq to transform it from a brutal tyranny into a democracy which will send a signal to other tyrants that their days are numbered, and by triumphing we will both deliver a crushing defeat to the terrorists materially and ideologically, and prove to the Muslim world that we are devoted to freedom not just when it suits us" I think far fewer people would have a problem with what we are doing now.

That sums up the whole sab cheez (everything)!

Originally Posted by parihaka

Sorry I haven't explained this very well, I'll find the original argument and post it.

Here it is

A disquisition on hypocrisy.
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others - after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?
Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. in this case you are not making any judgement whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy."

"Because they were hypocrites," Fincle-McGraw said, the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet they saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves - they took no moral stances and lived by none."
"So they were morally superior to the Victorians---" Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
"---Even though - in fact because - they had no morals at all"

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy" Fincle-McGraw continued. " In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, the definition of a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception - he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code" Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."
"Of course not," Fincle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved - the missteps we make along the way - are what makes it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigourous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we may in time be judged by a higher power"

From The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson

I believe this Administration fell into the folly of being scared of the accusation of hypocrisy, and thus lost the morality of their message.