UK Politics

[The Gaffer]

That I would pay to see. Who ya got?



vs

[The Gaffer]

Hey, I found an artist's impression of the outcome:

[captain carrot]

sort of rocky Balboa meets Borat?

My money is heavy on prezza ....

his training schedule this Christmas? Ten tons of prime beef, 12 tons of carbs, and a small delivery van full of whiskey.

cammey-choirboy? .... a mineral water and a prayer

[hectorberlioz]

Hey Gaffer, concerning the new mayor of London: is his view of Iraq or America important. And if so, what is his position?

[The Gaffer]

Whatever his party leader tells him it is.

Boris supported the war. He's pretty right wing and is strongly pro-US. He certaintly won't be going the Ken Livingstone route of saying George Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Bin Laden.

Whether his position important or not is a moot point. To me, his importance will be as trailblazer of the government-in-waiting. To the US, I guess it would be that and direct links with US counterparts. And again, in contrast with his predecessor, who was bezzie mates with Hugo Chavez.

[hectorberlioz]

Good to hear. I hope he works out for you.

Speaking of pro-US foreign leaders, I'm still waiting for Sarkozy to do his job instead of remarry five-thousand times...

[Coffeehouse]

Tell that to George W. Bush, the most incompetent leader in the West since the Germans suffered the stupidity of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Sarkozy is f*ing brilliant compared to the loser in the White House.

[hectorberlioz]

Ouch?

I'm not saying Sarkozy is stupid. I'm just saying he needs to get to.

And sorry, but George Bush is a very smart guy. Not one of the greats, but certainly not one of the worst.

[Coffeehouse]

That's too funny. Your 'smart' president has made some of the most spectacularly amateurish mistakes a president can make, and has disgraced your entire country (and got re-elected!). If that's smart then I hope the current presidential candidates are all Einstein's (wait they'd have to be Einsten + Newton!)

Then again, there's smart, and there's wise. Big difference.

See what strong feelings that jackass bring out in me..

[Jonathan]

Bush has made himself despised in many countries and is very responsible for America's currently poor reputation in the world. Still I'm with Hector on this one. Bush is in many ways a smart person. Though many Americans aren't satisfied with him, I've gathered he's made some good moves domestically. Which is why he got re-elected probably. The world may dislike Bush for his foreign policies but ignore whatever work he's done on the home front.

[Mari]

It's not as much ignoring, because that implies doing it willingly while knowing better, it's more not knowing. All we get to see is his blunders. Which are quite substantial.
You should hear one of my favourite teachers on Bush

[Coffeehouse]

See that'd be comforting if it were true. It would in fact mean that he isn't completely incompetent. Alas..

But Bush' domestic achievements is even more abysmal than his record abroad. Why? Because he has no achievements domestically.

Two words: The economy.

Let's see, G.W. Bush has turned a national surplus into a mind-shattering deficit and practically ruined the U.S. Treasury.
Never have as many American filed private bankrupcy as during Bush's reign.
Never have gasoline prices been as high in the U.S. as during Bush, and he has done absolutely nothing to curb those prices with the help of investment in alternative energy.

His domestic record is shambles. It is as useless as his foreign record. And the 2006 Congressional elections show just how much his party has suffered because of it.

Not to mention his performance during Katrina.. (???)

Let's not kid ourselves. And btw, a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Mari

All we get to see is his blunders. Which are quite substantial.

True that. I don't think the media give an enough nuanced view of things. The only thing we hear about are the blunders. Consequently we (errenously?) think that Bush is nothing more than a complete failure. But rather than just joining in on the Bush bashing, maybe we could take it upon ourselves to be a little more critical to our societies' general view of Bush and make ourselves a view coloured by as little bias as possible.

Many would still end up hating Bush but then they'd have more concrete reasons to do so.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

True that. I don't think the media give an enough nuanced view of things. The only thing we hear about are the blunders. Consequently we (errenously?) think that Bush is nothing more than a complete failure. But rather than just joining in on the Bush bashing, maybe we could take it upon ourselves to be a little more critical to our societies' general view of Bush and make ourselves a view coloured by as little bias as possible.

Many would still end up hating Bush but then they'd have more concrete reasons to do so.

His record makes the news. The news doesn't make the record.

There's a good reason why Bush is seen as incompetent. The reason? Because he IS incompetent.
I just listed a number of points that underline his total domestic failure, and there are so many important benchmarks that didn't make that list, including his domestic surveillance controversy, and his spending rate (which is just mind-blowing, especially for a conservative)

He is by all measures the worst president ever. That is not some biased, unuanced view, but a view held by so, so, so, so many people with the know.

[Mari]

Well, I really don't like Bush and I haven't seen much to prove his competence, but I have hardly seen news even trying to show something positive on him. I can remember only one moment in which he made a favourable impression on me, but alas I can't remember what or why, just that it did. >_<

And what you say on news not making the record: they might not actually make it, but they do suggest to show his record. If the media chooses to highlight 2 mistakes rather than 10 good actions, the public will think of those 2 mistakes to be his entire record.
There must be some reason he got re-elected? Maybe it's all the Bush-bashing from abroad that gave Americans the idea that it's them against everyone else. And Bush as the victim, the proud model-American who stands up against all those mean other countries.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That's too funny. Your 'smart' president has made some of the most spectacularly amateurish mistakes a president can make, and has disgraced your entire country (and got re-elected!). If that's smart then I hope the current presidential candidates are all Einstein's (wait they'd have to be Einsten + Newton!)

Then again, there's smart, and there's wise. Big difference.

Those mistakes being of course your differences of opinion and policy with him.

Ok, the response to Katrina. Big mistake. But it was also the fault of the Democrat governor who failed to convey the proper urgency.

See what strong feelings that jackass bring out in me..

Sure do, Batman.

[Coffeehouse]

That 51 % of the American people decided to vote for Bush rather than Kerry in the re-election still suprises me to this day. But there are numerous reasons why he was re-elected, and it was as much Kerry's failure to launch an effective campaign on Bush's failures as it was the immense grassroot work the Republicans managed to get together in 2004.

But winning a re-election does not mean the domestic or foreign enterprises that someone has engaged in have been successful. Sometimes it's just the opposition that aren't effective enough. Italy's Berlusconi is a great example of that.

Let's talk about the issues that the Bush administration have failed on, not the media coverage.
The idea that the international media coverage of Bush has been bashing, unuanced and one-sided is simply wrong.
There have been numerous instances where Bush has received media coverage that has put him in a favourable light. The best example that comes to mind is in the aftermath of 9/11.

I am myself a shining example of the overall nuanced coverage of Bush for the last 8 years, having been largely optimistic on his behalf in 2000 and a few weeks into the War in Afghanistan. But it has been the incredibly, fantastic long run of failures by the Bush Administration that has caused media coverage to shift over on his failures.

The Economist, one of the most respectable newspapers in the world, long gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, but over the course of his presidency it is of course impossible to ignore the sheer stupidity that the man shows.
It's just breathtaking.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That 51 % of the American people decided to vote for Bush rather than Kerry in the re-election still suprises me to this day.

Why? People didn't like Kerry. He was a phony trying to pass himself off as a patriotic military guy, when in reality he was a huge irresponsible fool who tossed his medals, slurred the troops in Vietnam etc etc...

But there are numerous reasons why he was re-elected, and it was as much Kerry's failure to launch an effective campaign on Bush's failures as it was the immense grassroot work the Republicans managed to get together in 2004.

It's over with, thank goodness.

But winning a re-election does not mean the domestic or foreign enterprises that someone has engaged in have been successful. Sometimes it's just the opposition that aren't effective enough. Italy's Berlusconi is a great example of that.

Ineffective=incompetence maybe?

Romano Prodi failed to convince anyone he had a handle on the situation. If you can't even hold a government together, that's a failure. Bush is not incompetent. He handled Afghanistan and the Invasion of Iraq extremely well. Both were successes. We hit serious trouble in the middle years in both those places, but thanks to Bush's stubbornness we're succeeding there. So much so that Democrat after Democrat has had to modify their "we're losing!!" message. I cite Nancy Pelosi's trip just yesterday (or saturday) where she told Maliki that we were still committed.

If the Dumbocrats had had their way we'd be out, and Iran would be running the place.

There have been numerous instances where Bush has received media coverage that has put him in a favourable light. The best example that comes to mind is in the aftermath of 9/11.

Okay let's see, can you remember ANY other instance? It's certainly the most unique situation any president has been in. 90% approval ratings don't happen a whole lot...

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Why? People didn't like Kerry. He was a phony trying to pass himself off as a patriotic military guy, when in reality he was a huge irresponsible fool who tossed his medals, slurred the troops in Vietnam etc etc...


It's over with, thank goodness.


Ineffective=incompetence maybe?

Romano Prodi failed to convince anyone he had a handle on the situation. If you can't even hold a government together, that's a failure. Bush is not incompetent. He handled Afghanistan and the Invasion of Iraq extremely well. Both were successes. We hit serious trouble in the middle years in both those places, but thanks to Bush's stubbornness we're succeeding there. So much so that Democrat after Democrat has had to modify their "we're losing!!" message. I cite Nancy Pelosi's trip just yesterday (or saturday) where she told Maliki that we were still committed.

If the Dumbocrats had had their way we'd be out, and Iran would be running the place.


Okay let's see, can you remember ANY other instance? It's certainly the most unique situation any president has been in. 90% approval ratings don't happen a whole lot...

Half of what you just argued is just mindless ranting. But I've learned to expect as little from many Republicans. Just can't help themselves.

The notion that Iraq is a success is an obvious dilusion of reality. I do hope you get to revise your views in the course of time.

Dumbocrats? I mean, c'mon, seriously?

Iran running the place? Who was NOT in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq? That's right, the Iranians.
Who was NOT in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq?
That's right, Al Qa'ida
Where are the WMD's?
They're not there.
How many million Iraq refugees After the invasion?
2 million +
All major combat operations over?
Nope...

But let's face it, when someone chooses to support McCain, a guy that shouts 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran', confesses he has no substantial understanding of economics and displays total ignorance on any number of issues relating to the Middle East.. well that kind of says it for me

[Mari]

Oy! Let's keep it decent. No need to go name calling. >_<

But I do wonder why you call Iraq a success, Hector? What do you base that on?