Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 05:55 PM

Does he? If he doesn't read newspapers or use the internet, how would he get this information? I think it is important for political figures to understand the feelings the people have towards them. Does anyone have any evidence that this is happening?

MacGorilla · Jan 12, 2004, 06:16 PM

he said in the past, he glances at the headlines and lets his advisors summarize his news. Scary stuff.

I think GW believes that he is doing right and people who don't like him just don't understand he is doing what he has to do. I just think he is incapable of seeing the whole scope of things, being so insulated.

I've been around for a while and I've never seen a president before who is so out of touch. Maybe Nixon. I dunno.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 06:16 PM

Do you realize you're a drooling moron? Do you?

dreilly1 · Jan 12, 2004, 06:53 PM

Let me try to get some good discussion out of this thread before it gets baninated...

This question is a prime example of how polarized our politics has become lately. Some people can't fathom how anyone can hate Bush, while to others, it's a self-evident fact. The country is literally divided 50/50, and the number of "undecideds" or "moderates" is dwindling.

I remember being shocked when I read that certain members of Congress wouldn't step foot in the White House after Clinton was elected, because they didn't view him as legitimate. (Because He only got 45% of the vote or so, and wasn't elected by a majority, because Perot got 15%. That, and they just plain didn't like him.) Now, it's 1000 times worse with the circumstances of Bush's election.

I guess the real question is: will the people who hate Bush and the people who think he's the next Reagan ever meet eye-to-eye?

MacGorilla · Jan 12, 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Do you realize you're a drooling moron? Do you?

I drool?

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I drool?

The comment was addressed to Scientist.

thunderous_funker · Jan 12, 2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I guess the real question is: will the people who hate Bush and the people who think he's the next Reagan ever meet eye-to-eye?

I don't consider those to be mutually exclusive so I guess we already do see eye to eye.

roger_ramjet · 07:44 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
... I guess the real question is: will the people who hate Bush and the people who think he's the next Reagan ever meet eye-to-eye?

I don't know if he's the next Reagan or not. It's too soon to say. That's for history to judge.

That said, it's pretty clear that at least half the people don't hate him. And those who won't vote for Bush aren't all foaming at the mouth Bush-haters.

There's no question that for some on the left Bush triggers a deep, visceral comtempt. For example: there's been no shortage of yahoos who are willing to compare Bush with Hitler. I'll bet everytime Karl Rove sees one of these rabid attacks on the president, he smiles to himself. It only makes his job easier. The same dynamic worked in Clinton's favor.

Wiskedjak · Jan 12, 2004, 07:33 PM

I don't think Bush is necessarily 'hated'. I certainly don't 'hate' him. I don't have much respect for him and I think he's a greater danger to the world than any other single individual on the planet, given the power he holds and the blind support which his followers give him to use it.

davesimondotcom · Jan 12, 2004, 07:37 PM

I'll try to bring a bit of level-headedness to this discussion.

I think to many people, President Bush is hated. But to just as many people he is admired. That's the nature of the game.

I also think that there is such a radical departure in the way he does things from how Bill Clinton did things, that it's bound to be a subject of discussion. Clinton made decisions based on polls. Even as to where he should vacation.

Bush, meanwhile, like him or not, makes decisions based on his core principles. You may not like his principles, but you know what he stands for. Polls don't change that belief system.

This isn't to say that one way is better than the other. I personally would rather have someone who sticks to what they believe in come hell or high water, then if the people don't like it, the only poll that matters is an election.

Do I think that means that Bush doesn't do things to try to get reelected? No, of course not. But when it comes to the War on Terror, which to him includes the Iraq war, he truly believes he is doing the right thing. And he's sticking by his principles.

If you don't like it, hate him. That's your right.

I also feel there is a certain bitterness to people who disagree with the President. They don't like what happened in Florida. They don't like his agenda. So, instead of disagreeing with him on policy, they make it into a personality hatred. The right did the same with Clinton.

Millennium · Jan 12, 2004, 07:47 PM

Even Bush has to understand that a lot of people hate him. However, I'm not sure he cares.

I've always thought that he's basically been set up as the fall guy for his cabinet, and I doubt he even knows that this is the case. The poor guy honestly believes that he's doing the right thing, and when you believe that, it doesn't matter how many people hate you.

quandarry · 08:09 PM

he may suffer from 'delusions of grandeur' and feel all the hate coming his way as love and praise and all the jeering as cheering.

for a dolt he is hard to figure out.

i mean even if you're a republican you can't defend him as one of the intelligentsia.

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Do you realize you're a drooling moron? Do you?

We'll I'm not. At least hundreds of millions of people don't openly defame me about it on the streets and in newspapers and around the dinner table. And if they did, I would know...

He is hated, especially abroad. I have yet to meet one nonamerican who, when questioned, didn't openly declare their disgust for his pompous "screw the world and everyone who disagrees with my divine right to rule" attitude. Maybe I am wrong but I certainly get the impression that, domestically, he is one of the most hated U.S. presidents since Lincoln.

quandarry · Jan 12, 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
We'll I'm not. At least hundreds of millions of people don't openly defame me about it on the streets and in newspapers and around the dinner table. And if they did, I would know...

He is hated, especially abroad. I have yet to meet one nonamerican who, when questioned, didn't openly declare their disgust for his pompous "screw the world and everyone who disagrees with my divine right to rule" attitude. Maybe I am wrong but I certainly get the impression that, domestically, he is one of the most hated U.S. presidents since Lincoln.

BRussell · Jan 12, 2004, 08:11 PM

He is quite popular in the US, and will probably be re-elected. I'm sure he doesn't care what non-Americans think about him, because they don't vote in US presidential elections.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
... Maybe I am wrong but I certainly get the impression that, domestically, he is one of the most hated U.S. presidents since Lincoln.

Lincoln is now truly revered as one of our greatest presidents. If that's the impression you have of Bush (that he merits a comparison with Lincoln) then he obviously is doing something right.

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Lincoln is now truly revered as one of our greatest presidents. If that's the impression you have of Bush (that he merits a comparison with Lincoln) then he obviously is doing something right.

First of all, I don't have a president (I'm not sure who your 'our' was refering to). Second, just because Lincoln and Bush are similar in the way they inspire(d) great hate, doesn't mean that they are similar in other ways. I'm sure you can think of many leaders that still inspire hate today as they did when they were in power. Also, lincoln is very overrated in my opinion, but we don't need to get into that here.

Lerkfish · Jan 12, 2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The comment was addressed to Scientist.

oh. I thought it worked just as well as a comment to president Bush.

Lerkfish · Jan 12, 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
That said, it's pretty clear that at least half the people don't hate him. And those who won't vote for Bush aren't all foaming at the mouth Bush-haters.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
of the people who voted, more than half voted against him. But that's just votes.
You're equating votes with non-hatred. Many people who voted for him did so relunctantly, I presume. I don't think you can assume that everyone who voted for him loved him, and even so everyone who voted for him was not half the country.
Futhermore, many people who voted for him are drastically disillusioned and sickened by his foreign policy, so Its safe to say that at least SOME people who voted for him have changed their view.

You also are equating those who would not elect him as Bush-haters, but those may be people who find his foreign policy abhorrent but have no opinion on him either way.

thunderous_funker · Jan 12, 2004, 08:46 PM

Not to mention that Bush 2000 is a very very different cat than Bush 2004.

Lerkfish · Jan 12, 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not to mention that Bush 2000 is a very very different cat than Bush 2004.

yes, bush 2000 campaigned on isolationism, anti-nation building, fiscal conservatism, shrinking the government, etc. none of which would be a fair characterization of bush 2004

Face Ache · Jan 12, 2004, 09:31 PM

At your last elections you had the choice between George W. Bush or Al Gore.

At the moment Bush's potential candidates are bickering amongst themselves.

You might want to have a look at your political system.

BlackGriffen · Jan 12, 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Face Ache:
At your last elections you had the choice between George W. Bush or Al Gore.

At the moment Bush's potential candidates are bickering amongst themselves.

You might want to have a look at your political system.

Well, no. This time 2000 it was Bush, McCain and some other yahoos vying for the Republican nomination, and at least Bradley and Gore vying for the Democratic one.

Now, Bush just has the advantage that no Republican will challenge him from within the party.

BG

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 12, 2004, 10:33 PM

Being disliked by the polar opposite of the political spectrum isn't necessarily a bad thing for a politician. In fact, it may even be a good thing. A politician who is actually doing something useful with his or her time in office is likely to upset the apple carts of people who would prefer not to see change. A couple that come to mind who were bitterly disliked by many when in office are Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Margaret Thatcher. They may have been hated in some quarters, but you certainly can't say they were ineffective leaders.

I agree with those who said that Bush probably doesn't concern himself with foreign opinion. Personally, I'd worry about a leader who is overly concerned with public opinion in other countries. It would make me concerned that he isn't worried enough about the opinions and well-being of his own electorate.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
of the people who voted, more than half voted against him. But that's just votes.
You're equating votes with non-hatred. Many people who voted for him did so relunctantly, I presume...

So? Voting for someone reluctantly isn't the same as hating that person.

I don't think you can assume that everyone who voted for him loved him...

I don't. I only assume they don't hate him.

You also are equating those who would not elect him as Bush-haters...

No I'm not. Read it again.

macvillage.net · Jan 12, 2004, 10:41 PM

Bush does exactly what he is told to, by those who funded his campaign. That's the core of American politics. You pay for power.

Bush doesn't realize a thing. He sees what his advisors show him. His advisors are choosen for their ability to guide him through the mess. They wouldn't be doing their job if they let him deal with that. There job is to get the president to carry out the "client's" business, before end of the term, and seek renewal of the "client" for another 4 years.

That's all there is to it.

What makes Bush so different, is that his financial backers are very creapy, hate filled groups.

Unlike most other leaders in history, who took money from virtually everyone, balancing it all out.

Clinton, Bush Sr., Kennedy, Carter, even Nixon all had a pretty diverse group of backers.

George W. Bush doesn't have that. Making him very different.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
First of all, I don't have a president (I'm not sure who your 'our' was refering to)...

... Second, just because Lincoln and Bush are similar in the way they inspire(d) great hate, doesn't mean that they are similar in other ways...

Yep. Different times. Different issues.

... I'm sure you can think of many leaders that still inspire hate today as they did when they were in power...

Sure can but if I'm trying to get across a certain impression, I probably wouldn't compare them with Lincoln.

... Also, lincoln is very overrated in my opinion...

Yeah, that whole freed the slaves thing is way overrated.

MathewM · Jan 12, 2004, 11:03 PM

Bush is extremely popular when America is rallying. He was in the upper 80% range for awhile after 9/11. I have a hard time beliving that 30% of those people now 'hate' him.
The current reason his popularity wavers in the low 50's is because of the Iraq war. People are unsure of the outcome and that American soldiers are still getting killed without really fighting back.

I'm not a Bush apologist. He's made some stupid mistakes like that Top Gun stunt. However I do like it when he goes balls to the wall. Unfortunately he then softens up to appease the pinkos (who hate him anyway). Bush the man actually seems like a likable guy much more than Dean or any of the other dem canidates out there now. Thats whats funny when the dems pull in a guy like Clarke and try to sell him as 'likeable' is that it fails. Clarke looks like (and is) a phoney. People criticize Bush's public speaking ability evidently have turned a blind eye towards Clarke's.

Scientist · 11:19 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yep. Different times. Different issues.Sure can but if I'm trying to get across a certain impression, I probably wouldn't compare them with Lincoln.Yeah, that whole freed the slaves thing is way overrated.

Lincoln was VERY hated in his time. He is the last president that was hated to the degree bush is now hated (as far as I can figure anyways). Just because Lincoln is now respected (but certainly not as universally as you may think) doesn't change these facts. Unfortunately the winners are the ones that get to write the history books.

Many people give Lincoln a lot more respect than I will. He destroyed (if there was anything left to destroy) any vestige of the U.S.'s right to rule by denying the South its freedom. Freeing the slaves is certainly an admirable thing but Lincoln did it primarily to spite the South. The cost in human life and suffering for the preservation of an imaginary 'nation' was high indeed.

And don't roll your eyes at me. You were vague and I wanted to claify that I do not appreciate being called an American...I have no government.

MathewM · Jan 12, 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Santa:
First of all, I don't have a president (I'm not sure who your 'our' was refering to).

So are you a citizen of the N. Pole?

Second, just because Lincoln and Bush are similar in the way they inspire(d) great hate, doesn't mean that they are similar in other ways.

A lot of drivel here. You made a comparison now you can't back it up. I would think that G.W. would be honored by the comparison.

I'm sure you can think of many leaders that still inspire hate today as they did when they were in power. Also, lincoln is very overrated in my opinion, but we don't need to get into that here.

How is Lincoln overrated?

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by MathewM:
[B]So are you a citizen of the N. Pole?

[B]

A lot of drivel here. You made a comparison now you can't back it up. I would think that G.W. would be honored by the comparison.

How is Lincoln overrated?

I don't like Lincoln or Bush. Many people agree with me. The comparison is valid. I'm sure bush would be honored by it. That is why I dislike him. He is dangerous (to much of what I value). Maybe Lincoln and Bush are perfect leaders for you. Maybe they do/did a great job of promoting your values. They are/were still hated. That is the point.

MathewM · Jan 12, 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Santa Clause:
And don't role your eyes at me. You were vague and I wanted to claify that I do not appreciate being called an American...I have no government.

Oooo big guy.

Whatcha' gonna do now Mr. Santa?

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
Lincoln was VERY hated in his time...

Yeah, so?

... People do give Lincoln a lot more respect than I will. He destroyed (if there was anything less to destroy) any vestige of the U.S.'s right to rule by denying the South its freedom. Freeing the slaves is certainly an admirable thing but Lincoln did it primarily to spite the South. The cost in human life and suffering for the preservation of an imaginary 'nation' was high indeed.

An imaginary nation?

And don't role your eyes at me.

It's roll. The word "role" is a noun, a part played by an actor in a play or a movie.

You were vague...

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by MathewM:
Oooo big guy.

Whatcha' gonna do now Mr. Santa?

That doesn't make much sense to me? Does anyone else understand what this guy is trying to say?

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Yeah, so?An Imaginary nation?It's roll. The word "role" is a noun, a part played by an actor in a play or a movie.

Nevermind. And don't be smart with me, I know what those words mean.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 12, 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
Lincoln was VERY hated in his time. He is the last president that was hated to the degree bush is now hated (as far as I can figure anyways).

Well, you haven't done much figuring. Bush has been consistently in the 55%-60% range, except for his stratospheric period after 9/11. That makes him one of the more popular presidents, not least.

If you want unpopular, take a look at Johnson, Truman, Carter, Tyler, and probably the all time worst president, Buchanan.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
... And don't be smart with me...

Who me? I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by an "imaginary nation".

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, you haven't done much figuring. Bush has been consistently in the 55%-60% range, except for his stratospheric period after 9/11. That makes him one of the more popular presidents, not least.

If you want unpopular, take a look at Johnson, Truman, Carter, Tyler, and probably the all time worst president, Buchanan.

But were these presidents hated with the fervor that Bush is hated with? They just sucked at their jobs, right? But, hey, you know a heck of a lot more about histiry than me. I'm not saying Bush doesn't have supporters, he does. It's just that so many people hate and fear what he is doing to the world.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
... It's just that so many people hate and fear what he is doing to the world.

What he's doing to the world... hmmm... let's see... No more Taliban government in Afghanistan... No more fascist Saddam Hussein government in Iraq... Not sure what you're getting at here.

Lerkfish · Jan 12, 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
What he's doing to the world... hmmm... let's see... No more Taliban government in Afghanistan... No more fascist Saddam Hussein government in Iraq... Not sure what you're getting at here.

might want to rethink your point about the taliban.

Wiskedjak · Jan 12, 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
What he's doing to the world... hmmm... let's see... No more Taliban government in Afghanistan... No more fascist Saddam Hussein government in Iraq... Not sure what you're getting at here.

It's not so much what he's doing but how he's doing it. The methods being used are setting dangerous precedents.

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Who me? I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by an "imaginary nation".

Here. This is one of the entries for "nation" on dictionary.com.

From dictionary.com:
A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality:

The southerners were clearly differnet people than the northerners with different customs and values.

Also, a government only exists in the minds of its people. The laws, borders of a 'nation' and the power of the politicians don't exist unless there are people who believe in them. Hence every nation can be thought of as imaginary.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
might want to rethink your point about the taliban.

No I won't.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 12, 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
But were these presidents hated with the fervor that Bush is hated with? They just sucked at their jobs, right? But, hey, you know a heck of a lot more about histiry than me. I'm not saying Bush doesn't have supporters, he does. It's just that so many people hate and fear what he is doing to the world.

When you say hated, who are you talking about? Americans? People in other countries? Which other countries? Be specific.

There are enough polls in the US that clearly refute your position if you are talking about Americans. Bush isn't unpopular at all. If you are making a comment about other countries, then I think you need to be a bit more discriminating in what you say. You might also want to compare with other presidents who have been controversial outside the US. Johnson and Reagan come to mind as recent examples.

Of course, you could be talking depth of dislike not numbers. It is possible for a popular president to be really disliked by a minority. Bush probably is such a polarizing figure. But there have been plenty of others. Reagan, Clinton, FDR, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and so on. It's nothing new.

Lerkfish · Jan 12, 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So? Voting for someone reluctantly isn't the same as hating that person.I don't. I only assume they don't hate him.No I'm not. Read it again.

you missed my point. You claimed "at least half the people don't hate him"
I was questioning your assessment of "half".

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
What he's doing to the world... hmmm... let's see... No more Taliban government in Afghanistan... No more fascist Saddam Hussein government in Iraq... Not sure what you're getting at here.

Let's see. These are a few things that some people consder negative. I don't necessarily think these are all bad...but here:

Creating foreign enemies and destroying alliances

Putting the U.S. further into dept.

Sending U.S. kids off to die in a far away land.

Influencing and perhaps damaging the intergrity of ancient cultures.

Encouraging the production of more U.S. weapons and a stronger U.S. superpower.

Eliminating some environmental protections

The Taliban is not gone...

It appears Saddam Huissen may not have had substantial WMD after all.

He killed a lot of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He doesn't seem to care about 'foreign' opinion. This matters.

He is taking rights away from Americans.

roger_ramjet · Jan 12, 2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
... The southerners were clearly differnet people than the northerners with different customs and values...

Who just happened to send representatives to the federal government in Washington. And who sought to extend their influence over the territories to the west. Many historians will argue the Civil War actually began in Kansas. Kansas came to be known as bleeding Kansas as proslavery and free state factions battled for control. Finally, If they weren't part of the US then what did they secede from?

MathewM · Jan 12, 2004, 11:50 PM

So where again do you hail from Mr. Scientist?

Scientist · Jan 12, 2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It is possible for a popular president to be really disliked by a minority. Bush probably is such a polarizing figure. But there have been plenty of others. Reagan, Clinton, FDR, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and so on. It's nothing new.

That is more-or-less what I am talking about. I don't study history so I don't know much about these other presidents. I certainly didn't know anyone who hated Clinton to the extent much is hated. I do see your point with Johnson though...I forgot about him.

Did these guys know they were hated? Do you think bush understands the extent to which people hate him? I really wonder if he does. This is really my main question. And it seems most if not all of foreigners and academics I know dislike bush. Of course this is not a representation of the world population in general. But these people are less likely to view this whole war thing as a sort of fun international football game.

BlackGriffen · Jan 12, 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Scientist:
Lincoln was VERY hated in his time. He is the last president that was hated to the degree bush is now hated (as far as I can figure anyways). Just because Lincoln is now respected (but certainly not as universally as you may think) doesn't change these facts. Unfortunately the winners are the ones that get to write the history books.

I agree. Lincoln was no saint. Things like suspending the writ of habeus corpus and Sherman's march to the sea were despicable, but ruthless and, to some, necessary.

Many people give Lincoln a lot more respect than I will. He destroyed (if there was anything left to destroy) any vestige of the U.S.'s right to rule by denying the South its freedom. Freeing the slaves is certainly an admirable thing but Lincoln did it primarily to spite the South.

It wasn't to spite the south. Abraham Lincoln, though I doubt he had any special love for black men, genuinely abhorred slavery. The South seceded on the assumption that he would abolish slavery sooner or later. The Emancipation Proclamation, though, was a PR stunt not to spite the South, but to keep Europeans, who had been cut off from their cheep cotton supply, out of the war. There may have been some minor hope that it would cause slave uprisings, too, but that was the primary reason.

The cost in human life and suffering for the preservation of an imaginary 'nation' was high indeed.

As was the cost in human life and suffering that would have been necessary to maintain the South as it was.

Also, U.S.'s right to rule? Ugh, I don't even want to dig in to that one right now.

BlackGriffen