Americans starting to like George W. Bush: Poll

[Ulysses G.]

I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.

I always did like Christopher Hitchens.

I'm a bit worried that I'm starting to agree with you and Chuckd a little bit too much. This is making me uncomfortable....

Can we start a gun thread or something? It will be cathartic for all of us. Promise.

Don't be so sure. I have never owned a gun and straddle the fence on the gun thing.

[F430murci]

I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.

I always did like Christopher Hitchens.

I'm a bit worried that I'm starting to agree with you and Chuckd a little bit too much. This is making me uncomfortable....

Can we start a gun thread or something? It will be cathartic for all of us. Promise.

Good to see you escaping the dark side.

Back on topic...

I notice Obama's approval rating is now down to 47% with Gallup. Disapprovals at 45%.

Bush's approval rating is now 49%, with a 46% disapproval rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163022/former-president-george-bush-image-ratings-improve.aspx

Nice, except you compare apples to oranges by somehow missing the intent of the analysis. The poll reveals a trend that public generally becomes more accepting of presidents the longer they have been out of office because they are then viewed as a human or individual as opposesed to the commander in chief and their policies in place.

" Instead, its a reflection of something thats been true of former Presidents since the beginning of the modern political era. After the passage of time, the public seems to separate their opinion of these men, and so far theyve all been men, from their opinions about the policies that were enacted while they were in office."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/george-w-bush-rebounds-in-the-polls-still-below-other-ex-presidents/

To be accurate, if that is what you are seeking, you would have to compare Obama's ratings 5 years after he left office to GW's new gallop numbers to obtain a reflection of public perception of the person as opposed to the policies of that person.

GW's numbers in office reached lows of 25 approval on several occasions and GW is way down on post office Gallups of former Presidents.

Bush Jr. 49%

Clinton 69%

Bush St. 62%

Reagan 72%

Carter 69%

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/george-w-bush-rebounds-in-the-polls-still-below-other-ex-presidents/bush-gallup-2/

[chuckd]

Is it a requirement for liberals to be pedantic to the point of being pests?

Just curious.

[Credo]

Is it a requirement for liberals to be pedantic to the point of being pests?

Just curious.

Nah, but it helps--to be pedantic, that is.

[Loptr]

If these people are just figureheads then who is really running the country?

The man behind the curtain, the great and powerful Oz. i.e. the money brokers of the world. Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Affairs, the Military Industrial Complex, Central bankers, G8, etc.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. This thread is about George W. Bush. Stay on topic, please.

[utalkin2me]

Are they starting to warm up to Cheney too? The shoe thrower had the right idea no doubt.

[zydeco]

I wish all these Bushes, GHWB, GWB, JB, and now the new GPB (George P. Bush) would just go away. Take all the loot they've made and go live rich. Just leave me alone. Please, God, make P. Bush quit politics and go into real estate or something.

[baboon]

I thought the Bush administration was disgusting. Those shadowy figures around Bush, that is. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, that scumbag Cheney, Karl Rove and the rest of them whispering in his ear. George W. himself strikes me as a man of good faith, even if his politics are not to my taste..

[DekDaeng]

If these people are just figureheads then who is really running the country?

that is the real question - may take some years to find out, but the 'net will ultimately tell us.

[chuckd]

I thought the Bush administration was disgusting. Those shadowy figures around Bush, that is. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, that scumbag Cheney, Karl Rove and the rest of them whispering in his ear. George W. himself strikes me as a man of good faith, even if his politics are not to my taste..

So much better now with people like Valerie Jarrett, Erik Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Van Jones, Bill Ayers and George Soros whispering in the current guy's ears.

[samran]

I wish all these Bushes, GHWB, GWB, JB, and now the new GPB (George P. Bush) would just go away. Take all the loot they've made and go live rich. Just leave me alone. Please, God, make P. Bush quit politics and go into real estate or something.

G.P. Bush does work in real estate. He is a nice guy and more pragmatic than you think. I've met him.

[Donnie Brasco]

I wish all these Bushes, GHWB, GWB, JB, and now the new GPB (George P. Bush) would just go away. Take all the loot they've made and go live rich. Just leave me alone. Please, God, make P. Bush quit politics and go into real estate or something.

Oh don't worry Zydeco, they HAVE gone into real estate.

When America lies sizzling in nuclear filth, toxic waste and societal disintegration the Bushes retirement plan will kick in.

Why else would the Bush family have quietly purchased about 100 square miles in Uruguay ?

Anyone who believes these creeps are owed an apology should self-trepan.

[Publicus]

Deleted quote edited out

It's not the Americans of either party you need to worry about in Thailand. It's the ignorant fahlang from everywhere else -- they are grossly subcultural concerning their awareness of the United States. (A number of Canadians being of notable exception.).

The Thais openly supported Bush over both Gore and Kerry. The Thais don't like Democrats because we have a lot of strings attached to trade and the like, such as environmental protection, human rights, transparency and so much else. It's really a pain in the arse to Thai corporate types and to the government - often one and the same - whereas Bush and the Republicans don't care about all that stuff that adds to business costs, such as labor rights, standards, protections etc etc.

Bush is fondly remembered here, the wars conveniently overlooked back then, forgotten now.

The Thai corporate elite is suffering through Obama, to include his rebalancing to Asia, and all the strings Democrats attach to doing business. So Thais are going to go bonkers when they get Hillary too beginning January 2017. That'll pretty much mean 16 consecutive years of Democratic party presidents with all their strings attached..

So beware the Thais will fleece you, the fahlang will only show their own cultural self-retardation.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Scott
edited

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

The topic is about GEORGE W. BUSH.

[harrismac]

If it's about Bush, we have a lot of ex pats here who are blindly liberal and annoying, bashing Bush but throwing in more innuendo to further their agendas and their posts remain. I liked Bush, hate Obama, explain why and their differences, and I'm deleted. Great job moderators. I see where your hearts lie, also.

[utalkin2me]

I think all they are starting to like is not having him around.

[Scott]

If it's about Bush, we have a lot of ex pats here who are blindly liberal and annoying, bashing Bush but throwing in more innuendo to further their agendas and their posts remain. I liked Bush, hate Obama, explain why and their differences, and I'm deleted. Great job moderators. I see where your hearts lie, also.

I'll try and make it simple for you so you understand. The topic is about Bush, you can say good things, you can say bad things, you can say neutral things. It is not about Obama and posts about Obama, whether good or bad, get deleted.

Not too difficult, really.

[heybruce]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

[samran]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

[chuckd]

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

< Off topic comments edited out >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Edited June 17, 2013 by metisdead

[samran]

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

< Off topic comments edited out >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

[aussiebebe]

I'm interested to read about this poll - I think many people predicted that history would judge Bush quite differently. I've read about his Presidential library opening with a tour giving visitors the opportunity to put themselves in the President's position. If you had access to the information he did, what decision would you have chosen? etc. The US fracking boom creating an energy-independent US is all Bush and Cheney so will all those newly minted millionaires it's hardly surprising that Bush's reputation is on the mend. He was also smart by dropping out of public view for so long.

[jayboy]

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

< Off topic comments edited out >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

[heybruce]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

I have to make three big corrections to my above comment: George W. Bush went to Yale for his undergraduate degree and he took the SAT and earned a respectable but not outstanding score of 1206. Yale at the time did not require or consider the SAT in admissions. Also Jeb Bush went to the University of Texas, not the University of Miami. I just remember a lot of pandering to Suntan U. when he was governor of Florida.

I extrapolated to much from what I recalled from a March 10, 2005 article in the Economist news magazine:

"George Bush sailed into Yale in 1964, thanks to his family connections; but seven years later, when Yale had belatedly embraced the SAT revolution, his brother Jeb went to the University of Texas instead."

I need to be more careful about my late night posts. However I stand by my opinion on promoting priviledge over ability.

[heybruce]

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

Some of you people need to get out more. By the way, how did Obama get into Harvard? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

"a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech. I thought the website was both amusing and revealing, and it is an actual recording of a snippet of a Bush speech. And he really did go to Yale with mediocre grades and test scores at a time when the top universities in the U.S. were almost entirely white, Protestant, rich, and well-connected, and the well-connected were almost always coached to some kind of degree. Going to Yale at that time is not conclusive proof of intelligence.

It's possible that his lifetime of advancement through connections resulted in his appointment of like-minded loyalists over competent people in everything from the reconstruction of Iraq to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However incompetent subordinates were only part of the problem with the Bush administration, in every way he demonstrated he did not have the intelligence, vision, and leadership skills to effectively execute the job. The results speak for themselves, he took office with the nation at peace, the federal budget in suplus and the economy in a mild recession, and left office with two unresolved wars, the nation running it's largest budget deficit in history, and the economy in free-fall. I can't think of any other viable candidate in the 2000 election that would have screwed up the country as much as George W. Bush did.

Regarding flying a military jet, it's a skill to be learned. The basics are similar to flying a small plane, only things happen a little faster and the consequences for mistakes are more severe. As navigators used to say in the Air Force "You can teach any monkey to fly if you feed it enough bananas."

[jayboy]

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

Some of you people need to get out more. By the way, how did Obama get into Harvard? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

"a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech. I thought the website was both amusing and revealing, and it is an actual recording of a snippet of a Bush speech. And he really did go to Yale with mediocre grades and test scores at a time when the top universities in the U.S. were almost entirely white, Protestant, rich, and well-connected, and the well-connected were almost always coached to some kind of degree. Going to Yale at that time is not conclusive proof of intelligence.

It's possible that his lifetime of advancement through connections resulted in his appointment of like-minded loyalists over competent people in everything from the reconstruction of Iraq to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However incompetent subordinates were only part of the problem with the Bush administration, in every way he demonstrated he did not have the intelligence, vision, and leadership skills to effectively execute the job. The results speak for themselves, he took office with the nation at peace, the federal budget in suplus and the economy in a mild recession, and left office with two unresolved wars, the nation running it's largest budget deficit in history, and the economy in free-fall. I can't think of any other viable candidate in the 2000 election that would have screwed up the country as much as George W. Bush did.

Regarding flying a military jet, it's a skill to be learned. The basics are similar to flying a small plane, only things happen a little faster and the consequences for mistakes are more severe. As navigators used to say in the Air Force "You can teach any monkey to fly if you feed it enough bananas."

Noted Yale not Harvard.What you say about Bush's academic record could equally have been said (and with much greater plausibility) about Winston Spencer Churchill.

You make an essentially political case against Bush, though it's one of course that millions of American would endorse (and millions would equally reject).I share some of your views myself but you unaccountably (and fatally I think for your argument) fail to note what happened on September 11th 2001 - and the challenges that followed from that event.In some ways Bush performed admirably in that crisis which was a major test of the kind no President had to face since FDR..However as Samran points out this discussion is not really about policy issues but Bush's character and qualities.His intelligence and shrewdness have been vouched for by independent high powered men and women who have worked with him.Was he a good or bad President? My guess he would have a middling mark but who knows what historians will say. Truman left office with an indifferent reputation and is now regarded as a giant.

[chuckd]

Mr. Heybruce: From your post...""a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech."

He also couldn't pronounce nuclear but he never did call the "US Marine Corps" the "US Marine Corpse" as the current WH resident has done. They all make grammatical errors. You make as many comments that are recorded as the average President does and I imagine you might make a faux pas or two as well.

BFD.

[Credo]

I don't think Bush was stupid, but he was far from being very smart, IMO.

My opinion is based on the fact that he never seemed to excel in any particular area, his comprehension of nearly every aspect of the job was mediocre at best. His speaking ability was poor. His geography was poor. His knowledge of history was poor. He certainly did not excel in the area of economics. He was not a man of vision.

[FDog]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

Greg Norman hardly finished high school and landed a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier after 1 day of training.