NB: In case this someday fails to be topical, the title of this node is a parody of that for China is wrong, and there is no 'grey area' here.

Whether or not China or the US have breached international law in this latest lamentable incident (3/4/01), one thing is clear: we do not have the best man for the job in Washington. Geedubya has already done his best to reverse 10 years of diplomacy with Russia, and his gratitude to the oil companies has led him to tear up the Kyoto agreement. A recent count showed that Al Gore did in fact receive more votes than Geedubya in Florida's debated counties. Why is this man still here?

In defens

This is not an ad hominem attack. I explain in my very first line above that the title was chosen for satirical reasons. I do have a low opinion of Geedubya's intellectual faculties, but that's an opinion, and my own business. The WU was intended to highlight the invalidity, both electoral and moral, of Bush's presidency. I am British, and I fear and dislike the idea of being used as a staging ground for NMD. We're making enough of a mess of our country without help.

Geedubya does answer to the oil companies, and his actions are motivated by an ignorance of and disregard for environmental issues. I concede that his position is not unique, nor is he solely responsible for the problem. But he does carry a certain burden.

As for the Russians, I refer not merely to NMD, which I do believe to be an ill-judged action, but also to the 'expel diplomats first, ask questions later' attitude expressed by Mr Bush. Arguably, Vladimir Putin is responsible too. But then we were already scared of him.

My issue is not merely with Bush's policy, although I do strongly oppose it. I also believe that his election was rigged, and that many undue influences played their part in getting the man 'elected'. I concede that the best man (or woman) is not always elected, but Bush is neither the best nor the most popular.

I don't know or much care how the American SAT system works. I included a link to the (now vanished) Wit and Wisdom of the 'Leader of the Free World' to enable people to judge for themselves what the nature of the man is. The only drawback of this is that they might mistake him, on evidence, for a harmless fool.

As for the will of the people, I am not able to vote for or against the election of an American president, but due to US foreign policy, that man's decisions affect me and millions of others directly. I'm entitled, I feel, to a little comment.

And are Americans all so patriotic that they'll leap to the defence of their president (in this case, by downvoting an opinion they dislike) regardless of the actual issues at stake?

Without wishing to get too much more deeply embroiled here, I did mean to say 'regardless of the actual issues', since I had been dv'ed for posting a concise and topical opinion node. That was not an accusation directed at Rook, or for that matter Elwood.

In response to a separate criticism, I must state that my assertion that Bush's election was invalid is based on a CNN report:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida. recount.01/index.html?s=2
and others similar which state that although the finished recounts do indeed support Bush, these do not take account of several hundred spuriously discarded ballots from Broward and Palm Beach counties, whose total effect would have been to return Gore.

Further reports from CNN (17/11/01 or slightly before) suggest the reverse: the Bush was narrowly the winner in Palm Beach. However, there were other disputed counts. In retrospect, all I can say is that that was no way to run an electoral system - no matter who got elected.
Ad hominem: toward the man. Such attacks seem a general waste and poor tactics. For those out there who do not like George W. Bush, hey, keep those flags of discontent flying. I would offer this advice: If the President's policies succeed in the next four years, then your cries of stupidity will seem like sour grapes. If his policies fail, people will happily vote him out of office on that score. It therefore seems counterproductive to adopt this strategy.

I suspect that those interested in the stupidity argument have not examined Al Gore's academic record particularly closely. In any event, I will not jump into that minefield, save to say that Gore's SAT scores were only 10 points better than my own and that (presumably) you will not think this sole figure an adequate basis for preferring me as President to W.

Is the "best man" ever elected to public office? Political theorists, following Plato's (well, we can't be sure they're really Socrates' words, can we?) thought would argue that those most qualified to serve tend to have no interest in serving, and even a casual observer of history can find numerous examples of this. So this argument really holds no water.

The original author of the lead writeup here does, in fact, take issue with two areas of W's policy, though only in the broadest possible strokes. Here are some of my thoughts on the matters raised:

Once again, if you are interested in seeing W out of office, I have to believe that cogent attacks on his policy stances will be, in the long run, more productive than simply telling us that you feel he's stupid. And if you feel like trumpeting that anyway, at least do us the favor of attempting to document it.

I have chosen to respond to the original author via the chatterbox to prevent this from becoming a morass of replies. I will, however, say that the fact that I took issue with the content of the author's WU and provided a point-by-point counterargument does not imply that I am ignorant of the facts. "Regardless of the actual issues" indeed.

Wow, I've been parodied! Truly, I have arrived!

(There was some sarcasm in the above, please understand this.)

So Bush is a moron? Hmm, I would have agreed heartily with you six months ago. His public speaking is ridiclous at best, and scary at it's worst.


I no longer think that Dubya is stupid. Here's why:

He is beating an entire political party into the ground. He is single-handedly annihilating the Democratic Party. Barbra Streisand sure is scared. So are a lot of other ultra-liberal Hollywood-ites. The liberals have been in utter shell-shock since Dubya took office.

The man hasn't lost a skirmish yet. I think he's going to turn this China thing into a victory yet (and I'd like to note that as of now everyone on the Hill is saying that Bush is handling this exceptionally well; even Lieberman said so yesterday; he didn't like the taste of it, but he said it).

The man is not stupid. He took what could have been an insanely divisive election and has come through unbloodied so far. He is beating the SNOT out of a political party that took the popular vote just a few months ago. He is sticking by his guns on the right issues (tax cuts), and retains the realistic outlook to review policies that would cripple the country (Kyoto Protocol).

The son of a bitch is going to surprise you, I think. The Dems couldn't pull out a victory coming off 8 of the best economic years the country has known, simply because they underestimated the man. You might not want to do that again.

You may disagree with his ideas. You may make fun of his public speaking (though could you totally avoid any slip-ups, 24/7, with hundreds of cameras watching you?). You may even make fun of the way he looks.

But don't say he's stupid. That may be the last mistake the Democratic Party ever makes.

I really hate jumping into this sort of partisan argument, but there are a few things that the writeups above seem to be missing. Now die-hard Republicans will generally leap to his defense (I think it's safe to guess which side of the fence elwoodblues is sitting on), and that many Democrats will automatically lambast him for his poor English or some other item. I am neither of these animals. There are more than two political philosophies.

What neither side seem willing to understand is that he is, quite simply, an unfit ruler. The first thing he did as President was to illustrate his lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Faith based funding is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. There are many political analysts who have tried to make it more of a grey area, but if my tax money is being given to religious organizations, I think it's pretty much black and white.

He has no real policies, because much of what he says one day, will be taken back the next. There are various pundits and comedians who are already calling him "The Waffler", and he's only been at the job for less than three months.

Worse yet, he makes his people look bad by forcing them to reverse opinions so that they present a united front.

I am not really that surprised that he became president. He threw huge barrels of money at the political machine, and besides, had the advantage of the votes from people who will vote for anyone running under the republican banner. He is also not to blame for going to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is to blame for agreeing to hear the case. We now have our first appointed president, and the highest court in the United States has lost an enormous amount of credibility.

I am far less concerned with the man's intelligence than I am with his, thus far demonstrated, inability to govern. But, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we get the government we deserve.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.