So how did this guy get Re-elected?
George W. Bush:
It is offten said that toadys news is tommrows history, so how will history view the 2004 election? Consider this, The incumbent president was hated by large segments of the population. He was riduculed regularly as a moron, a western hick, and a simple minded ideologue guided too much by faith- based morality. He was said to be unable to grasp the complex problems faceing out county. His western Draw, Self-Mocking Humor and public speaking style were mocked by eastern sophisticates and intellectuals. Europeans called him our nations buffoon. Political cartoonists created insulting caricatures of the man.
His handiling of the war was criticized as shotr-sighted, bumbling, unjustified or vengeful, while John Kerry promised to direct a much smarter, more complex strategy. His Opponents claimed that he misled the nation into war for other reasons, then belatedly made "freedom" the justification for it. The real reasons he he went t war according to them was to cater to wealthy industrialists and big companys who profit from it.
They protested that it was an illegal war, with no constitutional basis and no international support. They charged him with violating their constitutional rights in the name of national security. The president was Widely blaimed for causing the biggest public division in the nations history. He was attacked by pundits as a colossal failure.
What kind of president could generate so much hostility and ridicule for both personal and official failings? How will history judge such an incompetent, polarizing hick? Well, Historians have already judged him. These conclusions were drawn from the news reports of the 1864 election when Abraham Lincoln was our Incumbent wartime president. The Major news media, then as now, were on the wrong side of history. If President Bush's bold strategy (the Bush Doctrine) ultimately succeeds against terrorism, where will future historians place him? My guess, Is near the top of the pile.
Gabu:
Depends on whose history you're talking about. For his supporters, he was a strong champion of American values, life, liberty, and democracy who truly understood what it meant to be a leader and who was unjustly mocked by ridiculous, egotistical intellectuals who were so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it was laughable. For his opponents, he was a moronic, self-serving, arrogant brat whose only support came from people even dumber than him: people whose only care in life is the Bible and bigotry.
Hopefully, no one from either of these groups will be writing the history.
A18:
Quote from: Senator Gabu on January 01, 2005, 11:32:43 PM
Depends on whose history you're talking about. For his supporters, he was a strong champion of American values, life, liberty, and democracy who truly understood what it meant to be a leader and who was unjustly mocked by ridiculous, egotistical intellectuals who were so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it was laughable. For his opponents, he was a moronic, self-serving, arrogant brat whose only support came from people even dumber than him: people whose only care in life is the Bible and bigotry.
Hopefully, no one from either of these groups will be writing the history.
Hah, that's actually a very good assessment.
bgwah:
Bush is not a "Westerner."
He's a New Englander posing as a Southerner.
bgwah:
Quote from: George W. Bush on January 02, 2005, 12:52:46 AM
Quote from: Jesus on January 02, 2005, 12:48:30 AM
Bush is not a "Westerner."
He's a New Englander posing as a Southerner.
He grew up in Midland, Texas.
I was born in Maine and I lived there for 4 years, and I'm Sure as hell not a New Englander.
Whatever your opinion, Texas is usually considered Southern these days. So he is not a Westerner.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page