Is George W. a stong leader?

Does he inspire unity and cooperation?

When the voter during the second debate asked President Bush to name three mistakes he made as president, George W. displayed one of his greatest short commings - his inability to recognize flaws in himself, even when they are obvious.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. pledged to restore more civility to American politics. Surely one of the mistakes that President Bush should have acknowledged to the voters question was that he had failed to achieve this pledge. In fact, he has made the rancor and political unrest much worse than at any time in modern times. Not since the American Civil War has there been more political unrest in America.

His failure to accomplish this is a clear indication of his inability to be an effective leader. His approach has done the very same thing with many people throught the world. Look at the reception he received when is addressed the U N last month - Dead Silence. The only applause came when he was about to leave the podium. It was as if their applause was to reflect his departure not at what he had to say.

The left in America hold George W. in distain. Most Democrats, if they are honest with themselves, will be voting aginst Bush more then for Senator Kerry. Their feelings are not because George W. is a Republican but because of his attitude and his total rejection of any positions that do not fit with the wishes of the conservatives. The right is just as bad or worse. People like Rush Limbaugh spew out their narrow minded positions at every opportunity. The conservatives can not complete a sentenence without blasting the Libs. They have only slightly less distain for the moderate Republicans, like myself. If you do not support the conservative ideas you are stupid according to profit, Rush! He claims that he ties half his brain behind his back to make it fair to the Libs. The truth is that if Rush had a brain twice its size, he could not complete a rational thought.

President Bush's answer to the question, name three mistakes you have made should surely have included his inability to bring cooperation and civility to American Politics. George Bush is strong but he is NOT a leader. A leader is one who has the ability to get people to go to a place they would not go by themselves. That is not George W. Bush. For that reason alone, America needs a change. We do not need another four years of devisiveness. We need a true leader that can unite America and enhance cooperation with the other nations of this world.
17,196 views 54 replies
Reply #2 Top
voiceofdissent

Sorry, I do not get your comment.
Reply #3 Top
Is George W. a stong leader?

By: COL Gene
Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 on Bush Truth
Message Board: Politics
When the voter during the second debate asked President Bush to name three mistakes he made as president, George W. displayed one of his greatest short commings - his inability to recognize flaws in himself, even when they are obvious.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. pledged to restore more civility to American politics. Surely one of the mistakes that President Bush should have acknowledged to the voters question was that he had failed to achieve this pledge. In fact, he has made the rancor and political unrest much worse than at any time in modern times. Not since the American Civil War has there been more political unrest in America.

His failure to accomplish this is a clear indication of his inability to be an effective leader. His approach has done the very same thing with many people throught the world. Look at the reception he received when is addressed the U N last month - Dead Silence. The only applause came when he was about to leave the podium. It was as if their applause was to reflect his departure not at what he had to say.

The left in America hold George W. in distain. Most Democrats, if they are honest with themselves, will be voting aginst Bush more then for Senator Kerry. Their feelings are not because George W. is a Republican but because of his attitude and his total rejection of any positions that do not fit with the wishes of the conservatives. The right is just as bad or worse. People like Rush Limbaugh spew out their narrow minded positions at every opportunity. The conservatives can not complete a sentenence without blasting the Libs. They have only slightly less distain for the moderate Republicans, like myself. If you do not support the conservative ideas you are stupid according to profit, Rush! He claims that he ties half his brain behind his back to make it fair to the Libs. The truth is that if Rush had a brain twice its size, he could not complete a rational thought.

President Bush's answer to the question, name three mistakes you have made should surely have included his inability to bring cooperation and civility to American Politics. George Bush is strong but he is NOT a leader. A leader is one who has the ability to get people to go to a place they would not go by themselves. That is not George W. Bush. For that reason alone, America needs a change. We do not need another four years of devisiveness. We need a true leader that can unite America and enhance cooperation with the other nations of this world.


This is your opinion of GW. The reason he did not come out and specify is that in his mind and a few others he has made no major mistakes. And as a moderate republican, do not assume that you are privy to what goes on in the mind of a Democrat. BTW he can't restore civility to politics if only one side wants it. You can try, but you can't force something on somone or a party of people if they *really* do not want it.
Reply #4 Top
People like Rush Limbaugh spew out their narrow minded positions at every opportunity.


BTW don't talk about Rush until you have looked in a mirror!
Especially since just about every word out of you mouth is a narrow minded position on Bush.
Reply #5 Top
I thought the politics in Washington were pretty civil until the Democratic Presidential Primary.

The UN isn't exactly known for uproarus applause.

Reply #6 Top
BTW don't talk about Rush until you have looked in a mirror!Especially since just about every word out of you mouth is a narrow minded position on Bush


As opposed to the non-partisan, totally objective remarks that YOU usually make there Drmiler, buddy. *rolls eyes*
Reply #7 Top
As opposed to the non-partisan, totally objective remarks that YOU usually make there Drmiler, buddy. *rolls eyes*


Though Doc Miler never claimed to be anything but a staunch conservative Republicrat, on the other hand the Col has claimed to be a Moderate, that was the point Doc was stressing, Myrrh.

- Grim X
Reply #8 Top

Reply #7 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/12/2004 3:20:09 PM
As opposed to the non-partisan, totally objective remarks that YOU usually make there Drmiler, buddy. *rolls eyes*


Though Doc Miler never claimed to be anything but a staunch conservative Republicrat, on the other hand the Col has claimed to be a Moderate, that was the point Doc was stressing, Myrrh.


Thank you Grim for catching that! See Myrrh I *never* claimed I was anything but a right-wing nut job.
Reply #9 Top
Righ, Left and moderate are entitled to their opinions. The problen with Bush and the right in control of Congress, is that we only have the right getting their way. We need a balance which will not happen unless the Democrats take control of either the White House or at least one house of congress. Bush has not done the job so the best way to achieve the balance is by replacing him with Kerry.
Reply #10 Top
George W. Bush is not a leader. He is more comparable to a bully who rules the school yard through fear and intimidation. He is the most dangerous kind of commander in chief, in that he is unreceptive and inflexible. Through his bravado like persona of attack first and ask questions later, he has set civility and democracy back hundreds of years.

Reply #11 Top
Donna G

The attitude of George W. is " My way only" That is the way he deals with congress, the Democrats, Moderates and the Left. It is the way he delt with the U N and any country that would not support the war in Iraq. The four countries that did supply some small help to Bush in Iraq all went aginst the wishes of the vast majority of their own people. The Britts, Polls, Itallians and Spanish people all did not support the War. Bush got a handfull of leaders to ignore the wishes of their people and support him. Bush is not an effective leader and at a time when terrorism requires all nations to cooperate to fight the threat, we need a leader that can work more closely with everyone than George W. has proven able to do.
Reply #12 Top
I agree wholeheartedly, COL Gene. He has no clue what real democracy is. He is like the parent who insists that the only way to teach a child not to hit, is to hit the child. Instead of reinforcing a democracy, he reinforces a dictatorship. He reduces democracy to the same dictatorship that he attempts to overthrow. He doesn't invite understanding, acceptance, or trust. He invites contempt, rebellion, and more war.

How sad that we have allowed this man to ruin what our constitution stands for. And how sadder it is that half of the people in our nation continue to believe in him. That's blind faith in it's truest form.
Reply #13 Top
You know, when we have a leader of any group, that leader has to stand up for what is right and be the voice of certainty and passion and drive. If he is not, who will follow? No one will because no one will respect him. The same is true for the leader of a Super Power. He cannot be too lax, without principles, without judgment, opinions, or firm beliefs. And when members of the group are out of line, the leader has to step in without fear. These are not the qualities of a dictator; it's just doing his job. If you want a puppet get someone who poll-panders. Someone without conviction or beliefs or morals or opinions. How bout a computer? Will that do? Then we can just rely on statistics, probability, and public opinion. OH, LET'S! Or how bout NO.

It's not blind faith. It's desire for a true leader, not a limp-wristed, wishy-washy, gutless, power-controlled shell of a human. I want a human with a soul, thank you very much. and I don't give a damn about what Europe thinks of OUR decisions. They're just as easily swayed by propaganda if not more easily. Let the man do his job.

As for him not naming THREE SPECIFIC THINGS: Why don't you look at the transcript? Both people got tied up in rabbit trails (as debates tend to go) and veered from questions. It's common and not a huge problem. It's not that he COULDN"T name three; it's that he didn't. He talked substantively with his allotted time like Kerry did for the most part; He didn't always talk "on question."
Reply #14 Top


George W. Bush is a very, very strong leader;
one of the strongest our country has ever had

some other strong World leaders that come to mind are,
joseph stalin and adolph hitler

pete
Reply #15 Top

Reply #14 By: Peter the great - 10/12/2004 8:23:09 PM


George W. Bush is a very, very strong leader;
one of the strongest our country has ever had

some other strong World leaders that come to mind are,
joseph stalin and adolph hitler

pete


How dare you! To say that he is bad and shouldn't be in office is one thing. But to compare him to Stalin or Hitler (both of who killed a LOT of people) is BEYOND comprehension.
Reply #16 Top
George W. Bush is a very, very strong leader;
one of the strongest our country has ever had

some other strong World leaders that come to mind are,
joseph stalin and adolph hitler

pete


Yes and I believe Kerry is just as strong a leader.

He would be comparable to even other strong world leaders who have existed.

Some of those Strong world leaders that come to my mind are Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Manuel Noriega, and Fidel Castro.

All is fair in love and war!

Speaking of Stalin and Hitler, did you know Stalin was a Conservative while Hitler was a Liberal?


- Grim X

Reply #17 Top
I agree with you drmiller, and while the comparison is not apropo, I see that the point he's trying to make is that a strong leader isn't always a good thing. However, let me counter with this: nothing in and of itself is good or bad. Only how it is used may be judged. We cannot question whether GW is a strong leader because he is (according to the post in question) but we should question whether he uses his power, his characteristics, for evil or for good.

As you so clearly point out, the two he mentioned killed A LOT of people. And i know the pascifist crowd clambers to say, "but so has he!" Yet the comparision is still moot when it comes down to it. Everyone knows it. It's like comparing a police captain with a serial killer and saying they're equally bad because they both kill people. Perhaps GW is more like the mayor that presides over the police force, but the perfect metaphor is a myth I believe. You get the point.

Now, we question this: Has he used his traits for good or evil. Certainly not the evil caused by Stalin or Hitler. It's really beyond reality and a bit nutty to compare Bush with Hitler. We're talking cruel, hate-filled, and all that rubbish. If this is a place for reason, certainly this will stand. The same with Stalin. I think GW is for a strong America that stands firmly without a walking stick or aid from the world and equally without heavy weights placed upon our head. I think inherently this is a good goal. Does he go about it in the right way? Well, that's more for the history books, eh? They'll write whatever they want, regardless of the truth. Look at Churchill. As for diplomacy... it doesn't always work. It hasn't got a good record for us. Why not try something new? If you've ever taught high schoolers, you know diplomacy only works for so long before you HAVE to strong-arm things, despite what the kids in other classes think of you. There I go with those metaphors again...
Reply #18 Top
"You know, when we have a leader of any group, that leader has to stand up for what is right"



What makes you think he's right?
Reply #19 Top

Reply #18 By: Donna G - 10/12/2004 9:23:42 PM
"You know, when we have a leader of any group, that leader has to stand up for what is right"



What makes you think he's right?


What makes you think he's not? That sword cuts both ways.
Reply #20 Top
As for diplomacy... it doesn't always work. It hasn't got a good record for us. Why not try something new? If you've ever taught high schoolers, you know diplomacy only works for so long before you HAVE to strong-arm things[\quote]

I don't think W gave diplomacy much of a chance at all. More of a chance was given in Afghanistan, our original goal, than was given in Iraq (which I still fail to see the connection as to why we occupied Iraq).
Reply #21 Top
Just a little humor, don't everyone flame me at once.

Since the rest of the above post didn't show...

Shulamite, you're the most civilized debator I've seen on JU, it's refreshing to read your posts.
Reply #22 Top
To judge if a leader is leading in the right direction, you must look at the impact they have on the people they lead. Hitler destroyed the German nation and people. I agree, George W. is nothing like Hitler etc. He however, has only helped a small segment of the American People. In his first speech after taking office he said he was President of ALL the American People. His problem, is that what he wants and has put into place is not helping the vast majority of Americans. He has done almost nothing for those at the bottom 25%. Their lives are worse than 4 year ago. Some of the 70 % in the middle have been helped to some extent but the impact has not been universal . His tax cuts for the middle income families is good but the deficit, lack of energy policy, health care, not funding education and the Iraq war have made the lives of many in the middle worse than 4 years age. The failure of his economic policies to create jobs for the 5 million new workers that joined the work force since Jan 2001 is not the actions of a good leader. He has shifted the tax burden more to the middle income worker to give the wealthy something they do not need and we can not afford.

The only group that has benefitted from almost every policy of George W. are the wealthiest 5%. That is not being the President of All THE PEOPLE! That is not being a good leader for our country.
Reply #23 Top
don't talk about Rush until you have looked in a mirror!Especially since just about every word out of you mouth is a narrow minded position on Bush.
Oh, COL has to look into the mirror but Rush doesn't?
Reply #24 Top
George W. Bush is not a leader. He is more comparable to a bully who rules the school yard through fear and intimidation. He is the most dangerous kind of commander in chief, in that he is unreceptive and inflexible. Through his bravado like persona of attack first and ask questions later, he has set civility and democracy back hundreds of years.
Good girl! Bring it on!!
Reply #25 Top

Reply #23 By: stevendedalus - 10/13/2004 1:08:28 AM
don't talk about Rush until you have looked in a mirror!Especially since just about every word out of you mouth is a narrow minded position on Bush.
Oh, COL has to look into the mirror but Rush doesn't?


I didn't say that now did I? I didn't imply it either! So get a grip dude. The fact remains that every word out of the Col's mouth is anti-bush yet he acuses Rush of "spewing out narrow minded opinions at every opportunity". To me thats the pot calling the kettle black. Hence my post.