PDA

View Full Version : death of a president



_Ju_
19-Oct-06, 22:43
I'm watching a film on channel 4. It's called death of a president. The president in question is good ole' GWBush. Now, I don't want to offend the sensibilities of any US citizens that may read this board, but I have a very strong opinion on the policies of this man. Might I add that they are not at all favorable. So while I was watching this bit of celluloide fiction I was just talking to my buttons and thinking that the title of this film is absolutely WRONG! I think it should be called: "Wishful thinking".

take care, y'all!

Jeid
19-Oct-06, 22:46
I totally agree. I hate that man with a passion.

brandy
19-Oct-06, 22:56
amen you are preachin to the choir

j4bberw0ck
19-Oct-06, 23:08
Welll, it is after all deeply fashionable to "hate" George W Bush. Most do it because the BBC and other media / meejah have convinced them that the man's a fool. Me? I don't know. I do know that people despised Ronald Reagan and thought he was a fool as well; arguably, experience proves he was one of the greatest Presidents the US has had in the last 100 years.

It seems unlikely that Dubya will follow in Reagan's footsteps, but it's easy to take potshots whilst swadging in a comfy chair and clutching the TV remote.

Keep an open mind, folks.

Dreadnought
19-Oct-06, 23:14
Dubya only does what Cheney lets him do.

golach
19-Oct-06, 23:17
Come on!!! this programme is only fiction, get a grip with reality for goodness sake[evil]

DrSzin
19-Oct-06, 23:19
I do know that people despised Ronald Reagan and thought he was a fool as well; arguably, experience proves he was one of the greatest Presidents the US has had in the last 100 years.Don't be daft. He was just lucky and he had smart people around him. I assume you didn't have him as a near neighbour whose lazy schedule and naive comments were pointed out by the local media week after week after week. He was rarely at work!

_Ju_
19-Oct-06, 23:21
Welll, it is after all deeply fashionable to "hate" George W Bush. Most do it because the BBC and other media / meejah have convinced them that the man's a fool. Me? I don't know. I do know that people despised Ronald Reagan and thought he was a fool as well; arguably, experience proves he was one of the greatest Presidents the US has had in the last 100 years.

It seems unlikely that Dubya will follow in Reagan's footsteps, but it's easy to take potshots whilst swadging in a comfy chair and clutching the TV remote.

Keep an open mind, folks.


I didn't say he was a fool. I can tell you exactly why I despise both of them: It took Regan how many years admit to the aids epidemic? It has taken Bush how long to find weapons of mass destruction? Band wagons exist, but many, many people just form their opinions, that sometimes are concordant with the band wagon.

j4bberw0ck
19-Oct-06, 23:32
Don't be daft. He was just lucky and he had smart people around him. I assume you didn't have him as a near neighbour whose lazy schedule and naive comments were pointed out by the local media week after week after week. He was rarely at work!

Daft? Moi? If you say so.........

Yes, Reagan had smart people around him, but if you check out the theory of management you'll find that success derives from having the qualities or position of a leader, the ability to listen to the smart people around you, the germ of a good idea (in Reagan's case, economically and politically) and the ability to communicate it. Then delegate, delegate, delegate.

The idea that a manager has to know or do all the jobs in the office better than everyone else is just plain wrong.

And no, he was never a near neighbour, though it almost was the case; but the fact remains it was on his watch that the Soviet Union and its satellites collapsed and the foundations were laid for the prosperity of the US which Clinton surfed effortlessly as he ruined the dresses of White House interns.

Clinton simply has charisma. That's the difference, and the reason why he can make a fine living by smiling and travelling round the world's dinner circuits. As a President, he was nowhere.

j4bberw0ck
19-Oct-06, 23:39
It took Regan how many years admit to the aids epidemic? It has taken Bush how long to find weapons of mass destruction?

Two different things. AIDS? Reagan's Presidency was 20 years ago and he was prey to his age and upbringing. Bush and WMD? Maybe he twisted the evidence, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was misled, maybe he wasn't. I offer no judgment because I don't know, any more than you do.

I think it tells its own story, though, that people use terms like "hate" and "despise" to describe a political leadership. Then it's emotion talking; a dangerous thing in politics. Ask your average Palestinian wannabe suicide bomber.

DrSzin
20-Oct-06, 00:51
As far as I can judge, Reagan was a rather simple man, and some have argued that he was barely in charge at all. However, I'll agree that he wasn't a complete fool. For example, he had clear but simple ideas about simplifying the US tax system and reducing the overall tax burden, and these almost-certainly helped to take the US out of the economic doldrums of the 70s. In fact, his administration did a far better job than Thatcher's, albeit with much less opposition from the brainless and deeply-entrenched 60s- & 70s-style state-controlled socialism that we suffered from here.

The Soviet Union didn't exactly collapse on his watch, it was already doomed economically in the mid-70s (long before his watch), but it didn't actually die until the early nineties (after his watch). Reagan's economic policies and political tactics certainly played a large part in the acceleration of the Soviet Union's downfall, but I don't think he was much of a thinker or strategist. He was just lucky.

One thing that always struck me was how little time Reagan spent actually doing his job. Indeed, he spent a huge amount of time on his ranch in California, well away from the elements of political power. I used to watch him on tv night after night, and he often seemed to be unaware of what was going in his own administration, never mind what was happening in the world at large. Perhaps he was suffering from the beginnings of dementia way back then? Anyway, I have little doubt that he was a rather simpled-minded chap who had simple ideas about what was wrong with America - and large numbers of the population agreed with him. They worked hard to rebuild the American dream, and it kinda worked - for them if not for the poorer elements of society. Well, it worked modulo the huge deficits that were partly caused by his tax cuts, and which still cause concern in the US today.

The analogy with Clinton is interesting. He was lucky too. But he was smart enough to figure out that the democratic election campaigns of '84 and '88 were truly pathetic and he didn't repeat the errors. Clinton was the first successful Blairite. :)

As for GW and WMD... His case for the Iraq war wasn't really based on WMD. The latter was a British slant. One might argue that Bush's approach was more honest because the available evidence for WMD was almost non-existent as we know from the dozens of documents published during the Hutton enquiry.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I seem to be one of the few(?) people who doesn't subscribe to the "Blair is Bush's poodle" school of thought. But that's a topic for a different thread...

sassylass
20-Oct-06, 01:07
Wasn't it Groucho Marx who said "I don't care to vote for anyone crazy enough to want that job."?

My sentiments exactly! Politicians = yeuchhhhhh

JAWS
20-Oct-06, 02:08
My reading of the Reagan era was that he, or somebody close to him, decided that it was time for a change of tactics.

Until then, throughout the Cold War period, the Soviets engaged the west on a game of Political Chess, a game of thoughtful and considered strategy. There is no doubt in my mind that, from the West's point of view, accepting the Soviet's challenge and trying to outplay them was an act of gross stupidity. There was no chance at all of even coming close to beating them at the game where they are the accepted Masters. Ok, you might sneak the odd lucky win, but that's the best you could hope for.

By luck, fluke or good advice, Reagan changed the game to Poker. Having spent a long period of time as an actor and poker being a game, not so much of thoughtful and considered strategy but more of judging the strength of your opponents hand whilst displaying nothing to give a hint of yours, his former profession was an advantage.
I got the distinct impression that, whilst he was at best only a competent actor on film, as a Politician he found the perfect character for him to play.

Was Star Wars a serious possibility, the meanderings of somebody suffering the start of senility, or a giant bluff. Was it real? Could it work? How far had research got? How much was being hidden? How sure could anybody be?

The Soviets had to make a choice between doing nothing or acting. Doing nothing meant you could well be throwing in your hand when your opponent had nothing in his hand, act and you could lose your shirt because there wasn't enough in your pot to stay in the game.

The 70s left the Soviet Economy in a poor position, the 90s saw the system finally fall apart, but it was the 80s which slowly laid the system bare for all to see. Even their own people were no longer fooled by the cracks being papered over.

Sometimes the appearance of being slightly unbalanced and likely to do anything can have it's advantages, even more so when your own media are busy giving credibility to the idea.

Sometimes a free media busy trying to make mischief can be a wonderful asset to have as an enemy.