Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Well, I'm not denying the hatred is there, I'm just saying I don't understand it.
{edit}
The other presidents I recall being really hated were LBJ and Nixon, both mainly over Vietnam. (You may not be aware of this, but John Kerry served in Vietnam. Ironic, isn't it?) FDR was also despised, but that was before my time. All were rather titanic figures, at least compared to Bush.
Maybe I am slighting Bush, but I just don't see him as significant enough to generate such passion. He's no Jesse Helms, that's for sure.
This was a great post AAA. Like I said, I would vote for you.
While I disagree with your politics, I do understand them. And so do you. I think that is the difference between you and Bush
I sincerely don't think Bush has any political beliefs. He believes in getting elected. He comes across as being extremely arrogant. And he seems (to a huge percentage of Americans) to be out of touch with the way things are for most of us.
Clark made a good comment today in his endorsement for Kerry. He said (I don't remember the exact words) that we need a President that "values the American family" Not one that just talks about "family values".
And I think this is why Bush seems to generate so much emotion out of his detractors. He seems to truly just NOT CARE about people. Unless they are rich. Or powerful.
As Clinton raised emotions with his arrogance, so does Bush.
But at least Clinton, no matter how despicable a human being he was (and he was), the guy worked hard, was informed about every issue that came across his desk, and had a genius for "reading" the public. While GWB seems not to care one bit about what's "blowin' in the wind". He won't read newspapers? How much time did he spend in the Oval office between his inauguration and 9/11?
You are right. LBJ, Nixon, FDR were truly titans compared to some of our more recent Presidents. (Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. Eisenhower, and a whole slew of Presidents that served prior to FDR).
Bush would be an asterisk in the history books if not for the war on terror. The country seemed to be on "cruise control" when he was elected..(excuse me..when he RAN..lol). "Goldilocks economy" and all. And if the country did not feel a tremendous sense of security, how could we have had the choice we did? Gore and Bush? Please! If New York were attacked two years earlier, we would have seen Colin Powell run in 2000. Just not sure if he would have run as a Democrat or Republican. And the truth is, it wouldn't have mattered. Maybe Schwarzkoph. Maybe both on the same ticket. McCain. Maybe even Kerry. But not Gore and not Bush.
I was very impressed with Bush when he spoke ad lib at Ground Zero. I thought then that I had underestimated him, and maybe he was up to the job. But that seemed to be his zenith. Since then, he has seemed just plain unimpressive. I don't hate him. I know a lot of people do. I just think he is not qualified. Mostly because he seems not to really care.
And as for his service record; I think it is irrelevant. I would have done exactly the same thing he did if I had the opportunity. So would every single college grad I knew at that time. (GWB and me are the the same age). The problem he may have is not everyone is as empathetic about the issue. Try and explain how things were for 22 year olds in 1968 to a 22 year old now. Doesn't translate. Unfair for Bush. But that's politics. Putting on that flight suit last year could backfire. But again, who wouldn't have done that? Being President has it's privileges. But everything has a price.
Peace,
RS
exactly why is it "reckless" to ask for proof and conclude the unfavorable when the proof is not produced? inconvenient, ill-timed, even mean-spirited, sure, but "reckless"?