Here's why Johnny Mac will lose in January... um, I mean, November.

[ishkabibble]

1. He's pushing for "more of the same" in voter's eyes, whether this is actually true or not.

2. He has no charisma, especially when compared to Obama. When ad-libbing, he comes of as a d***. When going from a script, he looks lost and fake. That last speech he did was one of the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. "That's... not change we can believe in... (big fake strained smile)". Pathetic.

3. He's freaking old and it shows. Nobody wants a senile old grandpa patronizing them for 4 years, and that thing on his cheek makes him look like he switched to the dark side of the force. He frequently misspeaks, which is likely due to his age.

4. If, God forbid, Hillary is on the ticket as the VP, the numbers are simply on the Dem's side. It will be a Dem slam dunk pretty much everywhere except where there is a significant amount of misogynists and racists.

[AZhitman]

Wow, ish.

I used to respect your point of view, but your last statement just pissed me off.

I'm neither a misogynist nor a racist, and you imply that I am because I refuse to vote for a lying career politician and a radical nutcase.

Then you go an make light of his position as a cancer survivor. Some of us have watched such things progress on loved ones, and clowning a physical trait like that (that the afflicted has no control over) makes you no different than a racist. Not cool. At all.

Johnny Mac was hilarious on Saturday Night Live. Rave reviews from everyone but you.

[AZhitman]

...and when all we look for in our leaders is "charisma", we're in deep trouble.

Car salesmen are charismatic. So was David Koresh. Charles Manson had tons of charisma.

Style over substance. Go, MTV Generation!

p.s. Here's a neat article on charisma from an expert on body language... http://www.pattiwood.net/article.asp?PageID=6227

[ishkabibble]

I'm neither a misogynist nor a racist, and you imply that I am because I refuse to vote for a lying career politician and a radical nutcase.

No, I'm making a statement about trends that will emerge if that ticket comes into play. It has nothing to do with you, and I don't think that you think that way. I honestly hope we don't see that ticket, but if we do, that's how I see it playing out come November. There are misogynists and racists out there, they do tend to be concentrated in certain geographical areas, and do you think they are going to vote for Obama/Clinton?

Then you go an make light of his position as a cancer survivor. Some of us have watched such things progress on loved ones, and clowning a physical trait like that (that the afflicted has no control over) makes you no different than a racist. Not cool. At all.

Yeah, I'm one of those "some of us". If you think that attribute will not affect him politically, I think you're wrong. The leader of the country is held to a different standard than the rest of the public.

I could have been nicer about how I stated that, but honestly I lost all respect for Mac when he sold out to the "base". So I apologize for letting my vitriol get to the surface. I agree, I was completely wrong to say that. You're right.

Johnny Mac was hilarious on Saturday Night Live. Rave reviews from everyone but you.

I didn't see that SNL, but SNL is a far cry from actual political rhetoric.

[AZhitman]

Makes more sense.

Altho, when Billy C. broke out the saxophone on late-night TV, folks were ready to crown him as the Second Coming.

I just wanted to point out the dangerous path of judging someone based on a physical attribute - there are some who won't vote Obama solely because he's Black, and those people suck.

I still don't think you can make the leap to misogyny / racism there. I see where you're going, but maybe they don't like the message, regardless of the fact that one has an afro and one has a vagina (I think).

[HashiriyaS14]

That last speech he did was one of the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. "That's... not change we can believe in... (big fake strained smile)". Pathetic.

I do agree that the speech was very painful to watch. McCain has been a maverick his whole life, and that isn't the kind of speech he's best at. He's not the best speaker in general actually, although I don't in any way correlate that with performance as President.

I do NOT agree that the only people voting against a McCain/Hillary ticket are "misogynists and racists". There are a lot of reasons why a person would vote for McCain, including the following:

-Social conservatives will get behind him as the lesser of the two evils. It will really help him if he picks a more socially conservative VP.

-People who are behind the idea of sticking around Iraq a little longer will back him

-Fiscal conservatives might back him also, again as the lesser of the two evils. McCain is NOT a fiscal conservative, but he's probably a bit more of one than Obama is. The "small government" shxt in his speech is totally un-backed by his voting record, but that's how politics work.

Anyway, while I have been a registered (and generally enthusiastic) Republican my whole life, I will be voting for Obama in November, primarily because I want to see the Supreme Court get a couple of liberal appointments to counteract the recent conservative ones.

If the GOP was fielding a real fiscal conservative I'd be behind them 100%, but I expect both McCain and Obama to burn through about the same amount of taxpayer dollars on stupid nonsense, it'll just be different stupid nonsense depending on which one of them wins.

I think that either one of them is more than capable of representing us internationally, so I'm not really worried about that. We can't do worse than GWB in regards to being a world team player.

McCain *was* funny on SNL, but Dubya can be pretty funny too. I bet Obama is a laugh in person also. I know from experience that Hillary definitely is not, lol. Ultimately, I don't think any of this is relevant in regards to which one of them can do the best job. I DO think McCain's campaign should let him wing it more, as while he's not the best improv guy, he's better at that than he is at appearing enthusiastic when reading a crappy pre-prepared speech that he probably had little input in creating.

[rn79870]

Ish, I think you've left one major fact out of the equation. That is the final thought that you have, standing in the voting booth, when you have two choices, one bringing a little more of the same, and the other a total wild card. When it comes time to vote, people are going to choose a know over an unknown - things are bad, but they aren't desperate yet.

In the past, I've supported Obama for two reasons. The first is that his winning would assure that Hillary didn't. The second was that I believe the change he promised was needed. Unfortunately, as time progressed, his change is nothing I want a part of. I have a sinking feeling that he isn't being candid with where he wants to take America. He'll give the darn country away. It is the unknowns with Obama that have pushed my vote to the rep side of the ballot.

McCain isn't a good option, but he is the only other one. Hillary on Obama's team will help to some degree. However, many demos are just too afraid of what Obama brings to allow Hillary to influence their vote.

If McCain chooses the right VP candidate, he has the election. You heard it here on Nico first.

[Eikon]

I agree with Ish that McCain is going to lose in November.

I agree that his age hurts him a bit. Not a ton, but a bit. He needs to be a model of great health until Nov.... One case of the flu and he's sunk.

I think his prior cancer and any physical signs of poor health also hurt his chances a bit. Personally, I give him more credit for having the strength to beat those things, but the common perception is that those things could easily come back and hurt his health. Our president needs to be a model of health to win the election. It may not solely influence the voter's decision, but it could be enough to sway a lot of people who are on the fence.

[AZhitman]

Hash, I think you're "on point" on 99% of your post. Well-said, Sir.

The only part I think you're "off" on is BO's international affairs. I think he's utterly and completely lost there, and his inexperience in all things global is a huge red flag for me.

This became apparent when he flip-flopped on stating he'd meet "unconditionally" with the leaders of rogue enemy nations (but only after his own party said, "Dude, WTF?")

I also don't share your opinion of W's record internationally, but I blame the major media for overinflating our enemies' opinions of us and ignoring the positive accolades and warm relations he enjoys with other countries (who were lukewarm to us previously).

If Obbalama-Ding-Dong said his first order of business was to get us out of the UN, I'd quit my job and campaign for him full-time. That's critical for me right now, and a discussion for a different thread.

[Eikon]

I think McCain has already screwed himself by his lack of activity in the last few weeks.

He really needed to have chosen his running mate already.

I think he would have made huge strides in public opinion if he had chosen his mate. He would have given an appearance of solidity, leadership, planning, etc... He would look like he had things together - confident, sure of himself, ready to win.

His ticket would have had weeks of head start while the Dem's continue to fight and pick at each other. That could have been a nice chance to pick away at the dem's lead.

[Jager]

well if anything history has to say about beating diseases, I think McCain's cancer is gonna help him more then anything.

lets face it, people understand adversity, they prefer to side with people who have "been in their shoes" if you will.

I hope the democrats dont shoot themselves in the foot by making hilary the Veep.

"lifes a b%tch dont vote for one. crude but true, shes half smoke and half mirrors, and besides shes already been president for 8 years, why should she get another 4 years in her name :P

(kidding)

Obama scares me because he wants change but no one including him week to week knows what that change means.

we have no solid voting record, no understanding of his political leanings as far as budget, economy, military because every major speech hes changed a bit.

whether hes Americas great cure or not, I will not be voting for someone who promises me change but wont let me know what that means.

internment camps and global thermonuclear war or capitulating to hostile states on issues pressuring the US are all changes, and while I dont think hed go that far, we need to see what his points are and how he sticks to them.

ill take another 4 years of the same over hollow promises that cant even be spelled out. that means whoever is in office is dedicated to working with what hes got, not with flipping everything on its head and hoping for the best, or in Obamas case we dont know what his change even is... hes running a platform thats totally hollow as far as expectations and hard facts.

i tender the former president clinton as best proof of what happens when you change up the system and it starts failing miserably.After he brought up all the social welfare programs, that destroyed the reagenomics that were finally going into full effect as promised in the mid 80s.

while we arent doing well atm, what if anything can any president do in 4 years to totally change the woes of this country.

The only promise I know of obamas is that hes yanking all the troops out, regardless of how things are going, then he will send them back in if its gets "more dangerous"

so I am supposed to think taking soldiers out while they are making progress abet very gradual, and then send them back in after the sectarian violence and terrorists move back in and Iran takes the chance and sets up a puppet government or funds a faction with weapons or nuclear arms... yeah thats a good plan there. that will save US lives.

Id rather have the old guy who has fought and understands at least the basics of how military and politics dont mix on the ground; then a junior senator who thinks guns are bad in the hands of responsible citizens much less grasps how hardball diplomacy is supposed to be played.....

[96Qowner]

For the first time since Bush 41, the candidate I want is the one that was nominated by my Party - John McCain. What I find really startling is that hardly anyone who posts about this election knows much about McCain. I've seen all the McSame and McBush comedians I care to see, for instance. The idea that McCain is anything like Bush is just ... well ... ignorant. I expect that people will be surprised to learn how he's bucked the Republican Party for nearly his entire career, or how he fought the Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq strategy, fighting constantly for a larger troop presence to finally END this costly police action, irritating the hell out of the Bush administration. And whaddya know, it worked.

I think Obama is an amazing individual. He's destined (or was) for great things. When he entered the race last year I thought it was great - a chance to dip his toe into the national scene and make a name for a future run. But ... he wants it THIS year. Bad idea. He needs to go away for 8 years and try to actually accomplish something besides running winning campaigns. This is a guy who has run a campaign every 2 years for the past 12 years. He never actually was able to accomplish anything in any of the offices he held, though. Unfortunate. Obama will have been a US Senator for 4 years, 2 of which he spent campaigning for the Presidency. I'm one who believes that a President should be qualified. Others disagree with me. That's fine.

As far as race issues, if someone wants to play that card, they're gonna have to explain why it's not a race issue for 90% of blacks to vote Democrat and 90% of those to reject Hillary in favor of Obama. Blacks will be more than 25% of the Democratic vote for President this year, and perhaps 1% of McCain's support.

So, yeah, McCain is not a champion debater, nor much of a speechmaker, and he's old. There are a lot of people who won't care to look past that, but those that do may think they'd rather have an experienced old man in charge, than an attractive wannabe rookie who talks real good. There's a segment of America that isn't often heard from or analyzed. Nixon called it the Silent Majority. These are people who don't argue and don't shout and don't attend rallies. They don't appear on television or in newspapers to give their opinions. But they quietly go vote. John McCain is the sort of moderate candidate these people approve of.

It's hard to tell which way it will tip in November, but once Obama has to actually give some details there're are gonna be some problems. We'll see. I'm quite confidant that McCain will win handily.

[AZhitman]

Much agreed. Experience is key for me. While I'm not a McCain supporter per se, I'll sleep better knowing he's not gonna panic or make knee-jerk decisions in a crisis.

Keep in mind, those of you under 30, the mainstream media would have you believe that this race will be close.

They anointed BO months before Hillarious bowed out, so why would you think they're actually into reporting with integrity?

The silent majority is too busy working / earning / saving / raising kids to talk about their political choices - But they show up and vote, faithfully, in every election.

[AZhitman]

I lost all respect for Mac when he sold out to the "base".

Maybe I've been living under a rock, but for the past 20 years I've lived in the same state as the man, and he's far from a "sellout". In fact, he pisses off 90% of the GOP. He didn't get a rep as a "maverick" by pandering to "the base".

I think you're thinking of the candidate who turned his back on his psychopath nutjob spiritual leader ONLY after political pressures mounted against him, and even then it took him a couple tries and some pathetic "explanations".

THAT is "selling out".

NOT selling out would have been BO saying, "You don't like what he has to say? Fine. I do. Get over it."

That's not what happened.

If we're going to use terms like "selling out", let's at least know what the term means and apply it properly.

[96Qowner]

NOT selling out would have been BO saying, "You don't like what he has to say? Fine. I do. Get over it."

That's not what happened.

Yeah, when the Rev Wright story first broke, it didn't bother me a bit. So what? A good leader needs to have associations with all different sorts of people. So Rev Wright is a black-centrist radical, highly respected in his own community and nationwide. Big deal. That doesn't mean Obama believes the same things. It only means that Obama used Rev Wright and his church to get at the Chicago constituency he needed to gain political office there. No problem as far as I'm concerned.

But THEN Obama started to issue all those waffling statements, half apologizing, half defending - ridiculous and pitiful - pure pandering, typical political weeny talk. He didn't have to do that and shouldn't have. Then, to top it off, he tried to suggest that his "cling" comment was .... "true". True? Nu uh, Obama. We know that language. Clearly, Obama knows nothing of the typical Americans who live in unimportant little towns. They no more "cling" to guns and religion than San Franciscoans "cling" to homosexuality and arugula.

Since that time, I've lost a lot of respect for Barry Obama. He isn't really acting all that differently than any politician. And who are his people, if Wright isn't? He's only been on the national scene for 4 years. Who will he appoint and why would they listen to HIM or be loyal to HIM? Who would we be electing?

Nobody is going to be telling McCain what he can and can't do. McCain will be in Charge. He'll be able to choose from people he's known for 20 years.

[HashiriyaS14]

Maybe I've been living under a rock, but for the past 20 years I've lived in the same state as the man, and he's far from a "sellout". In fact, he pisses off 90% of the GOP. He didn't get a rep as a "maverick" by pandering to "the base".

I think he's referring to the past 2 years or so of McCain's history.

Since seriously gearing up for this Presidential campaign, McCain has reversed long-held views in the interest of pandering to the GOP base. He was very moderate on immigration for years, although now he's taken more of a hard-line approach. The same can be said for the appointment of reflexively conservative justices on the Supreme Court, as up until now he's been very much a social moderate.

I respected him a ton back in the "straight talk express" days of 2000, a little less so now. I still think he'd be a very good President, although I'm supporting Obama just because I don't want to see the aforementioned justice appointments.

For what it's worth, if Obama gets elected, I see a GOP legislative branch returning not long after. I prefer to have Republicans making the laws but Democrats appointing the Justices.

[AZhitman]

Which begs the question:

What if, in the next 4 years, NO controversial or "important" landmark cases reach the SC?

I understand your logic, but it seems like an awful stretch just to ensure certain high court decisions.

Besides, I don't see anyone real left (or real right) being appointed anyway (by either candidate).

On a side note, I don't think his stance on immigration has changed, I think the attention it's been given HAS. I live in the epicenter of the immigration debate, and things have reached critical mass here and in other affected areas.

ALL the "moderates" on immigration have toughened their stance out of pure necessity.

It's a perceptual change, because now is "poop or get off the pot" time, so to speak.

[HashiriyaS14]

Which begs the question:

What if, in the next 4 years, NO controversial or "important" landmark cases reach the SC?

I understand your logic, but it seems like an awful stretch just to ensure certain high court decisions.

It's not really material whether or not any landmark cases reach the court in the next 4 years. Given that justices are appointed for life, the people who are put on in the next 4-8 years (if any) will effect decisions made for the next couple decades.

The current Supreme Court has seen more 5-4 decisions than any term in recent history, since Alito's appointment. It currently has conservative leanings and is actively looking to uproot old decisions on subjects like abortion and create new precedents with things like faith in schools.

As a social moderate/liberal and individual liberties advocate, I don't want to see any of that happen. Usually my preference for fiscal conservatism overrides this and I vote Republican, although we haven't had a real fiscal conservative as President since GHW Bush (and even then...maybe). Thus, I will vote for the guy who will try to uphold the current social status quo.

If we see another 8 years of Republican administration, older liberal* justices like John Paul Stevens will retire and the left side of the court will no longer be able to fight important decisions with the swing justices. If we get 2 or even maybe just 1 more reflexively conservative justice, we can kiss Roe v. Wade bye-bye.

If they have the votes, the GOP and private interest groups will find SOMEONE to take a case before the court. Honestly, anyone could challenge any abortion ruling at any time, cases are easy to find. What makes it a "landmark case" is that the balance of the court has changed in such a way that the ruling will overturn an older precedent.

*John Paul Stevens is only a liberal by Supreme Court standards. He has supported more decisions in favor of the individual and against government than any other sitting justice, making him appear fairly politically conservative (in classical terms) to my eyes. In days of old, the liberal justices were the ones trying to make sweeping changes, but this has now reversed itself. Stevens fights to maintain the status quo while people like Alito fight to push a socially conservative/religious agenda on America.

If being on the side of the individual against interfering government is "liberal" in these topsy-turvy political days, then I guess I'm becoming more of a liberal. As far as I'm concerned, advocating additional individual rights and limiting governmental interference will always be "conservative".

[audtatious]

1. He's pushing for "more of the same" in voter's eyes, whether this is actually true or not.

More of the same what? Iraq? We are winning there and the Iraq Gov is taking over more and more of the day to days. I have no problem with the "stay until the task is done" mentality in Iraq with Mac "at the wheel" because at least he seems to know what needs to be done to actually win over there. What I want to see more from Mac is conservative government in the form of less spending. Unfortunately, even if he presses for this it will be over ruled by his global warming initiatives.

2. He has no charisma, especially when compared to Obama. When ad-libbing, he comes of as a d***. When going from a script, he looks lost and fake. That last speech he did was one of the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. "That's... not change we can believe in... (big fake strained smile)". Pathetic.

Let's see what happens if Obama agrees to the requested Town Hall-style debates (which is doubtful). Obama is great in front of a big crowd where he has a teleprompter helping him yet he stumbles all over the place when directly addressed on issues. Mac will eat him alive once he starts digging into the "hope and change" initiatives. At some point Obama will have to explain his UH initiative, along with others, and we will all see where the rubber actually meets the road.

3. He's freaking old and it shows. Nobody wants a senile old grandpa patronizing them for 4 years, and that thing on his cheek makes him look like he switched to the dark side of the force. He frequently misspeaks, which is likely due to his age.

As long as he has a strong VP, I won't care. We will at least have a car enthusiast and decent looking First Lady instead of a bitter and racist one.

4. If, God forbid, Hillary is on the ticket as the VP, the numbers are simply on the Dem's side. It will be a Dem slam dunk pretty much everywhere except where there is a significant amount of misogynists and racists.

Seems everywhere I turn everyone spews the "racist" comments. It seems absolutely OK for black people to vote for the black candidate over the white one while white people voting for the white candidate over a black one is considered racism in action. Pathetic.

[AZhitman]

Hash - I won't waste the space with quoting it, but I couldn't agree with you more.

I think we're right on the cusp of things going downhill fast, and the status quo needs to be preserved, at least until the nation catches its collective breath.

These are NOT (contrary to what BO thinks) the times for drastic and sweeping domestic changes. It's a time to collect ourselves, finish some unfinished business, take a deep breath and prepare for what is sure to be a brighter future for the US.

[stopcamping]

The only part I think you're "off" on is BO's international affairs. I think he's utterly and completely lost there, and his inexperience in all things global is a huge red flag for me.

If it is such a red flag to you, why did you vote for GW? His experience in int'l affairs is comparable to Obama's, if not worse.

I also don't share your opinion of W's record internationally, but I blame the major media for overinflating our enemies' opinions of us and ignoring the positive accolades and warm relations he enjoys with other countries (who were lukewarm to us previously).

"Worldwide opinions of Bush are widely less favorable with the exception of a few countries, including Israel."http://www.globescan.com/news_....html

[audtatious]

If it is such a red flag to you, why did you vote for GW? His experience in int'l affairs is comparable to Obama's, if not worse.

What were the alternatives? Gore or Kerry? I'll take Bush for a 1000, Alex.

[stopcamping]

What were the alternatives? Gore or Kerry? I'll take Bush for a 1000, Alex.

What I am saying is this: BO's int'l inexperience should not bother anyone who voted for GW, because GW was just as inexperienced in int'l affairs as much as BO is, if not more so.

BTW, is it true that Bush never even visited a foreign country before he was President?

[audtatious]

BTW, is it true that Bush never even visited a foreign country before he was President?

He's in the pocket of the Saudi's so I doubt it.

Then again, he was a Governor so I highly doubt he had any reason (unlike Ahnold thinks he has ) to initiate much foreign correspondence as that is usually the feds job.

[96Qowner]

If it is such a red flag to you, why did you vote for GW? His experience in int'l affairs is comparable to Obama's, if not worse.

And if you think Bush had no experience in intl affairs, why would you want his replacement to have even less? At least Bush's dad was an expert in intl relations, as much good as it did him. I'm not so sure Barry's family will be much help. Obama does have a university degree in Intl Relations, if you think that's enough.

If anyone cares to know how Obama views the world and how he wants the USA to operate within that world, here's his article in Foreign Affairs from Jul, 2007:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/....html

It sounds very much like something a college student might have written. Oddly enough, it pretty much advocates a return to the same old policies of negotiation and sanctions and cooperation with European countries that Democrats love and have pursued to little end since the end of the Reagan administration - not exactly Change and Hope. Apparently, the traditional foreign policy establishment is comfortable with Obama's views. Look forward to a lot of talking and cooperating (capitulation) if Obama is elected. Also look forward to a complete abandonment of any gains we might have made in Iraq. Obama wants out of there within 16 months of taking office, and he wants no permanent bases in Iraq, no matter what the military says. 4000 Americans dead for nothing.

[Jager]

If it is such a red flag to you, why did you vote for GW? His experience in int'l affairs is comparable to Obama's, if not worse.

"Worldwide opinions of Bush are widely less favorable with the exception of a few countries, including Israel."http://www.globescan.com/news_....html

before we get to using media polls and other non scientific studies to point at flaws inhereent in our president or candidates, remember why the person is disliked.

while I will never nominate GWB for a Mensa prize, It bears noting that while he is unliked in the world its because our actions aired really dirty laundry about two of our lukewarm allies.

we did find exo-cet missles(french) and german arms in iraq, serial numbers confirmed that they were manufactured after the UN embargo both countries signed against iraq, they were busy trading oil for arms and that is one of the major reasons they were screaming for the US not to go to war in Iraq, we were stopping their backroom deal.

GWB is not his fathers diplomat, however no president since GH bush has been. Clinton was a monumental screwup and killed more US soldiers due to bad decisions and putting our troops at the UN disposal for stuff we had no business being in, or not allowing troops to stop genocides like Rwanda. even he admits it in his memoirs. only GH Bush could have gotten the coalition together to have desert storm and only he could have kept that kind of coalition all working together and not fighting internally, hes also the only president in our history to keep israel out of a conflict they should have fought he knew israel getting involved would cause the coalition of arab countries to collapse.. GHB is a old school guy with cajones that scared the hell out of the world, he was as most political allies and enemies and heads of state say "a master of diplomacy and the carrot and the stick."

hes well respected to this day and while we dont all agree with his actions during his 4 years Ill be damned if you can find any person alive right now who can do what he did as well as he did when it came to foreign policy, Reagen is quoted as saying it was GH Bushes ideas and resolve that helped the US break russia.

GWB may be an idiot and certainly slow on the uptake at times, but Ill be damned If i see even a spark of his intelligence in BO when it comes to many serious matters. GWB came out and said "hey im not so bright but im appointing smart people to help me out." and for all the flak hes taken hes stayed the course let his generals wage war and let his popularity slide trying to do what he believes is right. regardless of whether the direction is correct he has listened, followed his people and stayed the course without flip flopping at the first sign of opposition.

John M seems to do the same regardless of the party line, and I can appreciate his stances even if that means he and I disagree on the item or policy in question. BO hasnt really shown any of the ability to think on his own or follow his own course of action. hes following his handlers and his party line.

[HashiriyaS14]

No president since GH bush has been. Clinton was a monumental screwup and killed more US soldiers due to bad decisions and putting our troops at the UN disposal for stuff we had no business being in, or not allowing troops to stop genocides like Rwanda. even he admits it in his memoirs. only GH Bush could have gotten the coalition together to have desert storm and only he could have kept that kind of coalition all working together and not fighting internally, hes also the only president in our history to keep israel out of a conflict they should have fought he knew israel getting involved would cause the coalition of arab countries to collapse.. GHB is a old school guy with cajones that scared the hell out of the world, he was as most political allies and enemies and heads of state say "a master of diplomacy and the carrot and the stick."

I'm just quoting this because I'm a huge fan of GHWB and I think he rarely gets his due. He should have been a 2-term President.

I'm sure he didn't mind making all that money with Carlyle after he got out of office though, so I don't feel too sorry for the guy, lol. Still, I really admire him and always have. I remember making a "Bush for President" button back in 1988 when I was 7 years old.

Great year, lol. Shiro Z, GHWB elected, what more can you ask for?

[audtatious]

The only issue I have with Bush 1 is that he didn't go ahead and roll through Baghdad. There would have been more reason at the time and I feel there would have been less issues with terrorists too.

[HashiriyaS14]

The only issue I have with Bush 1 is that he didn't go ahead and roll through Baghdad.

Because he knew it was unwinnable then, as it remains now.

He wasn't happy when his son did it either, as far as I know.

We might be able to improve the situation a little, but it won't ever be "winnable" in any conventional sense. Western-style representative secular democracy will NOT be instilled in Iraq by the time we leave whether we leave in 16 months or 16 years, period.

(okay, going to Buffalo for the weekend now)

[stopcamping]

Foreign perceptions

Bush's view within the international community is mixed, with countries such as Israel[209] and Albania[210] supporting him, and Venezuela and Iran largely opposed to him. He himself has been criticized internationally and targeted by the global anti-war and anti-globalization campaigns, particularly for his administration's foreign policy.[211][212] Bush has been described as having especially close personal relationships with Tony Blair and Vicente Fox, although formal relations are sometimes strained.[213][214][215] Both Bush and Tony Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prizes in 2002[216][217] and in 2004,[218] although neither won the award. Other leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, and particularly Hugo Chávez,[219] have openly criticized the president. Later in Bush's presidency, tensions arose between himself and Vladimir Putin, which has led to a cooling of their relationship.[220]

In 2006, a majority of respondents in 18 of 21 countries surveyed around the world were found to hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as negative for world security.[221][222]

A March 2007 survey of Arab opinion conducted by Zogby International and the University of Maryland found that Bush is the most disliked leader in the Arab world. More than three times as many respondents registered their dislike for Bush as for the second most unpopular leader, Ariel Sharon.[223]

The Pew Research Center's 2007 Global Attitudes poll found that out of 47 countries, a majority of respondents expressed "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence" in Bush in only nine countries: Israel, India, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, and Uganda.[209]

During a June 2007 visit to Albania Bush was greeted enthusiastically as the Albanian people cheered, shook his hands, and kissed his cheeks. Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha commented that Bush "was [the] greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times." The largely Islamic nation has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the country's government is highly supportive of American foreign policy.[210] A huge image of the President now hangs in the middle of the capital city of Tirana flanked by Albanian and American flags.[224] The Bush administration's support for the independence of Albanian-majority Kosovo, while endearing him to the Albanians, has troubled U.S. relations with Serbia, leading to the February 2008 torching of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade.[225]