Members Emprov Posted February 6, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Yep. He's evil like the bad guys from Captain Planet, not ineffective like Jimmy Carter. Brilliant Jimmy Carter reference! How's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 It demonstrates weak opposition. Or different times. Perception is everything. Did Regan end communism? Many thought/think so. I do agree that Regan was superior in that he was both effective at accomplishing his plans as well as effectively communicating to people. Did he actually do better or worse things? I say only time will tell. Effective does not equal good. I do agree on the point that leadership inspires confidence in the masses. Under that criterion, Bush is a horrible leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 I do agree on the point that leadership inspires confidence in the masses. Under that criterion, Bush is a horrible leader.Thank you, Kindness. You understand exactly the criterion I'm using. edit: as a side note, I have a strong feeling that history will view GW much more favorably than the current US climate does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Ronald Reagan was superior to George W Bush. Reagan was an effective communicator enough that he received quite a few votes from Democrats. The same can not be said of George W. Bush. He's gotten a lot of things through. How popular was Reagan? How popular is Bush? How divided was the nation when Reagan left office as opposed to the mood as Bush leaves office? How did the world look as Reagan left office? How does the world look as Bush is leaving office? Big difference. If he was an effective communicator those marks all around would be significantly higher. Accomplishing what Bush wanted to accomplish with an approval rating in the low 30's doesn't demonstrate leadership. It demonstrates weak opposition. And just as an FYI, I don;t believe I;ve stated that I disagree with what he's accomplished. I won't argue for one scond that Reagan>Bush. But it really doesn't have a damn thing to do with popularity. You're confusing the two. Popularity /= effectiveness. Accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish with an approval rating in the low 30's demonstrates exceptional leadership. You are also assuming that dividing the country is a bad thing. There are many people that believe it's time to quit compromising and quit "reaching across the aisle" and stand on truly conservative priniples and not bend to the "popular" opinion. I happen to be one of them. when you compromise what you believe in for the sake of appeasement, that slippery slope gets much steeper.It's time conservatives acted like conservatives instead of becoming "moderates", or to put it bluntly, cowtowing. Having a difference of opinion and standing by the principles you belieive in is what makes our political process great. Not everyone trying to be like everyone else to appease them and make everyone happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 Thank you, Kindness. You understand exactly the criterion I'm using. It is pretty easy to read your context. Same with most of the other posters in this thread. However, to Jugghaid's point, Bush is an effective leader, not to the masses, but to his minions that are the one's accomplishing all of the tasks he wants them to accomplish. In that sense he is extremely effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 But it really doesn't have a damn thing to do with popularity.Obviously it's easier to be a leader if people believe in where you're going. You can try to turn what I'm saying into "popularity," but that's not what I've stated at all. People can approve of the job you do and not like you. As far as dividing the country, I couldn't disagree with you more. An effective leader has a way of moving the great majority of people forward in a positive way, hence Reagan > Bush. Even you said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 It is pretty easy to read your context. Same with most of the other posters in this thread.However, to Jugghaid's point, Bush is an effective leader, not to the masses, but to his minions that are the one's accomplishing all of the tasks he wants them to accomplish. In that sense he is extremely effective.I agree. But that doesn't get it done with the populace, which is one of the reasons the Republican Party is in disarray at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted February 6, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Obviously it's easier to be a leader if people believe in where you're going. You can try to turn what I'm saying into "popularity," but that's not what I've stated at all. People can approve of the job you do and not like you. As far as dividing the country, I couldn't disagree with you more. An effective leader has a way of moving the great majority of people forward in a positive way. Part of being a leader is knowing how to lead though, i.e. how to get things done and there are a lot of ways that you can do that. Bush chooses to remain quiet and effective, it's a leadership style. Clinton (take your pick), has to be loud and upfront. Not a better or worse style, just different. Check out CEO's, Jobs, Gates, Chambers -- all very effective leaders but each with a very different leadership style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 Part of being a leader is knowing how to lead though, i.e. how to get things done and there are a lot of ways that you can do that. Bush chooses to remain quiet and effective, it's a leadership style. Clinton (take your pick), has to be loud and upfront. Not a better or worse style, just different. Check out CEO's, Jobs, Gates, Chambers -- all very effective leaders but each with a very different leadership style.Bush hasn't gotten it done. He's a good speaker. Why hasn't he been out there more? Just like Daddy Bush, he'd rather stay in the background, all the while letting the nation get more frustrated. Sorry. That's not leadership. He hasn't done squat about illegal immigration, either. If he wasn't concerned about popularity or could get it done, something could have been done. Let's not forget that Reagan did everything with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature. The same cannot be said of Bush. Again, is that really leadership or just weak opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 How popular was Reagan? How popular is Bush? People can approve of the job you do and not like you. As far as dividing the country, I couldn't disagree with you more. An effective leader has a way of moving the great majority of people forward in a positive way, hence Reagan > Bush. Even you said so. And look at the economy. Look at a lot of things that GW has accomplished. Look at our GDP (PPP) for people in this country. look at the unemployment rates. Has he or has he not moved the majority of people forward in a positive way? Many of them moved forward kicking and screaming, but they moved forward nonetheless. Now that doesn't mean he hasn't done some things I completely disagree with , he has. and a lot of them. But the fact is that, as you said, history will remember him much differently than what the opinion polls currently portray. That is because he was an effective leader, who stuck to his guns and did what he thought was the right thing(s) for this country. Against a ton of opposition. Against popular opinion. Against constant criticism. To me that is much more effective than anything you will see from a moderate. The fact that I feel Reagan>Bush really has nothing to do with approval ratings or being the "great communicator". In fact Reagan was very much like Bush in the way that he was going to do what he thought was right for this country, regardless of what his opponents and critics thought. He was just plain better at it than Bush. Maybe you don't remember this during the Reagain years. the media constantly criticized him for bullying the congress and getting his legislation passed come hell or high water. And I personally agreed with many more of Reagans policies than Bush's. He was much more conservative and much more a strict constitutionalist than Bush will ever be. In many ways they are similar in pattern, but Reagan was cut from a much higher quality of cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 It is pretty easy to read your context. Same with most of the other posters in this thread.However, to Jugghaid's point, Bush is an effective leader, not to the masses, but to his minions that are the one's accomplishing all of the tasks he wants them to accomplish. In that sense he is extremely effective. Exactly. I understand what Thud is trying to say, but I think we have completely different definitions of "effective". To me, effictive is strictly results oriented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush hasn't gotten it done. He's a good speaker. Why hasn't he been out there more? Just like Daddy Bush, he'd rather stay in the background, all the while letting the nation get more frustrated. Sorry. That's not leadership. He hasn't done squat about illegal immigration, either. If he wasn't concerned about popularity or could get it done, something could have been done. Let's not forget that Reagan did everything with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature. The same cannot be said of Bush. Again, is that really leadership or just weak opposition? Bush doesn't WANT to do anything about illegal immigration. He's been in bed with the leadership in Mexico since day one. One of the many things I vehemently disagree with him on. It started with him and Vincente Fox and continues now. An Bush has had to face a Dem confgress as well. And I will concede the opposition is weaker than when Reagan was in office. Another reason Reagan>Bush, but he still has the opposing party in control of the legislature and is still getting done what he wants to get done. that is still being very effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush doesn't WANT to do anything about illegal immigration. He's been in bed with the leadership in Mexico since day one. One of the many things I vehemently disagree with him on. It started with him and Vincente Fox and continues now.I have been hugely disappointed in his illegal immigrant policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 In many ways they are similar in pattern, but Reagan was cut from a much higher quality of cloth. Someone took a dump on Reagan's grave a few years back. It was in the news. That was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 I have been hugely disappointed in his illegal immigrant policy. Same here - that, his lukewarm support of my beloved 2nd, and his spending/.govt growth are my main beefs with him... However, my biggest reason for voting for him was his potential SCOTUS picks, and the WOT - and in those regards, thus far I'm OK with my choice... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush hasn't gotten it done. He's a good speaker. Did I just land on another planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mmb Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Someone took a dump on Reagan's grave a few years back. It was in the news. That was funny. I'm not sure desecration of any grave site warrants a chuckle, but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush doesn't WANT to do anything about illegal immigration. He's been in bed with the leadership in Mexico since day one. One of the many things I vehemently disagree with him on. It started with him and Vincente Fox and continues now.An Bush has had to face a Dem confgress as well. And I will concede the opposition is weaker than when Reagan was in office. Another reason Reagan>Bush, but he still has the opposing party in control of the legislature and is still getting done what he wants to get done. that is still being very effective. Bush strongly supported immigration reform, but he couldn't get support from his own base. Ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush strongly supported immigration reform, but he couldn't get support from his own base. Ineffective......in that one area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 But you are making an assumption that good vibrations don't affect those results. Also, he campaigned in 2000 that he was a "uniter, not a divider." As divided as the nation is, I would say he wasn't the person he said he was going to be. That's a pretty poor result. Dude, they all lie. I don't think he ever had any intention of being a "uniter" at all. he's a politician. He was lying. Exactly why I want someone who will set a higher standard. I have been hugely disappointed in his illegal immigrant policy. That makes 2 of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Dude, they all lie. I don't think he ever had any intention of being a "uniter" at all. he's a politician. He was lying. Exactly why I want someone who will set a higher standard.That makes 2 of us. He was going by his Texas experience. Dems and Repubs work hand in hand here all the time. I've even seen them cross party lines on supporting candidates w/o repercusions from their own parties. The national stage is a bit more caustic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bush strongly supported immigration reform, but he couldn't get support from his own base. Ineffective. Lip service....nothing more. his base......they are vehemenly opposed to any type of amnesty. They are for deportation. They want the wall built. His idea of immigration reform is not what his base wanted. So he has done nothing. which is fine with him, I'm sure, ans he's not against illegal immigration. That's not ineffective at all. Just wrong IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 Did I just land on another planet? No. That doesn't mean he's not a good speaker. He hides away in the White House and the Ranch behind his handlers and Cabinet appointees. I don't think that was the right move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted February 6, 2008 Members Share Posted February 6, 2008 .....in that one area. Well, I was responding to a comment about that one area.If you need another area of ineffectiveness, try social security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 6, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 6, 2008 He was going by his Texas experience. Dems and Repubs work hand in hand here all the time. I've even seen them cross party lines on supporting candidates w/o repercusions from their own parties. The national stage is a bit more caustic.Yep. He didn't mean it as a lie. He was very sincere about that. Unfortunately he didn't get it accomplished on a national level. No Child Left Behind has met with little fan fair, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.