George W. Bush is ...

That's not what I meant... A republican is in office now. He is immensely unpopular. People should want a change...

If a democrat wins in 2008, it will be largely because of the failure of the current administration...

 

I ask this as a serious question, not as a criticism of you or Bush: If likability was an important factor to you and all of those people who voted for Bush (or against Gore and Kerry) in 2000 and 2004, as your post suggests, have the results of those votes changed the way you'll think about candidates in the future? Do you think you (or the American public in general) will place greater value on things like intelligence, competence, experience and exposure to the rest of the world when deciding on a candidate (regardless of his or her party), and less on likability and whether or not you'd like to have a drink with the guy (or girl)? If not, then the chances are good that whoever gets elected in 2008, we'll have another crappy president.

 

Fair enough.

 

The public wants to like the president... That's why Reagan and Clinton were so incredibly popular and won two landslide elections. And it's why two boring stiffs like Kerry and Gore lost...

It's human nature and it's not going to change...

 

grohl, it's a good question. unfortunately i think the answer is that people won't change the way they vote. americans have short memories and rarely think about long-term consequences. not to bring out the biggest cliches, but it's all about what have you done for me lately. if the nice, fun, cooler guy runs against some nerd, the former wins unless the dork somehow becomes likable. a simplistic and depressing analysis of politics today, but that's the way i see it.

 

I don't go by who is the most likable. That's silly.

I go by best looking.

Hillary vs. McCain will be close.

 

Let's see.

He's got to be the worst two-term president, knocking Grant or Nixon off the perch, depending on how which historians you believe about Grant.

Harding was probably the worst on a day-for-day basis, but he's only got two years to Bush's 8. Buchanan was pretty horrible - I know it was asking a lot for the President to try to stop an impending Civil War, but he could have at least tried. Of course, if not for Franklin Pierce, Buchanan might not have been in that position.

That's three. Sticking with the Civil War, Andrew Johnson?

 

I would like to think intelligent people -- like yourself, I'll assume -- can figure that likability might not always be the biggest factor in running a country. I'd also like to think that anybody who voted for the guy twice would have the "character" -- to use a term the Bushies like to toss about -- to admit that, yeah, I ignored a lot of red flags and help put this boob back in the White House.

As for putting up a candidate "who can win," that's what got us into this problem in the first place. We no longer give a shit about electing great men. We focus on who has the financial backing to win the thing. It's pathetic.

 

John Kerry was fundamentally unfit to be president of the United States. Just as unfit as GW is, but for different reasons. If you are running for president in 2004 and cannot give the voters a coherent position on Iraq, you are unfit to be president. If you cannot state a consistent position on the most important issue of the campaign, you are running for all of the wrong reasons. As Bush implied, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot invite your "allies" into joining "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." You cannot have the wrong war/place/time line and then say you would still vote for the war if you had the chance to vote again. Kerry simply wanted to parrot every criticism, valid or not, about how Bush handled the war, but never actually had a position of his own. When your military record is being openly slandered and you don't run to the first microphone, declare that you are asking them to be unsealed and then launch into a "Have you no sense of decency" speech, but instead need to ask advisors and consultants what to do, you are unfit to be president.

I don't base my vote for president on the issues as much as the man. A president gets a one-year window to implement a few issues that he places a priority on. For Bush, it was basically tax cuts and NCLB. After those first few key pieces, being president is about reacting to circumstance as much as anything else. How a candidate campaigns is a good indicator of their management style -- good and bad. Bush's campaigns have shown a high degree of discpline with Bush setting out grand themes and letting underlings plot the details. Bush has shown a willingess to let underlings play dirty, never willing to openly acknowledge their deeds, but never disavowing it. Sound like a president you know? With good underlings, it can be highly successful. With Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Sec.....well, you get the idea.

Kerry's campaign showed that he was a constant victim of analysis to the point of paralysis, unwilling to shove away any advice offered, unwilling to offend his inner circle and always being completely unable to act decisively. None of those are acceptable qualities in a president. If you combine Kerry and Bush's best qualities, you would have a very good president -- something roughly approximating Bill Clinton without the libido issues. In 2004, the voters went for the candidate who would blunder decisively over the candidate who would blunder indecisively because in the GWOT, the voters preferred action over Hamlet-esque indecision.

 

Let's see:

- taxes have been lowered
- the economy is doing very well (except for people working at newspapers I gather)
- the country has not been attacked since 9/11

I think history is going to be pretty kind to George W Bush

 

...the worst President in United States history.

 

Pope --
While I disagree with much of that, it was thoughtful and well-reasoned. Which is all one can hope for.

Lou --
Omitting the Middle East from your list -- when Bush himself is said that the outcome of his policies there will ulimately decide how he is judged -- is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.