How is President George W. Bush handling the Government?

borgslayer

How is President George W. Bush handling the Government?

This is a poll for opinions. (Please post comments)

Republican_Man · **Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:38 pm**

I really think that you should have an in-between response. Right now I don't think he's handling it well, but I also don't think he's doing a poor job. I'm in the middle. Some days I lean one way and some the other, now.

And btw, it should be "well," not good

.

LightningBoy · **Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:44 pm**

Better Poll; President Bush:
-Great President
-Greatest President Ever

You must chose one.

Republican_Man · **Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:52 pm**

Not the greatest president ever, nor the second greatest. No way. First is Lincoln, second is Reagan. I used to think Bush third, but I haven't been sure since his re-election. Is he a great President? Well, he had a great first term. Now, with his second term, he's not so great, but finally he's getting back up there, taking SOME action on the border--even though it's hardly anything--and is working to get spending down and is finally responding to the Democrats' criticism over Iraq. So, I have to say I'm liking Bush more and more once again, and that's why I'm unsure. I was in the No category for about a month or two, and now I'm leaning towards good/well/yes, and I think by the end of the year I will be a big fan of Bush again, even though I'll still think he's very much a failure on immigration and spending, which he is.

EDIT: Overall, though, I do think, considering his first term, that he is, in fact, a great president. Just he's made some big mistakes, particularly this term.

LightningBoy · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:02 am**

It was a joke for anyone who watches the Colbert Report.

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:09 am**

What's the Colbert Report?

EDIT: Answered via PM by Valathous.

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

TrekkieMage · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:09 pm**

I do not believe Bush has done a good job. But it's not all his fault. Congress has not done much to check his power, and the Supreme Court put him there in the first place (the case had almost no legal standing and many people heavily criticize the decision. Conservatives and liberals alike. Not to mention that the dissents are scathing. )

I feel that I have generally made my opinions on the current adminstration quite clear.

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:15 pm**

Still not over the 2000 election, are we? Ridiculous. Sings "Get over it! Get over it!" Besides, it was right to go to the court and the court made the right decision. And besides that, if Gore was elected it would have been detrimental.
Anyways, I'm VERY glad at the Bush administration's punches back at the Democrats over pre-war intel, etc. It's really gotten me liking them again. Finally, they're not taking the blows. They realize that having these uncountered attacks from the left was just hurting them in the polls and are at last taking action. The Democrats' responses to these responses are little more than just funny.

IntrepidIsMe · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:24 pm**

I think the 37% approval rating is hilarious.

TrekkieMage · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:24 pm**

^How did I know you'd be the first to respond

I know Bush won the 2000 election. That's obvious. What bugs me is the fact that the case should never have been argued in front of the court. It had very little (if not none) legal reason to be there (and how do you know Gore's presidency would have been detrimental? No one could know that

) And Bush's presidency began in 2000, so it's logical to begin there when determining how good/bad his presidency has been.

His first term wasn't too bad. Mostly he just ticked off the liberals.

Second term. He's floundering. His entire administration is falling apart from under him and all of the mistakes he made last term are coming back to haunt him.

And for the record I think that the Democratic party is a bunch of *beep*'s while the Republicans are a bunch of spoiled brats. I don't hold either in high regard.

[edit: I ment RM at the begining there, but IntrepidIsMe responded before I finished

]

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:42 pm**

You're right; it's shouldn't have gone to the court. Bush won the recounts, and so he won fair and square. (I won't elaborate on the Gore thing because this isn't a topic for him.)
And the presidency began in January of 2001, not 2000

.
I don't see his administration falling apart. Only Libby. It's been shown that Libby and Rove and Cheney are all fine over the CIA leak, and it's just media and liberal hype that the administration is really in trouble, which it's not. It's just that because of the uncountered attacks on Bush and the media's hype of certain situations, his polls have gone down.
And I fail to see how the Republicans are spoiled brats in any way. I do see them as not having much of a backbone, however, which distresses me.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

^Didn't Gore actually win the popular vote by 500,000?

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:11 pm**

Yes, but not the Florida vote. And he won the electoral college, which is what our system is based off of. Since he won Florida he won the race, and therefore won it fair and square.

LightningBoy · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:47 pm**

The 2000 election court case needed to go to court, without a doubt. It set a very important precident in this country; whatever the result. It was not so much about the results of the election, instead it was about Equal Protection under the law.

Without Bush v. Gore, votes could be counted differently based on what county they were voted in. What this vote did was determined what counted as a vote (they said hanging chads were votes, dimpled chads were not), and what counted as a no-vote; and it set a universal president for all counties to follow. (Meaning everyone's vote is counted equally, which is how the constitution guarantees it should be.)

Many people misunderstand Supreme Court cases; rarely are they about the individual result, instead about setting important precident.

TrekkieMage · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:44 pm**

But just what was the legal reasoning for the case? I agree that the precident is very important. But they really didn't have a case. It was just that everyone was impatient. Technically (I think they did a non-partisan recount after the fact) I believe Gore won. But we never got to see what the electoral count for Florida would have been given that recount. They stopped it while Bush was in the lead, and the electoral votes reflected that.

And RM, you're correct. He was inaugurated in 2001. But his campaign for president was in 2000, and since it was controversial it did start off is term with a bit of a bang.

LightningBoy · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:55 pm**

Every recount showed Bush won, by margins of between about 240 and 890 votes (approx). There WAS a recount, the way it was performed was all that was argued.

The court case came up because one county was counting votes that had dimpled chads, one county was counting dimpled chads and hanging chads, and another was counting no chads. This meant that not every vote was treated equally, thus, there was an equal protection case.

Dimpled Chads were votes that were pressed on the punch hole, but not enough to break through the paper.

Hanging Chads were votes that were pressed through the paper, but the pressed peice was still obstructing the the hole.

The court case was to determine what was a vote and what was not; and in a 7-2 (I think) descision, the court ruled that Hanging Chads were votes, and Dimpled Chads were not; and that all counties in Florida had to record their votes as so. (Meaning every vote in Florida was counted with equal protection under the law. Since the constitution mandates that be so.)

There may have been cases that involved recounts, any of them would've been moot, since every independant count has shown Bush won; but the trademark Bush v. Gore case was simply about Equal Protection under the law.

Wikipedia puts it well:

borgslayer · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:23 pm**

back to topic please?

Theresa · **Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:36 pm**

They are providing reasons for responses. Posting comments as you yourself asked. So they are on topic, thank you.

webtaz99 · **Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:05 am**

The President doesn't "run the government". That's exactly why we have three Branches. He gets his title because he "presides" over Congress, and is the high muckity-muck of the Executive Branch who signs bills into law. Anyone who thinks that any President can truly run things needs to wake up. This country is run by the wealthy, who are never elected and rarely even known to the public. They aren't going to let any President upset their system to any great degree.

Republican_Man · **Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:55 am**

I must say that I'm very impressed with Bush now. Watching this speech right now, and the counters he's now making, the action on other issues...I'm really regaining my faith in Bush. I predict higher poll numbers for him. I don't think I can vote "Good" yet, but I'm close to it.

Seven of Nine · **Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:47 am**

Words mean nothing if not supported with actions.

Apart from that, I'm not going to say anything until I've gone and done some research (not watched the news since Thursday morning when I was watching Fox news and wondering how they expect an effective interview to be carried out when they kept interrupting the interviewee).

Republican_Man · **Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:54 pm**

Tell me, considering the time difference. Which show were you watching on Fox, exactly? O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes...?
And his words very much are actions and are becoming accompannied by actions as well (I believe).

Seven of Nine · **Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:25 am**

I can't remember, but it was 9am-ish here, so would have been 4am Eastern Time.

Maybe it was crazy because it was so early in the morning?

Republican_Man · **Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:47 pm**

Okay, that's Hannity and Colmes. That would be 2:00 AM here, which means that it was the second playing of Hannity and Colmes. Hannity and Colmes is a debate show and has a liberal and a conservative host who, yes, asked bias questions, but completely balance each other out. And because it's a debate show, more than a simple interview show, there was some interruptions in the "interview," if you want to call it that. That's what happens on Hannity and Colmes, and sometimes O'Reilly, because of what the format of the show is. O'Reilly and H&C aren't your conventional news shows.