So what do Europeans make of Dubya?

Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:03 AM
  #21  
John
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First lets stop calling George W. Bush, Dubya. Even the left liberal press doesn't use this term. I have only heard the term, Dubya on the Fodors forum. What does that say about some fodorites. Little minds resort to name calling when they really have nothing to say. What kind of a person calls a republican a fascist?
To American also: The Aussies did not save our skin in World War II, rather we saved their skin. Japan bombed Darwin in 1942. The Aussies were defenseless and unprepared. In the pacific the Americans fought and won every battle.
As far as the statement "not everyone that graduates from an Ivy league school is smart" That is probably true, because a high percentage of them get there because of affirmative action. Incidently Teddy Kennedy got expelled from Harvard for cheating.
I guess you can ridicule our country and our new president, or you can be proud of our country and our new President. In America that is your choice. I choose to be proud.

More later.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:06 AM
  #22  
lola
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Since this is a European forum, what do you guys think of the fact that he (practically?) NEVER has been to Europe and he is healthy, wealthy and 54!!!
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:18 AM
  #23  
dc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dubya? The question illustrates a lack of respect in itself. Europe should care who's the President of the United States because the US has to bail them out of so many messes and I'm not talking about WWII. How about Bosnia or Kosovo. The President-elect has an advanced degree from an ivy league school. Does this make him brilliant? Certainly not. Al Gore flunked out of law and divinity school. Does this make him stupid? I doubt it. One thing that shapes our preception is the media. By most accounts their bent is liberal. It should not be surprising then that the President-elect has been percieved as being mentally challenged throughout the campaign. It was a way to bring him down. One way to judge a man is by looking at the company he keeps. I'm not talking about Mrs. Bush but Colin Powell and Condy Rice. Europe should be pleased with this national security team Bush has assembled. Most of you should stick to travel and not politics.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:19 AM
  #24  
Nancy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If everyone will remember back to the early 90's when Clinton was running as a former govenor, he had no experience in foriegn affairs (political that is) and even said that he intended to take care of America first. I guess that is why he became on of the most (if not THE most) traveled presidents in history?? I can't believe that Ireland was so happy to see him come meddling after he helped the middle east so much.

I don't see where not knowing the latest political mantra is a bad thing. Clinton is better with the BS than GWB is, it falls from his lips very easy. I am glad GWB hasn't been spoiled by Washington yet, I will be sorry if it does (is it inevitable?) happen.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:24 AM
  #25  
Ivy Leaguer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Just to be clear America First, the type of "affirmative action" that results in the admission of most of the middling candidates is affirmative action for the children of wealthy alums.

As for the nickname Dubya, I believe that is a nickname that isn't intended to be insulting. I thought Bush embraced it. Now, Duhhhhbya, well that's something else. And after the right wingers put so much energy into insulting Gore as "Sore Loserman," . . . perhaps the pot had best be careful of what it calls the kettle.

Hate to disappoint you, but
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:25 AM
  #26  
Lola, too
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You know how many trips George W. Bush has made to Europe? Did you follow him? Is that a criteria of a person's intelligence? How many trips they have made to Europe?
I'm sure an intelligence test would show him to be very smart. What great lengths sore losers will go to. Get over it. He is our president and he is smart.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:32 AM
  #27  
anon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Excuse me while I digress, but please refresh my memory. What did Europeans think of the President who used the Oval Office as a private playground to have sexual relations with a White House intern? You know, the same President who needed the word "is" defined?
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:34 AM
  #28  
John
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ivy leaguer (as you call yourself) You are just wrong, wrong, wrong. Affirmative action is not for the children of wealthy alums. You should know who it is for.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:40 AM
  #29  
Ivy Leaguer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I regret that my attempt at a little sarcastic humor was misunderstood. Of course, traditional affirmative action programs aim to increase diversity for certain groups. The irony is that the real "outreach" at big name colleges is often directed at wealthy alums who don't exactly need any help getting ahead -- like Mr. Bush.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:45 AM
  #30  
justthe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
"Come on Shirley" are you saying that what the media reports is necessarily true and that if they don't report something than it is not? Thus by reporting or portray GWB as dumb he necessarily is, and that by not reporting that certain other politicos are dumb means that they are, in fact, smart.?? I never thought of it that way (and hope I never think of it that way again). I wonder if they teach that kind of thinking at those fancy Ivy League schools. When I reread your post, I actually thought that you were the one who was being satirical. I believe each of the heavyweights you listed has or could be charactarized as not too bright, at least at times. Then I read the rest of your post and I think you are serious.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:57 AM
  #31  
mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My impression of Europeans standards towards their elected officals is one that allows the person to be human - to have affairs, to have a sorid history. Americans seems to have this naive idea that our elected officals need to as pure as virgins - they can't have done drugs (how horrible and sinful), they can't be gay (God forbid!) , they can't have affairs (that we know of). From what I've read, Europeans seem to be more concerned with policy than the elected person's personal life. Americans seem to have this puritan and invasive attitude towards its elected officals. While I wouldn't want an alcoholic drug addicted President - oh, but wait.... A lot of Americans seem to need some type of untainted person to admire. Personally - I'm leary of anyone who tries to pass themselves off as some rightous, goody-to-shoes, Bible thumping individual.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 10:58 AM
  #32  
american
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I hope GWB is successful but DCs comment gets under my skin. The comment .......... "their bent is liberal. It should not be surprising then that the President-elect has been perceived as being mentally challenged throughout the campaign." Oh come on, already making excuses. I saw Bush speak in public with no "liberal media" to bend him and trust me, he does not come off as very sharp, no matter what spin you put on it. As far as what the Europeans think about the oval office and Clinton, the ones I talk to feel like many of the rest of us----The US spent hundreds of millions of dollars to find out the President did a little hanky-panky. And they believe, like many Americans, its nobody's business except his. For Nancy, you made the comment about "so much that was done for the middle east" which I took as sarcastic. Name another president that got that far with the Middle East. Remember the Handshake !!! It took a hundreds of years to get to that point and Clinton negotiated it. Again, I hope that GWB is successful, but cool-it on the "it's the liberal fault" and "Bush has brought back dignity back in the White House." No one knows yet what stories will surface from his "COKE" years.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:04 AM
  #33  
Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Anon is absolutely correct. Bill Clinton's term in the White House was a travesty when it comes to anything concerning family values. The man is a tramp. Idiot.

Al Gore, however, is an alien who almost succeeded in litigating his way into the presidency. Pathetic.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:09 AM
  #34  
Just
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I am so tired of hearing George W. Bush being portrayed as ignorant or stupid, because of his tone of voice or facial expressions when answering a question or making a statement. Let's face it in today's day and age, we (the U.S.) are definitely drawn to the politicians by the way they look, dress, and talk. Remember back to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. Those who watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy definitely won, those that listened to it on the radio thought Nixon had won. Also, Thomas Jefferson is noted as one of the greatest Presidents. However, if he were around today, I bet he wouldn't be elected. Not just for his romantic affairs, but also for the fact that he stuttered and it would not sound good on TV or the radio.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:17 AM
  #35  
mark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Now Dave - I'm sure you've been a big idiot at times (such as now). As for being a tramp - maybe if we examined your life under a microscope we would find out some rather unpleasent things also (now about those sequin pasties you wore with...) Your babbling moralistic self righteousness - and it stinks of hypocriscy. Do I think our elected officals need to take the higher road - of course. Do they? Will GWB? To think previous elected officals have led pure lives and that George will is foolish, silly, immature. Your a bit too old to still believe in fairy tales don't you think.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:19 AM
  #36  
coy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For "Just my opionion"---the ability to say more than one scripted sentence and give a sarcastic laugh is expected out of a world leader. It is comical to watch Bush and I voted for the quy for which I regret now. Greenspan not much of a "looker", but people stop and listen and he is believeable. Although I am sure his back is sore from Bush slapping it so much yesterday. Again, I voted for the quy.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:39 AM
  #37  
anona
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
MarkT: Your point is well taken, but let me suggest this: Many of us don't necessarily care what Clinton did (in the abstract), but how he did it and/or with whom; and how he lied about it. I would not have a problem w/Clinton had he said: " Yep, I smoked pot. don't do it now, but used to." I admire Gore for having the guts to admit to this, without the "I didn't inhale" crud. Also, if Clinton wanted to have a fling or two, I would be fine with that had he done so on his own time, not with an intern, and in an open manner (i.e. not behind Hilary's back). I would get terminated or sued if I did what he did with an employee. He lied to us about it and then had the gall to wag his finger at us, his employers, and say he didn't do it. Even if you aren't puritanical in your thinking about sex and drugs, you can still not like being lied to or that your leader is deceptive.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 11:40 AM
  #38  
Come On
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Actually, I'm quite serious. Someone said Dubya's intellect is questioned because of the media and comedy skits, and I was responding to that.

I am saying his intellect is questioned for four reasons I have observed: (1) he makes verbal gaffes at a rate higher than average; (2) he has certain mannerisms that look a little too casual under the circumstances; (3) he doesn't know his stuff on basic things like the economy, and he has not proven very adept at being a quick study; and (4) his background and accomplishments in life are that of an underachiever.

None of these things is the fault of the media or Saturday Night Live, in my opinion.

As for whether other politicians are dumb and are given a pass, can you imagine what would happen if Saturday Night Live tried to do a skit about how dumb Bill Clinton was? No one would get it, because Clinton is not dumb. There is necessarily a tiny grain of truth in satire, don't you think?
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 12:03 PM
  #39  
Cindy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Interesting thread. My opinion is that Bush's difficulty with communication might be a big problem. The president can't know everything and be everywhere, of course, so he/she has to have good people to implement policy. But the President has to make the case for the policy, no one can do it for him, and he has to persuade people to go along. Remember how Reagan would take his case directly to the people?

That's where Bush perhaps doesn't have the skill set the job requires. I've been paying attention to the honeymoon period, and Bush's public appearances so far have been underwhelming because he can't come up with reasonable answers to perfectly fair questions, so he just makes a joke. I worry that he won't be able to close the sale with the American people (he sure didn't close the sale in the popular vote), so we'll have four years of gridlock. I hope he'll grow in the job, and in a hurry.
 
Old Dec 19th, 2000, 12:05 PM
  #40  
Tom
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Shirley: Please--Your comments--about GWB, let us get specific. He does'nt know " STUFF on things LIKE the economy and has a background as an under achiever." Be specific. What is his background. You tell us what you think he has not achieved.
He ran two very successful companies and he was Governor of one of the largest states in the US. (not like someone else, who was governor of a very small and poor state.)
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -