OK, folks, let's come clean. All this talk of Bush being stupid is really about your not agreeing with his policies. That's all. Bush will be re-elected in a landslide not because of how smart he is or inspite of how stupid he is, but because he drops the missiles with more accuracy than anyone else and he's not afraid to use them. Your beef is with the "stupidity" as you see it of the American people.
if the missiles are dropped so accurately then why so much 'collateral damage'? My argument is about your system which allows the election of presidents that can't 'break wind and chew gum at the same time' to qoute someone's description of Gerald Ford (another intellectual giant!!)
Originally posted by ianpickeringPrecisely my point. You are saying Americans are stupid. We have a God-given right to be stupid. Remember George Mitchell scolding Oliver North: "Did it never dawn on you that the American people have a right to be wrong in your eyes?"
if the missiles are dropped so accurately then why so much 'collateral damage'? My argument is about your system which allows the election of presidents that can't 'break wind and chew gum at the same time' to qoute someone's description of Gerald Ford (another intellectual giant!!)
Originally posted by ivanhoeI knew it! See! That post in it's self under-values me... me.. me me.
"It is, I think, an indisputable fact that Americans are, as Americans, the most self- conscious people in the world, and the most addicted to the belief that the other nations are in a conspiracy to under-value them."
Henry James (1843 - 1916)
Quit it, you guys.
P, (an American)
Originally posted by ianpickeringAs someone who religiously watches Prime Minister's Questions (the parliamentary version, I hear there's a BBC show of the same name that's an equivilent of our This Week/Meet the Press), I completely agree with you on the Blair/Bush IQ angle.
Back to the point. I may be a 'foreigner' who doesn't fully understand the US system, but my point is this - There is no way in this world that Bush (or anyone like him) could become the Prime Minister in Britain. Tony Blair did not become Prime Minister because of his wealth, but because of his ability.
You may disagree with his politics (and ma ...[text shortened]... the population was represented by the blue bit - of course that was Lake Neagh!! I rest my case.
Do not forget that the different political systems play a role in how they got to power and how they maintain power.
Bush did not have to serve in Washington to get his post. He did not have to get the support of a majority of his political peers. He simply had to establish the right allies both from a lobby/contribution standpoint and the support of the Republican National Committee. Once the lobbyists pressed for Bush and no clear candidate came forward that the RNC was willing to support (Sen. John McCain had alienated some in the RNC with some of his key views), Bush was given automatic support of his party. When the Republicans are organized, they ensure there is a minimal primary and gear up for the general election. So without having to serve in a shadow post or debate the opposition or build a coalition that would support him as opposition leader en route to the top spot, Bush was able to win the election and become head of this land.
Contrast this with Blair and Howard/IDS. Blair debated Howard when the conservatives were in power and moved his way up the chain before eventually leading the Labour party to victory over the Conservatives in 1997. Bush never had to do that. Bush is given four years guarenteed. If he gets one more victory then he has total reigns without facing re-election. Blair is constantly up for re-election - heck the Conservatives are a mess but yet he is facing pressure from his own back bench not because of his government's performance (his best work at the dispatch box is touting his government's accomplishments) but because of two controversial issues - Iraq and top-up fees. Bush only has to worry about his own election and worries about bills only in the context of the bill itself - not his job..
A perfect example of this security is what happened with the Conservatives. IDS wins the Tory version of a primary fair and square, despite opposition from the official party lines. So he's given two years and suddenly a no-confidence vote is held. Voila - Smith, who was gradually building a campaign against Blair from the dispatch box (effectively, from this Yanks' point of view,) is thrown out of the chance to face Blair and replaced by an insider who used disgruntled but powerful MP's to unseat Smith and do what he never would have had a chance of doing in the Tory party election - become opposition leader. Bush never has to face this kind of internal opposition.
It also helps that Bush does not have to debate every week. Otherwise he would look like a fool, but then again he never would be put in that position.
So that is my view on why Bush is able to be where he is but it would never happen in England. Of course the flip of the coin is you can be effective as a leader but still face job security issues which Blair is now. The U.S. President does not face this issue.
If I may get back a bit off topic to the question again, I have to admit I am quite impressed with Blair's abilities not only as a debater but as a policy maker. While I don't think he's quite at Clinton's level when it comes to being able to debate policy (no matter what you think of him, he was able to present his side well. Him and Gingrich were both extremely adept in this area), Blair has successfully placed himself distinctly in the middle between the Lib Dem's and the Tories - a politician's dream, because it's virtually guarenteed election victory. Yet as stated above, he is facing pressure internally. This baffles me. I guess it must be a politician's paradox - in order to stay engaged a fight must be waged. Since the Labour party is virtually untouchable at this point they're attacking themselves, eventually leading to a fight by the Tories because they're committing too many penalties and having to punt all the time. I have to admit, as much as Robin Cook's speech when he resigned was brilliant, I think they would be best to be organized so they can bury the conservatives and create years' worth of a buffer zone.
STAMMER - I was extremely impressed with your post. You obviously understand the UK system fairly well. I know something about yours, but thanks for enlightening me on a few points. In answer to your puzzlement about the opposition to Blair I offer the following :
Although most MPs will follow the party line there are many who believe that he has abandened the core historical values of the Labour Party - Social Justice, equality of opportunity and support for the 'working classes' and trade unions. Although i disagree with some of his policies I think that he does believe these things, but is trying to bring them about in different ways. He understood correctly that old fashioned socialism (not to be confused with communism - which was never socialist!) did not appeal to the middle classes after the excesse of the trade unions before Margaret Thatcher (boo hiss!) came to power. Unless 'socialism' was presented in a different way he realised that Labour were in serious danger of terminal decline.
Many MPs hate the use of 'spin' and news management and blame him.
Opponents in his own party feel that with the paucity of recent opposition from the consevative and their large majority that they need to provide the opposition themselves. Nearer the election they will rally round.
They do not agree with some policies and are prepared to say so. This is a strength of our parliamentary democracy - free thinking MPs (but not all!) who stand up for what they believe.
As for your system - is it the case that the American public voted for Bush
knowing that he is only a figurehead with others behind him making policies that they agree with and pulling the strings?
Am I right in thinking that a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain had something to do with the attack on the trade centre? If so on what basis? Because Bush told them so? Because they find it hard to understand anything that goes on outside their own shores. Please help me here.
Originally posted by ianpickeringThat may be part of the reason, but the reason I voted for Bush was that Gore seemed incompetant and reflected Clinton's stance on tax and spend liberalism. It didn't help that Gore was associated with what a lot of Americans became fed up with in the Clinton White House: Extra-marital fellatio while Osama bin Laden grew strong, a series of weak responses to American military deaths and embassy bombings at the hands of Al-Qaeda, the weakening and demoralization of America's fighting forces due to Clinton's indifference to and abhoration of the military in general. Clinton may have stabilized the economy and reversed the deficit, but as a serviceman I saw minimal pay raises and moral sink. Although Bush may not be a rocket scientist, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to run the country. It does, however, take intestinal fortitude, a love of one's country, a respect for the military, and a semblance of morality. While I don't condemn Clinton for staining Monica's dress, I do condemn the fact that he did it in the White House and allowed it to interfere with his ability to react to terroristic incidents around the world involving Americans. I don't know that I would vote for Bush again, but there are not a lot of viable candidates from either party as far as I'm concerned...🙂
As for your system - is it the case that the American public voted for Bush
knowing that he is only a figurehead with others behind him making policies that they agree with and pulling the strings?