Bush the Leader

Strut&Rut · 09-05-2004, 06:38 PM

In 2000, George W. Bush could not speak his mind clearly, and was often criticized for his lack of oratorship.

In 2000, GW had little political experience, and his motivations were often ill-conceived.

In 2000, GW was illustrated as a man of moral character but lacking decision-making strengths.

In 2000, it wasn't about "is GW better", it was "can Gore handle the job"...

In 2000, GW lost the popular election, and but won the Presidency.

Since January 2001, GW has had one of the most diversive and tumultous first terms in Presidential history. Historians are at odds where his legacy will rank, but are undivided on one issue---he has left a legacy in just 4 years.

In 2004, we won't be electing an unknown man who has trouble speaking his mind, with questionable political skills...we will elect a truly sincere man, and more importantly, a decisive leader...

lamb1647 · 09-05-2004, 08:51 PM

Strut & Rut,

Isn't it amazing how much the first four years of his Presidency has brought President Bush so far and brought out his leadership qualities and skills. On the other hand, in 35+ years on the public stage, Senator Kerry has yet to show he can be decisive, and has yet to show a single element of leadership skills. Yes, we WILL BE REELECTING President George W. Bush for 4 more years and will have a great leader!!

whelen36 · 09-05-2004, 09:58 PM

the only reason PRES. G.W. BUSH didn't win the popular vote in the 2000 election was because of the liberals bringing up his 20 some year plus old d.u.i. arrest. before they did that , he was leading in the polls , and in my honest opinion , had the popular vote. and as lamb said , we will be reelecting PRES. G. W. BUSH for four more years in the PRESIDENCY.

BigBore1895 · 09-06-2004, 02:34 PM

I personally think that history will give this man what he deserves; to be remembered after TWO TERMS as one hell of a president, who saw a divided country through terror, INHERITED a recession, and told some decent jokes along the way. FOUR MORE YEARS!

archer 2 · 09-06-2004, 03:06 PM

Yes to all that has been said about GW here, it will be a magnificent legacy and Clinton and company will still be trying to rewrite his legacy. On a side note I do wish the best for Clinton in his upcoming surgery.

logs · 09-06-2004, 05:17 PM

I don't know whos take on Bush this is but it certianly wasn't accurate at all. The man did not change that much in four years. The people observed how he preformed, not how he was presented by a bias media and left wing wako demmie liberals ( I know that last thing is redundant.)
Quote:

In 2000, GW had little political experience, and his motivations were often ill-conceived.

In 2000, GW was illustrated as a man of moral character but lacking decision-making strengths.

In 2000, it wasn't about "is GW better", it was "can Gore handle the job"...

It sort of reminds me of how yuppies always tell you they "discovered" this great little place to eat. It has always been there stupid but until they go there it did not exist????

Bush has been and still is a leader and a man of resolve. Something many so called leaders of our country have truly lacked.

PAhunter86 · 09-06-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

In 2004, we won't be electing an unknown man who has trouble speaking his mind, with questionable political skills...we will elect a truly sincere man, and more importantly, a decisive leader...

Decisive my @$$, he changes opinions constantly. Flip-Flop (kerry)

Quote:

In 2000, it wasn't about "is GW better", it was "can Gore handle the job"

In 2004 its about "Kerry can't handle the job"

Quote:

In 2000, GW was illustrated as a man of moral character but lacking decision-making strengths.

In 2004, Kerry illustrates a man of opinions based on polls. GW does what he believe is best.

So yeah, take that hippies

PABuck_HNTR · 09-06-2004, 06:21 PM

removed by f4yg

PAhunter86 · 09-06-2004, 06:24 PM

You misunderstood that, i was talking about horseface

Strut&Rut · 09-06-2004, 06:32 PM

Logs,

Those are my personal reflections. GW had little political experience...a few years as governor, where many of his policies were oftentime criticized by his own party.

He was "illustrated" as having a strong will, but soft when it came to making hard decisions. I don't think anyone can paint that picture now...

And if you look back at how close the polling was, it wasn't so much as "vote for Bush" it was ABG (anybody but Gore). Might have had something to do with being Clinton's VP for 8 years.

PA: You got any quotes/stats to back that statement up? For the most part, I believe not only has he made hard decisions when required, but he has kept to his convictions and that which he stated 4 years ago.

As for Iraq, maybe we are nation-building, maybe we are simply fighting terrorists. I've argued my fair share about what we, the USA, are currently doing in Iraq and what we---the USA---are going to get in compensation for our efforts.

But ether way, ask yourself a few questions...

1) "Do I feel safer today than I did on 9/12?"

2) "Did the President act in a manner to protect the citizens of the USA?"

3) "Have the policies supported by this President and his administration either (a) helped or (b) hurt/hindered my rights to life, liberty and happiness?"

4) "Does the President appear to be willing to work with the 'other' party for the greater good (ie. the citizens---US)?"

5) "Has the President dealt well with diversity, unplanned events, and kept his party's platform at hand?"

Please show me examples of his lack of leadership skills, which I & many Americans questioned before the 2000 election...because personally, I see a man who has changed this nation and a person who has grown as an individual, a man, and as a leader...