Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
What was wrong with the 60 minute interview? The man giggled like a girl through the thing prompting his interviewer to ask if he was punch drunk. I wanted to smack him upside the head.
I think he was right about the instilling confidence and such, and having gallows humour doesn't bother me....but you don't giggle like a school girl when people are losing their livelihoods.
Nobody said he is a failure. Just wondering when we can truly say he sucks without the PC police linching us. The man has simple bungled his job from day one. And I believe this has been said already....had it been Bush doing all that.....  |
Say it whenever you want. If you want people to take it seriously, you may want to wait a few more months. It's clear you've had it in for him since day 1--and that's fine. I'm not going to pretend I gave Bush a fair shake either--though admittedly Bush was a far worse president than even I could have predicted.
However, the comparison is a bit silly. Bush did do dumb things in his first 100 days--and he was widely seen as an incompetent failure in his first six months, with the lowest approval ratings of any president in his first summer, and an utter failure to advance any part of his agenda except the so-called "stimulus" which amounted to a 300 dollar check for most middle-class consumers, as blatant a pander as you could imagine.
But none of that matters--for two reasons. Firstly, because it's ancient history--and secondly because it happened before 9/11, which changed the game completely and made Bush a primarily foreign-policy President. Whether he succeeded at that is another debate--my own views on that are probably not a mystery--but the fact is, Bush's success or failure as a president from that moment on depended on foreign policy, which is not what he ran on--and had it been the central issue of the campaign in 2000, he would likely have lost.