I find that "slandering a president" phrase a bit odd. The idea that W was stupid or irrational is the kinder interpretation of his presidency. The alternative explanation is that he was just plain evil.
It's also odd to point to his performance in politics as evidence of his rationality. Politics is a deeply irrational field, and I wouldn't consider becoming President an indicator that a person is rational any more than I would consider becoming head of the Flat Earth Society such.
I'm not saying these specific conclusions are legitimate, but I don't think it comes down as "slander", really.
What I find interesting about your second paragraph is that without inlined supporting evidence, it can be used to describe any president since the last founder was elected:
> The President's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did.
I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama.
One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him).
The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run.
> and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about
Here is a quote from WP:
> While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan.
I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done.
> Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things.
Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid.
Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
It's an interesting commentary on the state of discourse that the mere suggestion that the sitting president may have done something good is considered political flamewar bait.
"...are you really implying that he's been an awful president?"
Every president in the modern context has been and will be awful, even if to somewhat varying degrees. The problem is not the people in office, it's the office itself. It's important that the media emphasize personalities and the infinitesimal differences between them, so the average citizen can make-believe that some presidents are better than others.
> (Also, let's give the previous U.S. president credit where credit is due; he might have a repulsive personality, but at least he didn't start any foolish wars! So there's that, too.)
I always find it so amusing when the best thing anyone can say about our previous White House occupant is what he DIDN'T do (and not for lack of trying!). As if a pet rock or farm animal couldn't have accomplished the same feat.
Maybe it was an offhand remark, maybe it was sarcasm, etc. But that misses the point.
If you are the most powerful and widely-heard person in the United States, you don't get to improvise your press briefings or give dubious advice "as a joke". People often defend him with "well we've all said something stupid", or "maybe he just didn't think it all the way through". But he isn't you or me. He is the leader of the free world. He carries enormous responsibility, and he's demonstrated time and again that he can't be bothered to give a flying fart about it.
Why don't you use the most good-faith interpretation of the comment, which was that it was a tongue-in-cheek characterization of how foolish people might misinterpret the president's careless remarks?
Perhaps then there was some logic behind the idea that the United States President should always be someone who is slightly unhinged, or at least appears to be. If enemies believe you are too straight laced to actually strike back then the MAD theory falls apart.
The President keeps surprising me. Like, I keep thinking I have an accurate mental model of him being generally hateful and clueless and instinctive, but then things like this happen and underscore to me that he is deeply knowledgeable and sophisticated with these kinds of historical cultural references. So, still hateful, but not a dummy. That phrase was not an accident.
Backhanded? Unless you actually think that the presidency isn't something that should be used as a model for discussions and debates, there's nothing backhanded about it at all.
Perhaps you could get off your high horse and stop saying my motives are less than pure? Right now I feel you are lecturing me like an errant schoolboy. You, after all, are the one telling me I have "veiled" sarcasm. I'm telling you I don't and I thought my opinion - even if you disagree with it - was something constructive I could bring to this thread.
So, perhaps try to ascribe less to my motives given I have no idea who you are and I have never interacted with you before, not to mention my comment history shows I tend to be a pretty serious minded poster. It's hardly respectful to impune my motives when you have no real evidence to the contrary to inform your suspicions.
In fact, the only temperature that's being raised right now is mine, given you appear to be attacking my character. And that's a tad hypocritical.
The American Presidency is a storied and historic office, not just a job but a symbol of the nation, of its civic and cultural identity, so it has been difficult for a lot of people to come to terms with it being occupied by someone who is quite so openly and vocally a gibbering idiot. Hence the need to pretend that these pronouncements represent proposals into which serious thought and effort has been invested, rather than the momentary whims of a bloviating narcissist.
As much as I didn't care for most of the entire Bush administration it always bothered me that he was made fun of for that quote since it is actually incredibly profound (if not particularly original).
"Bush Sr. is the weakest point of the theory. He's pretty flat however you look at him."
Words tossed around when he started his campaign were "efette", "wimp", and "unmanly". Obvious slurs, but he had a lot of public perception to get over.
It's also odd to point to his performance in politics as evidence of his rationality. Politics is a deeply irrational field, and I wouldn't consider becoming President an indicator that a person is rational any more than I would consider becoming head of the Flat Earth Society such.
I'm not saying these specific conclusions are legitimate, but I don't think it comes down as "slander", really.
reply