TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's PR problems
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush's PR problems

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Apparently Bush is speaking tonight to help with public relations problems.

I think I asked this already, but why is he in trouble *now*? What is different? Do people who *did* support him feel hoodwinked? Did people think we would be out of Iraq by now? And was the Social security stuff a surprise? I mean he talked of this during election so I wasn't surprised.
post #2 of 23
Is it time for us folks who voted for the other guy to start saying, "Neener neener, I told ya so!"??
If it is.....I TOLD YA SO AMERICA!!!!!!!
post #3 of 23
I voted for the kid simply as, IMO, the lesser of two evils, but honestly, IMO he wouldn't make a pimple on his daddy's butt.

Strange, what bothers us about some people, and with the little Bush, it's that simpering, condescending smile he throws out when he is defending or explaining something, which is what he seems to be having to do most of the time.

I keep looking for someone to put a cream pie in his kisser.

What's it going to be next time, the blonde from NY or Jesse J or Al S ?

Frist is making noises, but I got a little disenchanted with him when he said he was like most Tennesseans, yeah, right, Princeton and Harvard, sure !

Maybe we might get lucky and get Colin Powell with Condeleeza as his veep, the best of both worlds.

Leonard
post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by winwin
I voted for the kid simply as, IMO, the lesser of two evils, but honestly, IMO he wouldn't make a pimple on his daddy's butt.

Strange, what bothers us about some people, and with the little Bush, it's that simpering, condescending smile he throws out when he is defending or explaining something, which is what he seems to be having to do most of the time.

I keep looking for someone to put a cream pie in his kisser.

What's it going to be next time, the blonde from NY or Jesse J or Al S ?

Frist is making noises, but I got a little disenchanted with him when he said he was like most Tennesseans, yeah, right, Princeton and Harvard, sure !

Maybe we might get lucky and get Colin Powell with Condeleeza as his veep, the best of both worlds.

Leonard

I am realizing this more and more, people didn't so much support Bush as not like Kerry. Bush didn'ty *win* so much as Kerry *lost*. Probably boils down to campaign management more than anything.

Well I can't watch tonight-so someone fill me in.
post #5 of 23
This is why I am so tired of the 2 party system. IMO the lesser of 2 evils just isn't good enough for the USA. We need another option that will count. I voted for Kerry last election, just because I knew voting outside of the 2 major parties was futile. I voted for Nader years ago just to prove a point, but my point didn't make a dent.

I don't remember where I heard it (some comedian), but I love the saying "Why do we have 50 candidates for Miss America and only 2 for president?"
post #6 of 23
I voted for the other guy too. IMO..i dont like what bush is doing.but thats me. I do agree though, lol why do we have 50 for miss america? and only two for president..heh
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
Well in a way we do have more than one cause we have the primaries, and then they finalists. But I see your point.

Damn, we have become this media democracy, decent folk are afraid to run cause they will be squashed. Any little thing in your past will come up, like i really didn't care that Bush had a DUI in 1979 for instance, I don't care about Clintons sex life, if Kerry was against the war in 1971 so be it.

FDR woudln't win now cause of his wheel chair, Kennedy would have been oversexed. We gotta stop loving the image and just want our lives better.
I don't care if I *like* the guy, I just want a decent economic policy, and a decent foreign policy and some national pride.

Is that asking too much?
post #8 of 23
Thread Starter 
You know I understand Bush *now* has a "credibility problem", NOW?
This is what I don't get, why NOW? I never believed him, case in point, at the debates he said the tax cuts 'benefit the poor the most" total LIE! Kerry didn't jump on it. I was about the throw up.
post #9 of 23
"Lame duck", or "second term blues"? Here's an article from today's BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4628377.stm
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/...oll/index.html
The Washington Post/ABC News poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700270.html

The continuing bloodshed in Iraq is what really seems to have undermined his credibility in the eyes of many former supporters.
I mean, come on, you have the Pentagon contradicting Cheney. "The last throes"?????
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
"Lame duck", or "second term blues"? Here's an article from today's BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4628377.stm
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/...oll/index.html
The Washington Post/ABC News poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700270.html

The continuing bloodshed in Iraq is what really seems to have undermined his credibility in the eyes of many former supporters.
I mean, come on, you have the Pentagon contradicting Cheney. "The last throes"?????
Cheney's in denial no doubt cause he was such a supporter of this war.
post #11 of 23
Ok lets face it people are stupid. They actully believe the Kerry bashing adds funded by the republicans and Bush himself. get some freaky music, show traditonally feard animals like wolves, and have some guy with a really creepy voice pout anti democrat, anti Kerry messages, couple that with "remeber 9-11" and appeal to people's deepest fear and volia... you have president with no plan for anything but his own agenda. Now he doesn't have to face the voters, he has free reign to do pretty much whatever he wants, regardless of the outcome. He is a lame duck. He can't get his people nominated, and republicans are not backing him as they did a year ago. They are realizing just what a bad president he is and see that thier jobs are on the line in 06. Thank god for checks and balences.

We all know Iraq was a HUGE mistake. I'm just sorry over 1600 soldiers had to died to prove it. I've been saying from the begining that war is not the answer. Now how many families have been broken, how many people ahve been hurt because of him. This is not the type of country our founders envisioned. "Stay out of forgien affairs" that is what they said over and over again.

As for the speech tonight, it's alot of too little too late. He never had my support to begin with. There is nothing he could say or do that would change my mind.
post #12 of 23
Quote:
I am realizing this more and more, people didn't so much support Bush as not like Kerry. Bush didn'ty *win* so much as Kerry *lost*.
You know that is funny to me... because I voted for Kerry just because I didn't like Bush or where he wanted to take the country. Of course I didn't really like Kerry either, but no one else even had a chance to beat Georgie.

eburgess, you really summed it up for me.
post #13 of 23
Someone commented about not liking to vote for an independent because she/he is generally an underdog, but remember, Teddy Roosevelt was an Independent.

When people get fed up, party (or lack of it) isn't all that important.

I did sort of a "straw poll" when Perot ran, and I was astounded and dumbfounded at the large number of replies of "I would have voted for him if I thought he had a chance",

My God, people, what is wrong with us when it is more important that we "pick a winner" than it is to express our view, not being afraid to stand up for what we believe, and let the chips fall where they may ? ? ?

If all those who expressed such a incomprehensible view had voted for Ross, he would have been our President, but apparently our self esteem is so low that we cannot fathom being associated with taking sides with a "loser".

If we get s**t, then it is just what we deserve.

Leonard
post #14 of 23
Calm Down Leonard, clam down.

I agree with what you are saying. My favorite canidate in the '04 elections was the Libertarian. My bf voted libertarian but I voted Demo.

I completely understand what you are saying..... we don't seem to vote for who we think would be the best leader. It's who will beat the person we don't want. And that certainly isn't the way voting should be. So I agree with you there.


However, when it comes to like the presidental elections people don't want to take chances. I knew that the Libertarian didn't have a good chance at beating Bush. There is just no way. The Lib. didn't even get on the ballot in all states. But I knew that I didn't want Bush to be our president again. So I voted for "the lesser of the two evils" (in my opinion) who happened to be the only person who had a decent chance at beating Bush.

To a certain extent I don't think we have a choice really. If we want someone we don't agree with out of office, then we need to support someone who has a possibility of beating him. Even if more people had voted Libertarian, Green, or Indepentant in '04, Bush still would have won. Why? Because those candidates were more liberal than the Democrats. So, if more people had voted for those then it would have taken away from Kerry's votes. (since it is highly unlikely that a conservative republican voter would have switched over to a much more liberal candidate.) So... either way Bush would have won. And half the country would be unhappy with the president.

:shrug:

It just seems to be the road politics has taken lately. Maybe if there was some equalizing factor in elections, we would have better leaders. Like if somehow they could all have the same amount of funding money. Or something. But I have no idea how that could even be done.


So, Yes. Leonard, I agree that it isn't always the Demo. or Rep. that is the best choice for the country. But they are the ones who get the most funding to spread their ideas and get the voters aware of them. The small parties don't really have a chance. I would love to see a Libertarian, Green, or Independant win the presidental election, but I don't think it will happen until we see changes to equalize those parties with the Demo. and Rep. parties.
post #15 of 23
The year I voted for Ralph Nader I was told that I threw away my vote. Unfortunately, it was true. Thats why I voted for Kerry last time. Had I voted for anyone other than Kerry, Bush would have had an advantage. Until many more Americans vote for a 3rd party, this is how it will be. It stinks, but its true.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat
The year I voted for Ralph Nader I was told that I threw away my vote. Unfortunately, it was true. Thats why I voted for Kerry last time. Had I voted for anyone other than Kerry, Bush would have had an advantage. Until many more Americans vote for a 3rd party, this is how it will be. It stinks, but its true.
You are exactly right, Renee. Unfortunately, too many people are so bogged down in the idea that they must stick with one of the two major parties that we'll not likely see a 3rd party candidate for a long time to come. Third parties, as it stands now in the US of A, do not stand a chance .
PS- If it could've made a difference, I probably would've voted Nader as well.
post #17 of 23
Good post, Bearcat.

Perhaps if we had a change that would force a coalition between the top 4 or something we might see meaningful and substantive change, but unfortunately it is winner-take-all, and in so many cases the winner is only another loser.

Leonard.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by winwin
Strange, what bothers us about some people, and with the little Bush, it's that simpering, condescending smile he throws out when he is defending or explaining something, which is what he seems to be having to do most of the time.
Leonard
Leonard, I'm so glad you brought that up! Bush's body language drives me absolutely crazy! To me, it just screams of lies. I watch him on TV, and my skin crawls. I have the same reaction when Cheney is on screen. I can't/couldn't stand Rumsfeld or Ashcroft, but they('ve) never made the same impression on me. I'm hearing-impaired, so I put a lot of emphasis on visual impressions, i.e., body language, and Bush certainly gets an "F" in my books. Posture, gestures, facial expressions = mendacity.
post #19 of 23
Thread Starter 
Yeah his insincerity has always struck me, I think he likes the power but is so disconnected to what it really means, how it effects others. His Father, while I didn't always agree with him, had a command of what he was talking about, do did Reagan and Clinton. This guy is a big showman and should have stayed in the baseball biz.
post #20 of 23
I often need a visual image of certain concepts, and can seriously "explain" the expression "simpering" by referring to Bush's facial expressions when he thinks he's convincing voters of the "merits" of his policies. To make matters worse, Laura Bush outdoes him, although I suspect that she's more intelligent than he is. Shame on her. She sold out the day she agreed to date him. She and the "Concubine" (Rice) are utter disgraces, as far as I'm concerned.Talk about subordinating yourself!
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I often need a visual image of certain concepts, and can seriously "explain" the expression "simpering" by referring to Bush's facial expressions when he thinks he's convincing voters of the "merits" of his policies. To make matters worse, Laura Bush outdoes him, although I suspect that she's more intelligent than he is. Shame on her. She sold out the day she agreed to date him. She and the "Concubine" (Rice) are utter disgraces, as far as I'm concerned.
Condie is like this machine, she doesn't come across human. Like when she addressed the 9/11 committee I thought it was an utter disgrace, with all the "let me say this and then I will answer you fully" which of course she then didn't after her obvious ramble to distract. This was a committee that families who had lost loved ones lobbied to put together and pleasing her boss is more important than being a mature adult, it's nauseating.
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Perhaps if we had a change that would force a coalition between the top 4 or something we might see meaningful and substantive change, but unfortunately it is winner-take-all, and in so many cases the winner is only another loser.

Leonard.
Your right Leonard. Putting the top four parties on an equal scale would at least increase the chances that someone worthy and capable to be president would win.


I totally got to agree with you guys about Bush, Chaney, & Rice's body lanquage. Personally the whole administration reaks of lies and their movements portray that, even if their words do not.

But like Leonard said.... it's Bush's smarta$$ smirk that irratates me the most. It's like he is laughing at the reporters (or the american people) because they are actually believeing the crap he is spewing out. Sometimes he will add a little chuckle to the smirk after being asked a question by reporters. It's like he is thinking "You must be so stupid to even ask such a question" That ticks me off the most.
post #23 of 23
I can't stand Bush's facial expressions, either. I always said that his eyes looked totally bewildered. That eyes wide open, eyebrows high at the center kind of look. he has VERY weak eyes, meaning I see no character, no real strength in them that a leader of a powerful nation should have. He talks of resolve, but when will it show in his eyes?
He stammers & smirks & tells us more of the same b.s war propaganda, sounding like a broken record-I swear if I hear it one more time, I am going to puke.

P.S To Leonard-I DID vote for Ross!! I actually registered to vote for the first time, just so i could vote for him.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush's PR problems