Two Presidents have been part of this: Bush and Clinton. Bush is a strong leader and a weak politician. Clinton was a weak leader and a strong politician. Combining the two would be a statesman. Weak in politics means ticking people off; even those that would normally be your ally. Every mistake is glaring. A strong politician minimizes this often at the expense of not making the hard decisions so daily lies and corruption are often not as noticable in the short run.
2007-01-05 18:00:35 · 16 answers · asked by Caninelegion 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Two Presidents have been part of this: Bush and Clinton. Bush is a strong leader and a weak politician. Clinton was a weak leader and a strong politician. Combining the two positives would be a statesman. Weak in politics means ticking people off; even those that would normally be your ally. Every mistake is glaring. A strong politician minimizes this often at the expense of not making the hard decisions so daily lies and corruption are often not as noticable in the short run.
2007-01-05 18:03:25 · update #1
Would be nice if we could have a president with all the qualities, but probably won't happen. To be honest, he would still be liked or disliked on party lines, no matter how good he does. The extreme left will never admit Clinton was a liar and a coward,and that all his political friends were thief's. The extreme right will never admit that Bush screwed up immigration, won the war in Iraq, but screwed up the peace. And that both did a great job on the economy. I believe most of the extreme hate comments are made by school kids and college kids that have no clue as to what is happening yet. Spewing hate is much easier than intelligent dialog and objective research
2007-01-05 18:15:14 · answer #1 · answered by mark g 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
bush is a good actor and puppet that's what he is. a far cry from being a great leader. he is a stubborn little brat who dosnt want admit he made a mistake and needs to change strategies...not make things worse (if they ever could be). but...i think the "i hate the president" syndrome has always been around to the few individuals who were ever interested in politics. then during the election that turned up to be between bush sr. and clinton is when MTV started to promote the "rock the vote" campaign and younger people started to pay attention, then there came the clinton/monica L. scandal which everyone loves good dirt especially on the top guy in the white-house (however ask anyone what else was going on at the time in Africa or Kosovo and they would say "uh..."), and then of course the illegal election results in 2000 where dubya stole office and once 9/11 came about...being interested in politics and global affairs became vital to American citizens.
2007-01-06 02:21:19 · answer #2 · answered by Jessy 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No matter who gets elected President or what their politics are
they become victims of the most vile type of hatred.
They are lucky to even survive the office.
It is not a question of style.Presidents are human beings with all the faults and good things that go with it.People talk about others not being unable to make the hards decisions when 80 million people
could not ever decide to vote.
2007-01-06 02:16:34 · answer #3 · answered by melbournewooferblue 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Some people are not rational in their thinking and approach. In a Democratic society you have to be realistic and respect the views and feeling of other people. Saddam attack on Kuwait, Bush attack on Iraq have proved that war only bring miseries to public. People are upset. Public is putting blame on Saddam and Bush. People expects from politician that they will bring peace.
2007-01-06 02:33:15 · answer #4 · answered by snashraf 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, I used to think this was a recent phenomenon, but I read the book "Founding Brothers" and found out that Jefferson tried to undermine Washington. Jefferson wanted the US to spread our freedom by force so that all people could enjoy their divine rights, while Washington and Adams were isolationist. It surprised me that this vitriol is as old as our country. It may still get us though. In 1800 we didn't have enemies of the same sort or strength.
2007-01-06 02:09:31 · answer #5 · answered by Susan M 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't know why you say that Bush is a strong leader and a weak politician. Whether he legitimately won his presidential elections or not is open to debate, but he was a fierce campaigner, a complete panderer, and a flippy flopper. And despite the media-led portrayal of him as "strong", he is a complete failure as a leader. What has he gotten right? It's not just how he fails to sell things, he is a failure.
2007-01-06 02:04:59 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny K 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Oh please! Clinton lied about a b job , W lied about weapons of mass destruction and has created a climate of fear American hasn't ever felt before, and he sent our troops to fight a senseless war that all agree is unwinnable.
Say what you will about Clinton's indiscretions, they didn't kill anyone. Let alone 3000.
For the record, I was never behind anything the Shrub in Chief has done, indeed if I were to find myself behind him the urge to kick him in the butt would be uncontrolable.
I can not remember the last time I voted for a Republican, and I certainly don't see me doing so in the near future.
These people broke my Country.
2007-01-06 02:11:58 · answer #7 · answered by Norton N 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
He did what he thought was best. That's why we elected him. look at it like this. remember Richard Nixon.... he is the one who furthered the development of the space shuttle.... and yet people only remember watergate. its a lose/lose for bush. we were behind him at the begining.... we had bad intel just like he did and yet we were right behind him... now we want to blame him? what about the people.... we had the same intel.. came to the same conclusion.... where is our responsibility in this... there is none... he did what he had to with what he know and I commend him for it... he is in the white house where we put him to do what he did... make the hard call. who else would have had the stones for that? not clinton..... not the other who was running aginst him.... can you imagine how this would have went down if kerry had been elected? I don't even want to think about it.
2007-01-06 02:07:14 · answer #8 · answered by SST 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I want to agree with you, because you are seeking to be reasonable.
If the bottom line is that people are different, with varying strengths and weaknesses, both good and bad for the country, then I agree.
It is easier to take pot shots at the opposition then to find value, for the good of the nation.
2007-01-06 02:07:54 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I lost you at "Bush is a strong leader." Funniest thing I've read all day.
2007-01-06 02:04:46 · answer #10 · answered by rinkrat 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋