Interesting poll. I wonder what it would've said a month after 9/11 when Bush's approval ratings went through the roof? I have a hunch they wouldn't be much different, since I figure it's mostly politicos who voted in the poll and the politicos on this board tend to be well-entrenched in their political ideology.
That is what I've been saying for YEARS. I'm an accountant and a lawyer...seeing it coming from an economist means a lot. Thanks for your post.
the reason that most europeans do not like bush is because doesn't care for anything but the USA.Maybe that is good for americans,but not for europeans.also bush his opinion on naturelaws like coyote do not make him more popular.i do not care how the newspaper try to make bush look.i get the feeling he just want to finish what his father started in iraq.also i do nott like how the gouvernment in holland just do as the usa say. and i think bush isn't verry smart to start a war on another muslim country.i do not want another world war, and bush is starting one in my opinion.and i get the feeling he does want to get rid of shadam.also i'm getting tired that every country that has problems with another group calls them terorists,(not that the usa can do anything about that).i do believe the people responsible for the twin towers should be punished, but bush is blackmailing the UN in to a war with the muslim country
Most Europeans around the world do not know of the divided cabinet between the unilateralists and the multilateralists. They're just worried about their own lives and what their country does with their lives just as we do. The very idea that the mainstream majority of the Europeans opinion is that they're "multilateralist while America is arrogantly pushing for war" is pretty damn simplistic and blind to their own country's actions. The rest of the world is like one big labor union pushing for their own self interests but not strong enough to do anything alone. They're so big that they have lost their cause, so each member is promoting it for their own benefit. There's more of America inside them than they'd like to admit... For international war policies, having Bush/Gore wouldn't be much of a difference. Gore would probably appear use less saber rattling and call for some coalition by UN design. But historically, American Presidents use the privelege of a millitary world presence (like launching missles or sending in troops w/o declaring war on the country) even when pressing for a coalition. It's something Presidents from both parties enjoy, and a privelege no President wants to lose...especially to some overbloated bueracratic World Body... Inevitably the decision goes to Congress to send troops or declare war. War decisions after 9/11 mean Patriotic decisions, so getting Saddam is a highly logical target. He's a very credible threat to economic world security, and Clinton had already launched air strikes in Iraq. With either President, there's going to be talks of war. Speaking with sugar coated lies while launching Cruise missles to vanquish some unseen enemy could also spark a world war even with the best intentions not to bruise any country's feelings. The man is trying to clean up the mess around the world that other countries (including America) has left behind or ignored.
I think it will take a couple of more years, and possibly another term for Bush to establish a legacy or lackthereof. While the economy has suffered in the post September 11th world, Bush has to be given some type of credit for helping hold this country together through its darkest hour and being steadfast in holding terrorists accountable for their actions. I think the leadership and resolved he showed immediately after that infamous day was beyond reproach. Thats why I would vote for him again. No other president has had to deal with an attack on our own soil. I think our country has dealt with it nicely and we are now on the rebound. That being said, with the GOP controlling the House and Senate, the next two years will be put up or shut up time for Bush. If in two years, this country is not in a better position than it is now, I would strongly consider voting for someone else. Losing control over the Senate and House might be good for the Democratic party. If the GOP fails in its objectives, it will make the Democratic vote look more attractive in 2 years when we elect a new President.
I am surprised that an economist would provide that much credit or blame on a President for the American economy, especially in the context of the increasingly interdepedent world economies. Also, by the 7 year logic Carter should get much of the credit after 1982 or so. BTW the chief steward (even if his influence is overblown--which most econonmists I know think it is) of the economy has been the same for at least the last 3 administrations. He (Greenspan) also has said probably the worst thing (in negatively affecting the economy long term) our government can do policywise is to further the ballooning the debt. Cutting taxs without the corresponding spending cuts is the road to do this. Now LeGrouper, being the libertarian, I am sure you have major federal expenditures in mind to cut (military, social security, or health at the national level; education and incarceration at the state level)--but it is the less consistent conservatives (want the tax cuts, with no real plan to substantively lower spending) that are more worrisome to me.
Wow, The president of the USA looking out for what is best for the USA.........I cant imagine that Bush isnt starting a war against a religious entity, he is trying to stop terrorists no matter what their creed, color or religion happen to be. I voted for Bush and would do it again.
Wow, I find it interesting that currently the difference between the extremes is one vote and the difference between the mind-changers is only one vote.
No, probably 95% of what is good for most Europeans is good for most Americans. Healthy world economy, peace (from terrorism as well as open wars), cheap as possible fossil fuels--most of these are relatively common goals. Most of the foreign policy differences lies in strategies and tactics--or long term and short term means to further a healthy world economy and peace. Also, while Europe also generally wants cheap fossil fuels, maybe it is a notch lower on the priority scale (e.g., weighing enviro and mid east stability concerns). In my experience most Europeans, especially younger ones, like most Americans and America. But comments like this lead some to stereotype Americans as narcissistic, egocentric & closed minded, and America as an arrogant, isolated, and narrow minded country. The inflammatory rhetoric that leads to negative stereotypes goes both ways I guess, it is too bad.
about the first part, i didn't mean that bush shoudn't look out for his country i just said that he doesn't care for anything else,i can understand why americans like that but not europeans.some president tried to look at the whole world, and not just america like bush seems to do.i liked clinton better. about the second thing, i do not think bush wants a war against a whole religon, i just said that it looks that way in the eyes of alot of islamic countries.
I agree. I think lots of people here would tell you that Bush shouldn't care what the people in other islamic countries think. IMHO, he needs to, and I know he's tried, make it seem like we aren't at war with Islam. It's a tough thing to do, I remember watching something on TV not long after 9-11 where they were talking to people in Egypt. They were all educated and spoke fluent english and some were University students and others where middle class people, most of them had actually been to the US, anyway, they all believed things like that the Israeli govt had carried out 9-11 and that the US was controlled by the Jews. That's one thing that will always piss me off, so many Muslims in the middle east think that the rest of the world is against them and their religion, yet so many of them are anti-semetic. I'd have a tad bit more sympathy if they weren't such hypocrites.
Wow, look at the results. That's pretty much the way the country is except there should be far more peopple number wise who didn't vote at all and don't plan too.
Didn't vote for him in 2000, wouldn't now, and never would, unless the Dems nominate David Duke in 2004.
you didn't hear?? yeah...they've already said they're nominating Duke! scary, huh? i think you can cast your ballot RIGHT NOW for bush to avoid any confusion later (a la florida). remember...a vote for Bush is a vote against David Duke. vote wisely, young man...vote wisely.
Bush is so much better than Clinton. At least Bush has integrity unlike the classless Clinton. Europeans have a whole different mentality than Americans. There is a old sawing "Americans live to work, Europeans work to live" This kinda states it all in a nut shell. Europeans as a whole are lazier than Americans because there political systems permit it. Socialist systems allow for lazy people to live comfortable lives(I.E. the Dole in England). Where in a capitalist systems, you have to be motivated to work for something better or to achieve wealth. There are other difference to, for example Vacations, in the states, we get 9 to 12 days of vacation per year, in various countries in Europe they get between 1 month to 3 month of holidays. Other examples are work hours, Europeans will swagger out of bed and go to work around 9 and are off around 4, americans are up at 7 and home by 5 or 6 at night. Europe is a great place, but most countries within western Europe live in a Fantasy Land. I can wait to see how the Euro and EU effect the European frame of mind in about 10 years, they will become much more Americanized once they can relate to some of the problems we have here in the U.S.
LOL!!! This is priceless, I love good sarcasm. . . What? You were serious. Can you say ETHNOCENTRIC? As for Bush being more classy than Clinton, didn't Bush have a nasty alcohol and cocaine addiction? Wasn't he arrested? What's that, we should forgive Bush for his youthful indescretions from when he was over 30 years old? Ok, but if you can forgive Bush, why can't you forgive Clinton?
Oski, Clinton was a rapist and adulter that shows little class in my book. Even trying to compare him to Bush is a falacy. Clinton should have been kicked out of office! My comment about Europe are ethnocentrict but true. I work for a European company, and I travel to Europe at least 5 times a year, I have lived in Germany, Spain and France, and I can tell you first hand that Europeans are lazy when compared to Americans.
Interesting, most people quote these things (not to mention protection for leaving and returning work to have/care for a baby or care for a sick relative) to say how much more balanced and family focused Western Europe is. How many of you would trade 10% of your salary for 10% extra time with your family. I know this isn’t a choice many of us get (to roughly keep the same type job anyway), but just curious. Phi, good post in many ways. While I wouldn't overly support many of your generalizations, I think the work/family/leisure balance is a good way to compare current nations. Though I do wonder if there are so many professed workaholic types on this BBS supporting the American end of the continuum how do they ever get time to post about the Rockets and in threads like this?
