Talk:George W. Bush

Mentioning the Financial Crisis

Recently I put in

By September, the situation worsened to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,

Which was quickly removed by Zsero due to sourcing so I added in more sources, then SMP decided that his opinion was that only Some people believed that this was the worst financial crisis since the great depression, without providing sources, and now Happy has removed it again because of some third arcane reason. The sentence is sourced and accurate, I can start sticking in significant numbers of additional sources from all of the major US newspapers as well as all of the major international newspapers, quotes from hundreds of government officials, presidential candidates, nobel prize wining economist, university professors etc. I have not done so yet as I don't think we need 10 footnotes for something this obvious but that is where this is heading. Are we absolutely sure that this degree of scrutiny is required for anything? I doubt seriously that any sentence on this page would hit the level of verification that is now being expounded by some of the editors on this page. To be clear, it is the worst financial crisis because economics is a numbers field and the numbers point out that it is. When you successfully argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then I'll listen to your argument. RTRimmel (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and this is a big problem with the article. Maybe just quickly mention the measure used, in order to silence protesters. The policing in this article is ridiculous. I'm going to work on the article too next week while on vacation. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the economy is the worst since the Great Depression is subjective. It's inherently an opinion, no matter how many people hold it. I have no objection to the Great Depression reference, as long as it's clear it's an opinion, not a fact. SMP0328. (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the economy is something that actually exists and can be measured in finite terms such as unemployment, homelessness, housing foreclosures, the federal budget deficit, the national debt, etc. By these standards the economy IS the worst it has been in living memory. It is no more subjective than the amount of nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is "subjective". I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to refer to the above statement as biased toward the Bush administration and thoroughly dishonest. And no, I'm not a liberal democrat. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Only time will tell whether this opinion will prove to be correct. If a significant number of recognised experts express this opinion, then that is worth putting in, but it remains an opinion of some. If it becomes almost unanimous then it can go in as "generally regarded" or some such language, but still not as fact. Oh, and when sourcing this, don't use the Grauniad piece quoting Soros, mostly because it's from March, and the text you want to use refers to September. Use contemporary sources. (It also pays to remember that the 1929 meltdown happened under Hoover, but by 1932 the recovery was well underway, and it didn't really become the Great Depression that resonates with us until FDR made it much worse. We may not be able to judge the real significance of the current event until 10-20 years from now.) -- Zsero (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, time has told. The Bush presidency is in its last year. The pattern is already there. The history has already happened. A significant number recognized experts do express this opinion. They are professors of history and economics at colleges all over the world. They have already been cited. Ridiculous. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FDR is responsible for the Great Depression? Now THAT is opinion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have two sources, one from the New York Times and one from the Chicago Tribune that both say that Bush and his administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul in the housing financial industry in 2003, but Congress did not take any action. The point is that there is plenty of blame to go around, and blaming this solely on Bush and his administration is irresponsible.

As Zsero said, if a very large number of experts deem this to be the greatest financial crisis since the great Depression, then it can go in. We can't go by what the presidential candidates are saying, as they will say nearly anything to get elected. Let's also remember that this is an article about George W. Bush, not the financial crisis, thus this article should adhere to WP:SS. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, we should include that, however as it sits we don't even mention the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. There are far to many economists stating that this is the worst crisis and the polling of economists I've seen places the number who believe that its the worst financial crisis at over 90%, and those that don't think its close or tied with the worst... and that poll was in September before the bailout and the dow posting massive losses (2 Trillion dollars worth in one day). If it hasn't gone higher than this by now I'd be amazed. Given where the numbers are, I don't really think you are going to find any credible economists who will disagree at this point. Bush did recommend overhaul, it didn't get implemented and he didn't aggressively pursue it, but he did mention that it was necessary. So did a lot of people. Bush does not even receive the lion's share of the blame for the event happening, his reaction is noteworthy within his article however. But you have to call a spade a spade which is all I was doing. This needs to be made into its own section and frankly I don't see a high chance of the three of you allowing such an event to come to pass so I haven't bothered yet as I can't even get a sourced sentence about this included. And I was quoting Billionaire financiers and economists, not Presidential candidates though they are in fact correct. And Financial Crisis are a quantifiable thing, its not actually subjective as they can look at a series of number (and must do so) to declare this, and comparing those numbers against other crisis numbers provides that this is the greatest financial crisis since the great depression by a rather significant amount. The taste of a cheeseburger is subjective. The beauty of a painting is subjective. 1 + 1 = 2 is not. RTRimmel (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And Happy, your sources aren't exactly strong. Nancy J. Thorner is a known partisan conservative and she glosses over every bit of Republican fault to chastise the democrats. You or Zsero would shot me down if I attempted to put in such a blatantly biased source to back my point, so I'll expect that you had no intention of using this one as anything other than an example of what kind of sources to avoid. The NYTimes article is a bit more balanced, however it glosses over the fact that the Republicans were in firm control of congress at the time so given their ability to dictate the agenda the fact that this went nowhere is far more telling. The article lacks context as well as the fallout of the results of what actually happened, but its a better lead off. RTRimmel (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to tie me to Zsero, SMP, and others as if we are some sort of clan that opposes all that Democrats do and heap praise on Bush. It is simply false, and I work for myself alone. If I agree with others, it does not mean that I always will.

That said, RTRimmell, if you are going to tell me that the New York Times is not reliable, then there are major problems. If anything, that publication is biased to the left. I'm guessing that since that particular article was written in 2003, it is assumed that "Congress" means "Republican controlled Congress", just as articles written today say "Congress" and imply "Democratic controlled Congress". Congress did nothing with Bush's proposal, but Bush proposed more regulation.

RTRimmel, I am inclined to agree with you, especially more so after today, that we are probably in the greatest financial struggle since the great depression. The markets tanked today, which is truly awful. To be fair, however, I've added that Bush proposed more regulation in 2003, as cited in The New York Times and outlined by the International Herald Tribune. Of course the administration shares part of the blame, but they called it in 2002/2003 and Congress (both Repubs and Dems) did nothing. Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy's edit provides a neutral presentation of this economic crisis. President Bush is not singlehandedly at fault (he's also not free of blame). The article should reflect his role in this mess, without any whitewashing or hyperbole. SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, yes Bush proposed more regulation and with the full power of the Republican Controlled Congress at the near height of Bush's own popularity got exactly nothing done. The article isn't bad, it just doesn't actually say thing other than Bush mentioned regulations to congress and in 2003 that was fine, but in 2008 you should probably find an article that deals with the resolution of those requests. You won't find one because Bush went no where with them, but you could at least try, they did but got tabled as vague in the Finance committee I believe and the fix would have caused regulation that Bush and the Republicans opposed. It could also be noted that Congress discussed regulations. Wall street discussed regulations. Economists discussed regulations and so did everyone else. It was an open secret that this was going to blow up because it was an open secret that the mortgage backed securities were of questionable value and investors hate assets with questionable values. And your second source gives a detailed account of why Bush's treasury failed to deal with the situation and tangentially mentions that Congress stopped him and goes right back on blaming the treasury and Bush. Yet you place the blame from that entire article on Congress when its clearly blaming the treasury. I'd at least find one blaming congress, they are out there if you want to look. But you like to hold yourself above the POV push while blaming others. Quaint. I think you get looped in with the two other fellows because its quite obvious that you come down like a ton of bricks on any edits made against your precious conservatives (FA Regan, Palin etc) but remain quite quiet when something positive comes up. Just an observation after reviewing all too many of your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.26.71 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And undent. Happy if you always go one direction I don't know what you are going to assume people will think but whatever. Futher you always seem to be much quicker to jump against poorly sourced negative infomration on conservatives than poorly sourced positive information against conservatives. Moving back to the article, the NYTimes article is out of date, and by this I mean that the article contains incomplete information and while that would be fine before the situation occured, afterwards I would expect move detailed information such as your new second article. The second article is a good read, and quote: "The administration did push hard on Capitol Hill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to find itself stymied by Congress. But the administration's intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not extend to the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey Rosen, an economist who served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as its chairman." I think is the key paragraph that you used for your refrence, and Bush did attempt to regulate the housing market, and he was close to the mark, however the mortgage backed securities were actually much more signifigant to the crisis than the actual home loans were. Mind you, fixing the loans would have eventually fixed the securities, however the existing securities would still have collapsed and we would still be having this crisis (albeit at a lesser level). He also did not use the exisitng powers of the Treasury and its various departments to actually combat the issue, instead pushing a series of increased regulations (which the Republians disliked) that would have prevented home loans to certain groups (which democrats opposed) and it went nowhere in congress. This was a poision pill, there was no way that either side of the isle was going to swallow it and even if they did it would not have stopped the financial crisis. But he was close. I personally don't think this is even close to 100% Bush's fault. I give him credit for not recognizing the full extent of the problem and not using the full powers of the President (which, as your source points out, are quite considerable) to slow them. Could Bush have prevented this? Possible but doubtful only because no one could have anticipated the exact degree of problem that this caused and even if he had forseen it I doubt that he could have placed enough priority into the mortgage-backed securities to do anything meaningful about them. That said, the failure did occur on his watch (as your source points out) and his reaction to the failure is signficant. I do think that we should include what specifically he did wrong, and you can read the financial crisis main article about that and break the financial crisis into its own section becaues its going to get worse before it gets better. RTRimmel (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting points... I don't think that simply because the NYT article is from 2003, it is out of date. There are many other sources referenced within this article prior to 2003, and the point of using this source is to identify that Bush attempted to push regulatory reforms though Congress.

Perhaps something such as the following could serve as a nice compromise:

Many economists and world governments determined that the situation became the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003, though these requests went unanswered by Congress. The administration, however, could have done additional work to curb excesses in the housing market and address the mortgage-backed securities problem. In September 2008, President Bush proposed a financial rescue plan to buy back a large portion of the U.S. mortgage market.

I've put it in. I hope it is a nice compromise. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sentence "The Bush administration recommended and pushed for significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. financial housing market in 2003, though these requests went unanswered by Congress. " And it does not match up to the source all that well.

To his credit, Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation of the mortgage giants. But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world.

The administration did push hard on Capitol Hill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to find itself stymied by Congress. But the administration's intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not extend to the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey Rosen, an economist who served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as its chairman.

Bush pushed to regulate Fanny and Freddy per the source, not the housing market as a whole. Now while Fanny and Freddy are inaruagably critical to home lending in the US, they do not originate bad loans they buy them. A critical piece, but not what our article says. RTRimmel (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to this article

Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Please do not delete this. It is a question I have that I want answered. Don't get me wrong, I like Bush and I think he is a good president. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not true. It is not against the law. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you vandalize it by inserting a threat to the president, you might wind up being arrested. Vandalism of this article in general, though, not involving other illegal activity, will result only in Wikipedia-based sanctions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The law and constitution have little say these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmccann (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What the %#*&( is that supposed to mean? -- Zsero (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dab page

George W. is a dab page. It used to redirect here. Should it be moved to George W. (disambiguation), and the redirect reinstated? Rich Farmbrough, 03:04 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Bush vs Richards - Incorrect figures in this article

I am surprised that this average article is locked. Not even the figures are right. Bush won the election 1994 with 53,5% towards Richards 45,9%. (not 52% vs 47% as this article says) sources: http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/gubernatorial.pdf http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581479/George_Bush.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riddle12345 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Enlisted?

I'm curious about why it states Bush was enlisted but his rank was 1st Lt? Wouldn't he have been commissioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JE (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It says he enlisted, because that's what he did. That's a verb, not an adjective. It has nothing to do with his rank. He was a fighter pilot, and therefore a commissioned officer. -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You need a commission to join as an officer, somewhat different than the way one would 'enlist' into the military. -JE (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The verb "to enlist", when used without an object, means "to join up". The specific method one uses isn't relevant. You're confusing this with the adjective "enlisted", as used in the term "enlisted man", which refers to a particular kind of serviceman, one who is not an officer. -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is further misleading. The specific method is certainly relevant. A commissioned officer becomes such not through the act of "enlisting". The verb "to enlist", when used in the context of "joining up", has a specific meaning with relation to the armed forces. A commissioned officer, such as a 1st Lt, becomes such through "commissioning", not "enlisting". "He was comissioned" or "he was enlisted" are the only two appropriate phrases that may be used here. Bush was not a warrant officer, so the text should be changed to "he was commissioned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.222.90 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Which dictionary makes this distinction? -- Zsero (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lowest Presidential approval rating

This article says President George W. Bush has had the lowest approval rating of all the presidents, but I know for a fact this is untrue. Off the top of my head Jimmy Carter has had a lower approval rating.

Not true according to the article on United States Presidential approval ratings. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, off the top of your head is not a good enough reference for Wikipedia. If it is true, please find a citable (reputable) source to justify. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bush is "the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/01/AR2008110100850_pf.html

Tsurtkoohs (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The way he gives speeches

I noticed that the way Bush messes up words / invents words in his speeches hasn't been documented on his wiki page. This characteristic of his really sets him apart from other presidents and other public speakers in general. Here's a website with quotes of what I'm talking about if you haven't heard him speak this pretty much sums up what i'm talking about.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

I'm sure there's tons of other sites dedicated to just this single facet of Bush out there. I think I'll remember him forever as the president that sounded {the proper rhetoric does not come to me right now} whenever he talked, but if say... 100 years from now, someone comes to the wiki page and there's no mention of it, it's kind of like that part of G.W.'s history is cut out from the book =/ So why isn't the subject addressed at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See Bushism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-Retirement Activities

Given that Bush will leave office in January 2009, has he given any indication of what he intends to do after his retirement from federal office? Calibanu (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)User Calibanu

I've no source for this, but I've read somewhere's he'd like to be MLB Comissioner. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubya speaks Spanish, right?

I noticed a passing mention of "[Jeb] Bush (speaking fluent Spanish)...". I've heard G.W. Bush speak Spanish twice, once impromptu. A U.S. President or state Governor having at least some command of two (or more) languages seems worth noting, and should be at least briefly mentioned in the education section of their articles, or possibly their infoboxes.

I was curious to know how well the Bush brothers speak, and the aforementioned brief mentions should allow the reader to gauge that, if known. I find myself as interested in that Jeb Bush could speak fluent Spanish as in that he unwittingly resurrected Republican Spain.

-SM 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeb's Spanish is certainly fluent enough that he went to Mexico to teach English, and that's where he met his wife, who presumably spoke only whatever English she had learned at school. His Spanish was presumably good enough to woo her and convince her to marry him and come to the USA with him. Dubya has probably not had quite so much opportunity to practise his Spanish, but it is reported that he does speak it at least tolerably well. That would be worth sticking somewhere in the article, with a proper source. -- Zsero (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Obama be shown as successor yet?

I've seen other countries show president-elects as the successors before they actually enter office, like Japan, and I don't see why it ought to be different here. Could somebody explain why Obama cannot be shown as the successor? Zazaban (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because it is merely an assumption, though a good one, that Obama will be the successor. For all we know, Bush could die tomorrow, resign, or otherwise vacate his position. That would make Cheney his successor. Obama could step down, die, be killed, or otherwise find himself in a position that prevents him from taking office. That means he wouldn't be the successor. - auburnpilot talk 04:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is based on facts, not merely what's likely to occur. Until Barack Obama is sworn in as President, he has not succeeded President Bush. SMP0328. (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Zazaban is wrong that it was done on the Japan page, for the simple reason that Japan doesn't have fixed terms — a new PM takes office as soon as the old one is ready to leave, generally no more than a week after the election or party room vote. And theoretically the new PM could take over even sooner; in Australia, Gough Whitlam flew to Canberra the morning after he won the 1972 election, and insisted on being sworn in with a 2-member cabinet! It was crass of him, but nobody disputed his right to it. In the USA, however, George Bush remains the president for the next 11 weeks, and not just as a caretaker but with all his powers intact. He can do anything on 19-Jan-2009 that he could on 21-Jan-2001. So no comparison from Japan is appropriate. -- Zsero (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for messing with status quo. Lioux (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse the nit-picking. Nobody has been elected President 'yet'. Only 349 Democrats Electors & 163 Republican Electors have been elected, to date. Those folks will elect Bush's successor, December 15. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Despite what Wikipedians seem to have decided, Obama and Biden are not president elect and vice president elect, and won't be until at least 15-Dec, if not until 6-Jan. The difference is that if something should happen to Obama between now and 15-Dec, Biden would not be guaranteed of taking his place. The DNC would have to pick a new candidate, and the D electors wouldn't be bound to honour that choice; if they didn't, the election would be thrown to the House. After 6-Jan, if Obama is not able to take up the presidency on the 20th, Biden automatically takes his place. I'm not sure what happens if it's between 15-Dec and 6-Jan; I suppose Congress could tell the electors to vote again, but I'm sure it wouldn't. -- Zsero (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Biden replaces Obama if this occurs after December 15th (the electoral votes being casted). Cheney would merely annouce Biden elected on January 6th. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not a sure thing yet, and the infobox shouldn't say that Obama is DEFINITELY his successor, but does anyone think it would be fair to have the infobox say something like "Succeeded by: Barack Obama (presumed)", which notes that it's not a done deal yet? -- NClark128 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Zsero (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Crystal Ball" policy looks like it doesn't rule out events that are "notable and almost certain to take place". That Bush is expected to be succeeded by Obama is something that I think is definitely worth noting and has a basis in fact (the election results, documented by multiple news sites), and while Obama succeeding Bush is not a 100% sure thing, it does seem highly probable at this point. So I guess the question is just HOW likely something has to be before making note of it in the article. -- NClark128 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Barack Obama page lists Obama as Bush's successor, but it says "elect".Noz92 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't. -- Zsero (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame Duck?

The press here in Ireland, not least The Irish Times, are referring to George W Bush as "a lame duck President". Is this opinion held elsewhere? Should it be in the article? Millbanks (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He is that by definition. Actually, some people have been calling him that for the past four years; the definition is loose enough to technically permit that. But there's no question that he is now a lame duck. No insult need be intended. -- Zsero (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While I by no means approve of President Bush, I believe that there are more neutral ways to state this. "Lame Duck" has a negative connotation that I think violates Wikipedia's standard of NPOV. If there is some instance where a third party calling George Bush a lame duck is notable enough to place in the article, I think it should be allowed. But I don't think the reference mentioned by the original poster satisfies this criterion.  Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Once his successor has already been elected, everyone calls him a lame duck. He has already said that his most important job now is to smooth the transition to his successor. It's not negative at all — that's what "lame duck" means. There was a negative tinge to calling him that earlier. Technically a person is a lame duck as soon as it is known that he will never again face an election, which in Bush's case has been since 3-Nov-2004; but with four years still in him, most people would not have called him a lame duck. But now, with fewer than 11 weeks left in him, there's nothing negative about it. -- Zsero (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is negative or not is debatable, but that's beside the point. I don't see any place for it in an encyclopedic article. What, are you going to put "Lame Duck" under his portrait? I think it is enough to state that his term will end in Jan. 2009. If there is some information that could be added to the article for which the term illustrates a point, I'm all for it. Jrobinjapan (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame Duck is a widely accepted political term. I realize the term sounds weird and strange if you aren't accustomed to hearing it. It's only negative when used to describe a president who's not at the end of his term in office, like a president who can't work with congress, or a president that keeps having his vetoes overridden by congress. All presidents are lame ducks when there is a president-elect, by definition. It is just a matter of course, a term as valid as "president-elect." No one would put it under his portrait, as it's a temporary designation. He is a lame duck president till the inauguration. VictorC (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question, should we put in the article that the Irish Times and possibly other papers are calling him a lame duck, the answer is obviously not. He is a lame duck, so it's not at all notable that they're calling him one. Should the article itself use the term? Only if it comes up in some valid context. If something happens in the next 11 weeks that makes the term relevant then we shouldn't refrain from using it out of some sort of sense that it's somehow inappropriate. But it's quite likely that we will never have occasion to use it. -- Zsero (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, today's (Irish) Sunday Independent refers to George W Bush as "perhaps the lamest of all lame ducks". I'm not sure if that's notable. It is of course POV. The article, on page 16, is by Paul Harries in New York and is reproduced from the (UK) Observer. Millbanks (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. A lame duck is lame because he has no political capital left. An outgoing president facing two hostile houses of congress, who have just been emboldened by a victory of their own, is very lame indeed. Clinton was just as lame in his last days, and so was Bush Sr. But don't confuse "lame duck", which refers to political power, with actual power. Bush is still the president, and has all the powers of that office. He's no caretaker, as a defeated Irish government would be. Bush Sr. sent US troops to Somalia during his lame duck period; he consulted Clinton about it because it felt like the right thing to do, not because he had to. A defeated Irish Taoiseach would have to have the incoming Taoiseach's permission to do something like that. -- Zsero (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Change wording regarding approval ratings in intro.

The approval-rating sentence is a bit vague and anecdotal, and does not provide useful information about the dramatic rise and fall of Bush's popularity.

• • • • • • • • • current version:

During his two terms, he has received both the highest and the lowest domestic approval ratings of American Presidents.

• • • • • • • • • suggested version:

Shortly after 9/11, Bush enjoyed the highest domestic approval ratings ever recorded for an American President - around 90%. Since then his ratings have seen a nearly steady decline, hovering around 50% at the time of his reelection - and by fall 2008 he suffered the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for an American President - around 20%.

• • • • • thanks!

I think your version is a lot better than the original, though might be too much info for the intro. What do others think? Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~.Jrobinjapan (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

6.2.7 Foreign Perceptions - Adding News of End of Bush Presidency

Pravda headline after 08 election of Obama: "Eight Years of Hell Are Over, " is this worth citing? VictorC (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be? A newspaper in a semi-hostile country expresses an opinion hostile to the current administration? Stay me with flagons! -- Zsero (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. I meant the next section "6.2.7 Foreign Perceptions," having to do with the opinions of other nations towards President Bush, and it begins: "President Bush has been criticized internationally and targeted by the global anti-war and anti-globalization campaigns, particularly for his administration's foreign policy..." At least half the section has to do with how unpopular he is internationally, and it looks like the latest citation was from '07. Excuse my typo. I've updated the header here. I think this is the purpose of this entire section. I was mainly interested in seeing about updating the section with a current citation. It's pretty clear the section is about how countries that have disfavor towards President Bush. VictorC (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that ANY foreign media outlet should NOT have their views of a current US president be included in that president's WP article. It is not relevant to the life of that president, in this case, George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.34.86 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he has attracted such vicious hatred is a significant part of his biography. I don't think any president has been so hated, by some, since at least FDR. But it's difficult to handle it in an encyclopaedic manner, and without giving it undue weight. Come to think of it, I should check FDR's article, and see how it's handled there. -- Zsero (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice

I've just created an edit notice for this article (MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-George W. Bush) based on the notices used on the Obama, McCain, and Palin articles. The wording is standard, but we can always add additional, brief points if necessary. A note reminding everyone that Bush remains in office until January 20, 2009 and that Obama isn't actually a US president until then might be beneficial. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a note stating the Bush is still president would be in the best interest of the article. I created an edit notice for Dick Cheney's article very similar to the one that you did (MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Dick Cheney). Happyme22 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

2004 votes totals incorrect

I'm sorry if this isn't how or where I'm supposed to post this. I'm new to talk pages. I just wanted to let you know that there is incorrect information on this page that I can't edit to be correct since its protected.

In the 2004 presidential candidacy section it says: "Bush carried thirty-one of fifty states for a total of 286 electoral votes. He won an absolute majority of the popular vote (a record 101.04 million votes to Kerry's 98.03 million votes )." The totals should be 62.04 and 59.03 instead. This user has made this change on several pages, but all the others appears to have been corrected.

Thanks Fredct (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've just reverted back to the version that gives the correct percentages. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)