Talk:George W. Bush

Move to Include His Cocaine Abuse from 1972

This was a pertinent fact much publicized during his 2000 elections. This is left out to what I think exposes a slight bias. for an issue that was debated as such (there is another wikipedia article about this, but should be discussed and linked to on this one) during his first presidential campaign, i find it hard to believe that this fact is left out. GigaTronicus (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is patrolled heavily by people in favor of him, so it would be hard to add.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafael, unless you can provide evidence of bias in the editors maintaining this page, please refrain from making such accusations. In truth, it would appear you are confusing attempts to prevent this article from being an all out Bush Bash with biased editing. This article is actually written from a fairly accurate and neutral perspective. If you believe there is a POV problem, be specific. - auburnpilot's sock 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The short of it is there is not enough evidence to do anything meaningful with this tidbit. What happened was in 72 Bush was arrested and taken before a judge for something. Whatever it was was later exonerated from his record after he completed public service. It could have been an unpaid parking ticket for all intents and purposes. It was more probably either a DUI or a drug related offense. The Judge was a family friend of the Bush clan and firmly enmeshed in the local political climate enough to realize that doing something bad to GW Bush was going to be bad for his career. However even if it was something like cocaine possession, the fact that he seems to have gotten his life in order enough to be elected to the Presidency of the United States says that the exoneration was probably not a bad thing. Flatly, the overwhelming majority of American adults have done illegal drugs as some point or another and all this does is point out that drug use does not necessarily preclude someone from actually being successful. RTRimmel (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misspoke when I mentioned "The fact" above. what i mean to say is that i would prefer not to debate the truth of whether or not it was a drug charge. i would like to also make an issue out of including this information as it was included during his 2000 presidential election campaign. i personally have not done much research on the drug charge, and probably should. but i remembered from that election that this issue came up and was dismissed. it was aside from the DUI charge. many people had been talking about Bush being in trouble for drunk driving and cocaine as well. this is more of an appeal to this than the actual validity of it. that is not to say that it didn't happen either. i don't think that it would be a bush bash from the POV of the article, from me personally it might. however it's not a subjective statement if the article were to present the controversy that spawned from not only the DUI but the cocaine charge as well. GigaTronicus (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a minor issue and it did not prevent him from getting elected so I fail to see any serious significance to it. Unlike Bush's national guard service which got Dan Rather shot down so to speak, the drug controversy really didn't have any high profile victims so it may be worth one sentence and that's about it. And at one sentence I really don't see explaining it in a meaningful enough context to waste the characters. Again, nothing happened due to the accusations so at best it was a failed smear and the info is not sourced enough that I would feel comfortable including it. RTRimmel (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush is still drinking

The article declares he gave up alcohol in 1986. Then this must be some fellow who looks awfully similar to him... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ViQMkqnToA Bush is clearly seen in this June 2007 video footage, drinking beer. The section on his personal life should probably be changed to "he gave up drinking sometime in 1986, resuming sometime after that" since he is clearly actively drinking. Guest 13:51, 18 August 2008 (EST)

I think I would view The Boston Globe as a more reliable source than a youtube video. Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That was Buckler beer... which is non-alcoholic. If you know the brew it also (apparently) does the overflow thing that you can see in the video if your pour it out like that so there is little reason to doubt that. Head over to here for a more detailed look on Bush's drinking while in office. He has had a few that can be proven in the line of diplomatic events where refusal would likely have been not politically expedient and those don't really count. RTRimmel (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube link goes to a video which is meant to be anti-Bush. No mention is made that the beer is non-alcoholic. Regardless as to whether YouTube is a reliable source, that YouTube video clearly is not. SMP0328. (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can also look here [1] for more confirmation it's a non-alcoholic (and it even makes fun of Bush for the overflow so I'm sure it will be an adequately anti-Bush source). JEB90 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

Mentioning that Bush was nominated twice (by a single right-wing Norwegian politician) and failed to win the Nobel Prize doesn't seem notable to me. Anyone can nominate anyone for the prize to my understanding...as in I could nominate him for the Prize too. If these nominations were serious, then perhaps we should mention them, but there just doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about that Norwegian politician's nominations. Anyone else for removal of this content? Dwr12 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Jimmy Carter actually won the Nobel Prize. That deserves mention. Let's wait and see if "W" ever accomplishes that. Jay Gregg (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am gonna put a mention of Razzie award for worst actor then. (Fahrenheit 9/11)

Not to mention basically anyone can nominate someone: (Being a politician is enough in this case) SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading up on the nominations for the two years, both had a 0% chance of winning and the person who nominated them was suspect. We either need to expand the sentence to include those two facts "Bush was unexpected nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2002 and again in 2004 but did not win in either case due to opposition from members of the Nobel Committee who opposed the various Wars started by Bush." Or remove it entirely. We removed the Sewage plant nonsense(at least until if it passes), this needs to go as well. As a post script, before Bush was nominated members of the committee that selects the award winner had spoken out against his actions. After reading, I'm unsure that the nomination itself was not a joke by the nominator and the nominator is the one who announced it as the Nobel committee does not announce who the nominees are. RTRimmel (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an earlier discussion of the Nobel nominations last year, Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 58#Nobel Peace prize nomination. It was agreed then to remove the mention of the nominations from the lead paragraph with sort of an understanding that this info could be removed from the article altogether later. I have no objections to removing the Nobel Peace Prize nominations mention entirely. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee, and why its important but not here.

The crux of the issue is that in almost every case a Presidential Candidate wins his "home" state. This did not happen in 2000. The late time it happened (prior to the 2000 election) was 1972. There are a variety of factors including limited campaigning, Gore's record, smears by 527's, and Bush's campaigning and there are all very important... for the Gore page. For the Bush page it might be worth a sentence, but for here it is borderline trivia as the Florida issue was more central for Bush's campaign. The fact that Bush won is probably noteworthy, but I don't disagree with earlier commentary that it is not noteworthy on the Bush page. At most a sentence such as "Bush won a clear victory in the south, even pulling Gore's home state of Tennessee, before the issue of Florida came to a head." On this page I don't think it merits more than that and we don't need to speculate that Gore would have won if he'd pulled his home state here, there is enough information on the page concerning the 2000 election to ensure that any reader can easily determine that the election was very close. RTRimmel (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The user left a message on my talk page indicating that he was placing the sentence in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 article. I sentence such as the one suggested above may be in our best interest as well. Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Well I want to say that the article is in need a few things about Pressident Bush (only a few more months left of that) First off what should be added is his time IN THE WHITE HOUSE his first year, he had blown that obligation off so that he could go to his ranch. Second thing is the removal of the corperate gains tax, this little thing that was removed by the bush congress in what i believe was 2003 let the big corperations keep more of their money and bleeding the governorment of that money. Third thing is the Iraq war, no not the war itself but the troops that are in the war. They had gone over into Iraq with barely any equipment, things that are needed to fight a "war" Troops not having body armour or not having a walkie talkie, the families of the soilders had to provide these items and more becuase the federal government could not or did not have these items in supple. The Fourth is the problem with Home Land Sceurity covering serval government agenceys that were not meant to deal with terrorism. The biggest of these was FEMA. FEMA was created to deal with narutal disasters like Katrina or wildfires. Once FEMA was rolled into the mess called Homeland Security they could not acess the tools needed to deal with any emergency, they had to go throught Homeland Security to allocate the tools needed. Lasty what should be added is HIS BIAS to the weathly and corperations cough cough *exxon and haliburton* cough cough. His prsidenecney has allowed the bigger man to take control and kill the little man. Regan had his Regenmoics, or trickle down, it is the same policy that bush has and has been using over his presidencey— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.181.3 (talk)

...I'll keep my opinions to myself. Wikipedia:NPOV should say everything that needs to be said at this point. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes, he's a terrible president. If you can back up your statements and keep them NPOV put them in the article, otherwise don't worry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. It does not matter if he's a terrible president or not, does it? If you want to trash President Bush, could you do it somewhere else? Thanks. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Razzie Awards

Despite opinions to the contrary, the Golden Raspberry award has been around since the early 80's and has been accepted by Oscar winners and other notables. It is accurate that Bush was given the award and it passes any notability requirement for an award. I don't care if you disagree with the reason it was given to Bush, I don't care if it was clearly given in bad taste, it was given to Bush and therefor deserves to be on that page. RTRimmel (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Political insults shouldn't be part of these types of articles, if any article. There's nothing notable about insults to President Bush. Many people have insulted Senator Barack Obama. Should those insults be added to his article? Political insults toward politicians do nothing to further any purpose of Wikipedia. Awards are meant to formally congratulate someone for doing a positive thing well. The Golden Raspberry is simple meant to insult someone and so is not an award. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an award in the traditional sense, but rather an "anti-award", but it is notable. Signs of distinction and notability may be both positive and negative and the key question is how much coverage they receive and how to factor in undue weight considerations. In this case I am not sure and do not have a strong opinion either way. There was substantial news coverage of the Razzie for Bush, but most of it was fairly short term. See GoogleNews results (recent news here[2], all dates here[3]). Perhaps deserves either a very brief mention (one sentence) or maybe just a category listing for Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. Nsk92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SMP. Bush is not an actor, so someone giving him a "bad acting" award says more about the awarder than the recipient. Also, regardless of how we try to integrate it into the article, its non-political, off-topic nature makes it seem like slander, and therefore bias. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the Razzie for Bush was meant as a political statement; if it belongs somewhere in the article at all, it would probably be in the domestic perceptions section. I don't think the question of whether Bush deserved it or if the "award" was fair is particularly relevant here (an attack campaign, if sufficiently widely covered would have to be mentioned). The key question is if Bush's Razzie was the subject of sufficiently wide coverage and if including a mention of it would violate WP:UNDUE. I am inclined to agree with you that in this case inclusion is probably not warranted on WP:UNDUE grounds and because the coverage does not appear to be particularly wide. For Jacques Chirac his Ig Nobel Prize is not mentioned in the article about him but his page does include a category listing Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here with Category:Golden Raspberry Awards. Nsk92 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to economic section

FYI - the unemployment rate is now 6.1% (see this). The economic section should probably be updated to reflect this.--128.62.161.179 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NIGGER

Obama might be DA NIGGA. but bush is A NIGGER! Wikidemonic (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)