Talk:Public image of George W. Bush/Archive 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 21/8/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Cleanup?

Am I the only one who finds this article very hard to read? It could do with a bit of rewriting, or perhaps a table to make the numbers in polls clearer. DiegoTehMexican 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, theres little comments here and there that justify George without any source (or just 1 source thats usually a partisan site called "fuck islamos" or whatever). This is worst than a Star Wars page as it stands.

NPOV

I find it hard to believe that there exists no perception of anyone in the world that contains anything positive about Bush. This really needs to have some positive perceptions. --jbamb

• As much as I dislike Bush and his administration, I must admit that the second part of this article, is a list of items squarely against him. I agree with what is written in them, but surely there are other issues such as Bush stance on abortion, that are perceived positively by a sizeable chunk of people that voted for him. manu3d 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that history will probably be a bit more favorable to Bush, but it seems to me that he's going from one problem to the next in his second term. There has been little to no positive news at all lately, and many people in his own party are trying to distance themselves from the President. DiegoTehMexican 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • No it won't. Here's my prediction: A tax-and-spend Republican who has eroded civil liberties while increasing the size of government, he'll be disavowed by left, liberal and conservative historians alike. George Kaplan 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite like this article. Good job.

BMIKESCI 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Uniter/Divider

"I'm a uniter, not a divider", was Bush's slogan in the 2000 election. My personal view, however, is that Bush has been a very successful divider, dividing the nation over a number of important issues; perhaps more so than any previous president! Does anyone have any opinion or fact that supports or refutes my view? -PJ

• Which is one position, his approval is near 50%, is there nothing positive that can be said and how does that reconcile with the level of approval? -- Jbamb 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • His approval doesn't seem to be anywhere near 50%, so I have no idea what you're talking about. (unsigned)

At various times his ratings have been far above 50%, especially after 9/11. During those times his public perception was very positive, someone could certainly dig up the reasons for that, since I don't remember what thery were.12.17.189.77 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most relevant POV criticism is that although Bush's numbers have softened in 2005 and 2006, it has had nothing to with the liberal issues listed herein (NSA, Plame leak, secret prisons). The people who cared about that stuff voted for Kerry. Bush lost support during this period from Republicans for insufficent conservatism (failed social security reform; deficit spending, Harriet Miers nomination,Dubai port deal; lenient immigration proposal). I suspect the folks who starting the article don;t want to face the truth a more cosnervative Bush would be a more popular one

• • I agree 100% with this analysis. (And I was a Kerry voter.)George Kaplan 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Bush sucks. That's all I have to say about that. Hyukan 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the above is not relevant to "uniter/divider". A perfect divider would have half the country approve strongly, and half the country disapprove strongly, so a perfect divider would have an approval rating of 50%. The usual way to do this is by paying no attention to what the other half of the country wants. While this ideal, absolute polarization is not realistic, we do have lots of people saying "Worst president in history, he should be impeached right now", and on the other side, "Shut up, that's treason.". Not that many people seem to feel neutral about him. Thus, he seems to be a fairly successful divider. Granted, he does become a less successful divider whenever he takes actions that almost nobody likes, because that gives people something to agree on.

(There was a little while there when people were united, after 9/11. But I don't suppose Bush wants to take credit for 9/11.) DanielCristofani 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems

This page could really be better. It is appropriate that Bush's own page be as NPOV as possible, but this article is specifically about various pov's. It could likely hold more positive povs, but it is also missing the major criticisms of Bush, specifically the Iraq War, specifically the extremely controversial build-up to war. Also I think that that there can be done some extreme re-working of the domestic section above the Hurricane Katrina section. Does there really need to be such an extremly detailed poll account in this section? It doesn't seem to fit. 68.42.64.204 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Possible?

I'm not particularly sure that this article can attain neutrality of President Bush. Don't get me wrong, the guy is less credible than Vladimir Putin, but because public perception is so remarkably poor, I honestly doubt that anyone can make it neutral without being factually inaccurate. ThatSandersKid 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)-

The facts, not the way they're presented, can lead to a POV conclusion and still leave the article itself neutral. The fact is, an article on a person's perception in public CAN'T lead to a neutral conclusion unless their perception is neutral. As it stands, Bush's perception was positive at one point, and is now extremely negative. That's not POV, it's merely the way things are. --216.153.178.21 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Public perception

What is this article actually supposed to be about? Numerous sections (Hurricane Katrina, event screening, Plame affair, and secret prisons) don't mention the public at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it only serves to let a certain political party vent their frustrations with the president. I don't see a Public perception and assessments of Bill Clinton (substitute any other president for Clinton) article anywhere. This article's a joke and represents a big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Dubc0724 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats vs. Whys

Although this article contains lots of negative opinions about Bush, that's fine, because the negative perceptions are reported in mainstream media sources. So long as this article sticks to "public perception and assessments" of GWB, it's neutral. It falls miserably into POV, however, when it gets into the "whys", because these are subject to much interpretation, which amounts to original research. As such, I am going to eliminate anything from the article which attempts to "connect the dots", but leave in the well-sourced negative polls and assessments of GWB. Morton devonshire 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that we would not be crossing into POV territory if we also included information related to notable and significant researchers and editorials (not DemocraticUnderground or Freep, of course, or even the DNC or RNC themselves) who offer correlations between events/policies and poll data. If the New York Times runs an in-depth investigative article on Bush's poll ratings correlated with surveys and historical data, that should be fine to include and summarize. Captainktainer * Talk 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To do that would require that we decide these are the events which led to the negative poll results, which would be original research. If the NYT says that these are the reasons, in the same article that states the polls, then that's the NYTimes, not us. But we can't make the correlations ourselves. At all. Morton devonshire 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If the NYTimes references earlier articles or articles from different sources with the polls, that would be acceptable, correct? Captainktainer * Talk 02:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just keep it simple and not do that, okay? That way we can form a consensus. Morton devonshire 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

At least for now I can get behind that, but once the article stabilizes a bit more, I think we should revisit this and allow for more complexity. Captainktainer * Talk 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page

Sorry, I am a new Wiki user, and don't know my way around here yet but....come on. This articly serves no purpose whatsoever. Polls mean absolutely nothing (Remember Mr. Kerry in 2004? he was ahead in those). I would nominate this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.205.65 (talk • contribs)

This article was nominated for deletion before, there was no consensus. --Wildnox 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to revisit the issue and work toward a 'consensus'? Dubc0724 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Bunns USMC 06:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Put Up or Shut Up

To all you people who think the President is doing such a terrible job. Why don't you run for president and when you get elected try and do it better. It's really easy to play the "Monday Morning Quarterback". Its one thing to disagree with his foriegn policy, it another to criticise him for decisions he made, when you don't know what information he had at the time. We may not have the best system, but at least we have a man who is not afraid of making the tough calls. Bunns USMC 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of text because of inappropriate language, not because of content dispute.

Portrayal as a Southron

The anti-Bush media in Northern cities (SF & NY etc except FOX News) has tried to portray the President as "Southern and stupid", while receptive media outlets down South have tried to paint him as a "good old boy". Bush does not in fact fit either perception. Yankee Bushes Elder and Younger, like Pennsylvania Dutch Eisenhower, are of Northern origin and their Texas connections are what some Southern Democrats criticize as Carpetbagger in their components. For instance, large corporations in sectors such as the oil industry are typically part of the Gilded Age establishment began in the Reconstruction era and founded by Northerners, with Scalawag support. Southerners are not typically in control of technological industries, which were the mainstay of the GOP when it started out as a repackaging of the American Whig Party. The Bush family's political and/or economic prominence began in Ohio, the mainstay of Lincolnian Republicans actively hostile to the Solid South. Many conservatives question Bush's commitment to national security as it pertains to Mexico, wondering about Columba Bush's influence on this apparent laxity in handling illegal immigration to the United States. A charge yet refuted, is that Bush uses cultural appropriation (Southern strategy) in order to maintain Southern partisan allegiance. Recently, a Washington insider has come forth and stated that the Bush Administration is not "in bed" with religious conservatism as once thought. Florida congressman Mark Foley's activities, as well as Arizona congressmen Jim Kolbe's, have raised question about the legitimacy of neoconservatism and whether it is indeed feasibly operative or a technique to gain ratings. These events can be interpreted in the light of the Bushes' percieved cold shoulder to Zell Miller's Jacksonian keynote speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Numbers of former Democrats support Bush because they would not support Kerry, especially with the culture war rhetorics of both Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich ever since the Clinton Administration. Bush's declared reverence for Reagan has some Conservatives wondering what is so "conservative" about a Hollywood star, especially since Hollywood is percieved as anti-American. They wonder why the GOP that Joseph McCarthy identified with would court Hollywood as representative of their party.

Let's see how to reintegrate the text. Hasbro 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you find and supply us with sources backing up all the statements in the paragraph. That would help a lot in judging and possibly rewriting this text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)