Talk:George W. Bush

Editor plan and guidelines

 * A general principle of all articles about political figures: it should be impossible to determine whether the authors are supporters or opponents of the subject of the article. Citizendium is neither Democrat nor Republican.

Comments
This needs much improvement.

For starters, it should at least be stated that Bush lost the popular vote in his first election, though he won the the Electoral College.

The statement "reelected by 3 million majority over John Kerry in 2004" is misleading; the figure should include popular and electoral vote, and express the popular vote not only as a number, but as a percentage of votes cast (3 million makes the result sound less close than it was).

Russell Potter 15:50, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I just fixed it. :-)
 * Looks much better! I do think it may be tricky to have the best overall information on a person who is still living and still serving as president -- that real estate boom may soon be (or may already be) a bust! -- but it's certainly worth trying.  It will give us all a course of isometrics in the school of . Russell Potter 18:45, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree, the real estate thing and a lot of other "markers" were added by Richard. Also I don't know why the Plame intelligence leakage Affair and NSA wiretapping scandal were erased, are they not important enough? Yi Zhe Wu 19:55, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The Plame scandal was not important enough. (The prospect it would bring down Rove would make it impoirtant but that did NOT happen.) NSA wiretapping issue was minor affair likewise. The real estate boom affected tens of millions of people (and seems to have ended now, but was a major factor in the economy for years). What we have in the article is just a list of markers ("events" is not quite the word), with only a couple words on each.  A real article on the Bush years will have a paragraph+ on each item. Richard Jensen 00:05, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs to invoke the neutrality principle for this article.
 * Neutrality? that's unlikely given the high octane topic. There are no neutrals out there that we can cater to, in my opinion. The best we can do is list all the main issues right now. We have even STARTED to write the article. Richard Jensen 10:35, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
 * What do ya mean by high octane? Is this an metaphorical expression? But I do agree that writing an article on the current president will get into a lot of neutrality issues, and it's very very hard to write about him neutrally. Anyways, we only need to wait till 2009 when he steps down any indeterminate issue about him will be resolved. Yi Zhe Wu 11:24, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "high octane" is an old-fashioned expression for an explosive issue that burns red hot. The article should avoid explicit partisanship --that is very hard for any one editor to do, but it might work out ok collectively. Richard Jensen 11:44, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


 * A good example of explicit partisanship is the use of the political rhetoric "scandal" with the Attorney General's firings. US attorneys serve at the will of the president; other presidents have dismissed them for a variety of stated reasons, but most are partisan, whether stated or not. The terms here should be neutral to keep from taking sides in a political controversy. David L Green 22:16, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not a partisan issue. It's the Republicans in Senate (11 of 12 on Judiciary) who've attaCKED Bush and most called for Gonzales to resign. Richard Jensen 13:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT).

Elections

 * , winning 51% of the votes and a 3 million majority

U.S. presidents are not elected by popular sovereignty. Rather, the votes in each state are counted. Whoever "wins that state" gets all its electoral votes.

It is only a matter of historical curiousity, not constitutional significance, when a candidate gets a majority of electoral votes while an opponents gets a plurality of popular votes.

Agitation to change the Electoral college sometimes crops up, typically from partisons for the losing candidate. Perhaps we need an an article on election reform or Electoral college reform. --Ed Poor 11:22, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I disagree -- it is not merely a matter of historical curiosity who gets how many votes in the popular election. Obviously, with the Electoral College system with each state's slate of electors, the popular vote is rarely reflected by the Electoral College vote, although there have been a few instances where the winner of the popular vote won in the EC.  Stating the facts in the matter (popular vote, electoral vote) seems the best, most neutral way to reflect this.  Russell Potter 11:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree with Ed. It sounds like sour grapes. For example, would one say, "In a strike shortened season, including three wins by non-union scab players, the Washington Redskins won the Super Bowl."  I think a better alternative would be to say, "The Washington Redskins defeated the Denver Broncos to win the Superbowl." And at some appropriate point mention the oddity of the strike-shortened season.


 * Of course, if you think this detail about the popular vote is fair / important, why doesn't the Bill Clinton article mention that Clinton did not come close to winning a majority of the popular vote in either of his Presidential races? Will Nesbitt 07:46, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Bin Laden and 9/11
I have moved the article away from saying that UBL actually directed the attacks to what I believe is strictly accurate: that he has claimed responsibility for them. If this is wrong, revert. I have also mentioned the repercussions of the Iraq war. John Stephenson 02:47, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Photo to illustrate (foreign) opposition
The photo to the right can perhaps go on a section about opposition to George W. Bush and his administration. Or not. It's there if anyone wants it in the article. John Stephenson 03:02, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


 * American Presidents have been protested across the world in a good many places. I would oppose this picture because it would take more than a thousand words to put this into context and proper perspective. Similarly, I think it would be silly to show Bush being mobbed like a rock star by crying overjoyed supporters in Armenia. Will Nesbitt 07:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I think it could find a place somewhere, though the article is yet to develop sufficiently for it to be included. (And to agree with Will for once... you're right, 'state' is better than 'claim'.) John Stephenson 08:46, 22 July 2007 (CDT)


 * John, perhaps it does have a place in the article. The question which remains unanswered is why is this important but the pictures of swooning masses in Eastern Europe and Armenia mobbing Bush with joy and love are not in the article. I don't think either one is newsworthy. This is because every public figure has supporters and every public figure has detractors.  More importantly a picture of one faction or another gives and impression which may or may not represent reality.


 * As a resident of the Washington DC area, I can tell you that I can't remember a day when there wasn't a protest at the Whitehouse. Sometimes there are more than one protests at the same time. Sometimes there are rallies. When you see them in person the protest looks impossibly small like 20 people (10 of whom are 100% pure nutflake). Then you go home and watch the exact same protest on the evening news and the camera angle gives a totally different impression.  You can't see the people playing frisbee nearby, the homeless man who is there ever day and the taxi picking up a fare. Once ever 5 to ten years you see something like the Million Man March (about 100,000) or a massive anti-abortion protest (bussed in church groups) or the Hispanic rally before the immigration debates. When you see the shot from a helicopter, it's a newsworthy protest.  When you can see the people's faces and read their signs, it's probably a half-dozen kooks.  That doesn't mean that many people don't agree with the kooks. It just means, the protest isn't that big a deal. Anyway, thanks for the (albeit grudging) admission above. ;^) Will Nesbitt 09:11, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Analysis & Justification of a Deletion
I think a good many conservatives are disappointed with the Bush presidency because Bush is a "compassionate conservative", i.e. a liberal, when it comes to government spending. There is a good deal of analysis that indicates that Republican spending had as much to do with Republican losses in the House & Senate, as Iraq. This analysis might not be correct, but it's out there. Therefore, since the experts can't agree on why Democrat gains in the House and Senate were made, I think we should be careful to avoid conclusions. It might be best to just stay out of the analysis game altogether (because that's where the arguments lurk) and stick with the facts. Will Nesbitt 07:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I tried to edit this sentence:


 * Many talk radio hosts who had been staunch Bush supporters turned against him, denounced it as "amnesty," and mobilized Republican opinion against the measure. 

But I couldn't find a way to both report a good many facts relevant to this sentence without ballooning the verbiage and thereby implying that the topic is more important than other subjects covered in a single sentence. Without any prosaic artistry here are some facts which I think are relevant to this sentence, but are not mentioned:


 * Many talk show hosts are conservatives
 * Many conservatives supported the President and the Republican party, but many conservatives are now unhappy with the party because of explosive government spending, lax immigration enforcement, mishandled war efforts
 * Every political talk radio program attempts to mobilize opinion about something.
 * Talk radio struck a chord with listeners with this particular topic. Many people from diverse political affiliations opposed the proposed legislation
 * Many Americans thought of the proposed reforms as "amnesty"

In the end, this issue could be / will be an article in and of itself. On this page it seems to make more sense to avoid political characterizations and stick to the most easily reported facts. Will Nesbitt 07:38, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

One edit away from quitting
An important part of this project is working with others. I would like to collaboratively edit but I am not willing to devote my life to hammering against a brick wall. Will Nesbitt 06:30, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Just to drop my 2 cents.  It seems the most recent edit war has been in regards to the following statement in the introduction "However, due to the prolonged conflict in Iraq, numerous alleged scandals in the administration and an explosion of government growth and spending, he lost public support and in 2006 the Democratic Party won a majority in both houses of the Congress."  I'd have to agree with it's complete removal, atleast from that location, because it seems out of place.  If people still feel the need to add the information elsewhere, it should be easy enough to back some of these statements up with public opinion polls and the like.


 * Also, I would just like to say to Will, that I don't think you are ever going to find a utopian editing experiece when it comes to controversial articles. Problems may not get solved immediately, but you picking up your ball and going home isn't going to solve the problem either. :) --Todd Coles 10:07, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Will, how about focusing a while on much less controversial topics? Just a suggestion. &mdash;Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:04, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I appreciate the kind words and suggestions from both of you. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect either collaboration or a free reign. I've posted my reasons for taking a break on my user page. Will Nesbitt 12:35, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

I think that this article seems to lack some "warmth" for its subject, perhaps because it lacks any personal biographical details, such as about Bush's childhood and family. It also doesn't really explain why so many voted for Bush, or what qualities he had that made the Republican's choose him.Gareth Leng 16:52, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Two Small Changes
I'm going to risk two small changes to the second sentence: First, U.S. Presidents don't inaugurate; it isn't a transitive verb. They are inaugurated, that is installed in office, by others - specifically the swearing in at a public ceremony by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme court. And, U.S. Presidents aren't just inaugurated in January. The date set by law is January 20.
 * Roger Lohmann 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)