December 14, 2000

5:20 PM

Britain welcomes the 43rd President.(Cheers to Matt for scanner duties.)
posted by holgate (23 comments total)

why did bush win? why did so many americans (even though gore won the popular vote) vote for him? did i miss something?
posted by physics at 5:44 PM on December 14, 2000

LOLOLOLOL! Now *that* is funny!
posted by FAB4GIRL at 5:49 PM on December 14, 2000

giggle
posted by centrs at 6:22 PM on December 14, 2000

tee hee.

canada should do that too...

al least he knows our prime minister, "jean poutine"
posted by will at 6:42 PM on December 14, 2000

physics -- in America it's detrimental to seem smart, unless you make a whole lot of money doing it. There's more reasons, but basically, Bush comes across as an average guy, which is non-threatening to other average guys.
posted by dhartung at 7:47 PM on December 14, 2000

Average sucks.
posted by rushmc at 8:10 PM on December 14, 2000

because he was the better candidate
posted by gyc at 8:13 PM on December 14, 2000

... and not, for instance, the better man.

and also not a candidate in a year when Clinton or Powell was in the running.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 8:35 PM on December 14, 2000

It's not just that Bush hasn't visited the UK -- we're more surprised that he's taken just two trips outside the US and Mexico -- but rather the Baltic/Balkans confusion, the "Grecians" thing, the "we don't know who they are" remark, et al. The "93% of Americans don't have a passport" thing.

And while Colin Powell may have the gravitas, and Condolezza Rice the savvy, I'd rather see a diplomat in the State Department than a general, since they tend to have conversations with other nations, rather than bomb them.
posted by holgate at 9:49 PM on December 14, 2000

And yes, Bush was the better candidate. And the better man. Gore was given the country on a silver platter - best economy in eons, peace, etc - and he blew it. Plus he was running purely to achieve power, because he thinks it's his destiny to be president, and was willing to adopt and then throw away every stand on ever issue as the winds of public opinion changed. You may not like Bush's polices, but at least he has some.

As of age 40. Before that, he was an irresponsible boozehound who was so out of control he drove drunk with his teen-age sister in the car and challenged his father to a fistfight (in his 20s, no less).

The only reason you can smear Gore's record is because he has served the country in public life for a quarter-century. Not always admirably -- every career politician has votes they would like to take back -- but how you can find Bush "the better man" is a mystery to me.

Gore wasn't given the country "on a silver platter." Every sitting vice president who runs for president has a rough challenge -- historically, the public doesn't give them credit for the previous administration's achievements. Most of them have lost -- George Bush Sr. went against the trend.
posted by rcade at 10:00 PM on December 14, 2000

just to think of Dubya cramming with the Atlas..ok Mexico is next to Japan.....DOH!!!
posted by faithnomore at 11:57 PM on December 14, 2000

I honestly do believe he's just in this game to be president, to have power.

Unlike all the other politicians who've ever run for President...
posted by Mocata at 3:22 AM on December 15, 2000

The "93% of Americans don't have a passport" thing.

That's because there's so much America. The only reason Europeans have Visas is to visit Disneyworld :)
posted by Mick at 5:29 AM on December 15, 2000

Passports, I mean passports.
posted by Mick at 5:29 AM on December 15, 2000

Holgate, it might make you feel better to know that Powell was being criticized last night on the O'Reilly Factor for being too soft.
I can't find a link to the transcript, but here's a link to the description of the show. Click here
posted by CRS at 6:38 AM on December 15, 2000

Thats right, damnit, anybody that wants to be President shouldn't have the job. err...

Yeah, all the conservatives know that Powell is a closet lefty. I mean, he supports affirmative action, how much Pinker can you get? The man is only respected because he's a hawk.
posted by dhartung at 8:49 AM on December 15, 2000

And the Republicans love to trot out the 1 or 2 black members in a laughable display of "diversity".
posted by owillis at 1:57 PM on December 15, 2000

Yes, the Republicans are so racist they can only put their token blacks in unimportant positions like Secretary of State and National Security Advisor while the tolerant Democrats are unwilling to put their black friends in such unimportant positons and instead put them in other more important cabinet positions like, what, commerce secretary? Secretary of the interior?
posted by gyc at 3:20 PM on December 15, 2000

Physics:
You British? Could you explain Major and Thatcher for me?

Bush didn’t win, Gore conceded. There is a tangible difference, even if the result is a Bush presidency. Hail to the Thief.

I can’t tell you why most people voted for him, but my family and friends who did went like this:

Brother: No propoganda swayed my brother to either candidate, so he voted Bush. Effectively a coin flip. He loves Theodore Roosevelt and genuinely wants the Bull-Moose party to come back. (Lives in North Dakota.)

Mother: She thinks Republicans raise military pay more than Democrats. This is not the case, but she believes it anyway. (Wyoming)

Uncle: Rather religous and a gun owner. Uber-conservative, but not thoughtful enough to vote Reform. (Oregon)

Friend: Formally of North Dakota, he votes Republican because he believes the propoganda that the Elephants are for individual rights, unencumbered and expansive business, anti-government (how in the god damn hell can a politician be anti-government?) while at the same time for the little guy. Beside all this he has a graduate engineering degree. He’s just not media savvy. (Florida)

Most of the minorities I spoke with about the election were Bush supporters. Non-jewish mid-easterners, for instance, couldn’t palate Gore-Lieberman.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:39 PM on December 15, 2000

Yes, the Republicans are so racist they can only put their token blacks in unimportant positions like Secretary of State and National Security Advisor while the tolerant Democrats are unwilling to put their black friends in such unimportant positons and instead put them in other more important cabinet positions like, what, commerce secretary? Secretary of the interior?

The Democrats have a much better track record on diversity in appointments. However, that doesn't take away the fact that appointing Powell to Secretary of State is impressive.
posted by rcade at 11:15 PM on December 15, 2000

Except, wouldn't it be nice to have an actual diplomat in that position? The fact that Powell is so well-liked is an opportunity for the Peter principle to function on the highest levels (well, not quite the highest--we've already got Bush to demonstrate that).
posted by rodii at 8:24 AM on December 16, 2000