Bush seen as a great president. No Tea Party ect?

I would wager only a small minority of Amercans consider Bush's election to be illegitimate.

Then you clearly are not a Northerner. Perhaps in the South, Bush's victory was not only expected but wanted by many, but he was not popular and remains quite unpopular in the northern states (discounting the far Midwest).
 
Then you clearly are not a Northerner. Perhaps in the South, Bush's victory was not only expected but wanted by many, but he was not popular and remains quite unpopular in the northern states (discounting the far Midwest).

Do remember that he did win re-election.

Consider that your poor opinion of certain people probably discourages them from socializing with you.
 
Do remember that he did win re-election.

Consider that your poor opinion of certain people probably discourages them from socializing with you.

Defeating John Kerry wasn't exactly a stunning victory.

My poor opinion of which people, exactly? George W. Bush? I don't have much opportunity to socialize with him, in general, so I can assure you that my poor opinion of him and my belief that he was an illegitimate president from 2000-2004 has very little bearing on that matter. I'm not sure of which other groups I've expressed 'poor' opinions.
 
Defeating John Kerry wasn't exactly a stunning victory.

My poor opinion of which people, exactly? George W. Bush? I don't have much opportunity to socialize with him, in general, so I can assure you that my poor opinion of him and my belief that he was an illegitimate president from 2000-2004 has very little bearing on that matter. I'm not sure of which other groups I've expressed 'poor' opinions.

I was referring to the increasing segregation of people by ideology.

Perhaps you are an exception, but more and more, people are socializing with like minded people.
 
This is completely speculative, since 9/11 completely changed the purpose and tenor of his administration. I can point to several reason he would be perceived as more moderate, less divisive, and quite possibly more electable entering a second election cycle.

1. Foreign policy (the element at which he seemed most ignorant and downright stupid) would be a much less important matter. Prior to 9/11, he handled foreign policy in a pretty capable manner. His handling of the potential crisis with China over the US surveillance plane which collided with the Chinese fighter and force-landed was handled in a restrained and reasonable manner. He seriously intended to reset US relations with Mexico and promote a liberalized immigration policy. His administration funneled more money in foreign aid to Africa than any previous administration. He had a realistic policy regarding Russia and China - neither too accomodating not too preachy. Without 9/11, it is doubtful the necons surroundng him could have ever sold the American people and the "Coalition of the Willing" on the Iraq invasion - the single defining moment that destroyed his reputation for many Americans and most foreigners.

2. He appeared seriously interested in domestic issues, and two of his initiatives (the "No Child Left Behind" education act and immigration reform) reflected his "Compassionate Conservative" rhetoric. Without the distraction of two wars, there's no way of predicting how he'd have been judged.

3. Absent 9/11, there would have been no Gitmo, no "war on terror", none of the aggressive unlilateralism that so irritated Europeans. He probably would have been a stronger supporter of Israel than his father, but without US bombs falling all over Iraq and Afghanistan, hostility to the US in the Islamic wourld would be about the same as under Clinton or Bush I.

4. His religious attitudes and social/cultural policies would not have changed, but just be seen pretty much as standard Republican fare. No big deal.

5. Environmentalism and Climate Change? Yup, he'd deny climate change and continue attempts to reduce environmental regulations, but this would have been a relatively non-controversial stance for most Americans. A minor issue in the election.

Bottom line, I suspect in GW's first term he would be seen somewhat as a "do nothing" president, having acheived a few domestic sucesses and having not particularly screwed up either. He would not have the divisive issue of the Iraq war on his hands. If the ecomony goes south, his reelection might well depend not on what he does (since many people intellectually realize the Prez has little direct control), but if he can relate to he American people and who the Democrats nominate in 2004.

Yeah. No 9/11 and Bush is simply a GOP Clinton. Low key, multilateral foreign policy, some domestic things which may or may not work and a lot of status quo. The caretaker president label comes to mind with Bush joining presidents like Van Bueren, Benjamin Harrison and Coolidge in being historically ignored in favor of presidents from more interesting time periods.
 
The real answer to who won Florida in 2000 is this: we don't know. The unpalatable truth is that elections themselves have a margin of error. It so happens that the results in Florida in the year 2000 fell within the margin.
 
I think making Bush seen as a great president is borderline ASB. It's just hard to imagine, with everything that happened in his second term, his presidency going down in history as great - even if you butterfly away 9/11.

With that said, I think he could go down in history as a semi-okay president had he lost reelection to John Kerry. By that point, the economy was rebounding out of the early 00s recession, Iraq hadn't collapsed quite yet and Afghanistan wasn't near the prolonged war it turned out to be by the end of '08. Had Kerry won, with the economic meltdown pretty much unavoidable, Bush would certainly be seen in better light ... especially if Kerry still kept troops in Iraq.

So, it would be far easier to shift the blame of a deteriorating Iraq to Kerry, as well as the economic meltdown ... and maybe even a badly botched Katrina. The Republicans regain the White House in 2009, and now they're tasked with bringing America out of the Great Recession.

Kerry then goes down as a Carter-like figure and Bush, while never seen as a 'great' president because he couldn't garner a second term, is still revered as a good president ... and fairly influential foreign policy president. Maybe, ironically, he's viewed in the same respects as his father ... though slightly more positive.
 
as I said earlier, the people who think he stole it vs those who think he's legit split pretty much right down party lines. Dems think he stole it. The more firmly one believes he stole it, the more diehard dem one is.

As someone else said, had Gore won, the roles would have been reversed, and republicans would have thought he stole it.

Regarding Katrina, count me as one who doesn't think it was a Bush botch job. Were there problems? there always are when it's a large scale disaster and bureaucracies are involved. You see the same complaints every time there's a disaster: people think relief should be instantaneous and flawless. Add in the stupidity of large numbers of people who espouse Bush hates black people (or similar tripe) and you basically have a lot of partisan BS and/or people who don't understand the realistic expectations of relief operations.
 
as I said earlier, the people who think he stole it vs those who think he's legit split pretty much right down party lines. Dems think he stole it. The more firmly one believes he stole it, the more diehard dem one is.

As someone else said, had Gore won, the roles would have been reversed, and republicans would have thought he stole it.

Regarding Katrina, count me as one who doesn't think it was a Bush botch job. Were there problems? there always are when it's a large scale disaster and bureaucracies are involved. You see the same complaints every time there's a disaster: people think relief should be instantaneous and flawless. Add in the stupidity of large numbers of people who espouse Bush hates black people (or similar tripe) and you basically have a lot of partisan BS and/or people who don't understand the realistic expectations of relief operations.

I know even a few people who voted for Bush who felt that Florida went the wrong way.

They should have finished a full recount. My opinions it that even if Bush had won the vote there, he should have supported a recount upon the principles of democracy. His fighting tooth and nail so that the votes wouldn't be properly counted, to me, means that regardless of whether he won or not, he was willing to steal the election.
 
When Gore asked for a SELECTIVE recount, in just a few democratic counties, he showed that he was not interested in a fair recount.

The law was written that way. A candidate could petition any county for a manual recount. Bush had the same right; he could have asked for a recount in other counties; that way there would only be a recount in those counties where one candidate or the other had a gripe.

In any case, the courts didn't like this; I think it was the Florida Supreme Court that ruled that to be constitutional, if there was to be a re-count in some counties, there had to be a re-count in all of them.
 
I had an inverse idea. What if the proto-Tea Party turned against Bush? They may be upset over his using government to influence religion (and may not like using religion for social purposes), they may not like the PATRIOT Act, seeing it as a police state. They loathe the bailout, they don't like the wars, and they don't like his betrayal of Alan Schlesinger. Would this be possible?
 
as I said earlier, the people who think he stole it vs those who think he's legit split pretty much right down party lines. Dems think he stole it. The more firmly one believes he stole it, the more diehard dem one is.

As someone else said, had Gore won, the roles would have been reversed, and republicans would have thought he stole it.

Regarding Katrina, count me as one who doesn't think it was a Bush botch job. Were there problems? there always are when it's a large scale disaster and bureaucracies are involved. You see the same complaints every time there's a disaster: people think relief should be instantaneous and flawless. Add in the stupidity of large numbers of people who espouse Bush hates black people (or similar tripe) and you basically have a lot of partisan BS and/or people who don't understand the realistic expectations of relief operations.
First, there were a lot of Republicans who were saying Gore was stealing it. (Nationally syndicated columnists.)
Second, when it comes to Katrina, I blame Bush for several things (lack of NG resources, lack of CoE resources (both of which happened in large part thanks to Iraq draining the troops, equipment and funds), slow response, lack of attention, not declaring coastal Louisiana a disaster before the storm (INLAND Louisiana was declared a disaster- and ALL of Texas (including El Paso) was declared a disaster during Rita) and withholding foreign aid. That said, some faults he shared with his predecessors (underfunding the CoE, not closing MR-GO), some problems were the fault of states (poor response in LA, MS and maybe AL), localities, the volunteer agencies (including the Red Cross- and my own volunteer organization, Civil Air Patrol), insurance companies, and individuals who didn't prepare. As for his lack of concern for black people, I didn't see too much concern for many of the whites displaced by Katrina...then again, a lot of the victims of Katrina have been passed over by everyone.
 
Top