Thread
Can we swap Bush for Tony Blair? - PLEASE!
Just got through watching this morning's press conference. UGHH!! Seriously, wouldn't it be great to trade these guys? Don't mean to start a flame war but the contrast is so stark.
Tony Blair is so impressive. He has grasp of the issues. He's able to articulate a vision and respond with clear direct answers. He puts setbacks into the context of the larger objective. He has command of the language (Duh!!). I've seen him in a number of different and very hostile situations and he's handled them superbly.
George....well, George has trouble . You get the feeling that he goes one concept into his response and he hits the wall ("We gonna git'em....um, That's all you need to know"). Can you imagine George Bush having to face the House of Parliament? Having to answer his critics in an off-the-cuff manner?
So, what do you say? Tony Blair for George Bush with a Congressman to be named later. If they balk we throw in J. Lo.
Tony Blair is so impressive. He has grasp of the issues. He's able to articulate a vision and respond with clear direct answers. He puts setbacks into the context of the larger objective. He has command of the language (Duh!!). I've seen him in a number of different and very hostile situations and he's handled them superbly.
George....well, George has trouble . You get the feeling that he goes one concept into his response and he hits the wall ("We gonna git'em....um, That's all you need to know"). Can you imagine George Bush having to face the House of Parliament? Having to answer his critics in an off-the-cuff manner?
So, what do you say? Tony Blair for George Bush with a Congressman to be named later. If they balk we throw in J. Lo.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by vmpaul: Just got through watching this morning's press conference. UGHH!! Seriously, wouldn't it be great to trade these guys? Don't mean to start a flame war but the contrast is so stark. Tony Blair is so impressive. He has grasp of the issues. He's able to articulate a vision and respond with clear direct answers. [snip] George....well, George has trouble .[snip] So, what do you say? Tony Blair for George Bush with a Congressman to be named later. If they balk we throw in J. Lo. |
Hell yes. I was just saying the same thing to my wife over lunch.
Blair seems to have a clam understaning of the situation and his comments are representitive of that.
Bush seems to be more viceral...and his comments reflect that too.
I don't think the Brits would like the idea too much though.
It was very interesting to watch those two today. Blair is probably the only one who actually makes me think about what my stance on this war is.
And I found it hilarious when Bush was asked about the coalition. He said he could hand out the list. It was like he couldn't mention the Western European allies in the coalition. Not to mention when the first question came for Blair. Bush interrupted him, and IMHO acted like a kid. ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!
And I found it hilarious when Bush was asked about the coalition. He said he could hand out the list. It was like he couldn't mention the Western European allies in the coalition. Not to mention when the first question came for Blair. Bush interrupted him, and IMHO acted like a kid. ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!
I've seen this commented on before. It's not just W's well-known awkwardness in public speaking, it is also an institutional difference between US and UK politicians. A press conference is a bit like a debate and British politicians are parlamentarians. They are generally much more used to debate as a means of communications that American politicians who generally only debate when they absolutely have to - i.e. at election time.
Of course, there are exceptions. Clinton is smart on his feet, and Nixon did pretty well at the Oxford Union (though didn't he lose the vote?), but in general, American politicians tend to be less verbally adroit. But that doesn't necessarily translate to effectiveness, as many Britons would probably testify about Blair.
I've got a question though: why does the White House stick Blair behind a presidential seal? Is this some protocol thing?
Of course, there are exceptions. Clinton is smart on his feet, and Nixon did pretty well at the Oxford Union (though didn't he lose the vote?), but in general, American politicians tend to be less verbally adroit. But that doesn't necessarily translate to effectiveness, as many Britons would probably testify about Blair.
I've got a question though: why does the White House stick Blair behind a presidential seal? Is this some protocol thing?
It's probably just that those are the type of podiums that they have lying around.
BG
BG
Irrespective of my politics and my stance on this war, Mr Blair has gone up in my estimation.
Bigger nuts than I previously thought.
Bigger nuts than I previously thought.
Never switch Blair for Bush... Bush has been better for this country than any Democrat in recent history.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: it is also an institutional difference between US and UK politicians. A press conference is a bit like a debate and British politicians are parlamentarians. They are generally much more used to debate as a means of communications |
Mmmmm ....
(fantasizes about a media that actually engages the president and forces him to explain himself)
hehehe, i like blair too. i do like bush as well though, i think they compliment each other in good ways. anyone catch the tony blair history thing on cnn? to funny, he used to be a wild hippy from what i saw of it. if you want to give tony blair an email here goes http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/c...ntactcenter.jsp
Quote:
|
Originally posted by snotnose: i think they compliment each other in good ways. |
You are so right
Anyone got a link to that QT movie collage of the B&B love-in (Your Eyes, or whatever) that isn't linked thru the pr0n site, and would still be available?
The current situation is undoubtedly a "set up" for public consumption back home in England. Bush is going to appear intransiant on UN involvement in post-war Iraq. Then they are going to make it appear like Blair converts Bush. This is designed to offset British editorials claiming Blair is the lap-dog of Bush.
I should add that I think that an unfair criticism of Blair. Blair has affected Bush's policies a great deal. Criticize Bush and Blair if you wish. I can understand a lot of the criticisms. But charges that Blair isn't his own person rather bother me and seem cheap shots.
I should add that I think that an unfair criticism of Blair. Blair has affected Bush's policies a great deal. Criticize Bush and Blair if you wish. I can understand a lot of the criticisms. But charges that Blair isn't his own person rather bother me and seem cheap shots.
I think it's telling that Bush let Blair (and Powell) do all the leg work on the UN front. Bush picked up a phone a few times, but Blair was on a whirlwind tour trying to make that dog hunt.
I do think Bush knows his limitations. He clearly has the "executive" style of only dealing with the big picture and not trying to manage the details. That can be good and bad.
Blair, OTOH, is often criticized for doing too much. He cannot keep himself from taking on every big fight personally. That can be good and bad.
At any rate, I'd gleefully swap the two if it was possible.
I do think Bush knows his limitations. He clearly has the "executive" style of only dealing with the big picture and not trying to manage the details. That can be good and bad.
Blair, OTOH, is often criticized for doing too much. He cannot keep himself from taking on every big fight personally. That can be good and bad.
At any rate, I'd gleefully swap the two if it was possible.
The do compliment each other. Blair is a good speaker. I respect him a great deal. Bush is to the point, it may be crude sometimes, but he doesn't mix words, and you know what he means when he says it.
I can respect a guy that doesn't try to muddy his water to appear deep.
I thought they both did a excellent job.
The people of England should be proud to have such a leader.
If he was able to run for Pres in the US, I'd vote for him.
I can respect a guy that doesn't try to muddy his water to appear deep.
I thought they both did a excellent job.
The people of England should be proud to have such a leader.
If he was able to run for Pres in the US, I'd vote for him.
You can have Blair.
We'll take the Dixie Chicks in part exchange (instead of Dubya), 'cos you don't seem to want them.
We'll take the Dixie Chicks in part exchange (instead of Dubya), 'cos you don't seem to want them.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by christ: You can have Blair. We'll take the Dixie Chicks in part exchange (instead of Dubya), 'cos you don't seem to want them. |
Heck I'd give you them for free if I had the choice.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Zimphire: The do compliment each other. Blair is a good speaker. I respect him a great deal. Bush is to the point, it may be crude sometimes, but he doesn't mix words, and you know what he means when he says it. I can respect a guy that doesn't try to muddy his water to appear deep. I thought they both did a excellent job. The people of England should be proud to have such a leader. If he was able to run for Pres in the US, I'd vote for him.
|
well said
Quote:
| The people of England should be proud to have such a leader |
Britain, not England. Get a brain, moran.
If it was just England, he wouldn't have won.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer: Get a brain, moran. |
LOL
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer: Britain, not England. Get a brain, moran was just England, he wouldn't have won. |
Sorry if I wasn't SO specific. I am such a moran
I knew what you was talking about. You know, I read MacNN too.
I would perfer Blair over Bush.
Bush has no sense of foreign politics, or Diplomacy.
2 things VITAL these days. Bush would have made a good president in say, 1800-1900. But these days, those are the two most essential traits. And he may lack more than any other president in history.
Blair on the other hand, is one of the best in recent history. He knows the dance well, hence the respect he gets. Remember most of the world didn't want to get into a war in Afganistan, even after Sept 11th... They wanted to deal with endless diplomacy. Blair gave one speach, and it fell into place. Blair knows very well how world politics works.
He is a worlds politician, not a countries.
problem is many politicians in the US and abroad, are not world politicians.
Bush has no sense of foreign politics, or Diplomacy.
2 things VITAL these days. Bush would have made a good president in say, 1800-1900. But these days, those are the two most essential traits. And he may lack more than any other president in history.
Blair on the other hand, is one of the best in recent history. He knows the dance well, hence the respect he gets. Remember most of the world didn't want to get into a war in Afganistan, even after Sept 11th... They wanted to deal with endless diplomacy. Blair gave one speach, and it fell into place. Blair knows very well how world politics works.
He is a worlds politician, not a countries.
problem is many politicians in the US and abroad, are not world politicians.
.
They both are more alike than you guys are willing to admit.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
|
Lol! Good find.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Zimphire: They both are more alike than you guys are willing to admit. |
Both male and human... other than that.... Far from it.
Too bad TB can't run for Pres here...
BG
BG
In a second, I love to watch that man speak in the Parliamentary questioning (or whatever is its official name). I know that Clinton would fare FAR better in such a setting than Bush, but I think even Slick Willy would pale in comparison to Blair.
Clinton would get too emotional, I think. He makes mistakes when he's all emotional. Blair gets even more effective when he's emotional. Hearing him talk about the 400,000 Iraqi children was very moving. He definitely portrays a real humanitarian interest MUCH better than Bush (who basically only hinted at it until after the 48 hours were up).
As noted earlier though, there is no way that the Brits would trade on those terms. Maybe we could throw in some recipes with the deal !
Clinton would get too emotional, I think. He makes mistakes when he's all emotional. Blair gets even more effective when he's emotional. Hearing him talk about the 400,000 Iraqi children was very moving. He definitely portrays a real humanitarian interest MUCH better than Bush (who basically only hinted at it until after the 48 hours were up).
As noted earlier though, there is no way that the Brits would trade on those terms. Maybe we could throw in some recipes with the deal
!
Quote:
|
Originally posted by NosniboR80: As noted earlier though, there is no way that the Brits would trade on those terms. Maybe we could throw in some recipes with the deal !
|
Who wouldn't want J. Lo?
I still say they should have offered a compromise after the ultimatum was issued. US said Saddam should step down. Iraq said Bush should step down. In my mind, it would have been fair to have Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, and the speaker of the house step down in exchange for Saddam and his family.
That leaves Colin Powel to take the presidency, right?
BlackGriffen
That leaves Colin Powel to take the presidency, right?
BlackGriffen