Tony Blair will resign next week. He has been Prime Minister for ten years. A poll shows 61% agreeing with the statement that Mr Blair has been a good Prime Minister and 36% saying he has been a bad one.Unsurprisingly 69% say that Iraq will be his legacy, the one matter above all for which he will be remembered.

Now, how would the President be judged now by the American people ? Would he be seen as a good President overall or as a bad one?

quote:

Now, how would the President be judged now by the American people ? Would he be seen as a good President overall or as a bad one?

Depends on who you ask. They say history is written by the winners. What were Johnson's approval ratings four years into Vietnam, around 1968? Probably a close parallel. Last time I checked, Bush's approval ratings concerning the War were at about 65% against. They'll get a lot worse than that before they get any better, no doubt.

The latest poll in the US - George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation.

Bush has, judging from the link, failed where Blair has succeeded. What made the UK poll of news interest here was that 61% thought Blair had been a good Prime Minister even though he had taken us into Iraq, a big negative . He has, in American terms, 'a high approval rating'. The public did not judge him on the one big mistake but overall. Overall he is seen as having been a good leader. He remains popular. Reasons may include that he admits to failure: he is quite candid about Iraq.He is seen as a realist. He also presents as someone who can see and assess all sides of any problem and both sides of any argument: he does not 'do' dogma.And he has had successes in domestic policy: the only argument is over the degree, not the fact, of those.

It appears that Bush, on the other hand, is seen as a failure in any terms. Why?

quote:

It appears that Bush, on the other hand, is seen as a failure in any terms. Why?

Are you familiar with the response to Hurricane Katrina, the appointment of cronies and incompetents, the stubborn refusal to listen to any dissenting opinions, the lasting damage to the armed forces stretched beyond their limits, the disastrous loss of respect internationally, because of neglect of Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo torture and allowing Osama Bin Laden to escape while pursuing Saddam Hussein, the accumulation of mountains of debt and thousands of deaths and millions of displaced Iraqis, etc.

We'll never recover during my lifetime and my grandchildren will be paying for this worst ever chief executive during much of theirs. Not only has Geo W. Bush been a dismal fiasco, but he couldn't have done more damage nationally, and globally, if he had been appointed by Osama himself.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
It appears that Bush, on the other hand, is seen as a failure in any terms. Why?

Have you never seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"? That would be a good place to start, to gain a better understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
61% thought Blair had been a good Prime Minister even though he had taken us into Iraq, a big negative ..... Reasons may include that he admits to failure: he is quite candid about Iraq.He is seen as a realist. He also presents as someone who can see and assess all sides of any problem and both sides of any argument: he does not 'do' dogma.

I could have added " and he thinks for himself: there is no eminence grise in the background".

In short,Blair has qualities which the President lacks ?

Hindsight is always good, but how does it happen that alleged fatal defects of character or ability were not spotted and stopping him before Bush got anywhere near being selected as a candidate for any post, let alone that of President? We would hope that,for all its faults, in the system Britain has someone like Bush seems to be would never have made it to selection.He could well have made it to Member of Parliament but thereafter he would have remained a humble backbencher.His parliamentary colleagues in his party would never have put him forward, or backed him, as a potential leader.Any defects in ability or judgment would have come to light at an early stage when he was tested in the House. (On the other hand, we haven't much say in the choosing of our monarch, but our ancestors in parliament did execute one king and exile another who annoyed them and, thereafter, no monarch was keen on e.g using a veto to frustrate them )

FredPauli,

The succession of 'elite bloodlines' is not exclusive to Great Britain, nor absent from the U.S. The main difference is that most people don't wish to acknowledge this controversial subject of "secret societies" in America, and the enormous power which they wield. We'de all just like to pretend we're still living in a democracy, and go about our lives.

I'm sure the fact that George W. was also the President's son helped him quite a bit, as well. He may be dumb as rocks, but he has connections in high places. Besides, the real power lies with the people behind the man. The ones who put him there. Academically, it was not the American people.

Blair has had longer in office than Bush, and had a chance to establish a reputation as a successfully moderate, steady-as-she-goes kind of leader before the Iraq debacle. Bush, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a positive record to balance his foreign policy disaster.

Many of the things Bush proposed (reform of social security, abolition of inheritance tax, being a 'uniter', repeal of Roe-Wade, bringing to justice the men behind 9/11, restoring dignity to the Whitehouse) he hasn't been able to deliver on. Even his 'no child left behind' initiative (apparently a success, if you feel the ultimate goal of an education is a properly filled out multiple-choice answer sheet) has now been tainted with scandal.

Aside from Iraq, Bush's epitaph looks like being an increasingly ridiculous chorus of "I don't recall"s from his minions, as the lid is opened on his administration.

Blair has had his scandals, too - but there seems to have been more to his time in power than that.