Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 5

message: We have a problem here which, IMO, threatens the integrity of the Wikipedia. Editors (especially anonymous editors) are letting no positive comment on Bush pass unchallenged;
no explanation or modification is allowed to stand without deletion and/or complaint, sometimes even when links are provided, and the entire tone of the article reads more like an indictment than an encyclopedia article. Editors are even removing fully documented information refuting specific charges on the basis that it is too wordy.
On the other hand, the Kerry article reads like a campaign biography put out by the DNC, at least until you get well into his war service, and even any factual negative assertion ends with a stronger positive spin. We learn about how he liked to play "kick the can", how competitive he was riding his bicycle, how he cycled into Berlin to look at Hitler's Bunker, and how Scaramouche is his favorite movie. We hear about his rock band and how he sailed with President Kennedy. What an idyllic life! We move right along to his accomplishments (many) and his relationships (admiring). All in all, we get 13 paragraphs mostly of unabashed praise and admiration.
Bush gets four short paragraphs for his personal ife. At this writing, the first one is simply "who was born when". I'm surprised there is no assertion that his little sister was "supposed to have died of leukemia" and that Bush didn't murder her.
In the second paragraph we learn that he earned a BA from Harvard and an MBA from Yale, but it doesn't matter because Daddy got him in college and he's a moron. The information I placed to point out that his SAT score of 1206 put him at the 79th percentile was removed because the statistics for 2003 might not be the same as when he went in, but the combined SAT is scored on a 1200 point scale of 400 to 1600 which makes 1206 about the 67th percentile (still not moron quality) if SAT were a flat scale, but its not, it's a bell curve.
We had material removed that Bush was successful in business because it is alleged to be arguable, but later he's attacked as being successful in business but only because he's crooked.
OK, so now we move on to the third paragraph. where we find out that he has daughters (no charge of incest, how generous) but that he's a war criminal, though he can't be tried because he's making sure the US doesn't ratify the international criminal court.
Pargraph four is just the mini-fact that he and his father are only the second father-son presidential pair in U.S. history.
Come on, people. Are we so partisan that we have no shame as to allow such obvious bias toward the candidates? If someone posted information that Bush has always loved dogs, someone else would post a statistic on how many dogs were killed in the Iraq War.
I don't hate Kerry, and as a veteran who served at just about the same time, I honor his service. I suspect I respect it a lot more than many of his supporters, who have generally not characterized Vietnam-era veterans were well, until just now when it is useful to hail him as a "war hero." I can't remember the last time I heard a Vietnam Vet characterized by the left as a war hero. Take the case of another very liberal (now former) Senator named Kerry (or to be exact Kerrey). Bob Kerrey was (among other things) chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 104th Congress. Like our Kerry, he was in the Navy in 'Nam, and was an aggressive commander as a Navy Seal. He lost part of a leg in action. He was involved in similar operations as Kerry (but more of them, since he was in-country way longer) and came out with the Congressional Medal of Honor, I think the highest award possible. Did this save this liberal senator from anti-Vietnam Vet hatred? Not nearly. Check out this article from the liberal website FAIR. Note the date. As part of this storm, The Vietnamese Government accused Kerrey of war crimes. The liberal attack then targeted his being the President of the Progressive New School for Social Research in New York and demanded his removal. . I live in New York and I remember that some of the leftist elements in the City and the University wanted to mount of a mock trial of him as a "war criminal" with the result being his removal. Inconveniently for them, this was still going on on September 11, 2001 and suddenly no one was nearly as interested.
What if Kerrey had been the candidate instead of Kerry? Both Democrats, both war heroes. Would Kerrey then be the war hero and Kerry the "baby-killer"? Or does one judge the quality of Vietnam service by whether or not he can beat Bush?
I shouldn't give up, but I'm almost inclined to let the Bush-haters have their way and let the article stand as an embarassment to Wikipedia. Cecropia 17:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance between Bush and Kerry articles 

message: In what sense is Bush "a lifelong member of the Republican Party," apart from being a registered Republican voter? As far as I know the Democratic and Republican parties do not have formal memberships. Adam 05:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above anonymous posting and insulting ad hominem lets us know where this troll is coming from. Cecropia 16:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I understand your confusion, Adam, but I don't see any other to say it. Just calling him a "republican" has generic meaning in most of the world. I don't assume people in other countries know that a Republican means a candidate of the Republican party. Nor does it allow for the fact that voters and candidates can and do change their party affiliations. Cecropia 06:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: You have a point but I think it's a non-issue.  Why not just change it as you suggest?  I don't think it's worth having a big discussion about.  In general you become a member of a Republican/Democratic party at the state or county level simply by registering or donating or voting republican.  For example in Bush's home state you become a "card-carrying member" by donating money:   In other words, "member" and "supporter" are synonymous in this case (IMO).  Mdchachi 23:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think nomenclature should be as understand in the home country, with explanations if necessary? "Liflong member of the Republican Party" means he has never registered to vote with another party, or, in politics, failed to run on the Republican line. US is not like countries where the president or prime minister is chosen among their numbers by the majority party. To say he is a "lifelong supporter" is even worse. It's meaningless in the US context. Cecropia 23:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush a lifelong Republican

message: If anyone wants to work on a more detailed NPOV discussion of Bush's baseball venture, here is the paragraph before it was chopped down:
: After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled a group of partners from his father's close friends and purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. Critics point out that Bush paid for it using money from a criticized stock trade; he received twice as many shares in the venture as he put money in for; the stadium was built largely at taxpayer expense (135 million dollars vs 65 million provided by the owners); the venture used threat of forclosure by an organization that they formed (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority) to acquire property at 1/6th its appraised value for the building of a new stadium and the team (with its new stadium) was then sold to a family friend (Tom Hicks), who later went on to be a major Bush campaign contributor. The venture made a total of 170 million dollars in profit.
What is needed here are
# references for each factual claim
# responses by Bush's defenders, if any
# more neutral language (no need for "critics point out" if statements are undisputed)
# possibly a summary in this article, with the more detailed discussion residing in Texas Rangers.—Eloquence 06:50, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Eloquence, also be aware that US sports stadia are usually mostly to ocmpletely publicly funded (which I don't support, FWIW). Cecropia 06:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball venture 

message: How Bush managed to enter Harvard inspite of scoring a meagre 97 on the IQ test taken just before he joined Harvard was a major controversy during the 2000 Presidential election.
Moved to talk because I don't recall its ever being mentioned - nor do I think Harvard requests IQ tests.  Pakaran. 18:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard controversy 

message: Maybe we need a separate page for the Bush Administration, so that this page doesn't become a summary of every single government decision which wasa made in the last 3 1/4 years. Anthony DiPierro 23:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bush Administration