Professor Offers Class a Personal View of President.

[SharpLS-96]

A professor at Occidental College is doing his small part to combat the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome even though the prof is a former Clinton official.


Professor Offers Class a Personal View of President.

Occidental College professor and Clinton administration official Derek Shearer is teaching a course on the man whose election ended his government service: President George W. Bush.

In “Topics in Foreign Policy — The Bush Administration,” Shearer’s focus on Bush is highly personal — but not in the way one might expect from a vanquished political foe. It turns out that Shearer, a former ambassador to Finland and one of Bill Clinton’s dearest FOBs, as in Friends of Bill, is also a Friend of Bush. Sort of.

Shearer and Bush were Yale classmates who lived across the hall from each other as freshmen. “We weren’t friends, but we were friendly,” Shearer said.

Shearer saw enough of Bush at Yale and in a few meetings over the years to glimpse qualities that would later surface in his presidency, he said. In his weekly course, Shearer tries to use that knowledge to push students beyond superficial images when analyzing the president and his policies.

Shearer said that in college Bush exhibited the people skills that made him “come across as a more likable, trustworthy person” than Sen. John F. Kerry in this year’s campaign. He also showed “a strong sense of what he believed to be good and bad,” which Shearer thinks is evident in Bush’s leadership style.

“What I try to get students to see is that he has a very clear view of the world. He is in control. The non-thinking liberal critique of him is [that] he is manipulated by neocons [in the Cabinet],” said Shearer, a professor in the interdisciplinary diplomacy and world affairs program.

[mmarshall]

Bush did not win because because of his personality. Bush won because he and Cheney were correct on the ISSUES.

[ylen13]

Originally posted by mmarshall
Bush did not win because because of his personality. Bush won because he and Cheney were correct on the ISSUES.

wrong he won first time becuase he stold the election or another way of putting was givin the election by the supreme court. Second time he won simple because he won the first time

[mmarshall]

Originally posted by ylen13
wrong he won first time becuase he stold the election or another way of putting was givin the election by the supreme court. Second time he won simple because he won the first time

HOW did he steal the election ? I'm getting tired of hearing this nonsense. They must have recounted the Florida votes at least six times....BUSH won EVERY ONE of them. The final, official count was Bush by 537 votes. The courts HAD to get involved....with opposing lawsuits from both campaigns, there was NO other way to break the deadlock. You criticize the Supreme Court for deciding........but WHAT OTHER INSTITUTION was more capable of it...or had the authority? The ONLY reason the U.S Supreme Court got involved was that the deadlock could not be broken at the state level....even by the Florida Supreme Court.
And.............ultimately............. you can blame Dan Rather and CBS for opening up that whole miserable can of worms to start with by prematurely calling the state for Gore, placing it BACK in the neutral category, THEN calling it for Bush, and then putting it back AGAIN in the neutral zone. Fortunately, it was a colossal mistake that they NOT repeat a couple of weeks ago with the Ohio vote.
So.....did Bush win with fewer votes than Gore? In Florida, no. Nationwide, yes....thanks to Ralph Nader and the Electoral system. But...did he STEAL the election? PLEASE

[ylen13]

Originally posted by mmarshall
HOW did he steal the election ? I'm getting tired of hearing this nonsense. They must have recounted the Florida votes at least six times....BUSH won EVERY ONE of them. The final, official count was Bush by 537 votes. The courts HAD to get involved....with opposing lawsuits from both campaigns, there was NO other way to break the deadlock. You criticize the Supreme Court for deciding........but WHAT OTHER INSTITUTION was more capable of it...or had the authority? The ONLY reason the U.S Supreme Court got involved was that the deadlock could not be broken at the state level....even by the Florida Supreme Court.
And.............ultimately............. you can blame Dan Rather and CBS for opening up that whole miserable can of worms to start with by prematurely calling the state for Gore, placing it BACK in the neutral category, THEN calling it for Bush, and then putting it back AGAIN in the neutral zone. Fortunately, it was a colossal mistake that they NOT repeat a couple of weeks ago with the Ohio vote.
So.....did Bush win with fewer votes than Gore? In Florida, no. Nationwide, yes....thanks to Ralph Nader and the Electoral system. But...did he STEAL the election? PLEASE

us supreme court stoped recount and the they made a rulling basically that there was no time to do recount. If that recount wasn't stopped then i would have no problem in accepting that bush won but that is not what happened

[mmarshall]

Originally posted by ylen13
us supreme court stoped recount and the they made a rulling basically that there was no time to do recount. If that recount wasn't stopped then i would have no problem in accepting that bush won but that is not what happened

So.............how does that prove that Bush STOLE an election? Eight or nine Justices (one abstention if my memory is correct)...... appointed by both Democatic and Republican Presidents had to come up with a decision...and did. They simply stopped one MORE recount because it already had been recounted several times....each time with a Bush win. There were serious constitutional questions here about delaying an election even more. This could have gone on indefinitely...and the Constitution mandates a new President every eight years at least. The question HAD to be settled and settled THEN....and it was. Bush won the state of Florida...by 537 votes. Period. That's what happened, and that is the way it will go down in the history books....not as a "stolen" election.

You CANNOT "steal" from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court HAS to rule in your favor.

In fact, I am in favor of abolishing the entire Electoral College and going to popular vote, which will minimize the chances of another 2000-type election happening again, but until that is done, we are stuck with it. And even with popular vote, there can still be lawsuits over vote totals.

[drink300]

It always ammuses me when Liberals protest the 2000 Supreme Court ruling handing Bush the presidency. But BOY, when it comes to their core issues (Taking God out of public places, allowing women the right to kill their unborn children, etc..), they can't help but bask in the glory that is our court system.

You either agree with the way the Supreme court handles rulings or you don't. You can't pick and choose the issues just because they favor your point of view. Al Gore lost 6 TIMES in Florida because he would NOT stop whining about his loss. SOMEONE had to step in and stop the madness.

Thank you justice Scalia, thank you justice O'Connor!

drink300

[mmarshall]

I agree, drink. Well-said. I probably should have included this in my rebuttals to ylen, but I didn't.