blairbar, now you're just being silly.

1) you were the one trumpeting american democracy and the "freest nation on the planet" (whatever that means). is your claim now reduced to "better than syria"?

2) it is well possible for democratic nations to elect awful leaders. if you don't think bush was an awful leader, i can only assume you've been exclusively watching fox news for the last ten years.

davidf, yes the german electorate was of course far worse, but the context was of american history. and the american electorate post-2001 has been shameful. (and 2000 was no beacon of sanity).

Dear Bushbasher
Yes I plead guilty to being silly as I presumed most readers knew my comments were in reply to Sancho who suggested the American voting system was corrupt.
No where have I commented on the awfulness or otherwise of George Bush or any other American President down the ages. The silly point I was trying to make was that in a well functioning democracy it is the majority of voters who take responsibility for those elected. In 2004 the majority of US voters re-elected George W Bush. I guess they didn't consider him then the worst President in history.

blairbar:

1) your first post seemed to defend bush against charges of being an awful president, by noting that bush was reelected in 2004.

there is little sense in this. as i've suggested, the reelection of bush may say more about the cluelessness of the electorate (or the corruption or antidemocratic nature of the system) than the wonderfulness of bush. and even on your own terms, you might look at bush's dismal approval ratings at the end of his second term.

2) sancho questioned the legitimacy of the 2004 election. you responded by declaring "George W Bush ... was elected democratically in probably the freest nation on the planet."

now, from my point of view i don't care if 51% or 40% of voters voted for bush in 2004. either way, that's one hell of a lot of morons. but sancho is right: as far as democracies go, the american voting system is pretty awful. it is seriously flawed in design, dishonestly run in implementation, and measurably awful in outcomes.

3) in response, you started referring to syria and north korea et al. to what end? one can have serious criticisms of america without thinking it's the worst of the worst.

4) now you respond, reiterating the point of your first post. once again, so what? you also say a majority voted for bush in 2004: i don't care, but sancho is right that this is open to question.

but the main issue is when you write "in a well functioning democracy it is the majority of voters who take responsibility for those elected".

america is a democracy, but to suggest that it is well functioning goes against a hell of a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Could say that the worst part of the Bush presidency for Australia, was the tragedy of it being backed to the full by Blair and Howard.

This was despite the fact that our more philosophical academic political tutors were very much against the above political set-up.

As one who gained his political knowledge in late adulthood was thus encouraged by such tutors to defy the above Bush-Blair-Howard political reasoning.

And though many of our OLO contributors still regard such as very left wing, my philo' reasoning tells me that the Bush/Blair/Howard reasoning was so far rightist that it desperately favoured deliberate political untruths to succeed.

This has been so much revealed in Iraq in the case of the Surge which was actually a desperate deal arranged between the Bush-led officer-cast and Saddam's Sheiks, not only parents of the Sunni insurgents, but who as part of the Surge success, were even offered positions in the new Iraqi government.

Certainly our media knows well about it, but still acts very dumb when old warriors or worriers like myself enquire about it?

Best Regards, BB, WA.

Baxter Sin wrote: please forgive my targeting individual's post.

I forgive Sin.

Blairbar wrote: In 2004 the majority of US voters re-elected George W Bush. I guess they didn't consider him then the worst President in history.

They could have considered him the worst President in history and his opponent as worse.

Arjay wrote: David f refuses to enter into debate but labels those with alternate views as conspiritors.

I wrote you had a conspiratorial view. One with that view is not a conspirator but explains actions by seeing conspiracies behind them. Since I neither know why nor approve backing the Patriot Act and extending the Afghanistan war I can't debate it. I think the people, especially the women, of Afghanistan should be able to live a free life but doubt that US armed forces can secure it for them. If Obama is a puppet as you claim he cannot be blamed, as he is not acting on his own will.

The US presidents have been a mixed bag. Lyndon Johnson carried on a horrible war in Vietnam and at the same time did a tremendous amount to bring American black people into the mainstream.

Obama has stated goals of improving health, education, energy policy and bring peace to the Middle East. That is quite a load. He is pursuing health reform at the moment.

Although it didn't abolish slavery the US Constitution is a magnificent document. The Bill of Rights guaranteed freedoms that were unique in the world. There was no religious test for office, an independent judiciary and separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch advocated by Montesquieu and not realised in the Westminster system. Most participants in the Constitutional Convention were educated elite informed by the Enlightenment. If there had been universal suffrage at the time we might have had a Constitutional written by those whose views were acceptable to the likes of Pauline Hanson. We now have a much more extensive democracy than existed at the end of the eighteenth century. Baby Bush is a product of it. Maybe a problem is universal suffrage

david f,tell me what you see here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLr1VmN1SVI&feature=related