Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to establish an instrument to measure the environmental accomplishments of two recent presidents, namely, George H. W. Bush (Bush41) and George W. Bush (Bush43). We have examined their accomplishments paying attention to which presidents have best used the resources of their office to achieve environmental success. To assess the records of these two presidents, we made use in our analysis of an Index of Greenness, that we previously developed, that uses indicators organized into three categories: 1) political communication; 2) presidential actions, and 3) sources of support. To further assess the achievements of these two presidents we used Bill Clinton's environemntal accomplishments during both his first term (Clinton 1) and second term (Clinton 2) as a control to provide context for observing the two Bush presidencies.

Our findings show that Bush (41) ranked third among the four presidential administrations, while Bush (43) ranked last. Clinton's second term (Clinton 2) ranked best followed by Clinton's first term (Clinton 1) ranking second based on these indicators. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush represent presidents who failed to meet their self-imposed obligations--namely, an environmetnal presidency and a president who wished to show compassion in his public policy initiatives toward the environment. Environmentalism clearly fared better during the two terms of Bill Clinton. We anticipate that our efforts in this paper will give us insights concerning the contributions that other presidents have made over time in their efforts to deal with the environment.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Previous research suggests that presidents attempt to fulfill about two-thirds of their campaign promises (Fishel 1985). Hence, two important questions arise from this finding: which campaign promises does a president decide to pursue and why?_x000d__x000d_In an attempt to address these questions, this paper examines the promises made by four presidents during their first terms: Carter (1976), George H.W. Bush (1988), Clinton (1992), and George W. Bush (2000). We hypothesize that those promises which are most politically feasible based on the president’s political environment as well as those that satisfy the president's electoral goals by maintaining his re-election constituency are most likely to be acted upon. _x000d__x000d_A list of promises was compiled for each president from campaign press releases, presidential campaign papers, as well as Washington Post articles. The dependent variable in this analysis is a dichotomous measure of whether or not the president acted upon his campaign promises; thus the issuance of executive orders, appointments and nominations, memorandums to federal agencies, meeting with foreign officials, and the proposal of programs to Congress constitute presidential action.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: On September 13, 2001, President George W. Bush released a written proclamation that stated, "Scripture says: Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted" (Bush, 2001a, p.1 ). He went on to declare Friday, September 14, 2001, a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance," and on that day, Bush spoke at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. In this essay, we examine Bush?s speech on the "National Day of Prayer" by conducting a cluster criticism. Our specific research question is "How does Bush create the case for revenge through the images presented in his National Day of Prayer speech." After analyzing clusters around the key terms United States of America, God, prayers, and names, the results demonstrate numerous findings. Common themes and rhetorical techniques become apparent through the importance of unity, America's responsibility to justice, and God's justification of specific actions.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When U.S. President George W. Bush authorized an invasion of Iraq in March 2003, critics thought him out to overthrow his father's nemesis, Saddam Hussein. While the Bushes seemingly shared an obsession with the Iraqi leader, their preferred modus operandi as president struck most observers as starkly divergent. Analysts asserted that George H.W. Bush's penchant for multilateralism, the supposed hallmark of Operation Desert Shield/Storm, easily contrasted with his son's preference for unilateralism, epitomized by Operation Iraqi Freedom. Critics of George W. Bush's foreign policy typically faulted him for not emulating his father -- they believed that the United States would be more influential and respected internationally were it the champion of multilateralism. This paper revisits, however, the assumption that Bush père practiced a foreign policy altogether different from that of his son. As part of the paper's analysis, a variety of issues are examined: systemic constraints and opportunities (i.e., the end of the Cold War versus the post-9/11 world); personality and professional experience (i.e., a World War II veteran with several decades of government service versus a Vietnam generation son who served six years as governor of Texas); and key advisors (i.e., the father's Republican internationalists, such as James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, versus the son's Republican nationalists and neo-conservatives, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld). This paper juxtaposes cognitive theory (i.e., leadership styles) and poliheuristic theory to analyze the foreign policies of each President Bush.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Given that Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have devoted much of their foreign-policy energy to matters such as the end of the Cold War, Operation Desert Storm, the War on Terror, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, one can surmise that both have mostly neglected the Americas – i.e., Latin America and Canada. While neglect is surely a theme, each President Bush has paid some attention to hemispheric concerns. George H.W. Bush ordered an invasion of Panama in December 1989 to remove that country’s dictator, Manuel Noriega, whom the United States sought to try as drug kingpin. That unilateral intervention contrasted with 1991’s multilateral effort to expel Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. It also presaged his son’s eponymous doctrine, which would grate many countries in the early 21st century. Like his father, George W. Bush has treated the Americas as a secondary U.S. interest. Although his first term promised close ties with Mexico, for example, the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath reoriented American policy to the detriment of hemispheric concerns. Still, the younger Bush’s administration did spotlight Colombia, the key country in America’s War on Drugs, and pursued efforts at establishing free trade in the Americas. If U.S. ties to Latin America have drawn some attention, Washington’s relations with Canada have barely registered in the United States, even though Ottawa publicly opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom. To explain the above case study, the first part of this paper relies upon a levels-of-analysis methodology, while the second adopts a policy analysis perspective.