[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
I actually think the reverse is true. I think that I - and many others - would be a lot more critical of Bush on issues across the board if it were not for the irrational, out-of-control ranting from the anti-Bush crowd.
Absolutely. I have a long list of criticisms of the Bush administration and the GOP generally (to the point I consider myself outside the party at the moment), but most of my time in debate is spent dealing with the detached-from-reality absurdities pinned on the current President, whether it be the “Chimpy McHitler” charge or dark conspiracies or whatever.
The reality is that anyone NOT protesting, screaming, crying, calling Bush a murderer is called a ‘cheerleader’ these days.
Exactly - “cheerleader” is just another part of the mindless soundbyte game offered in lieu of argument. Much like “neocon”, it is a way to try and deflect and distract from a decent debate on the merits. The other day I was speaking with an all-wise “progressive” (never has a term been so abused) when mentioning that Bush had actually done an enormous amount in Africa regarding AIDS and malaria. Former President Clinton even praised Bush on this at a recent Aspen Institute powwow.
Agreed. But it’s pretty insignificant compared to the disaster that is Iraq. And that’s not even mentioning his ruined domestic agenda.
The best thing Bush did was get two smart, qualified, relatively young conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And he even tried to fuck that up by putting his Texas flunkie on the bench, a woman who went to the second-best law school in the STATE!
The “progressive” was beside himself that Bush could be anything other than a blood-drinking fascist and the fact that I defended Bush on this count made me a “neocon” and a “flagwaver” carrying Bush’s water. Yawn. Par for the course these days anytime you want to talk to someone of the liberal persuasion.
Labels like “neocon”, “flagwaver”, and “cheerleader” are crutches, nothing more.
Yup, most of the Democratic/progressive attacks on Bush are unhinged. But traditional conservatives with an ounce of intelligence and honesty are appalled by what Bush has done, both abroad and at home, and their attacks tend to be both rational and vehement. I have trouble understanding how anyone could think he hasn’t done a terrible job, and probably been the worst president of the century, bar maybe Carter (who he increasingly resembles - idealism and incompetence - great combination).[/quote]
I can honestly say I do not think he’s been a disaster. For a few reasons:
- The economy is great shape. Economists - that don’t work for progressive think tanks - agree that Bush’s tax cuts boosted the economy. Look at the REAL numbers. Unemployment is low. Very low. The ‘jobless’ recovery has been exposed as myth, one in which the media was only too willing to promote during the 2004 campaign. Another myth: The poor are getting poorer. In actuality - and I’m not going to bother finding the exact numbers - the poor(er among us) are simply not getting richer at as high a rate as the wealthier folks. Personal wealth among the top earners is growing at around 20% and at around 13% for the bottom earners. If you understand what makes the rich rich in the first place and the principal of return on investment (i.e. the richer people have money invested and poore do not - or at least not as much, etc.) you’ll understand why.
Personally I am doing great. Better than I have have finanically. My salary is way up and my investements are doing very well (approx. 19% gain so far this year). THAT matters to me.
-
National Security. I don’t give him straight A’s here but I do give him high marks becuase terror attacks continue in Europe but not here. Not on U.S. soil. That matters to me because on 9/11 we all thought that this was just the beginning. I’m not talking about some media-hyped idea that Bush wants us all living in fear so he exaggerates the threat. That’s absurd. There is proof every few months that the threat is real. Terror plots exposed here or happening in the UK, etc. If I look at the job Bush has done here from 10,000 feet I feel pretty good about it.
-
I favor pro-business policy. Bush does too. I like that because those policies work for the economy, spur innovation and create job growth. That’s my biggest fear from Edwards, Clinton, Obama. I’m afraid they will install policies that stunt growth and cause more reliance - by the poor - on goverment. When that happens it trickles up.
In my view these three things are enough for me to think of him as average to a modest success in the face of terrible circumstances. I have issues with him on:
-
Iraq. But my issues do not extend to quantifying it as disaster. It’s a challenge. It hasn’t gone perfectly. Often enemies do not want to be conquered and killed. Especially when they are highly motivated to kill us. Still some of his moves have not seemed correct, even before the benefit of hind-sight.
-
Communcation. I think he’s not as open with press and public as he should be. Although, I can understand his stance, I don’t agree with it. You have to understand that you are dealing with hostility but you can’t combat it with hostility of your own. Not when you are in his position.
-
His loyalty, while admirable, many times makes him look foolish.