Can Bush do no wrong?

[Merlin1047]

These guys dont realize that Bush doesnt give a **** about what they think, unless they belong to the club. The club you might ask....50 billionaires for bush. How many billionaires here......NONE count yourselves OUT!!!!

Bah. Unsupported rhetoric. We've heard it for months, kindly give us a break. Either come up with some FACTS and PROVE how Bush does not care about anyone but billionaires or dry up.

 

[Merlin1047]

It's striking to me how unanimous support is on these forums for George Bush's policies in a wide variety of areas. I find it hard to believe that conservatives are actually pleased with every single thing the man has done. Even as a generally Clinton-supporting Democrat, I hardly thought Clinton was perfect.

Bush is far from perfect.

I notice you're from Mass. so perhaps you can identify with this - many of us are SOOOO relieved that kerry didn't get elected that we're just basking in the afterglow.

We'll get around to bitching about things we don't like about GW sometime down the road. But right now, you'll excuse us if we simply savor the satisfaction of having sent Sen. Poodle and Mrs. Pickle a "thanks, but no thanks" card.

 

[Bonnie]

Bush is far from perfect.

I notice you're from Mass. so perhaps you can identify with this - many of us are SOOOO relieved that kerry didn't get elected that we're just basking in the afterglow.

We'll get around to bitching about things we don't like about GW sometime down the road. But right now, you'll excuse us if we simply savor the satisfaction of having sent Sen. Poodle and Mrs. Pickle a "thanks, but no thanks" card.

 

[CivilLiberty]

a big one for me is the immigration policy of this country. Dont agree at all with the current administrations view on this.

No doubt. Amnesty for illegals? Please. Politicians did the "amnesty" thing in California over a decade ago, and it made the problem worse.

Right now, we need ENFORCEMENT of our borders, and enforcement of immigration law.. Right now there's only ONE INS officer for every 5000 illegals in this country. While we're out blowing up Iraq, our own borders are vitally open to any miscreant with $200 to pay a smuggler.

A

 

[5stringJeff]

These guys dont realize that Bush doesnt give a **** about what they think, unless they belong to the club. The club you might ask....50 billionaires for bush. How many billionaires here......NONE count yourselves OUT!!!!

Is that really the best you can come up with?

 

[manu1959]

No doubt. Amnesty for illegals? Please. Politicians did the "amnesty" thing in California over a decade ago, and it made the problem worse.

Right now, we need ENFORCEMENT of our borders, and enforcement of immigration law.. Right now there's only ONE INS officer for every 5000 illegals in this country. While we're out blowing up Iraq, our own borders are vitally open to any miscreant with $200 to pay a smuggler.

A

it costs a lot more than $200 ....all $200 will get you is a trip to the centre of the dessert in the middle of the day

 

[musicman]

forum since the election, so I don't know too much of the history, but still some of the defenses of Bush here have seemed to be really stretching it, and no longer necessary given the outcome of the election. I apologize if I misunderstood most of your positions--but I'm still curious the answer to my question: which particular policies bother you, and why? As a non-Bush supporter I'd be a lot happier if I knew Bush was getting some good feedback from those who elected him but don't agree with everything he's doing.

Mariner.

Well, Mariner - if I may, I'd like to offer my compliments on the tone of this post. You are not a Bush supporter, as you have made clear. And yet, your attitude seems to be one of genuine curiosity. You don't ask, "Why are you mindless drones so intent on regurgitating whatever Fox News tells you to think, instead of forming opinions of your own?" Thank you for that. A little bit of simple, human respect goes a long way.

 

[Mariner]

to come across as disliking Bush globally. I am not immune to the man's personal charm, and I also like certain Republican and conservative positions. I think looking at tort reform is reasonable. I also think looking at the Social Security system is reasonable--perhaps a balance can be reached between higher-performing market investments and the lower-performing but safer investments that SS uses now. Overall, I believe conservativism and liberalism need to balance each other--either can run amok.

And I certainly wasn't a 100% Kerry supporter--I was an "anybody but Bush" voter because I feel his foreign policy has made us less safe, as has his economic policy, and primarily because his environmental stands appall me. In fact, there has never been a political candidate that I endorse wholeheartedly--no one's perfect.

One reason I asked the original question was that it seems clear Bush values loyalty. He has had the most unified administration in recent memory, and has had Congress in lock-step on many issues. That unitary "we're right and whatever we do is right" stand seemed to me to have filtered down into many of his supporters here. It doesn't seem very democratic to me to squash dissent so heavy-handedly, and I think it can also be dangerous, e.g. the pressure the administration put on the Energy Dept and the CIA to purge their reports of doubts concerning Saddam's WMD.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

When faced with the likes of Gore or Kerry I think you will find a lot of voters taking the "anybody but a liberal" stand. It doesn't infer lock step agreement in Bush but more a unified rejection of whatever the left stands for these days!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

to come across as disliking Bush globally. I am not immune to the man's personal charm, and I also like certain Republican and conservative positions. I think looking at tort reform is reasonable. I also think looking at the Social Security system is reasonable--perhaps a balance can be reached between higher-performing market investments and the lower-performing but safer investments that SS uses now. Overall, I believe conservativism and liberalism need to balance each other--either can run amok.

And I certainly wasn't a 100% Kerry supporter--I was an "anybody but Bush" voter because I feel his foreign policy has made us less safe, as has his economic policy, and primarily because his environmental stands appall me. In fact, there has never been a political candidate that I endorse wholeheartedly--no one's perfect.

One reason I asked the original question was that it seems clear Bush values loyalty. He has had the most unified administration in recent memory, and has had Congress in lock-step on many issues. That unitary "we're right and whatever we do is right" stand seemed to me to have filtered down into many of his supporters here. It doesn't seem very democratic to me to squash dissent so heavy-handedly, and I think it can also be dangerous, e.g. the pressure the administration put on the Energy Dept and the CIA to purge their reports of doubts concerning Saddam's WMD.

Mariner.

You want balance? You insane libs INSIST on GOVERNMENT FUNDED PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR MINORS. No if's and or buts. ANY talk of overhauling social security is equated with starving old people.
Vast segments of the left will not even acknowledge that the war on terror is real, preferring to cast is as merely a bush "wag the dog" scenario. So if you want balance, get your house in order first. Fake conservative.

 

[Mariner]

I had no problem with banning late-trimester abortions, when the fetus would be viable if delivered. I think there should be an ongoing debate about reproductive rights. In terms of balance, though, I can't see forcing a woman who has been raped to endure a pregnancy and deliver the child of her rapist, which many current Republicans think is fine.

"Fake Conservative?" I'm not a conservative, fake or real. I'm an open-minded liberal who enjoys debating and learning from others.

When you guys get so enraged at liberals it makes me chuckle. If you're not a reactionary, then you're liberal by historical standards. We're really just arguing about how liberal to be, not about whether liberalism is good or bad. Current conservatives want to be a bit less liberal (e.g. pay less in taxes and get less in gov't services). Current liberals want to be a bit more (e.g. provide a better safety net and more even playing field). Characterizing liberals as "commies" is silly. I'm as against communism as you are.

If you take weekends off, you're a liberal. If you think you deserve unemployment benefits, you're a liberal. If you think it's good that we have tempered glass, airbags, and seat belts in cars, that makes you liberal too. All these things were created by liberal activism. If you hate all that stuff, I'll accept that you're a true conservative.

Mariner.

 

[jimnyc]

If you take weekends off, you're a liberal. If you think you deserve unemployment benefits, you're a liberal. If you think it's good that we have tempered glass, airbags, and seat belts in cars, that makes you liberal too.

I highly doubt enjoying one or all of these makes someone a liberal. No more than if someone supports the war is automatically a conservative.

 

[nbdysfu]

1. Are you truly thrilled that government has grown under Bush (even excluding Homeland Security and the war in Iraq)?

I think the creation of the homeland security department was necessary. I have no problem with the federal government growing in regard to national security measures. I DO have a problem with the government encroaching what should be left to the private sector and the individual (FCC, EPA, health insurance, gun control, education) I support his initiatives to provide disaster relief. I think federally funded education systems have become a necessity and I think bush is dealing with them in a positive way.

2. Are you really satisfied with the new policy of pre-emption?

Yes. I think we did quite a nice job in Afghanistan. AND I think Iraq is testament to why Avoiding Preemption doesn't work.

Even Henry Kissinger, writing in support of Bush in Newsweek

Old fossil under chronic duress writes paranoid drivel in a flimsy rag and I'm supposed to care?

3. Are you dancing in the streets about the largest deficits in U.S. history?

I believe that the current deficits are probably not proportionately the largest the U.S. has ever faced.

The current overload is simply a result of the "Pay as you go" [also known as the see no evil] mentality of the 90s.

Do you think it's great that China and Saudi Arabia own a trillion dollars each in our credit card debt, and could call it in at any time

I'd like to see them try. Just give us one excuse.

4. Do you really want to invest your social security money in Enron or pets.com, or to incur the future liability when people who made such choices find themselves homeless and in need of taxpayer support?

See response to U.S. deficit question. Additionally, I evidently have slightly more respect for the average american to invest than you. You could stick your money in a mutual fund and it would probably do better than the government.

5. Will flattening the tax code, which would almost inevitably raise taxes on everyone earning less than the current cut-off for paying less than you get back (which is around $70K per year), really improve your bottom line?

Flattening the tax code doesn't mean making every single person pay the same tax, regardless of low income. It simply means simplifying the tax code so there are fewer loopholes for rich people.

Do you really like the idea of shifting the burden of taxation from wealth (i.e. people who don't work) to income (i.e. people who do)? The current rate on wealth is 10%, and Bush is aiming to lower it.

First off, for the record, I make 35k a year and stand to inherit, after my sister is done with college, maybe, a credenza from my family.

I still believe that once someone has earned something it is theirs, not the government's, and it may be given freely within their family. Is that not moral?

There are so many other areas where I can imagine conservatives calling Bush's decisions into question--what's the need, now that Republicans ARE the federal government, for this great show of unanimity? Can Mr. Bush do no wrong?

Honestly, if you've been listening to any conservatives lately, they are being quite opening in their questioning of George Bush. And as in this election the GOP absorbed quite a few moderate votes, I'm sure there will be more.

The areas I don't support Bush are the anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, and quota limits on abortion clinics, and that's it. I've heard a lot of people put down his immigration policies so far, and others still dragging out the old outsourced labor phenomenon. My view on those is that they are inevitable in the free market, and it will help us in the long run to embrace it preemptively.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I had no problem with banning late-trimester abortions, when the fetus would be viable if delivered. I think there should be an ongoing debate about reproductive rights. In terms of balance, though, I can't see forcing a woman who has been raped to endure a pregnancy and deliver the child of her rapist, which many current Republicans think is fine.
Mariner.

I'd just like to make a comment on this point. The very fact that liberals want to allow abortions after a woman gets raped is exactly what is making the crime of rape appear less egregious. Today guys get off way too easy for the crime of rape.

If raped women had to go through the experience of carrying, birthing, and raising the child that the rapist caused, it would become very clear to people what a noxious crime rape actually is, because the woman not only experiences the initial unwanted violation of her body, of her emotions, of her being...but she also must face the many unwanted consequences of such a horrific act. People would start to understand better what rape really is and how it can ruin a woman's life and the lives of others around her. Whether she got pregnant or not.

If abortion were not allowed, my bet is that rape would become a fast disappearing crime.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I had no problem with banning late-trimester abortions, when the fetus would be viable if delivered. I think there should be an ongoing debate about reproductive rights. In terms of balance, though, I can't see forcing a woman who has been raped to endure a pregnancy and deliver the child of her rapist, which many current Republicans think is fine.

"Fake Conservative?" I'm not a conservative, fake or real. I'm an open-minded liberal who enjoys debating and learning from others.

When you guys get so enraged at liberals it makes me chuckle. If you're not a reactionary, then you're liberal by historical standards. We're really just arguing about how liberal to be, not about whether liberalism is good or bad. Current conservatives want to be a bit less liberal (e.g. pay less in taxes and get less in gov't services). Current liberals want to be a bit more (e.g. provide a better safety net and more even playing field). Characterizing liberals as "commies" is silly. I'm as against communism as you are.

If you take weekends off, you're a liberal. If you think you deserve unemployment benefits, you're a liberal. If you think it's good that we have tempered glass, airbags, and seat belts in cars, that makes you liberal too. All these things were created by liberal activism. If you hate all that stuff, I'll accept that you're a true conservative.

Mariner.

You're all wet, mariner. Liberals of today are socialists. Conservative democrats are just in the wrong party.

Classic liberalism = individualism and personal freedom, not advocacy of large social spending programs. That's a warped presentation of classical liberalism. Quit being dishonest.

 

[Mariner]

Classical liberalism prior to the 20th century did indeed seek to free us from intrusive government, e.g. theocracy. But liberalism in the 20th century included the creation of the weekend, voting rights for women and minorities, civil rights, etc. etc. Most current "conservatives" are very happy with these liberal victories, hence my contention that you should stop using the word as an insult and begin realizing that, by historical standards, today's conservatives are liberal.

With that context, the arguments between conservatives and liberals today are really just arguments about how liberal to be. Enjoying the fruits of liberal activism ought to soften your critique of liberalism, don't you think?

Nbdyfu, you missed my point. Gov't has grown under Bush even if you subtract out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the creation of the dept. of Homeland Security. It's about to grow again, if you take a look at the massive pork-larded omnibus spending bill the ENTIRELY Republican Congress is passing this weekend. Also, blaming "pay as you go" for the current deficits is silly. We reached surpluses in between. Current deficits were created primarily by Bush's tax cuts, which he didn't bother to balance with spending cuts. Bush is also the first president in modern history to fight a war, but not ask us to pay increased taxes to help pay for it.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

by historical standards

We're not using historical standards. By historical standards, my sister practically walks around naked and blacks aren't people. We're using modern standards, and by modern standards, liberals are people who support a secular moral system that doesn't outlaw anything unless the harm it does is directly obvious along with a socialist economic structure where money is taken from the rich to feed the poor.

Those things don't sit right with us conservatives, who believe in a deeper moral system and a capitalistic economic system. That's why liberal is an insult to us.

 

[nbdysfu]

Classical liberalism prior to the 20th century did indeed seek to free us from intrusive government, e.g. theocracy.

Unless your talking about Iran, I'm not sure how you're equating intrusive government synonymous to theocracy. And Ashcroft has been fired.

But liberalism in the 20th century included the creation of the weekend

Liberalism invented the Sabbath in the 20th century? Holy handbags, I think you've got it mixed up. Stalin and the other Fascists invented intrusive government in the 20th century and called it the New Deal.

voting rights for women and minorities, civil rights, etc. etc. Most current "conservatives" are very happy with these liberal victories,

If I'm not mistaken, at least in the U.S., voting rights for women was championed in the 19th century, by republicans no less! And we almost secured voting rights for minorities, but the Democrats outsmarted us with Jim Crow.

hence my contention that you should stop using the word as an insult and begin realizing that, by historical standards, today's conservatives are liberal.

by historical standards, Democrats are slave owners and klan members. I think republicans have more liberalism in their ideals than you care to admit. We just don't buy into domestic socialism.

With that context, the arguments between conservatives and liberals today are really just arguments about how liberal to be. Enjoying the fruits of liberal activism ought to soften your critique of liberalism, don't you think?

see above.

Nbdyfu, you missed my point. Gov't has grown under Bush even if you subtract out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the creation of the dept. of Homeland Security. It's about to grow again, if you take a look at the massive pork-larded omnibus spending bill the ENTIRELY Republican Congress is passing this weekend.

Bush doesn't have absolute power, and even then the congress is not entirely republican. The extra is mostly composed of the social programs which democrats are so fond of.

Also, blaming "pay as you go" for the current deficits is silly.

not silly at all

We reached surpluses in between. Current deficits were created primarily by Bush's tax cuts, which he didn't bother to balance with spending cuts.

Wether we reached surpluses in between is inconsequential. You can run a nuclear power plant with a broken safety valve and balance your budget. But later on IT WILL blow up in your face. and then you will have to pay, probably loads more than if you had attempted to fix the problem right off the bat. The spending cuts Bush is likely to make are not ones that you will like. In his first term he was fighting a largely hostile democratic senate and congress block, but now that the republican pool in both is larger, he won't have to use pork as much to pass things through.

Bush is also the first president in modern history to fight a war, but not ask us to pay increased taxes to help pay for it.

So you admit the war on terrorism has a significant impact on the federal budget. This will result in a short term spike in deficits, as we recover ground lost in the 90s, but as we incorporate the costs of fighting terrorism into the standard budget it should level off. Especially if we set a termination date of social security.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Classical liberalism prior to the 20th century did indeed seek to free us from intrusive government, e.g. theocracy. But liberalism in the 20th century included the creation of the weekend, voting rights for women and minorities, civil rights, etc. etc. Most current "conservatives" are very happy with these liberal victories, hence my contention that you should stop using the word as an insult and begin realizing that, by historical standards, today's conservatives are liberal.

The most intrusive governments in the history of man, China, Soviet Union, both abhored religion. The only theocracies I see are in the Muslim world. Bush is not attempting to institute a theocracy. That's irrational leftist hysteria.

About the term confusion, what you mean is that today's conservatives more accurately stand for the values of classical liberalism. Todays "liberals" are just socialist, internationalist, reason-challenged, history-revising, america haters.

With that context, the arguments between conservatives and liberals today are really just arguments about how liberal to be. Enjoying the fruits of liberal activism ought to soften your critique of liberalism, don't you think?

your wordplay is unimpressive.

Nbdyfu, you missed my point. Gov't has grown under Bush even if you subtract out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the creation of the dept. of Homeland Security. It's about to grow again, if you take a look at the massive pork-larded omnibus spending bill the ENTIRELY Republican Congress is passing this weekend. Also, blaming "pay as you go" for the current deficits is silly. We reached surpluses in between. Current deficits were created primarily by Bush's tax cuts, which he didn't bother to balance with spending cuts. Bush is also the first president in modern history to fight a war, but not ask us to pay increased taxes to help pay for it.

Mariner.

Democrats pretending to be fiscally responsible now that defense spending is crucial to our national survival is hilariously illustrative of their generally full of crap nature.

 

[Mariner]

1. What does nbdysfu stand for, if you don't mind my asking? I must be dense, as I can't figure it out.

2. Where did I say Bush was trying to institute a theocracy? I was talking about early liberalism, pre-20th century, which involved freeing mankind from kings and popes both, e.g. the origin of this country.

3. Christianity may have created the Sabbath, but the whole weekend was a creation of leftist unions rebelling against the robber barrons' preferred workweek of 6 12 hour days. Remember all that nice worker housing they built next to the mills, where you and I might be working if liberal thinking (such as unions, monopoly busters, the GI bill, and redistributive taxation) hadn't levelled the playing field?

4. Which bit of my wordplay are you admiring?

5. You can laugh at liberals when it comes to spending policy but you can't laugh at Democrats. Bush and his big-tax-cut-no-spending-cut buddies in Congress have been making fun of "Rubinomics" for 4 years now, but they might have to eat crow soon if the dollar tanks. (Rubin was Clinton's treasury secretary, and directly responsible for pushing Clinton to balance the budget, something no recent Republican has come close to achieving--the biggest chunks of our national debt were created by Reagan and Bush II).

6. Yes, of course I admit that the war on terror and the war in Iraq (different wars, in my opinion) added to our deficit. But you keep missing my point: Subtract those wars. Subtract Homeland Security. Subtract payments and costs related to 9/11. You're still left with a larger gov't under "never saw a spending bill I didn't love to sign" Bush than you had under Clinton. The latest lovely budget, from this past weekend, included 1000s of pork barrel gifts, e.g. $2 million to the owner of Sequoia, the private Presidential yacht, which even its owner didn't expect, per the Wall Street Journal today. WSJ's editorial called Bush's stand on the recent budget bill "non-leadership." Note that WSJ is a conservative-leaning editorial page. They're getting tired of him as the dollar heads down--7 year low today against major currencies, which caused the stock market to give up its entire 2004 gain last Friday. A falling dollar places our future ability to borrow for wars and other programs that we refuse to pay for ourselves (via taxes) in jeapardy.

7. My bigger point: imagine conservatism/liberalism as a football field. An extremely conservative America, with prayer in the public schools, tax support for religious schools (including, presumably Muslim ones), minimal government, and minimal or no gov't safety net (not sure where all those homeless, poor elderly, and ill people would go...) is your goal line. An extremely socialist America, with 40% tax rates, massively redistributive taxation, a cushy safety net, fantastic environmental standards and workplace safety, and a large middle class (but small poor and wealthy classes) etc. is some more-liberal-than-me Cambridge liberal's utopia. I'd say we're somewhere around my 40 yard line. I'd be happier if we moved the ball to my 30. You might be happier moving it to the 50. But both of us would be more liberal than nearly anyone in, say, 1910. That's what I mean when I say we're just talking about how liberal to be, rather than in black and white terms whether liberalism or conservatism are right or wrong.

Mariner.