GOPers - Are you happy with Bush?

Great Debates
1

Maybe this topic has been beaten to death here, but I rarely go into GD, as I find it scary at times.
However, having read a gazilllion threads in the Pit I just wanted to ask this question:
I understand that having a republican president is infinitely superior to having a democratic. That comes with the territory. But… would you rather see another republican as president?

I’m just trying to understand, but from my POV, Bob Dole is a statesman, while GWB is… Alfred E. Neuman. Reagan might have had jellybeans (I know, I know) and astrology (ditto), but I never felt uneasy during those years. I do know.

Does this make any sense?

I’m not trying to be inflamatory, but living in a ‘pinko’ northern European country, my perspective is naturally different from Americans, and I really want to understand. If I try to put myself in a frame of mind of what I consider conservative American politics (and I can relate) my thoughts on GWB would be that ‘with friends like this, we don’t need any enemies’.

2

I despised Al Gore (and, in fact, still do), so I wasn’t upset that Bush won. In fact, you could say that I was amused.

I still think Al Gore would have been a mistake as a president. And, strangely, I think the Bush presidency will be a net good thing–so long as he’s not reelected. I think the country needs jolted out of its complacency on occasion, and this is a wake up call for those of us who want religion the hell out of government and vice versa.

I know I don’t fit the demographic you were looking for, but, well, I never do!

Julie

3

Not a republican, but a registered conservative. I’ve voted for many republican presidents, some to my regret. I would, even now, with him 80 years old, vote for Bob Dole over George W. Bush.

4

I just wanted to add, that had Gore been prez, come 9/11, the economy would’ve been down the toilet, no matter what. And millions of jobs would’ve been lost. And the inflated belief in ‘dot-coms’ was going under even before the election in 2000. And I’m not sure that Gore could’ve handled Afghanistan better.
IMO, Iraq was a big mistake, but that’s another 1000 different threads debate.

5

Gaspode…

I wouldn’t call myself a Republican necessarily, but I am an American who supported the war and was generally supportive of Bush since 9/11/01.

Until now…

I’ve really been forced to reevaluate my support due to Bush’s announcement that he plans to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Well, actually, that was the last straw - more and more, I’ve found myself having fewer and fewer reasons to support him (Iraq and the deficit being other reasons for my waning support of Bush).

With the momentous events of the last few years, Bush pandering to his core constituency in the middle of an election year may seem like a silly reason to rethink how I’m going to vote this November. After all, I’m not even gay.

Still, the main reason I supported Bush was that I felt his basic strategy in the War on Terror was sound, even though I have serious issues with how the US has conducted the post-war environment, as well as how the administration has conducted its diplomacy. I see the War on Terror as a war for democracy and liberalism, as I felt that the status quo in the Middle East was simply untenable and required action to influence the political culture of the region and empower moderates. I still believe that.

Bush has chosen - for shitty political reasons - to lend the weight and authority of the Oval Office behind an amendment which is standard fare for places like Riyadh or Tehran. I find it very hard - very, very hard - to lend my support to a president who would do that. In essence, Bush is trying to ensure his base turns out to vote - a base he has alienated by his reckless spending - by supporting the writing of bias into the Constitution.

It’s despicable.

The question for me, then, becomes “What is the alternative?”

If I do vote for Bush, I will do so out of fear that Kerry and the Democrats would prove feckless in prosecuting a war against Islamic terrorism than from any conservative (more accurately, classical liberal) principles. I hope Kerry can convince me that he will be both stalwart against our enemies and fair (but not obsequious) toward our allies.

Because if he doesn’t, I would be stuck with no choice but to eat shit at home for the sake of my own protection from the fanatical acts of terrorist assholes.

6

I read somewhere that a cynic regards everyone as more or less corrupt while an idealist regards everyone as more or less corrupt, except themselves. As you can guess I am not an idealist. I’ve voted in 5 presidential elections and to date I’m a 3 to 2 republican. While considering the choices at the time I don’t regret voting for Bush I can clearly say how dispiriting it is not to have a tempting alternative to him this november. Sometimes I feel the only innovation our electoral system has over the tried old “good cop bad cop” routine of so many films and police dramas is that in our electoral system we each get to decide for ourselves who the good cop is.

While the build up to and justifications for the war were terrific disappointments I felt then as I do now, the final judgment on war it’s self should be based on the quality of life in Iraq 3 to 5 years from now. That being said the war is not my greatest disappointment with Bush. In retrospect one thing I respect about Reagan is that he was seen by his base and enough of the swing voters as having done a good enough job that he could afford to pay little more than lip service to the religious right, Bush’s statements about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage might not be more than a cynical election year effort to energize his base but if it is more than lip service the lying hypocrite I vote for this time might be a democrat.

7

IANAR, but I voted for Bush last time. I pretty much echo what GoHeels said (although I was never in favor of the Iraq war) about Bush leaving me more and more cold toward voting for him again. The out of control spending is my main concern, but his Immigration plan and Gay Marriage banning Amendment don’t help things either.

A lot depends on how Kerry shapes his message in the general election. He’s still fighting against Democrats right now, and I hope he’ll moderate things once he goes up against Bush. I find his anti-trade rhetoric very off-putting.

I live in CA, and if recent trends hold up, it might not matter that much. In which case I may end up voting Libertarian if I decide against Bush and still don’t like Kerry.

8

I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack. It’s defintely germane.

Why do you fear that Kerry would be a pussy with respect to terrorism? What is that based on? And if fairness towards allies is a concern of yours, and rightly so IMO, why does that not instantly disqualify Dubya?

9

Well, I’m not really a Republican either, though on this board I’m considered moderately conservative I suppose (by some anyway). For my part, I’m a John McCain fan…THATS who I wanted to be president, and I still think he would make a superior president even now. If he was running Independant I’d be very excited about this election. As it is, I can’t stand Bush OR Kerry so won’t vote for either of them. Edwards…well, if he makes it I will look a bit deeper. I don’t really agree with the man on a few key issues, but I find him a stronger personality and might opt to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

I’m pretty much in GoHeels boat to be honest. I was never all that hot on Bush to begin with, but he has steadily eroded what little support I had for him with his various stupid policies. My main issues with the man are what he’s done with the economy and some stupid things like the Steel Tarrifs thing. He’s just not my kind of fiscal conservative on these issues. Couple that with the Iraq thing (I was pretty supportive and still am of Afghanistan but I’m left scratching my head about Iraq) and now his stance on Gay Marriage and I’m done with him.

Right now I’m groping for some third party I can vote for in good consious and steeling myself one way or the other for 4 more years of bad government.

-XT

10

Well, I am a registered Republican (the first to post, I think). I voted for Bush in 2000 and still think that was the right choice to make. I think electing Gore would have been a mistake. That having been said, my support for Bush has been steadily dropping since he came into office and began to go out of his way to prove that he doesn’t have a fiscally conservative bone in his body. If the Democrats were to offer up a decent moderate candidate I would consider voting for him over Bush. But since that’s not going to happen, it looks like I’ll be voting for Bush or for a 3rd party.

11

GoHeels said precisely what I’ve been thinking lately. If I weren’t fairly convinced the Democratic candidates would be completely inept at surpressing terrorism, I’d be looking around for someone else to vote for. Why does this have to be such a crummy year for third parties?

And by the way, precisely what brand of conservative calls for an $18 million budget increase for the NEA? I’ve got no personal beef with the NEA or arts in general, but is this really the time?

[sub]Incidentally, GoHeels, I’ve never mentioned how much I like your user name.[/sub]

12

Fair enough - I don’t think it’s too much of a hijack.

Your first point:

  1. This article from the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives/Description.asp?Da=2/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=026) seems to indicate that if he wins, Kerry favors re-engagement with the Iranian mullahs. This, to me, seems a disgraceful betrayal of the those Iranians seeking political reform, not to mention an act of appeasement to a terrorist-sponsoring nation that will likely result in blowback. This is real politik at its worst, IMHO. Re-engagement means selling out the long-term hope for political change for short-term convenience (and knowing the mullahs, not much convenience at that).

  2. Kerry said last year that “we should have been engaged in bilateral negotiations (with North Korea) from the get-go, from the beginning” on an appearance on HARDBALL. To me, this seems like his plan is to revert back to the 1994 Agreed Framework, an absolute dismal failure that put us at the impasse we currently face with the North Koreans.

Your second point:

I’d be lying if I said I was totally comfortable with Bush’s diplomacy. I don’t like the tin ears of the administration. One of my biggest gripes is that a blustering Rumsfeld became the face and symbol of American diplomacy rather than a seasoned diplomat like Colin Powell.

But I’d also be lying if I said I wasn’t grateful - at times - for Bush’s willingness to call a spade a spade, especially in regards to multilateral institutions and international treaties. For instance, I highly doubt the IAEA learns about Abdul Qadeer Khan without a war in Iraq that scares Kadhafi into giving up his weapons program that exposes what Khan was doing. I don’t think the pre-existing system of controlling WMD proliferation was worth much, and I’m glad Bush was willing to take heat for exposing this truism.

13

I don’t understand why people would fear democrats handling terrorism concerns. Maybe the democrats can get to the root of the terrorism and put a stop to the terrorists reasons. Much better solution than Bush’s provocations. Terrorism has not become less of a threat nder Bush, it has become much MORE of a threat.
Bush also showed his ineptness and inability to understand the threat in allowing 9-11 to happen in the first place.

14

Maybe they can. And maybe I’ll win a million dollars in the lottery too. I think, odds on, I have a better chance at the million. While Bush’s handling of terrorism hasn’t been a paragon of success, neither was Clinton’s…and he had 8 years to fuck around with them. Wishing is all well and good…but what are you basing this hope of the Democrats getting to the root cause of terrorism on?? What has Kerry put forth that leads you to think he will be a shining knight against terrorism, able to cut through the layers of hate, greed and power hunger to find the root cause of terrorism and make everything ok?

Again, hate the man all you like but don’t let it cloud your mind such that you lose touch with reality. There were a lot of factors that led up to 9/11, and while Bush and Co. gets there fair share of the blame, its too much for one man or administration, especially one that had only been in power less than a year and had such a shakey election. The fact that Bush didn’t have a time machine or couldn’t look into the future shouldn’t exactly be held against him IMO.

IMO 9/11 would have happened reguardless of who was at the helm…it was simply too well established and controlled and too far along, by the time a new president took office. Clinton hadn’t a sniff about terrorists training IN the US. Also IMO Gore would have been less than stellar post 9/11, and while we might not have gotten into a war in Iraq (a big plus) we might just have fucked around and been worse off today than we presently are…we might STILL be fucking around with the Talaban in Afghanistan atm, maybe tossing a few cruise missiles there way but just dithering otherwise. We’ll never know…

-XT

15

I actually am a Republican.

I would like to see different GOP member in the WH, one of the Realists.

The American Conservative movement is somewhat schizophrenic. Neocons have hijacked a lot of it. Neocons are conservatives who oppose some of the bedrock principles of the conservatism. Neocons are “big-government conservatives” who favor a GloboCop role for the US. These are each anithetical to conservative conservatism, (which is actually classical Liberalism, but that’s another thread.

I’d like a good ol’ fashioned, limited-government conservative who only favored foreign military ventures when compelling national interests were at stake.
See **Revitalizing Conservatism**

And

It’s hard not to cross over into True Scotsman territory. But the suspicion in some circles is that Neocons prefer their oatmeal sweetened.

16

As to not hijack this thread further, I have started a new thread on Democrats and terrorism here. It is primarily based on a response to GoHeels’s post and the points brought up by xtisme.

17

Is this a victory for Bush’s policy of disengaged posturing: C.I.A. Says Election in Iran Dealt Blow to Reform, or has the liberation of Iraq begun to show its real consequences for democracy in the middle east?
US engagement with Iran’s reform elements, such as they are, strengthened them during the Clinton years. Now under Bush, we’ve declared the whole country to be evil, and the extremists are reascendant.

18

I’m a Republican. I voted for Bush. I am no Bush fan however, but I could never vote for a NE Liberal candidate such as John Kerry.

If a democrat was nominated that swore on his reelection that he wouldn’t touch my guns, even the scary looking ones, and would eliminate foreign aid by converting it to US aid, I’d join his campaign.

That’s never going to happen will it? Nor will I ever vote for a democrat.

19

Thank you everyone for leveled responses so far. As I said earlier, I really want to understand and I didn’t want any partisan name calling. What SimonX wrote is particulary interesting, as I have yet to see any signs of less government involvment in the lives of citizens, though, of course, my perspective is limited.

20

As an aside, do the GOP members/conservatives think Tony Blair has been good/bad/indifferent at handling a terrorist threat?

If your feelings are positive towards Mr Blair, please recall that he fronts a government that is at least as liberal, if not moreso, than the Democrats.