A question for the 40% (Bush supporters: why absolutely NO dissension?)

Great Debates
1

I am not a Democrat or a Republican (and my voting record proves it–go Harry Browne!) but anyone who remembers me or my OPs from yesteryear knows that I like Clinton and hate W. I don’t shrink from my position. What I would like to understand is why Bush 's staunchest supporters seem to support everything he does.

For example, as much I support Clinton I still recognize he made many mistakes as President. His behavior regarding the Lewinski scandal was indefensible (although not impeachable). I still disagree with our foray into Balkan politics. I think he increased the arrests of marijuana smokers to repay Wackenhut, a private prison company that was a major donor to Clinton and the Democrats. He later said he believed Marijuana should be legalized. I think he made many mistakes but I still support his overall achievements and the direction of the country under his leadership. One can be critical and supportive at the same time.

With Bush, however, I’ve found much less to like. I think he’s shallow, callow, uninformed, uninterested and governs based solely on corporate donations. But, I will give credit where it is due. There are some good things about Bush that I respect and (perhaps) admire. He’s exceptionally fit–an athlete almost. His immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, although initially shaky, was exactly what we needed. The bullhorn-on-the-rubble moment was a perfect sight, one for the history books, and the right response from our leader. Its hard for me to think of more things I like but I’m sure there are.

So, here I am, willing to criticize Clinton, whom I support, and willing to compliment Bush, whom I want out of office as soon as possible. Why is it that
Bush’s supporters (at least the ones I meet) can’t find a single negative thing to say about Bush or a single positive thing to say about Bubba?

As a continued Bush supporter, you have to contend with three major events that will define his presidency and will live on in the history books: 1) the September 11 attacks and the American response, 2) the War in Iraq, and 3) Hurricane Katrina and the federal response.

As a Bush supporter, do you believe he handled these three situations flawlessly? If so, do you think he has made any mistakes whatsoever in his term-and-a-half? If not, will you tell me what misteps Bush might have made as president? Also, has he (in your eyes) made any major mistakes as Dear Leader?

The reason I ask is because after Hurricane Katrina those who normally support Bush got quiet and didn’t try to defend him. That is, until a week later when The Rove brought out the talking points. Then, the Bushies came back swinging in his defense, talking points in hand. I feel that was the exact moment when I decided to ignore Bush’s staunchest supporters as they do not have an original thought in their heads. Rather than admitting his administration’s response was deeply flawed, they waited until a semi-plausible line was trotted out by the administration and then sprang to Bush’s defense. Why should I listen to someone who waits to be told what to think and who parrots party talking points as if they were gospel truth?

2

The Bush supporters on this board tend to be much more nuanced in their support than the average schmucks you meet on the street.

Or at least, the average schmucks that I meet on the street.

While you will get the typical talking-points type of response here on occasion, most of our token righties are willing to admit that Bush has been known to fuck things up. Those who don’t are usually mocked mercilessly until they leave.

3

You emphasized “everything”. Why do you think Bush supporters support “everything”, and since when has “100% compliance with the political positions with a politician” been the definition of “support”?

Anyway, your closing:

really shows that this is a rant, not a debate, and should be moved to the Pit.

4

The SDMB, at least, tends to be polarizing. Bush attacks are so nearly universal, and so extreme, that even a nuanced expression of support for anything Bush-related triggers a avalanche of hatred.

In other words, the Bush haters can’t find a single positive thing to say about him, and thus the conversations tend to be concentrated on expressing that very real hatred for him, and everything else gets drowned out.

For example, I can mention that I believe Bush’s failure to cut spending is his biggest failure as President, and that Clinton deserves credit for pushing NAFTA, and the rest of the thread, almost without exception, will focus nearly 100% on Bush-bashing and nothing much further will be said about Clinton. And none of the Usual Suspects will be able to say anything good about Bush except sarcastically. All the while condemning anyone who doesn’t join the Two Minute Hate toward Bush as a mindless drone.

I honestly think they can’t help themselves.

Regards,
Shodan

5

Shodan, I think you could say any bulletin board would be polarizing. I doubt it is just restricted to SDMB. There also is the defensiveness people feel when they think “their guy” is being unfairly attacked, especially when they agree with what their guy did. If Bush decides to totally overhaul some givernment agency and you agree with it, you are going to defend Bush. If someone says "Good grief what a stupid #%@ he is, you will really dig your heels in. Why? Because you agree with Bush and you were called a stupid #%@ too (by proxy).

6

I have to imaging that that vast majority of Republicans (when answering honestly) agree very little with many of the more publicly-aware things that Bush is doing. But Bush is still better than the alternatives. There are still party ideologies that even if not followed presently may be adhered to again in the future. Therefore it’s in the best interest to support the current president rather than any Democrat whatsoever.

I had the bad, bad, experience of seeing that Michael More 911 thing last night on CineMax… and so I’ll even support the president stronger today just to prove a point to Michael Moore (after all, he does read these threads, right???).

7

I think that Bush’s foreign policy is extremely important and very close to being absolutely correct, period. In fact, I think that as far as foreign policy goes, he has removed us from so many fo the mistakes that leftists still tirelesly condemn as if they were still current practices, I’m not sure they know what he actually has done.

I ma not a great fan of his fiscal policy, nor many fo the things he does domestically, but neither do I look upon it as an unmitigated disaster. As a domestic politician, he has done things I very much disliked, because he felt it would gather more political support. I don’t like it, but it’s politics as usual and bears no extrordinary condemnation. Politics requires certain sacrifices (i.e., pork and favors, in all their myriad slippery forms). I hold my nose at the smell and pass by, irritated as always.

8

As someone who voted for Bush twice, I’ll step up to the plate.

  1. The September 11th attacks. The buildup to 9/11 took about twenty years. The weak or non-existent American response to attacks during that time went a long way toward encouraging further attacks. I think the three biggest mistakes were the Reagan withdrawal from Lebanon along with the Clinton retreat from Somalia and the non-reaction to the 1993 WTC attack. With the “terrorists or those who support them” statement and the doctrine of preemtive response, Bush freed the United States from the chains that had prevented it’s self defense. Plus, I don’t want Democrats in charge when there are military matters at stake.

  2. Iraq. The idea of establishing a successful democracy right between Afghanistan and Iran to set an example is a good one if it works. It also got rid of a dangerous man with a lot of money who could do no end of mischief. It also provided a clue to other countries like Libya, Syria and North Korea. It remains to be seen if the Iraqies will stand up for themselves and take over the job. If they don’t, it’s time to get out.

  3. Katrina. This is a case of partisan politics. Bush cannot be totally af fault while Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco can remain blameless. All three entities of government could have planned and responded better…but the strength of the hurricane and where it hit are out of Bushes control. It’s not his fault that the people ignored the order to leave, or that they didn’t have cars. Did anyone call the feds and ask for transportation for the poor? Apparently the school buses that were allowed to flood out were not considered. Not to mention that an exodus of that magnitude would have required days of planning and preparation at the local level. But Nagin isn’t held responsible for any of this. He gets to tell the feds to “get off their asses” to clean up after him.

There are some issues about GWB that I disgree with. I wish he would call for a line-item veto to help cut federal spending. I wish he would propose smaller budgets. I disagree with his stance on stem cells. I don’t think the tax cuts should be permenant yet, because of the current strain on the federal budget. I think he should privately tell the Iraqies that the United States is going to be gone within a certain period of time and that it’s time for them to step up.

He’s not perfect. But given the two party system, Bush and the Republicans come down on the positive side of the ledger for me.

9

No argument here on any of the above.

Regards,
Shodan

10

What do you expect, after a decade of rabid, ankle-biting, anti-liberal bellyaching, beginning with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in 1994, and continuing through the Clinton administration through to the present day. If liberals have become more strident, more aggressive and more polarized, you have no one to blame but the Republican Party. Unfortunately, when one party dives into the gutter and starts slinging nothing but partisan mud, the only thing you get by trying to take the high road is incessant, unending muck from below. It worked for the GOP, why in the world would you expect the left would not watch and learn? The biggest mistake we made was not nominating Howard Dean; by the example set by successful Republicans, we need a screamer who is not afraid to bloody a few noses on the way to the top.

11

I think this accounts for about 50% of the time. The other 50% aren’t necessarily “Pro-Bush” as much as they are anti-“anti-Bush.”

12

What do you expect?

As critics of the Bush administration made reams of pointed predictions that turned out to be correct, talking points notwithstanding, what did you expect?

Did you expect Republican voters would declare: “Indeed you were correct and I, a Republican voter, am a fool and a blackguard.”

Take the tired WMD issue for example. Plentiful GOP supporters knew all along, for a fact, that the Bush administration was engaged in a campaign of deceit. Many such persons on this board. But they weren’t going to admit that to a bunch of liberals. Instead they chose to depart the debate, or stay and argue that black is white.

It’s human nature.

13

Since when is convicting the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack and tossing them in jail for the rest of their lives considered a “non-reaction”? :confused:

14

You ARE generous! I think that his “bullhorn-on-the-rubble” moment was, at the very best, the bare minimum we could expect from the person occupying the Oval Office at such a terrible moment.

And I second Frostilicus. Since when?

15

Ah, such mistakes as actually being respected by the majority of first-world nations, not alternating between being the world’s laughing-stock and its bully, and not preemptorily invading nations that had no capability to actually harm us in any way whatsoever, I presume?

I had to read the quoted paragraph three times to make sure I’d read it correctly the first time, it made so little sense.

16

As a moderate Republican (where is the Bull-Moose Party when we need it), I support Bush after the hypocracy of Clinton and the Democrats (perjury is impeachable - at least the Democrats thought so when they convicted Judge Claiborne et al.). While I may disagree with Bush, at least you know where he stands and doesn’t waffle to public opinion a la Slick Willie.

But not to turn this into Bush v Clinton I’ll address the 3 points

  1. The reaction was swift and let terrorists know that the US was no longer going to tolerate our citizens being murdered. Although there were a few photo ops, you’ll notice that he was in the background and let Mayor Giuliani take the credit (rightfully) for New York City’s response. I don’t know how anyone can find fault with his response within the US proper. I know that people are saying that we should have anticipated 9/11 but to be honest there are so many groups that want to do us harm that there must be a ton of potential attacks our government must analyze. How could we know that this would be the one that came to fruition?

  2. Bush’s big mistake (based on faulty intelligence) was to link Iraq with Al Queda and WMD’s. Hussain was a tyrant that should have been eliminated. It’s hard to say how much moral authority the US has to police the world. Should we let Hussain kill Kurds? Should we permit tribal massacres in Somailia? Should we have allowed Nazis to kill Jews, Bohemians, and Gypsies? Everytime the US has played the isolationist and let the world take care of itself, we have ended up getting dragged into a war we were ill-prepared for. I support his going to war, but I think his dealings with post-war Iraq leave a lot to be desired.

  3. There is evidence that the LA governor and NO mayor stood in the way of Federal intervention. That being said, we have a military that can go anywhere in the world in 24 hours, feed and cloth refugees, and kick Saddam’s ass - but we can’t evacuate a city, give the homeless bread to eat, and allow raping and looting on city streets? Something is seriously wrong here!

17

If there is a Bush-hating contest on this board I hope I get a medal. Other presidents have been less than upstanding men of moral character, but Bush is the utter personification of evil.

That being said, even I wholeheartedly supported the Afghanistan invasion. The current rationalizations of the Iraq war being offered up by the Bush supporters are just that- rationalizations of a lie. The war was based on a lie and we know that Bush knew it to be a lie- Iraq just didn’t have those weapons. When that was proved, then the Chimpettes brought up what a bad apple Saddam was. No argument there, Saddam was a despot- but why invade Iraq rather than Cuba or North Korea? Then there’s the “bring democracy to Iraq” crap. It’s obvious that democracy is gaining very little traction in Iraq and when so much of the population hates each other and they all have military weapons, I just don’t see that success is even remotely attainable. Saddam was a very cruel dictator, but at least when he ruled there was semblance of order in the streets.

Now we have the monumental bungling of the Katrina disaster. True to form, the Bushies believe that ANY shortcoming by anyone else justifies ANY fault on Bush’s part. I’m sure that both the governor and the mayor would have done things differently in retrospect. Snopes rebuts some of the more stupid accusations leveled against Blanco. But it was Bush that gutted FEMA of its power. It was FEMA that wouldn’t let rescuers in. It was FEMA that could have gotten supplies to the Superdome and convention center but didn’t. It was FEMA that cut phone lines in Jefferson Parish, leading the Parish president to order the sheriff to guard the phone lines.

The Bush supporters are about to get their greatest challenge. The National Enquirer has as we all know ran a story about Bush’s fall from the wagon. Other more respected papers are working on the story and this will break in a week or two. I believe when this story if fully known, even the most hard core Bush supporter will abandon him.

18

I voted for Bush twice. I can’t speak for others, but I would describe myself as a “supporter” of a politician only as regards an election. During the 2004 campaign, I supported Bush in the sense that I wished to see him elected, not in the sense that I thought, or wanted anyone else to think, that his every action and utterance was unassailable. Once a politician I support is elected, I judge the politician’s actions individually. In all cases in my experience, including that of Bush, this means I agree with or support some of the actions, and disagree with other actions.

In the media, we mostly see polarized opinion. Pundits on both sides seem to give voice only to extremes: Bush is always wrong or Bush can do no wrong. The people I know do not think this way. I know lots of people who would have preferred to see Kerry elected but who are willing to acknowledge that some of the things Bush has done are acceptable or even good. I also know lots of Bush voters who have been dismayed by some of his actions and are quite willing to say so. The first example of this for me was his handling of steel imports early in his first administration.

At the risk of seeming to contradict my first sentence, I would probably end up being counted as a “supporter” of Bush if I were contacted by a pollster, depending on what they asked me. I don’t regret having voted for him. I wish him success for the rest of his term. I believe that he is likely to attempt to act based on a political philosophy that coincides with mine in many areas. But I will continue to judge his actions individually based on their apparent intent and my perception of their success, and will support or condemn those things individually.

19

Because we’re on a message board where there are a fuckload of vocal Bush opponents. If I disagree with Bush, I don’t need to say anything- chances are, ten rabid partisans have already come in frothing at the mouth.

And if I do say anything, it doesn’t matter- I become a champion of sanity in partisan’s eyes until such point as I dare to actually support a Republican cause again, at which point I’m a rabid hate-monger or such again. It’s really not worth the effort.

I believe he handled the September 11th attacks as well as anyone could expect a President to.

I agree with the idea of the War in Iraq, though I dislike the points it was sold upon, and I think it’s been horribly mis-managed. But that doesn’t mean I think we should pull out or declare it a lost cause.

I think Bush screwed up in Katrina response by not being more involved and more on top of things.

You know, at some level I have to wonder whether I support him just to piss people like you off. People who have to refer to him as “Dear Leader”, who have to talk about “swallowing the Kool-Aid”, people who state that he is the “utter personification of evil”. I mean, it’s so freaking laughable, the constant comparisons of Bush to Hitler, or such- and yet it consistently happens on this messageboard.

Oh, and Fear Itself? If you think rabid, ankle-biting bellyaching started with Gingrich in '94, you obviously weren’t listening to many liberals talk about Reagan in the '80’s. Partisans being assholes has been around a lot longer than Republicans or Democrats have.

20

Surely you jest. Are you seriously comparing the “Politics of Personal Destruction” which was honed to a fine edge in the 90’s, to the run of the mill politics during the Reagan administration? The right was fabricating all sorts of character assassination against the Clintons that was unparalleled in the Reagan era. Yes, liberals were vociferous in their opposition to Reagan’s policies, but it rarely sunk to the personal level of the attacks common against the Clintons (remember the whole Who-Murdered-Vince-Foster nonsense?). The difference was, liberals hated the Reagan policies, and attack them on their merits; conservatives hated the Clintons on a much more personal level, and would stop at nothing to portray them as immoral, criminal and evil in their hearts.