Anti-Bush people: Have you ever been happy with any incumbent president?

Great Debates
21

Yes, that’s what I said. If you truly believe the country will be better of if you voted for Nader, then by all means do so. But don’t do it simply because you like Nader better than Kerry.

Not at all. Politics is about compromises. If I know my favorite candidate’s views are too extreme to be accepted by the majority, I should recognize that my views are extreme and choose a compromise which is closer to the middle but still compatible with my ideals. That is how democrasy should work, IMO.

Sorry for that mispelling, I assure you it was unintentional…

22

Well, in 1980 I was 21 and perhaps a tad underinformed about the qualifications and whatnot that his appointees brought with them. In the spirit in which I interpreted the OP, I was answering the question in terms of how happy or unhappy I was with incumbents as of the time they were standing for reelection. I must say my opinion of Carter has improved with time but I was grossly unhappy with him in 1980.

(I don’t even remember what bill it was he refused to sign but it pissed me off immensely when I was in High School).

23

Dang. Ya forget to quote what you’re replying to and inevitably someone gets a post in between and/or the thread rolls to the next page. My post (“Well, in 1980”) above was intended as a reply to Dewey Cheatem & Howe at the bottom of page 1 of this thread.

24

This is the best reasoning I have heard yet for not voting for Nader. Well and simply put, scr4!

25

Excuse me??? Am I being Whooshed?

I voted for Nader because his positions on issues matched mine. If that put me in the minority, fine. That’s a vote reflecting my politics, and nothing else.

You’re saying I should have put aside my convictions and voted for Gore because more other people voted for him than for Nader. scr4 that’s the definition of a popularity contest… the label you’re accusing me with fits what you suggest I should be doing instead.

And I’m sorry, I Love Me, Vol. 1 that’s the worst possible reason to vote for someone. If everyone voted for the candidate who reflected their views best, rather than who someone else told them everyone else is voting for, then we wouldn’t be in this godawful situation.

scr4, you’re suggesting that even if I don’t like Kerry, I should hold my nose and vote for him because “he’s better for the country?”

What if I think Nader is better for the country? Which, in fact, I do.

You’re saying “vote with us because your guy is not going to win.” Period.

To hell with that. I’m sticking with my conscience and voting for whomever best reflects my politics, and suggesting you and everyone else do the same. For a change.

26

By “popularity contest,” I meant you are treating the election as a way of expressing your political ideals. It’s not a poll, it’s a mechanism for running the country. Certain compromises are necessary. If most polls show candidate A and B having 45% support and candidate C having 7% support (hypothetically), it makes absolutely no sense to vote for C; you should accept the fact that either A or B will win, and make your decision on which you prefer.

No I’m not. I never claimed Kerry is better for the country than Nader. All I’m saying is that voting for your favorite candidate is not always in your own best interest.

Is the concept of a “coalition” truly unknown to Americans? If you know you are in a very small minority group, sometimes you need to cooperate with one of the bigger players who is closer to your ideals than the other big players. It’s often a better option for your own sake than standing alone.

27

bughunter– I din’t say it was the best reason to vote for someone, I said it was the best reasoning I’ve heard yet for why one should consider not voting for Nader in Novermber (also last time around). There is a difference.

For all the arguing back and forth about whether voting for Nader in 2000 and 2004 was/would be a “wasted vote”, I had never heard anyone put their reasoning for not voting Nader so succinctly as scr4 did.

The key thing here is the difference between “Will the country be better off if I vote for Nader?” and “Will the country be better off if Nader is president?” A subtle diffence maybe, but a very, very important one when you consider the certainty that at this point in time, Nader could not be elected president.

If you think your vote for one candidate (Nader) will help out this country, then do it. But you really must consider how your action (voting for Nader) will most likely affect the nation. Voting in a “winner-take-all” system is not as simple as picking the candidate you like the best or who most closely holds your views. In my opinion, your responsibility as a citizen is to vote in a way that most benefits your country. If you know that voting for your most favored candidate will in fact help elect a individual poorly suited to run the country, than you have the responsibility to take that into account when you vote.

Now, if you can vote for your favorite–knowing that he can’t possibly win-- and feel fine that you have helped elect one candidate that you favor less than the other, then I guess you should do that.

28

I was pleased with GHWB (President # 41) for the first 3 years of his term, and thought he handled “Desert Storm” magnificently. I even voted for him that first term. He lost me on economic issues though. That loss in confidence led me to vote for my first Democrat in a presidential election ever! (Voting for Presidents since 1976.)

While I was never as happy with Clinton as I was with GHWB during those first 3 years, I still don’t regret voting GHWB out of office.

29

Allow me to negate that supposition for you. The first incumbent I remember actively disliking was Reagan, and that was towards the end of his second term as I was nearing the voting age. Actively opposed the First Gulf War (and Bush I) and will own up to a few weeks of giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt, followed by a year or so of not caring, then active dislike when he invaded Haiti in 1994. Since then it’s been all dissatisfaction, all the time.

bughunter, excellent defense of your choice of voting for Nader, by the way. The only way third-party candidates are going to win is if they keep running and people whose stances on the issues match such candidates’ views keep voting for them. If the Democrats can’t attract enough votes from the populace to decisively defeat the Republicans it’s their own damn fault, and not that of those who voted for a third-party candidate based on agreement over the issues.

I note with some pleasure that, despite Nader’s flirtation with Pat Buchanan and his splinter of the Reform Party (to whom I gave too much credit for their influence when they offered Nader their endorsement), he has picked Peter Camejo for his VP candidate. I heard Camejo speak in Chicago this past weekend and I’m damn glad to see him on board - with any luck this will land Nader the Green Party endorsement and get him on the ballot in 23 states. There’s still a lot of debate going on in my organization over the candidacy, but personally I’m seriously reconsidering my earlier stance of not voting for him in November. Depends on how things go.

30

Thank you, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.

31

I can stand here with a straight face and say that I have been aware of presidential politics since Truman beat Dewey (my father screaming at the radio – the poor old guy, he was 38 at the time, nearly had apoplexy when the final results came in) and paying attention since Eisenhower beat Stevenson (my parents backed Bob Taft and therefore I did, too). The first election I could vote in was Johnson against Goldwater (you had to be 21 back then). I can say there never has been a president in my recollection who was as perfect as some people require. We are not going to get a president who meets the perfection standard because each one of them has to deal with the circumstances as they find them and is forced to make uncertain policy choices in situations neither they nor anybody else anticipated.

For instance, the Iranian hostages and OPEC’s playing games with the price of oil destroyed Jimmy Carter. While Carter was as close to a throughly decent and honest man as I remember having in the White House he simply did not anticipate the hand he was dealt and if anybody else did before the fact they were sure keeping their mouth shut about it. Reagan gained the affection of much of the electorate but his administration was based for the most part on smoke and mirrors and a wishful thinking economic policy. George HW Bush did a remarkable job of putting the Gulf Campaign together but he did not have the clout to carry through with the job and he alienated a fair fraction of the electorate because he appears to have thought (perhaps rightly) that the national economy would in time fix itself.

Bill Clinton came to office with as good a chance of working changes as anyone since Andrew Jackson but he blew it with his inability to cozy up to people who hated him. He alienated a significant number of people who could have helped him with is private life and his futile efforts to weasel his way out of it. Richard Nixon allowed his own predilection to play dirty and his paranoia to destroy his chances of making some real and lasting changes in world politics. Some say that Nixon was his own worst enemy, but there are an awful lot of old guys who would claim that honor.

Lyndon Johnson was a horrible person, a bully and a loudmouth, but he managed to put through the civil rights reforms that Kennedy could not achieve and started this country on the road to living up to its own promise of equality under the law. His pigheadedness about Vietnam destroyed him and alienated a whole generation (mine). Poor old John Kennedy was cut off too early to know what he could have achieved if be had lived and had been able to avoid the politics of sexual scandal.

Nonetheless, there has never in my experience been a President who has disappointed and enraged me to the extent that the present guy has. Surely he has tried to do some things I thought were the right thing for the nation. He did a good if not outstanding job of dealing with the aftermath of September 11 – although it must be conceded that the example of the mayor of New York was more inspiring and reassuring – none the less he did a good and workman like job of dealing with the catastrophe. In spite of that his cowboy recklessness with tax policy and with Iraq quickly convinced me that the man was an affirmative danger to the republic. The irony is that my father (the guy yelling at the radio in the first sentence) felt the same way about FDR until the day he died. Perhaps George W. will in time prove to be as monumental a figure as FDR, but I would be very surprised

32

I don’t necessarily vote for people because the agree with me on most issues. What I think should be done might not be best for the US as a whole. I took a look at GW Bush’s record in school, in business and as governor of Texas and decided he would be bad for the US. His lack of interest in the larger world, his unwillingness to follow through after starting a project and all stuff like that there.

And I’m going to make the provisional claim that I was right in that view.

33

I’m a little late in providing my response, but I’ll go ahead anyway under the assumption that the OP is still interested.

I am a current “Bush detractor” and yes, I’ve been happy with incumbent presidents before so my reaction to Bush is not simply a case of “all Presidents screw up so incumbents are automatically disliked.”

I don’t know if the OP is keeping track, or whether the original question was simply rhetorical, but here is more information that you probably care about (and a little broader than the specific question you asked):

Johnson (elected 1964) I liked him less after his term than when it started. That Vietnam war thing.

Nixon (elected 1968 and 1972) Due to Vietnam, I liked Nixon less after his first term than I did in '68. 1972 was the first year I could vote and I was an ardent McGovern supporter.

Ford (defeated in 1976) I liked him more after his abbreviated term than I did when he took office when Nixon resigned. I voted for Carter, but that doesn’t mean I disliked Ford.

Carter (elected in 1976, defeated in 1980) I liked him less after his first term. I didn’t even vote for him in 1980.

Reagan (elected in 1980 and 1984) I voted for a third party candidate in 1980, but actually voted for Reagan in 1984. Needless to say, I liked him more after his first term than I did at the beginning. I still disagreed with much of his philosophy but like much of the country I was impressed with him as the “great communicator”.

Bush (elected in 1988, defeated in 1992) I liked him more after his first term than I did at the beginning. I didn’t vote for him in 1988, but would’ve in 1992 if not for a much better candidate.

Clinton (elected in 1992 and 1996) I voted for him both times and liked him more after his first term than when first elected. His personal escapades during his second term gave me pause, but I still liked him as a President.

Shrub (elected in 2000) I did not vote for him, but am chagrined to confess that I considered doing so. I like him much, much, much, much less than when he was first elected. Needless to say, I will be voting for Kerry this fall.

My record of how I feel about Presidents after their first term is mixed and is pretty independent from party affiliation. The fact that I despise Bush right now is based exclusively on his behavior and has nothing to do with my prior voting tendencies.

34

I can honestly answer No. I really truly haven’t ever been happy with a president and probably never will be. I can usually make a pretty good guess at which candidate is the lesser of two evils and vote for him, but when it comes down to it they’re all self-motivated jerks. I’m almost certain that I won’t be happy with Kerry but I’m voting for him because I feel that he is less evil than Bush.

Now, I will say that I can look back with hindsight and say I liked Clinton. His years were the “Happy Days” of my generation. The economy was great; I [literally and frequently] got offered jobs walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant. He had charisma, he smoked weed, he got a blowjob…etc.

I look back on Clinton fondly, but the OP asked if we were ever happy with a president while they were in office, so no. My answer is no.

I like what Douglas Adams said: “Anyone capable of getting themselves elected president should not be allowed to do the job.”

35

No.

I’ve been less concerned with/about every other PotUS in my lifetime though.

My general rule is to vote against the incumbent. I figure that they’re all politicians. To me it’s important to keep any group of them from getting too much power and too many connections. The less power that pols have, the less harm they can do. I voted for GWB because I thought that Gore was the more incumbent of the two.

Pretty much no matter what GWB did, I was gonna vote against him this time around.
However, this is the first time in my life that I’ve ever gotten ‘political’. Previously, I’d had, at best, a passing interest in national politics. I’ve never known the names of WH counsels or Undersecretaries of anything before.
I’m a subscriber to the idea that ‘rational ignorance’ is the strongest element in politics. Those who contribute heavily to both major parties are the ones who are pandered to, not me and the rest if us like me. So, my us vs. them isn’t so much about parties as it is about special interests vs. America as a whole. And, of course, I consider myself on the side of America.

So, if Gore had won:

  1. I may not have gotten as politically involved as I have, who knows;
  2. If I had gotten political, I’d probably be striving to debunk whatever bullshit he was peddling;
  3. Hi 1920’s style Og pie

As to the next pres, I expect to be challenging his bullshit too. Though, I hope that it’s not of such a lethal variety shit as I’m contending with today.

In theory, it’s possible that there’d be a pres that I thought shot straight. The probability seems slim though. I expect that, as they say, anyone capable of becoming pres shouldn’t be pres. I think that the process of political careers warps folks. I doubt if ever they’re warped to my liking.

I’d just like a PotUSA that didn’t disturb me as much as our current one. I’d like to feel free to return to my relative political somnambulism. It’s just seems too important right now not to. I don’t have the confidence that these politicians are being watched as closely as they should be. Things have gotten a little out of hand, IMHO.

Oh, policies.
Yeah, I’ve liked some policies from each of the PotUSAs who’ve been around while I was paying attention.

36

There’ve been only two incumbents that I’ve preferred to their challengers since I was old enough to vote, those being Ford (1976) and Clinton (1996).

In 1972, which was the first year I could vote too (hi Algernon!), I couldn’t make up my mind which was worse, and didn’t vote. In 1980, I was a precinct worker for the Anderson campaign, and voted for him. In 1984, 1992, and 2004, I preferred the Democratic challengers.

37

You know, when I was composing my post about my voting history, I had a total brain freeze when trying to remember who the third party candidate was that I voted for in 1980. Anderson. Thanks for the reminder.

38

I was impressed with Eisenhower.

Was not with LBJ.

Thought Nixon was a crook.

Liked Ford although it took me some time to forgive the pardon of Nixon and his cronies.

Initially, I did not like Carter, but he won me over.

I never had much respect for Reagan.

I was OK with G.H.W. Bush.

I felt that Clinton was also OK although a bit stupid when it came to women.

I have come to truly distrust and dislike the current Bush. I have so many times wanted to support and believe him, but time and again he has proven himself to be a person whom I don’t want as my President.

39

The only presidents who’ve been in office while I’ve been old enough to know what was going on: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Satan. I mean, Bush II.

And I was very happy with Clinton as president. If it were possible for him to be a three-termer, I would’ve voted for him in a heartbeat. I still absolutely cannot believe that people criticize him for his philandering – that is strictly between him, his wife, and the other woman.