We see from the news that Bush’s job approval rating is still quite high given the circumstances, and people on this board have said
My question is: exactly what things has he done that you approve of?
From the top of my head I can’t think of many things he has done besides the tax cuts, but then again I don’t follow what new laws get passed very closely.
I don’t think we can count his response to the war on terror, because many people think that any administration would have done pretty much the same (excluding the Iraq war thing, which hasn’t helped the war on terror anyway).
So, I’ll start the list of “Things Bush has done in the past 3 years that I approve of”:
Tax cuts
Signed partial birth abortion ban
Any others?
(Lets’ not list things like “because he is not liberal, just by being president, he prevented a liberal president from enacting liberal stuff”, although to some degree that could be valid)
I’m neither a Democract nor a Republican, but, since it looks likely that we will have 4 more years of Bush and people approve of the job he is doing, I thought it would be instructive to hear, from people who are planning on voting for him, what exactly has he done that they approve of?
It’s fine if people say that they will vote for him just because he is Republican, but some people actually say they approve of the job he is doing, so the question arises, what exactly is he doing that is being approved?
[ul]
[li]Boosting NASA significantly, and giving it a great new vision.[/li][li]Cutting taxes dramatically[/li][li]Responding forcefully in the war on terror[/li][li]Not engaging in vast new swaths of regulations, as Kerry wants to do[/li][/ul]
Basically, Republicans like presidents who DON’T do things. Presidents who don’t raise taxes. Presidents who don’t increase regulations. Presidents who leave businesses alone. That kind of thing. Bush is a mixed bag on these issues, but he’s better than any likely Democrat, and most especially better than John Kerry, who wants to ‘re-regulate’ business, institute new industrial policy, complicate the tax code further with targeted cuts for industries he thinks are special, etc.
This is a very salient point. Republicans like hands-off presidents. And by “DON’T do things,” they mean:
DO invade foreign countries based on false information about WMDs.
DO try to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, only the second time (after prohibition) the constitution would be amended to restrict individual freedoms.
DO try to amend the Constitution to outlaw abortion, only the third time (after prohibition and non-gay-marriage) the constitution would be amended to restrict individual freedoms.
DO try to amend the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, the first time the constitution would be amended to restrict free speech.
DO pass laws like the Patriot act that restrict civil liberties.
DO imprison Americans without access to due process, claiming “Prisoner of War” status applies to people walking off of airplanes.
DO invite enemies to attack US troops. Not to attack the White House, mind you, but to attack the young men and women who are overseas.
DO try to override state’s rights when it comes to things like regulating medical marijuana.
Republicans sometimes have a funny way of speaking.
Interesting, Sam, that you put NASA at the top of your list, a sense of priorities that I have considerable sympathy for. But his vision is a crock, it is unicorn milk, smoke and mirrors. The “Mission to Mars” is all vision, and no substance. The laws of math are stubbornly inflexible.
Cutting taxes sounds nice. Lovely “on message” rhetoric, like “letting families keep more of thier own money”. But we know which families he means, even if he doesn’t.
Now, on the third point, you have something: there is little question that GeeDubya has “responded forcefully”. As if FDR, in response to Pearl Harbor, had boldly invaded Equatorial Africa. For myself, I would have much preferred a response more targeted, even if less “forceful”. At horrendous cost, we are now safe from a threat that never existed in the first place.
Your last point is uncontestable: the Bushiviks stand firmly against regulation of business, and recent news attests to thier efficacy. The dreadful burden of environmental regulation is largely evaporated, to the great relief and adulation of such persons who prefer to make money than breathe.
Bush is in favor of vast swathes of restrictions on individuals, while giving business carte blanche to do whatever it takes to turn a profit, including endangering the public health. Kerry is in favor of protecting individual rights, and holding business responsible for their actions. We need more regulation on business, because they lack the moral compass to regulate themselves.
Do you think it’s the tax cut that is important, not a decrease in government spending? Bush has only done one of the two.
Could you explain this further? To me, failing to capture OBL and then pulling troops out of Afghanistan and sending them to an unrelated war is not “responding forcefully”
I think Sam means he’s just happy he can turn on Fox News and see exciting video footage of American soldiers shooting at people, American missiles blowing things up, and eye-popping graphics with colored arrows streaking all over the place. I guess eight years of dull, boring, no-wars Clinton got under his skin…
Those cut-taxes-and-spend Republicans are always looking to grow the government and the deficit! I guess they do this at the same time they are doing nothing. Neat trick!
Thanks for the link Darwin’s Finch. Don’t you hate it when facts and actual figures get in the way of an impression you are trying to sell?
I forgot to add that I think the OP is a bit mistaken anyway. I don’t think it has been the case that Bush’s approval ratings are “still quite high.” In fact, presently they are 46% approve, 47% disapprove. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
I think the issue has been that he was up relative to Kerry in some polls. However, the most recent CBS News/NY Times Poll puts it at Bush 44%, Kerry 46%. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Why this isn’t being shouted from the rooftops like the other polls were, I don’t know (i.e. “Observers are curious as to Kerry’s somewhat surprising rise in the polls, in which he is distancing himself from Bush despite the millions that Bush has invested in advertising during the past several weeks.”)
No wait, I do know why people aren’t shouting about it: It’s still goddamn April, and the split is not that big. The question is, why were they shouting about the numbers from a week or so ago?
Personally I suspect it’s because they made a big deal about how good Kerry’s poll numbers were a few months ago, and the media try to be “balanced” by sporadically switching which side they try to present in a good light.
Alas, this thread was meant as a way to find out what things Bush has done that meet with the approval of people who will vote for him.
Unfortunately, everyone pounced onto the statements made by Sam Stone and so nobody else from that camp has posted anything else, and I can’t blame them.
It would have been nice to hear from more people, and then, after hearing several points, maybe a debate as to the validity of those points could have started. Unfortunately, the questioning started immediately.
Here is another article on the subject, from the New York Times. And, here is how physicist Bob Park summed it up in his weekly column on the American Physical Society Website, under the title “NASA Science: Is the space agency becoming just a theme park?” Park is a tireless, and admittedly very opinionated advocate for science, a strong proponent of the unmanned space program, and a strong opponent of the financial black-hole known as the manned space program.
Polerius, sorry we are jumping in to respond here but, quite honestly, it is hard for us to let these claims go unchallenged…And, this is Great Debates after all.
