You can’t make a decision about a presidential candidate in a vacuum, the decision is not “Bush or nobody”, it’s “Bush or someone else”. You always have to consider, who is the alternative? I’m a libertarian conservative (conservative libertarian on odd-numbered days), I’ve never been satisfied with Bush, but in the 2000 primaries the only alterneative was McCain, who I did not at all like, so my preference was for Bush. In the actual election of course I voted for Bush, the alternative was Gore.
In the upcoming election it looks like the alternative will be Kerry, so I will vote for Bush again, because I do not want Kerry to be president. Think of it like this: I am strenuously opposed to being poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I am even more strenuously opposed to being shot in the head. But if it is inevitable that one of those two things is going to happen to me, but I get to cast a vote as to which, you can bet your ass I will be casting a vote.
It is inevitable that either Bush or Kerry will win the election this year. So, I will vote for the poke in the eye that is Bush, because I don’t want the shotgun blast to the head that is Kerry.
Standard fare in those places is to execute homosexuals by half-burying them in the sand and then toppling a brick wall on their heads. Let’s try to keep some perspective here.
I think he has been very, very good on this issue, and my opinion of him has gone way up.
True, but remember what I said about perspective…the UK is a more liberal country than the US.
Fair point, Weird_Al_Einstein, and it’s important to keep perspective.
Still, it was a move in the direction of the politics of Riyadh or Tehran, and it’s disgraceful.
And, at a time when America is delaying Iraqi elections in order to ensure minority rights are respected (among other reasons), it seems utterly hypocritical for the president to support an amendment that makes a specific minority subset of Americans into second-class citizens.
To muck around with the Constitution to pander to a core constituency during an election season is bad enough. When mucking around involves writing bias into (what I feel) is the finest document ever written by man is simply inexcusable.
Yay! A nonsensical hijack! I knew one of the posse would be along before long! :rolleyes:
Certainly, but we don’t have to live with the results of his liberal domestic policies. From what I have read, Britiain has been doing a top-notch job with gathering intelligence, and letting the SAS do its deeds in various nasty parts of the world, so I would certainly give Tony a vote of confidence on at least his dealings with terrorism.
And last, but not least, to address the OP:
Is there some hypothetical Republican that I would rather see in the White House? Sure. But it is extremely naive to believe that one President will do exactly what it takes to make me happy. GW is doing a ‘good enough’ job overall, and an excellent job regarding foreign policy. He’ll get my vote.
(Insert a standard disclaimer: If he makes sweet sweet love to a Real Doll on national television, I may have to withhold my vote.)
Early in the 2000 presdiential race, I favored John McCain, but as I learned more about him, I became less enamored of him, until he made his comments about conservative Christians, which ticked me off completely.
I genuinely liked and supported Bush in the 2000 election. True, he was weak on political experience, but I thought he would govern as a true conservative. Cut taxes, reduce the size and power of the federal government, implement a more humble foreign policy (seeing as how those were his EXACT WORDS) instead of turning us into the world’s police force a la Clinton, etc.
I will be voting for the Constitution Party candidate in November. Bush has been an absolute disaster. He’s on a mission to bankrupt the country by buying votes with federal handouts. He’s proposed that we lie down and surrender to the massive tide of uneducated, unskilled, un-assimilating illegal aliens flowing across our border. He’s continued our government’s policy of stirring up hornets’ nests in the Middle East, and made it worse. (The lesson of September 11th was not that we need to bomb the hell out of the Arabs, but that we need to bring our troops home and stop meddling over there.) He’s done absolutely NOTHING on the “social conservative” front. Sure, he’s talked it up a little bit, dropping a phrase like “sanctity of life” every now and then. But, like most Republicans, who merely pander to the “religious right” instead of actually serving their interests, he hasn’t actually done anything.
This is why I find my both brethren’s undying support of him, and leftists’ vehement denouncement of him as some kind of radical right-wing Taliban mullah, perplexing. The way both of these groups talk, you’d think he was genuinely working to outlaw all abortion, return school-sponsored prayer to public schools, and re-implement sodomy laws. And the way the leftists talk, you’d think he was going infinitely farther than that and forcing people to convert to Christianity by the sword and executing homosexuals. (In fact, I keep meaning to start a GD thread asking liberals WHY they think GWB is such a radical right-winger.) Other than dropping an occasional “sanctity of life” in order to buy a few religious right votes, what has he actually done? The Federal Marriage Amendment thing is a red herring, since the Executive branch plays no role in the amendment process. Again, it’s just talk.
Anyway, I am no longer a Bush supporter since he’s exacerbating just about every problem facing our country. I’d rather “throw my vote away” and vote for a principled conservative, even if the effect will be to put John Kerry in office. After all, as a true pessimist, I have to admit that socialized medicine is coming. The only question is, do we get it from Kerry in 2004 or Hillary in 2008. What’s 4 years in the grand scheme of things?
I’m a registered Republican and have been ever since I was eighteen. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 and am unsure if I’ll be voting for him this year. I emphatically do not want Kerry in office but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anyway.
The fact that even the comic strip *Mallard Fillmore * has taken to excoriating Bush’s profligacy, and in an election year, shows some of the depth of alienation in conservative ranks.
I concur with my fellow Republican, Elvis, and further…what?! Am too! Just said so, didn’t I? Hey, quit shovin’, I’m not done yet…I said, quit shovin’, get your hands off of me…
I think you are reading more into what I said than I intended edwino. While I admit that I think Gores response WOULD HAVE BEEN weak (pure speculation on my part based on my own impression of the man…thats why I said IMO) following 9/11, I think Bush’s response WAS weak and fairly pointless, especially on the diplomacy side and especially after Afghanistan. I’m not defending Bush’s responses here as I don’t agree with them. I was merely responding to Quint Essence knee jerk anti-Bush post that its all his fault. IMO, it wasn’t all Bush’s fault that 9/11 happened. I see it as a series of fuckups with plenty of blame to go around both in Bush’s administration and Clinton’s.
You have been too well propagandized and also taken in by Bush’s own image groomers. Drop the old lie the GWB is stupid. He isn’t. He plays the role of village idiot, but it’s an act. He’s feinting. When he played the role of international idiot just before invading Iraq, it was an intentional political tactic. He wanted domestic support. Thus, he maneuvered France and other countries into making statements that would irritate undecided Americans. Had these so-called “statesmen” of Europe been in possession of the slightest clue, they would have ignored the UN as much as Bush did and appealed directly to the American people. Instead, they got completely outmaneuvered by an extremely cunning and canny politician–GWB. The USA has power–a LOT of power. We can ignore the UN, at least for the short term. The so-called “statesmen” of Europe were completely without a clue regarding that. Bush understands international power very well. He doesn’t give a flying wahoo about international relationships or reputation. It’s part of the Wolfowitz doctrine that he has adopted.
The problem for Europeans to understand him is twofold:
1: They have had to learn to live together like civilized human beings since 1945 (or thereabouts). Americans have not been forced to do that. We have the ability to act on our own. It’s like any sort of personal restraint. It either takes decades of forceful conditioning or far near-saintly moral fiber to exercise it. Even a good man (or a good country), if not conditioned to it, has a hard time exercising it voluntarily.
2: They have propagandized themselves too well to have more than a knee-jerk response to Bush. We all like to think that OUR (that’s European for you and American for me) major press outlets are honest and balanced and THEIR (contrariwise, vice versa) major press outlets are biased and dishonest. Truth be told, NO major press outlet is honest and balanced. Bill Clinton was popular in Europe. Prince Albert of the House of Gore was seen as Clinton’s successor, so he would be popular in Europe. Prince George of the House of Bush groomed his campaign towards a more domestic audience. When he did a few things that European press outlets didn’t like, he was permanently charicatured. Consider what happened when Bush made his speech during his state visit to the UK. Britons were absolutely astonished that he didn’t get up on the podium, drool on himself, and eat a banana. All he did, from an American perspective, was give a very ordinary speech, nothing spectacular and not at all unusual for GWB to do. However, Europeans had so thoroughly brainwashed themselves regarding GWB that a very mediocre speech delivered in a very pedestrian fashion was considered remarkable.
In short, GWB is not stupid. He is a very cunning, clever, and intelligent politician. He long ago was able to assess who was important in getting power and who was not. He long ago was able to figure out that the support of all the members of the UN was meaningless to a US President if one couldn’t get the support of a bare majority of the US Congress (just like Wilson’s League of Nations was a complete flop within the USA) and the rejection of the UN was immaterial, given the USA’s power, if that meant one could drum up enough support in Congress. The morality of such an attitude is another matter, unrelated to GWB’s intelligence. It is possible to be quite vile and yet be quite intelligent.
Likewise, cultivating an air of “affable idiot” has several political advantages:
1: It makes “common touch” campaigning easier.
2: It tempts a lot of domestic political opponents who fancy themselves far more intelligent than they actually are to make mean-spirited cheap shots. This then gives GWB’s handlers ammunition to portray their opponents negatively.
3: It tempts foreign diplomatic opponents who have been thoroughly hoodwinked to treat GWB in such a way as to gain domestic sympathy. How would you feel if Americans were to say that the chief of government of your country espoused policies that the USA disagreed with because your chief of government was an idiot? Would that increase your respect for the USA and make you disagree with your own government’s disagreement with the USA?
Actually, I dislike Bush, but not for any of the superficial and carefully cultivated reasons that seem to dominate European attitudes. I dislike him because he has completely betrayed conservativism.
1: He wants to trivially diddle with the US Constitution. That is just wrong. The Constitution is not to be altered for matters like marriage. It is a document meant to handle how government runs its affairs. Likewise, marriage has always been a matter of states, not the federal government.
2: He routinely violates states’ rights without any compelling cause (and the only compelling cause is the protection of fundamental citizen rights). If the state of California wishes to legalize mary jane, it’s their right to do so, as long as they realize that the US government can still legally ban importation from other countries or across state lines.
3: He drives up the federal deficit. He has thrown out any and all semblance of fiscal responsibility.
4: He has needlessly extended the power and intrusiveness of the federal government.
I’m a 'pubbie who was ambivalent on Bush in 2000: better than Gore, but not by much. Now, however, I feel much better about him; despite his immigration mess-up, his other decisions have been pretty solid (and, more recently, he responded with admirable restraint to the AWOL issue).
I have been a Bush mark since the first time I saw him campaign. I was happy and grateful when he defeated McCain and then Gore. I was still a little apprehensive because conservatives have been disappointed by politicians for so long. However, with a few minor quibbles, such as the steel tariffs, and an unwillingness to confront congressional spending, I am still overjoyed to have such a great president. His foreign policy has been fantastic. He understood the threat of terrorism and has acted bravely and steadfastly since the WTC attacks. The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns were both handled brilliantly at a miltary level which shows a willingness to let the military do what they do best. His having the architect on the first Gulf War strategy as vice president was serendipitous.
Domestically he got a very big tax cut through a very divided congress and the economic recovery has been amazing, given the situation he inherited. I was pleasantly suprised how good a politician he has been. He has controlled the agenda in congress with a very deft touch. His education bill was a good start and the medicare bill actually had some good things in it. He got partial-birth abortion outlawed and has taken a courageous stand for democracy and against gay marriage. He gives great speeches and makes me proud whenever I see him on TV. He has courage, wisdom, and humility, the three most important characteristics for a president IMHO. While he has not been perfect I think him and Reagan are neck and neck for the greatest presidents in the last 100 years.
I went eagerly into this thread because that question intrigued me. I’m not a Republican, conservative or even American but I’m also not off topic. The thing is: ‘we’(the majority of Australians) display the same kind of pragmatism as Brutus here. “Ah the govt’s not great [i.e. they lie about their intentions and don’t keep faith with the electorate] but they’re better than the alternative”. Fair enough as far as it goes I suppose. But what this translates to in Australia is fiscal conservatism. Govt spends less on essential services and ‘we’ - the smart or well connected ones - benefit by a stronger economy. Our interest rates are lower and so forth.
But Bush is a more reckless spender than Clinton by far. He hasn’t inherited a bad economy; he’s contributed to the deficit by spending it in all the wrong places and for all the wrong reasons. Unless the failure to find WMD’s - the rationale for going to war in the first place - or stop the killings - the promised outcome of succesful invasion (one where only a few civilians are killed and maimed) and capture of Saddam Hussein - can be explained away.
‘An excellent job regarding foreign policy’?? Well Australia and the UK are on side. I don’t know about the rest of the world.
The Vatican doesn’t much like him and they’re usually bipartisan. And France and Germany and many another member nation, good modern democracies, well I can only wonder at what their feelings are at having been disparaged for their stance when they were right all along.
If he had been any good at foreign policy, even in a purely post-September 11 sense, then he would have put the heat on Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists hail from, and Osama would have been the tyrant to capture.
I know the thrust of what I’m saying belongs in many ways to ‘all those war threads’ but I was looking here at the ‘war on terror’ as a foreign policy triumph and I don’t think it is. If the US wants to demonstrate a moral superiority to enemy states then it is going to have to define the difference. Bombing a country without UN approval on a pretext that proves to be wholly erronous is terrible foreign policy. Would you like it if North Korea attacked on the basis of a perceived threat that later turned out to be false?
Isn’t the majority consent of the allied nations the very safeguard against this kind of thing happening? Isn’t democracy in a global sense meant to be inclusive? How does a unilateral first strike promote the democratic ideal?
And how, within the US, is this same democratic ideal served by the Patriot Act and of arresting and holding a citizen without observing due process? Is it a different rule for America?
I’ll be reassured if you can explain how you’re satisfied that the Bush administration is not eroding your rights - and your financial security - in the name of preserving them.
When I voted for Bush in 2000, I held my nose over his foreign policy isolationism but enthusiastically supported his domestic agenda of cutting taxes, cutting spending, and privatizing Social Security.
When I vote for Bush in 2004, I will hold my nose over his increasing of spending and complete withdrawal from privatizing Social Security, but I will enthusiastically support his foreign policy.
I am not happy with Bush. I expect that I would be even less happy with Kerry, as my taxes would go up, and the deficit would still go up, because no politician, given new money, will merely hang on to it ‘for a rainy day’. Meanwhile, our country’s foreign policy would return to Clintonian “intense negotiations”, which we see as having worked so well in stopping North Korea from getting the bomb, Libya from trying to get the bomb, and in halting the spread of violence in the Balkans.
I guess I am in the same camp with Brutus and John Corrado.
Bush isn’t conservative enough for me (in the classical sense of the term) in that I dislike his spending increases (apart from the war in Iraq).
But there are no other candidates even remotely as well suited to the Presidency.
Kerry and Edwards are going to increase the deficit far beyond whatever Bush will in his second term, as well as raise taxes and generally clobber whatever recovery the economy can manage. Edwards is a trial lawyer, for heaven’s sake - I can’t think of him saying he knows how to fix health care without screaming “You are about half the problem, you ambulance chaser!” at the TV. And that upsets my wife.
Kerry is another squishy-left liberal dork - what Ted Kennedy would be if he weren’t fat and slimey. The best that can be said about Kerry is that he is likely to fail to pass any significant legislation or achieve much at all. Apart, most likely, from lots more campaign donation scandals. We cannot afford another ineffectual President.
And Nader? :snort:
So I could vote some other third-party conservative ticket, and do my part to be sure Kerry gets elected. Or vote for Bush. Which I intend to do.
And not while holding my nose. Apart from the deficit, Bush gets a solid B as President. I don’t particularly care for a President who says “Mother may I?” to the French before he decides on foreign policy, and by golly the Taliban and Saddam are no longer threats. Nobody could do anything about the dot-com collapse. 90% of the “Bush lied about WMD!” stuff is just partisan attacks and can be discounted - if Gore had won, they would defending him to the death, so screw that.
Put it this way - if Bush had managed to keep the budget in balance and still achieve everything else he has done, I would be saying he was a better President than Reagan. And that is a very high compliment in my book.
There are definitely some things I’m unhappy about when it comes to the Bush presidency, but I can’t currently see a scenario playing out that would cause me to vote against him in 2004.
The things I’m bothered by:
Marriage amendment. Regardless of his motives (political base securing, truly wants it, etc) I don’t like it. I’m a conservative, married, father of three young children living in the Southern bible belt, but the whole opposition to gay marriage thing just makes no sense to me.
Lack of budget cuts. I fully support some of the things Bush has done with the economy (tax cuts specifically), but one of the main reasons I am a registered Republican is because I don’t want to see money spent by the federal government on much more than interstate highways and bombs. Bush has failed on that count, IMHO.
Those are the biggies for me. They are big enough, that given the proper candidate, I could definitely see myself voting for a Democrat this time around.
No way in hell I would vote for Kerry though. Them’s the breaks I guess.
How is taking a stand against gay marriage “courageous,” especially considering that the polls its opponents love to trumpet show a majority of the country is against it? Why wouldn’t taking a stand FOR it be MORE courageous?
The Afghanistan conflict has been so successful that al-Qaeda and ObL still function with impunity. The Iraq conflict, started over (now obviously) non-existent WMD and supposedly paid for in oil revenue, is a long road with no end in sight. His unfunded education bill did nothing but increase pointless and ridiculous testing on school children instead of focusing on improving the state of our education. The Medicare bill is more or less a blank check written to the prescription drug industry.
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m 25. I’ll be paying for Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare, Social Security, and those precious tax cuts for the rest of my life. There’s also a decent chance that all the money I pay into Medicare and SS will be gone by the time I hit retirement age. This is not even to mention the environmental havoc the man is wreaking – Clear Skies and Healthy Forests are two of the worst environmental initiatives I have ever seen.
He does give good speeches, I’ll give him that, but his extemporaneous speaking leaves much to be desired. And as for Reagan, I have to wonder about your priorities when you rank the man who presided over Iran-Contra so high on your list.
Finally, I have to say that I’m saddened by your opinion on gay marriage. I support and defend your right to call me and mine second class citizens not worthy of the sacraments of marriage in the church of your choosing, but I’ll be damned if I sit by and watch your religious objections to my civil marriage be encoded into the Constitution of all things. Even if not for the religious entanglement, this “courageous” amendment stomps all over the rights of the states to decide their own laws and to set their own public policy.
