Republicans, help me understand

[rowrrbazzle]

I don’t think Bush is one of the greatest presidents, but I don’t think he’s the worst.

@Lizard

I’ve thought this before too, but Lincoln governed during a civil war, which by definition are divisive.

Well, of course, his main opposition came from Union Democrats. The parallels are startling.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
I can’t see it. While Democrats certainly do demonize the other side, they also demonize their own side, something that Republicans don’t do. Republicans are known for always being “on message”, repeating the talking points.
[/quote]
Harriet Meiers. The Dubai ports deal. Illegal immigration. You should read the National Review site for more counterexamples. Whoever tells you that, take him/her with a barrel of salt. There is plenty of serious and fundamental disagreement, but at the moment we tend not to make that particular self-weakening mistake of the left.

The right owns talk radio, where one person talks and talks and talks, always parroting the party line, and millions listen to this every day, sometimes all day.

We only “own” it by default (personally, I don’t listen to it). Why did Air America fail? Answer: the audience was too small. That’s not the fault of “talk radio”. Heck, what happened to Gore’s cable channel? Potential backers must figure the same thing. The left must be getting the programming they want elsewhere, and the right isn’t.

Democrats own the internet

:rolleyes: But they certainly have utilized it better than the right. They’re better organizers. I don’t know of anyone who thinks there’s something nefarious about that isolated fact, whereas I’m inferring you think there is about talk radio (correct me if I’m wrong).

Go to any left wing blog and you’ll see people arguing visciously with each other about all kinds of positions.

But nothing too far to the right of the consensus of the blog. Those comments get deleted and the posters get banned. This is at least no better than what occurs on right-wing blogs.

Many right wing websites don’t even allow people to comment.

So what? Are there no left-wing websites that don’t allow comment?

There is a fundamental difference.

I’m inclined to think there is, but it’s got nothing to do with the bare content of the assertions you posted.

[Frank]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
:dubious: No four letter words, no personal insults . . . I don’t see what makes that Pit materiel.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t be obtuse. Despite some pointed comments and askance looks, this thread has been relatively polite. You’re the only one to come in and be actively nasty. That’s being a jerk. Don’t do it again.

I’ll add that we should not hijack this thread any further. If you wish to discuss this any more, you should start a thread in the appropriate forum.

[Lamar_Mundane]

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]
.We only “own” it by default (personally, I don’t listen to it). Why did Air America fail? Answer: the audience was too small. That’s not the fault of “talk radio”. Heck, what happened to Gore’s cable channel? Potential backers must figure the same thing. The left must be getting the programming they want elsewhere, and the right isn’t.:rolleyes: But they certainly have utilized it better than the right. They’re better organizers. I don’t know of anyone who thinks there’s something nefarious about that isolated fact, whereas I’m inferring you think there is about talk radio (correct me if I’m wrong).
[/QUOTE]

With close to 50% of the population voting for Democrats, there clearly are enough people to make it potentially just as valuable as the market for Rush or O’Reilly, but it doesn’t work. The only rational answer is that people who vote for Democrats, in general, don’t like that type of programming. I know I don’t. There is nothing nefarious about talk radio - I was just making the point that those shows exist for one reason - to demonize the other side. They bash the other side for hours every day of the year. Try calling a show and making a rational argument like we do here that goes contrary to the party line - you know what will happen.

If you listen to talk radio all day, you’re not going to be exposed to any conflicting arguments, so it is unlikely that you’re going to change your mind about Bush.

Sorry, that was kind of rambling - it’s been a long week.

[Voyager]

I was a Republican in 2000, and had never voted for a Democratic candidate since I first voted in 1972. Now I’m a Democrat, and I owe my recovery to Bush. I actually paid attention to Bush in 2000, and wound up voting for Gore, thank Og.

Let’s look at the three criteria. Go down in history as a great president? Unlikely. Even if invading Iraq were the right thing to do, the incompetence of his administration caused it to be a quagmire, and has helped Islamic terrorism immeasurably. Most everyone does think invading Afghanistan was essential, but he’s on the way to losing that also. We can add in Katrina, the unwillingness to face the global warming problem, and lots of other things.

True Christian? I’ll let the Christians judge that, though I’m convinced he truly does believe. (Reagan always acted as if he didn’t really though put on a good face for his right wing following. I’d hope that a real Christian would care about the poor and needy more than Bush does.

Humanitarian? It is to laugh. He’ll soon be vetoing a bill to give more children health insurance. Much of New Orleans is still a mess. However if you limit humanity to the rich, you’ve got a good case.

I lived through Nixon, and Nixon was far, far better. Bush is a textbook case of being chained to ideology, and ignoring reality, is a sure path to disaster.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I doubt you will be able to come to understand this based on what you read on the SDMB. There are a number of Dopers for whom “Bush sux” is a complete summary of their political thought. I think this sums it up admirably.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Right, none of the anti-Bush OPs in either the Pit or GD ever had arguments beyond Bush sux or links to articles about the latest bit of incompetence or malfeasance. You should really try joining the reality-based community some time. I’ve never felt better since I tore up my Republican Party card.

[Chessic_Sense]

Alright, Bush is NOT a greatest of all time president by any means. Here’s why I still like him:

He opposes universal healthcare, which I feel would wreck the system, in no small part because government as an entity is incompetent at such things.
He appointed Roberts and Alito. I like both of them.
He was right on the Dubai ports deal, as mentioned.
Although he’s done a terrible job of fighting this war, he knows it needs fought somewhere, somehow.
He cut my taxes. Sure, he cut others more, but he still cut mine.
NCLB has done more good than harm. IMHO, Math&Science=important, rest=secondary, and it’s improved those fields.

So there you go. That’s why I think he’s a decent prez. I’m sure there’s other reasons I haven’t thought of. I’m not interested in debating any of these, as most have been beaten to death here, but I’ll elaborate if asked.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
So there you go. That’s why I think he’s a decent prez. I’m sure there’s other reasons I haven’t thought of. I’m not interested in debating any of these, as most have been beaten to death here, but I’ll elaborate if asked.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for answering

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
Here’s why I still like him:

He opposes universal healthcare, which I feel would wreck the system, in no small part because government as an entity is incompetent at such things.
[/quote]

Of course it would wreck the system. That’s the point. The current system sucks eggs. As for the government being incometent in such things, I had CHAMPUS when I was a kid. Worked for me. My friend says she likes having VA benefits. There was the Walter Reed debacle, but generally it seems to work well. I’ve no experience with Medicare, but the government spends a great deal less on overhead than private insurers, and it seems to work at least as well as private insurance. (Just going by my mom’s case there.)

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
He appointed Roberts and Alito. I like both of them.
[/quote]

I don’t like either of them. The Courts should uphold our civil liberties, not erode them.

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
He was right on the Dubai ports deal, as mentioned.
[/quote]

Granted.

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
Although he’s done a terrible job of fighting this war, he knows it needs fought somewhere, somehow.
[/quote]

What’s ‘this war’? Afghanistan? I’ll agree with that. Iraq? No way in hell.

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
He cut my taxes. Sure, he cut others more, but he still cut mine.
[/quote]

I’d rather have higher taxes and freedom from the U.S. Health Care Cartel.

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
NCLB has done more good than harm. IMHO, Math&Science=important, rest=secondary, and it’s improved those fields.
[/quote]

I’d say Critical Thinking is important as well. If people were able to think critically, we’d probably not be in some of the messes we’re in now. And he’s in favour of leaving perhaps millions of children behind, healtcare-wise.

[QUOTE=IntelSoldier]
So there you go. That’s why I think he’s a decent prez. I’m sure there’s other reasons I haven’t thought of. I’m not interested in debating any of these, as most have been beaten to death here, but I’ll elaborate if asked.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not looking for a debate either. But those are some of the reasons I think Bush is not only not a decent president, but perhaps the worst ever.

[Lizard]

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]
Well, of course, [Lincoln’s] main opposition came from Union Democrats. The parallels are startling.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say his main opposition was the Confederate States of America, actually. And today’s Democrats gave Bush every single thing he asked for until quite recently, to their lasting shame. A majority of Democrats in Congress voted to give Bush power to invade Iraq. It’s hard to call that “opposition.”

[Neptunian_Slug]

I can’t imagine anyone making the case for the greatest President, although I would say that there have been worse. Buchanan, Pierce, Hoover were all pretty lousy.

I voted for President Bush in 2000 and volunteered for the campaign in 2004, but he has left me wanting. He presided over a massive expansion in government in No Child Left Behind and Medicare Drug Benefits. Management of the war has been inept. He showed inexplicable loyalty to administration figures such as Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Miers. It drives me bananas that his committment to tax reform and social security privatization was so horribly weak while he was willing to go down with the ship on that immigration bill.

So overall, I think many Republicans are very disappointed. Its very hard for me to chalk up accomplishments that would make Democrats or Republicans happy. He was dealt a lousy hand with 9/11 a few months into the administration and the dot.com boom about to implode when he took office. But this President could have done more.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Neptunian Slug]
He was dealt a lousy hand with 9/11 a few months into the administration.
[/QUOTE]

(Assuming for a moment that 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president, which I’m not necessarily certain is true, but which certainly can not be definitively answered at this point…)

I would argue that as far as establishing his place in the pantheon of presidential greatness, 9/11 was a potential godsend. All he had to do was look resolute and grave and bold and then kick the crap out of the Taliban. Which he more or less did, barring the goat incident. The populace loves a bold leader who goes out and defeats inarguably evil people and liberates women. If he’d done that and then NOT invaded Iraq, 9/11 would haved turned out to be a huge boon for him… it would have given him huge (more or less deserved) popularity, which he could then have used to push whatever domestic agenda he wanted.

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
(Assuming for a moment that 9/11 would have happened no matter who was president, which I’m not necessarily certain is true, but which certainly can not be definitively answered at this point…)
[/QUOTE]

As you know, I have no love for The Leader; but to be fair, given the amount of planning and training that went into the attacks, and remembering that bin Laden was behind the WTC attack in 1993 when Clinton was in office, I think the attacks would have happened anyway.

[Mosier]

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I’m sure on this board, you’ll find people who believe the Carter Administration was a great success & the Reagan Administration a dismal failure. Political inclination covers a
multitude of sins AND a multitude of virtues.
[/QUOTE]

I’m one of those people, by the way. I’m sure conservatives look at me with a puzzled frown that’s every bit as bewildered as the OP gives to his Bush loving friends.

[Little_Nemo]

Even among my conservative friends (and believe me, some of them are extremely conservative - as in “Barry Goldwater was too liberal for me” and “I’m thinking about starting a militia group”) there’s not a lot of love still there for Bush. He’s compared to Reagan and Gingrich and his father and he’s perceived as an ineffective conservative at best. I’d bet that 90% of the people who voted for Bush in 2000 now wish they could have voted for McCain instead.

So I think the remaining base of his supporters are composed of the people who don’t want to admit to themselves they made a mistake; the people who don’t want to admit to the Democrats they made a mistake; and the people who figure if they say something often enough it’ll come true.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

In my experience, there’s definitely a religious element to the people who revere Bush. I’m not talking about the ones who can list a few things they think are ok about him or think he doesn’t suck as bad as everyone says he does, or even the ones (and I think there’s a lot of these) who are voting more for the party and the social platform more than for the man (“He ain’t Lincoln [or Reagan] but at least he’ll put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court and won’t raise my taxes”). I’m talking about the ones who say they love him and think he belongs on Rushmore. There is a manic, religious edge to those people (I’ve never heard anyone say they adored Bush who wasn’t religious…usually hyper-religious) and I think a desperate air of denial as well. They NEED to believe Bush is wonderful because they have invested so much emotional energy in the idea that he is their spiritual champion. They have religified their politics to such a degree that they literally see Bush as God’s reprentative therefore he must be great and it will just take time to see it. They need to tell themselves this because it actually threatens their faith not to believe it. The capacity for self-delusion about Bush comes from the same place as their capacity to deny evolution. They have so connected one particular idea to their faith as a whole that they feel that can’t disconect them without bringing down the whole house of cards and spinning out into a nihilistic abyss.

Also, if they really allowed themselves to see Bush objectively and to confront their own complicity in the carnage he has wrought, they’d probably have to blow the backs of their skulls out.

[FriarTed]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
In my experience, there’s definitely a religious element to the people who revere Bush. I’m not talking about the ones who can list a few things they think are ok about him or think he doesn’t suck as bad as everyone says he does, or even the ones (and I think there’s a lot of these) who are voting more for the party and the social platform more than for the man (“He ain’t Lincoln [or Reagan] but at least he’ll put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court and won’t raise my taxes”).
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for making the distinction. I can’t say I’ve met any Bush-fanatics, though I am sure they’re out there. Most of my fellow conservatives join me in a “meh- he
means well, and he stands for the right things, but my God, did he miscalculate
Iraq and screw up the Federal response to Katrina. But even still, we were going to have to take out Saddam eventually and there’s a lot of blame to be shared for the Katrina mess. Anyway, besides Iraq & Katrina, and those are two whoppers,
he’s actually done OK.”

Some of us even grudgingly admit that after getting a political wake-up call after the first two years of his administration, Bill Clinton… was… n- n- not a b-
b-
b-
bad
…
President- THERE I SAID IT!
Btw, for the past ten years, every time I’ve posted what looks like a nice blocked post, it comes out with the margins screwed up. What am I doing wrong?

[Walloon]

I’m not a Bush basher by habit, and in 2003 I even considered voting for him (changed my mind by 2004). But this administration will probably be regarded by historians as the worst in modern history. The fecklessness of the Carter administration combined with the malice of the Nixon administration.

To answer, the OP, I haven’t heard any Republicans I know singing Bush’s praises lately. If anything, they have become vocal critics about how he has set back the Republicans for years.

[Cardinal]

I am a Republican in the broadest, or pretty normal sense. However, I refuse to automatically be told how to think by anyone.
[QUOTE=LouisB]
n the last two weeks, I have been told by two people that George W. Bush will be ranked by historians as one of the five greatest Presidents of the USA. Both of these people referred to Bush as being a great man
[/QUOTE]
One who doesn’t listen to anyone with whom he disagrees and thinks he’s the greatest thing since horns on a Cadillac’s hood.

a true Christian,

This is the part that makes me the maddest. I don’t believe anything he says any more, because of things like supporting A. Gonzales, when he clearly was lying out his butt. It’s not my place, but being (somewhat) from the same religious background, I truly worry for his eternal soul, and no, I’m not kidding.

and a genuine humanitarian.

I don’t know where that comes from. What has he done that’s so caring? And even Nixon did some good things, and he was a horrible person, whether he ever got around to obstructing justice or not. Then again, apparently Kennedy was a total philanderer. And Eisenhower asked permission from Marshal during WWII to divorce Mamie so he could marry his driver. (It was refused on the grounds of the PR firestorm.)

I will admit up front that I currently believe these people supported Bush originally and simply cannot bring themselves to admit they were mistaken. Is that the case or does Bush have greatness that I cannot see or admit to myself?

Some people do not have opinions, but granite tablets handed down from on high which are immutable and not even really worth discussing, because they have not arrived at their conclusions (right or wrong) through real analysis. Admittedly, I (we) find it easier to deal with the people with whom Iagree more, but Rush Limbaugh drives me right up the wall, because half of the time I’m agreeing with him, I’m mad at his tone and his complete lack of ability to at least address the opposite point, if only to try to disprove it.

You can buy one of my Republican Against Bush stickers here: http://www.cafepress.com/flavord.126334566 I do in fact drive around with one.

[Cardinal]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, especially since being a true Christian makes it impossible to be a great, or even semi-decent anything.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, in my scanning-reading, I thought this was sarcastic. Wow, man, wow. Please insert “black”, “Jew”, “SDMB member”, or “Muslim” in that sentence, then get back to us.

[LouisB]

Well, I still can’t fathom why people adore Bush except because they simply cannot admit they were/are wrong. Most of the people I know personally who are in the Bush Supporter Group are wealthy, rabid Republicans and most of them are retired military officers; these are people I know because of my wealthy, rabidly Republican sister who is the widow of a military officer. Most of these people attained fairly high rank in the military (full colonel and a couple of generals) and have done well in business; all of them are college grads and some have advanced degrees. All of them are capable of rational discussions on many subjects and I generally enjoy talking with them. When it comes to politics and specifically George W. Bush, they become irrational, in my view. To disagree with Bush, or with Republican party policy, is, in their view, to be wrong, wrong, wrong, and they will NOT so much as listen to any other points of view. And yet none of them can give examples of Bush’s greatness; none of them can give me any reason to vote Republican in the next election other than “Hillary Clinton is evil and is a Card Carrying Communist who will bankrupt the government and impose socialized medicine on us*;” none of them can tell me how gay marriage will rend the fabric of society and so on. In short, none of the rabidly Republican people I know can give me so much as one concrete reason in support of their rabid support of George W. Bush. I had hoped for at least one such reason from this thread; if one has been put forth, either I missed it or am too obtuse to have recognized it.

*All of these people received virtually free medical care while in the service and all of them continue to receive care from the VA; in other words, taxpayer funded medical care but “that’s different.”

Sorry for the rambling; I’m fighting a migraine and the medication either knocks me out or enhances my unfortunate tendency to talk too damn much.