Republicans, help me understand

I’m not good at debate (thank goodness this is in IMHO), and I do not think Bush will be judged as one of the top five presidents, but I do think he has had some positive impacts. As has been noted above, I think he was right on the Dubai ports debacle, and I actually like his approach to immigration.

One thing I have not seen mentioned in this thread is progress made during the six-party talks with North Korea, followed by the three-party talks with North Korea and China. North Korea was named in the “Axis of Evil” but instead of going to war we sat down with them at the negotiating table and talked, and have firmly walked down the diplomatic path for several years, leading North Korea to major concessions recently (I know, I know, let’s see if they actually follow through…). For years the talks did not produce much progress but I appreciate our government willing to sit down with other nations and talk things over like adults until we get the right result, and I think Bush deserves some credit for that.

In re: the Dubai Ports Deal, whether he was right or not doesn’t really matter, does it, because it got crushed in Congress. Isn’t that like giving him credit for Social Security Reform when nothing got done on that either?

Maybe he’s in denial about it? One thing that Carter, Clinton and Reagan all shared was growing up without a great deal of money. I know Reagan ranted about welfare queens, but I also always thought that he had some degree of compassion for those worse off than he was. All three of them also worked their way up on their own power.

I think GWB’s attitude is that someone will always come around to quash the ticket or buy the company he ran into the ground. I suspect he is in shock now that Karl couldn’t make it all better.

I’m not saying that you have to elect people who grew up without much - JFK and FDR did fine.

Let’s think a moment here.

Harry Truman received a fair amount of grief during and right after his one-and-one-half terms. For the most part that grief was over Mao’s revolution in China, the McCarthy’s Red Scare and the Korean War. It was only later when partisan passions cooled (a fair number of people who saw him as a substitute for FDR, who was really reviled in some quarters) that his merits became generally accepted and he received the credit he deserved for ending the Second War in the Pacific without the bloodbath that an invasion of Japan would have involved, the Marshall Plan, The Greek Civil War and the Truman Doctrine in the face of Soviet expansionism, the refusal to abandon South Korea in the face of northern aggression with Soviet connivance and the removal of MacArthur. Just look at the triumphant reception Mac Arthur received from Congress and the movement to draft Mac Arthur as the Republican presidential candidate. There was rabid animosity toward Truman at the end of his term and a fair amount when he ran against Dewey in 1947. It took a while for the general consensus to shift and Truman is now widely regarded as a strong and wise President albeit not on a level with the giants.

Lincoln was a giant. While reviled by a fair portion of Northern opinion --notably by the Democratic allied newspapers in New York City, the outflowing of love and grief at his death was a much better measure of his standing than any insulting comments about his personal appearance (the original gorilla) or sense of humor. For years, decades, Republicans ran for office on his reputation (that and waiving the bloody shirt). If he were not beloved they never would have gotten away with that and our nation might have been spared the series of ineffectives and nonentities that held the Presidency up through McKinley’s assassination and the emergence of Teddy Roosevelt.

Richard Nixon was a strange bird. While encumbered with some really bizarre personality traits, he was smart and pragmatic. Who but Nixon could have started a rapprochement with Red China? His ruthlessness and his conviction that anyone who disagreed with him was a fool or a scoundrel (or worse) destroyed him and opened the path for a kindly man of good instincts but insufficient ruthlessness. Carter was the anti-Nixon and in that lies his failing. Like Hoover before him he was a man who was not up to the demands of the office but who made a superb ex-president.

Reagan, it seems to me, is the beneficiary of a series of very luck breaks, not the least of which was the greatly fortuitous collapse of Soviet power. Otherwise, there is a fair argument that he slept walked through his administration doing little more than spouting empty platitudes and letting his lieutenants make the decisions. The adoration for him in some quarters might be simply because he managed to pretend not to be responsible for what went wrong and benefit from what went right without his direct participation.

That brings as to President Bush. While it is perfectly true that it is far too early to make a judgment about his success as President, as others have pointed out, his prospects are not good. Iraq and the third elective war in the nation’s history (the others being the war with Mexico and the Spanish-American war), the whole panoply of over reactions in the so-called war against terror including the wholesale avoidance of accepted international law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and erosion of Fourth Amendment protections makes up his legacy. Sooner or later he will have to answer for stuffing the federal courts with reactionary judges and his questionable election in 2000. Other than that his reputation will have to rest on questionable education reforms, a debatable tax policy and a mismanaged attempt to geld social legislation (social security, business and industrial regulation, environmental regulation).

It seems to me unlikely that the President will avoid the adverse judgment of history just because he has (so far as we know) resisted the temptation to receive an extra-marital blow job. I fear that history‘s judgment may be that President is a mere sock puppet for his vice-president and a bunch of malignant radicals who make Thaddeus Stevens and the boys look like small potatoes.

,

These seem like decent reasons to like the guy. Even I might be willing to get behind the idea of partial social security privatization, and the Supreme Court picks are purely a matter of personal opinion, so I can’t fault you for that.

I can’t understand anyone saying that he’s furthering the cause of democracy, though. He purposely ignores or avoids democratic procedures whenever they’re inconvenient, and goes to extreme, violent and immoral lengths to prevent the spread of information (Guantanemo, Valerie Plume, Alberto Gonzales). This is not the sign of someone concerned with fostering democracy.

Oh, wait. I thought Kerry or Gore were my only other options. I get another Republican choice instead of Bush? I didn’t know I could do that. In that case, I hate Bush.

Quick question: has the reputation of any president declined as time passes (say, after at least 20-50 years have gone by)?

ISTM that, as time passes and the importance of broad events resolve, an administration’s reputation generally stays about the same (e.g., Carter) or increases (e.g., Nixon). Perhaps JFK or FDR are examples of a later decline; however, while I’ve read some criticisms, their status does seem fairly secure as decent presidents.

Does this seem to be the case?

I can only speak for myself. If you had asked me about Carter in 1981 I would have said he’s a decent competent guy who had an impossible mess thrown at him and no one could have solved those problems.

Now I’d say he made a bad situation worse in several important ways. And personally he’s a dishonest, hypocritical, vengeful, bigoted prick. YMMV of course.

I’m more of a fiscal conservative (very far right in some cases), but moderate in general. I don’t think Bush accurately represents my political ideals whatsoever. I think even my parents (very conservative across the spectrum) don’t care for Bush that much anymore. Like they have been betrayed.

Of course, don’t take my word for it. I MAY end up voting for a democrat this next presidental election. All of the republicans running seem way to… xenophobic and pro-war as well as anti-homosexual. Not my stance at all. In fact they all seem to be going towards the Big Brother direction that Bush has taken our government, and my Political stance is mostly against such government intrusion. So I would rather support those other things, and just live with more taxes (of course if you withdraw from the war and use those funds for your health care, my taxes probably will not go up)

As a stated Republican, I’m very interested in your cites. Please make them, or at least your arguments.

As a Christian, I hope you’re wrong.

Please contribute.

This is most definitely not how I recall it at all. The WMDs were the primary reason. Hussein was going to supply them to terrorists who were going to unleash them on us. Liberating the citizens of Iraq came much later, increasing in popularity as a reason for the invasion only after it started and with inverse correlation to the likelihood that WMDs were going to be located.

Too slow on the edit. Was going to add that to people who genuinely believe(d) that liberating Iraqis from Hussein’s rule was one of the main reasons for the invasion, it might form the basis for respect for Bush - that he was trying to do something noble. I am not one of those people.

Well Rudy is unfortunately mostly pro-war and more big brother, but at least he is not anti-homosexual.

This election is leaving me very undecided. The only Republican I can vote for at this point is Rudy, but he has been pandering to the right too much for my comfort. I am fearful of our rights if he is the next president and the ‘Righty Republicans’ regain the houses.

On the other side, Hillary is better than Bush or Kerry, so this is already an improvement. Not my ideal candidate by a long shot, but I can live with Madam President. I just fear that she might be disliked enough to get someone like Thompson elected if he gets the nomination.

Jim

And we KNOW he isn’t anti-drag queen.

I certainly hope our Republican friends are not going to nominate Thompson just because he looks like central casting’s idea of a president. His campaign to date has been spectacularly unimpressive and he seems incredibly uninformed and uninterested.

I haven’t read every post , so apologies if I’m repeating.

Not true and one word says it all - Lebanon. Hezbollah was Democratically elected. We don’t like Hezbollah. We don’t recognize their government. We cut off trade and put in place sanctions against them, because even though Democratically elected, Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.

We don’t support Democracy. We support our national interests. The two are not necessarily the same.

I guess this thread is about done for and my attitude towards George W. Bush remains the same as always: He is an absolutely travesty of what a President should be; he is an incompetent failure and there are no signs of greatness to be found in anything he has yet done during his tenure. At least there were no answers that would make me feel otherwise.

I want to thank everyone who responded, even though I did get a little snotty from time to time; I apologize for that and ask that it be remembered that my bad attitude arose from frustration.

Palestine. Hamas.

I tend to agree; it’s wandering in all directions.

If anyone wants to open a new thread on any of the sidetracks here, in GD, or even - heavens forfend! - the Pit, feel free.