Republicans: Is there anything you dislike about Bush?

Great Debates
1

Dislike can cover a broad variety of things. It could be any of his policy choices, or his personality, his past history, his personal character.

Just to show that I’m asking this question in good faith, I’ll give an example of something I truly dislike about one of my otherwise favorite President: Bill Clinton. When he was governor of Arkansas, he oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a profoundly brain damaged man who apparently wasn’t even aware of what his execution would mean. He asked that he get his last meal “after” the execution. I am truly disgusted that he would let this happen. I defend Clinton on nearly everything, but this is one instance where I can’t defend the man.

I’m curious if any Republicans here have any major dislikes about Bush. Anything they can point to and say “I completely disagree with that, and I won’t even begin to defend it.”

2

You know what? We’ve done this thread multiple times on here in the past few months, under various guises.

I am certainly not a Bush supporter, but I’m kind of saddened that lately the theme in GD seems to be, “Hey! Let’s start a thread to get all the conservatives’ attention and then pounce on their arguments since we know we outnumber them!”

Conservative Dopers may be conservative, but on this board, they’re Dopers first. If we want to debate specific issues, that’s fantastic. But these threads that only serve as “bait and attack” threads on our conservative friends just do the boards a disservice.

Yeah, I know I’m not a mod, but I just have to get my .02 dollars in here. It’s nothing personal, Blalron. You may not have started this thread with the intent I just described, but that’s almost certainly what it will turn into.

3

What SNenc says is true. I really wish there was some balance to the board.

However, as a conservative/libertarian type poster, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and answer the OP in good faith.

My list of issues with Bush:

his policy choices

Campaign Finance Reform. He shouldn’t have signed this unconstitutional legislation. Congress and the SCOTUS are both equally to blame, of course, but Bush’s refusal to veto this bill was pure cowardice. IHMO, he didn’t want to take the political heat for an issue that most voters don’t care that much about, even though he knew it was the right thing to do.

Not cutting the size of government more. Bush is trying cut the budgets of 7 of the 16 Cabinet positions, but any money saved is going to the homeland security department and defense budget. He should be cutting everything across the board.

Generally not following up on campaign promises and talk from his speeches. I hear Bush talk about letting younger workers invest portions of social security. I hear Bush talk about vouchers for schools. I hear Bush talk about these things and don’t see much action. We have a Republican controlled House and Senate with a Republican president. These two things should be getting done. He has been talking about them since election.

his personality

Well, I don’t really know the guy. :wink:

I guess his public speaking ability could be called “personality”. Sure, he could be a better speaker, but it doesn’t bother me that he isn’t.

I do wish he were a bit quicker on his feet at a press conference. As president, that is a part of his job and he could be better at it. But, he is improving IMO. Improvements here would also help to ensure that he beats Kerry come November.

his past history

I’m not going to base my vote for him on any past history before he was president, unless something very outrageous was to surface. He is the president now, and I approve of the job he is doing. That is what I will look at, not how well he ran a baseball team years ago.

It’s fishy how his service with the national guard ended. However, it’s still a plus to me that he served in the military and was a fighter pilot. It doesn’t bother me that he got out of going to Vietnam because if I were his age I would have also.

his personal character

His religious beliefs do bother me somewhat. As an atheist, I would love to see a non-religious president. But, that just is not going to happen. Things have been relatively stable on this front. After three years of office abortions aren’t any closer to being illegal, despite Gore’s warnings to the contrary. Faith based initiatives I don’t like. Teaching creationism in school is just plain stupid.

I could probably come up with more if I kept at it. I still agree with Bush a lot more than I disagree with him. I plan on voting for him.

4

Not being a Republican myself I wouldn’t presume to know with certainty, but I’d wager that contrary to common SDMB lore, republicans are not in fact idol worshippers – so of course there are bound to be many things they dislike about Bush.

5

I’m not a Republican, but I did vote for Bush last time. There are plenty of his policies I don’t like (assuming that’s what you mean by “don’t like about him”), and there’s a good chance he won’t get my vote this time because of them. Such as:

  1. Invasion of Iraq
  2. Large defecits
  3. No reduction in the size of gov’t (hasn’t vetoed even one spending bill)
  4. His proposed immigration plan
  5. His support for a ferderal consititutional amendment to ban gay marriage
  6. Detaining US citizens w/o charging them with anything
  7. Supporting Israeli settlements in disputed territories

to name a few. And, as I’ve said many times on this board, he has performed abysmally in the communication area. Not just poorly, abysmally.

6

Just curious, but what specifically about it don’t you like? I was under the impression that you were something of a libertarian: and at least on the economics professor end of that scale, the free movement of labor across borders is often as high a priority as free trade of goods across borders. And Bush’s plan, while not really that ambitious, does seem to be a move in that libertarian direction, though I guess it could have caveats, new restrictions, hidden costs, and room for bureaucracy that it could make the program worse in execution than good in theory for libertarians.

7

Given all the issues you mentioned in your post, exactly what things has he done that you approve of?

8

Yes, I have pretty strong libertarian political beliefs.

But I’ve never fully understood the “libertarian” position on the free movements of people across borders. Once that is instituted, of what use is a country’s borders? Perhaps it could be instituted once the free movement of goods and services was in affect, but that would be the last step in the process, not the first. Additionally, the libertarian stance would entail little or no economic safety net for citizens, and certainly none at all for non-citizens. Come on in, but if you can’t get a job, tough shit.

I’d have no problem with the US and Canada offering free movement of citizens, because we have simliar enough standards of living and similar enough social services. But Mexico’s economy is a mess, mostly due to disasterous governmental policies. I don’t want to see the US become the wefare agent for Mexico.

9

I’m not a republican, rather a moderate/libertarian.

Right now I can’t bring myself to vote for either of the candidates, though that may change in the next 6 months.

My biggest gripes:

  1. Detaining people for 2 years without letting them see a lawyer. I have no problem with holding them and iterrogating them at Gitmo, but eventually, you need to charge these people with something or let them go. If they are as dangerous as the goverment says, they should have no problem convicting them in a trial.
  2. Gay Marriage Ban. I feel that the constitution shouldn’t be altered unless there is pressing need, and this certainly doesn’t fall under “pressing need”. You want to ban gay marriage in your state, fine(though I do think they should be allowed to get married), but tampering with the constitution for reasons of morality leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I have very mixed feelings about Iraq, but I fault him, Rumsfeld and anyone else for not having a plan for what to do after the war was over.

10

This may be true, but I think it worth pointing out that I personally have seen many pundits out there who seem to think Bush (like Reagan before him) can do no wrong. Reading these, it almost makes me think that our current President is more eloquent and charming than Clinton, more clever than Socrates, and is personally touched by God himself. Perhaps this is the kind of “balance” the OP was looking for.

Of course, as you point out, no one here thinks this, because they’re Dopers (thus proving our inherent superiority :D). However, a LOT more people listen to the folks I mention above than read this board, which is an unfortunate turn of events…

11

Well, that’s precisely what a lot of libertarians seem to want to know. What the hell use are they?

Granted: I think that falls under the caveat I outlined: that even if the goal is in line with libertarian principles, the context and the execution basically just both expand the welfare state and put the government even more solidly in the business of stamping, liscensing, taxing, and regulating everyone’s ins and outs.

12

Apos:

Agreed. As much as I agree with the overall libertarian philosophy (give or take a few things), I wouldn’t necessarily want any random libertarian policy to be implemented piecemeal. Some policies, like open borders, would be a disaster if implemented as a stand alone policy in our present governmental structure.

13

Not a Republican, but I’d vote for Bush if I were in the U.S.

Of the things I don’t like about him, by far the #1 would be his inability to control government spending on discretionary items. His decision on steel tariffs was abysmal. The farm subsidy bill. The highway bill is an outrage. He has yet to veto a spending bill.

I don’t like his religious tendencies and how they affect science. His waffling on stem cells, and apparent ease with teaching creationism in school both bother me.

14

Sam:

Keep in mind that the Pubs will almost certainly still control both houses of Congerss regardless of who wins the presidential election. As far as I can tell, they will actually gain a few seats in the House and maybe 1 in the Senate. Pardon my cynicism, but gridlock may be our best hope…

15

Well, I might be talked into the ‘gridlock’ argument, but by far the most important issue facing all of us is global terrorism, and I think Bush is pursuing essentially the correct policy, although sometimes it seems awfully ham-fisted. But that just may be the nature of the intractible beast. Tough problems sometimes lead to imperfect solutions. It’s a lot easier to criticize in hindsight than it is to get it right the first time.

And frankly, I think John Kerry would be a disaster on foreign policy. With one possible exception: If he came to his senses and realized that the only reasonable strategy to pursue would be to stay on the offensive, then he’s going to be much more likely to get other Democrats to buy in, and the Republicans are already there. So the government might act with a little more focus. And a whole bunch of Bush opponents on the SDMB would suddenly get religion and decide that a strong offensive position was actually a good thing, at least now that it’s being done ‘right’.

16

Thats another thread. But, the short answer is “everything else”.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the new drug entitlement. This one would actually top my list of policy items that I disagree with.

17

It would spare the hamsters if I did my usual and simply said I agree with Sam Stone. Bush’s biggest failure to date is his unwillingness to cut domestic spending.

I disliked the steel tariffs, but those have been revoked IIRC. I thought his decison on stem cells was incorrect but based on principle. Bush is pro-life, I am pro-choice. I don’t support the anti-gay marriage amendment, but that isn’t going anywhere, so it doesn’t bother me.

Basically, just spending, particularly the Medicare drug benefit. Too expensive. Although I derive a certain cynical amusement from watching the Democrats who criticized the bill for not going far enough suddenly getting religion on the deficit and saying it costs too much.

Completely true, especially the last sentence. :wink:

But it ain’t gonna happen. Kerry essentially does what he is told, and I don’t think any of his managers is going to push this.

Which is one of the things that worries me the most if he were elected. He will not be able to get anything thru a Republican Congress, and therefore most of his proposed economic stuff is DOA on Capitol Hill, but what if there were another genuiine crisis? What needs to be done had better be very clear and obvious, or he might not do it.

Plus everyone and his brother will assume Kerry can be pushed around. Which, at best, will lead to a bunch of crises as foreign leaders start trying to get away with stuff at the expense of the free world.

Not worth the risk of electing him, but it would be entertaining to watch the flip-flops on the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

18

Please explain that. A move that is contrary to your principles is OK as long as it accords with someone else’s? What’s your definition of “principle”, then?

[quote]
I don’t support the anti-gay marriage amendment, but that isn’t going anywhere, so it doesn’t bother me.
[/quote}There are those, however, who think symbolism is a part of leadership.

You’d get less amusement if you had summarized that position honestly. The deficit is the problem, not any particular item that contributes to it. It isn’t the Medicare “reforms” that are the problem; it’s Bush & Co.'s refusal to pay for it. Gotta prioritize and compromise, ya know, that’s how it works in the adult world.

There used to be a time when the Republicans railed against “unfunded mandates”, but now they’re the primary practitioners of spending without creating revenue.

Sam, you might have a look at the polls showing an already-even and growing objection to the war down here. What you suggest is fantasy. More fantasy. And anyway, the OP asked *Republicans * what they dislike about Bush. What are you again?

Told by whom? Who is “managing” him in your opinion? (And do you really want to compare that situation to Bush’s even if true?) Is that more of what you tried to tell in the Kerry thread; that those who vote for him are being “obedient” to somebody? Seriously, that’s fascinating - in an Abnormal Psychology 101 class kind of way, yes, but fascinating nonetheless.

Now that’s more like it - but isn’t your real worry that a Republican agenda won’t get pushed? To think that proposed gridlock is a problem you have to think it’s worse than what we’ve had from this administration; but again this thread is about what Republicans dislike about Bush.

Except that foreign policy is mostly the executive domain. There is very little an opposition (oppositionist, one might even say) could do to “push him around”.

19

So much for good faith responses from Republicans without dogpiling. ElvisL1ves has just shown up with a criticism of those that participated in the debate but weren’t Republicans, and apparently lacking in any sense of irony. What are you again, dear Elvis?

I don’t think of myself as a Republican, but I’m certainly more conservative than most around here. So, with apologies to Elvis and the other Republicans here, I’ll just mention that most of my criticisms have already been mentioned. So I’ll just recap my top three:

  1. The exploding budget.
  2. Inability to communicate with the opposition. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had the ability – through charm or force of personality – to get the undecideds and even the opposition on board with their policies. The Bushes aren’t strong in that suit. Bush the Younger’s inability to communicate with the American people has even allowed the perception to grow that he’s cut things like the education budget and lowered environmental standards, when the opposite is true. And one of Bush the Younger’s biggest knocks (in my opinion) is the fact that he seems to inspire some sort of irrational hatred in a surprising portion of the population, which I think is directly related to his inability to communicate with that portion of the population. Naturally, that makes it tougher to build governing coalitions.
  3. McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform). I think signing a bill he thought was unconstitutional was a breach of his oath of office.
20

Actually, the Abnormal Psychology crack was over the top and I’ll withdraw it. It’s still hard to understand why you, Shodan, are making such assertions, and an explanation would be appreciated.

AQA, it’s entirely proper to rebut bullshit in any thread for any reason, whoever posted it, as you know. If a post is not based on participation in, and responsibility for, the system under discussion, it automatically has less credibility, doesn’t it? If it’s essentially cheerleading, it can be dismissed outright. If it’s based on factual falsehoods, it can and should be exposed and denounced. When that’s habitual behavior, the poster’s good faith can and should be doubted. Happens a lot to our friend there, too, doesn’t it? The last few things happen a lot to you too, don’t they? As for that cute little disclaimer, if you plan to vote Republican, then you’re functionally a Republican. This isn’t just swapping “viewpoints” or talk-radio soundbites here, ya know. Facts and reasoning are important.

You mentioned “inability to communicate” with the opposition? That’s funny. He’d have to have tried in order for it be called “inability”. It’s simple disdain for any position but his own, isn’t it?