I see. “Some” of those things were said by Bush and “some” weren’t. “Some” of those thing turned out to be false and “some” didn’t.
Wow. You’ve really bowled me over with your command of the facts.
So, tell me. Which major claim(s) for the war did turn out to be true? Instead of just denying everything, let’s see you build a case, OK?
I’m too tired to go into the whole what Bush knew and didn’t. But, let me put it to you this way, if I knew that a lot of what he said going into the war was shit, he should have known it too. But, assuming he didn’t lie and was sincerely deluded, then we’re still stuck with a president who can’t find his own ass using both hands.
First, I’m a she, not a he Second, Reagan was in office between the time I was four and twelve, so I wasn’t very tuned into politics when he was around, so I have no idea, really, how people other than my parents and grandfather saw him (and boy was grampy not a fan!). Nancy’s drug commericals stick in my mind a whole lot more than anything Reagan said or did that didn’t involve the cold war, which I only vaguely understood at that point. Third, well, I notice threads like this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245295&highlight=Bush and this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235908&highlight=Bush and this http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242043&highlight=Bush in which conservatives admit their disatification with Bush, and looking around I don’t see many liberals admitting there’s any conservative they might/might have voted for, or dicussing their disillusionment with Kerry. ::shrugs:: Perhaps it’s like one of those illusion pictures, you see the pretty young woman, I see the old hag. Preception is a funny thing.
Of course liberals are disillusioned with Kerry. The difference is, they still want very much to vote for him out of sheer shock and horror at the thought of 4 more years of W.
As an exceedingly liberal Republican (in addition to being hated by everyone), I would much rather have seen McCain run in 2000. I would have voted for him way ahead of Gore, and I only voted for Gore because he was the lesser of two evils. Hell, I would have rather seen Bob Dole run in 2000. I would rather strap Ronnie back into the chair and let someone wipe up his drool every so often. At least he had a brain, which is leaps and bounds ahead of Bush.
I hated Clinton a lot, but Bush opened up entire new magnitudes of hatred. I never thought I’d ever, ever, ever say this as of 2000-2001ish, but I would rather Clinton could have taken a third term.
That’s what I’m challenging you on. He does not share your principles, call them beliefs if you like, on this issue, and in fact holds the opposite position. Yet you’re willing to count his opposition to your principles as a *plus * just because he seems sincere about it? How the hell do you twist your mind into such a pretzel? You say you admire the “character” that goes into it - but then how do you say you wouldn’t just follow *anyone * who happened to believe something, even the opposite of what you do?
None of these were influenced in any significant way by the existence of an opposition Congress, a condition which has been the norm for a good many decades. Make your point, please.
Perhaps so. But that’s only potential. Bush *has * been disastrously bad in foreign policy, and there’s no good reason to think he’d improve in a second term, especially not with Powell gone. But, in more pretzel logic, you’d support someone who you *know * will be bad over someone who might not be?
Well, there is a reason for that and his name of George W. Bush. Remember how he claimed to be a uniter and not a divider. Well, in an odd way he was right…He has united the opposition. Usually, if you have ten Democrats in a room, you’ll find them supporting 11 different candidates and having 15 different opinions. But, GW has united us.
Sure there might be things that I don’t like about Kerry. I’m probably much more aligned in my views with Kucinich or Nader. But, I am behind Kerry 100% because that is how dangerous it is to have Bush stay in power.
IAMNA Republican. I think Bush is a distaster. However, this post is a mini-hijack, and not about Bush. If you add up what all the Republicans in this thread have said that is negative to say about Bush, you’ll end up about where I am.
Instead, I’d rather respond to some of the assertations made by some airheads about Kerry.
He has not advocated withdrawal from Iraq. Quite the contrary. If some of you Kerry-carpers paid attention you’d realize this is one of the big reasons why some Democracts aren’t altogether happy with him. What he does advocate is convincing more of our powerful allies (France, Germany, Russia, China) to do much more to aid the reconstruction effort in Iraq. He made this point quite clearly and persuasively in a speech yesterday: he believes pulling out of Iraq would be an international disaster, and he is quite forceful about it.
Anyone who thinks Kerry can be pushed around is a fool. The young decorated veteran who protested vociferously against the Vietnam war is still who he is. A much more mature and thoughtful version of that young man, to be sure, but only a political moron would think he (or she) can push Kerry around.
As someone many peeps around here would call a “liberal” (although I don’t really think I am one), I am happy to support Kerry. I think he will be an excellent president. I was concerned about him when he first was clearly going to win the nomination, after listening to all the blowhard criticism, but after following his campaign closely ever since, it is clear to me that he is fully capable of winning the election and being a terrific president. He’s cool under fire, he sticks to guns, he thinks through his positions, and he has a formidable grasp of both domestic and foreign policy. I agree with the majority of his policy positions. I wouldn’t support him or consider voting for him (even against Bush) if I didn’t believe this about him.
Frankly, I swear a lot of the Kerry-bashing on this board makes sense only if the people who bash have spent exactly zero amount of time following his campaign. No one who followed Kerry’s campaign would think that Kerry advocates pulling back from our aggressive positioning against terrorism, or even pulling out of Iraq.
I don’t think this is a fair line. Republicans aren’t necessarily a monolithic group (though many of them certainly are under Bush). There are a number of Republicans I’d rather see than Bush.
Not enough, it seems.
I don’t know much about Kucinich, but I do know that I agree a lot with him. However, I’ll do everything in my power to ensure that Bush gets out of office, and that includes betting on the most likely horse to win. Le sigh.
Well, Bush has managed to divide the GOP into “Bush at all costs” Republicans and “Get rid of this non-conservative poser hijacking our party” Republicans. But while Republicans are not a monolithic group, I think it’s fair to say that in the last twenty years or so, the party’s been slowly dominated by the win-at-all-costs mudslinging Christian fundamentalist wing – the whole “Reagan Revolution” thing.
So would I, but none of them are running, or even have a snowball’s chance of being nominated.
Second, Reagan was in office between the time I was four and twelve, so I wasn’t very tuned into politics when he was around, so I have no idea, really, how people other than my parents and grandfather saw him (and boy was grampy not a fan!). Nancy’s drug commericals stick in my mind a whole lot more than anything Reagan said or did that didn’t involve the cold war, which I only vaguely understood at that point. Third, well, I notice threads like this 