# What would the state of US politics be like now if Bush was competant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290 "2006-11-30T04:51:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/41 "2006-12-04T19:44:10Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Then people will say things about McCain like: [/QUOTE] The last thing McCain needs to worry about are what the Democrats say about him. I believe that the Republicans are going to be the ones that stick the knife in his back in 2008 and that there is no way that he will get the nomination. He IS a whore, but Democrats need not concern themselves with him. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/42 "2006-12-05T14:00:05Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Um, dude, are you seriously trying to claim that John McCain and Colin Powell have not been “associated with Bush in any way”? For example, in case you’ve forgotten, Powell used to be Bush’s **Secretary of State**. [/quote] No, exactly the opposite - the instant McCain moved closer to Bush (as you yourself admitted) the more you hated him. > [@](#): > > The rest of your attempted explanation is just True Scotsman fallacy: you claim that merely being a Republican is what gets Bush so hated, but the reason that Republicans like Powell and McCain aren’t equally hated is because they aren’t **real** Republicans. Uh-huh. :rolleyes: Nope, also mistaken. The closer they get to the Presidency, and the more they act like Republicans, the more they would be hated. If McCain ever gets elected, he will be hated with the same knee-jerk fervor as Bush. > [@](#): > > Hey, I never said that I personally was a big fan of McCain. Correct. He is a Republican, so you hated him from the get-go. The more he tries to appeal to Republicans, the more you hate him, as your post makes clear. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say that “your list was mere Democrat bashing”; in fact, the thread I linked to was specifically **about** selecting a list of the three worst Presidents in American history, so there is nothing “bashy” about having produced such a list. Here, of course, you are telling a fairly straightforward lie - > [@Kimstu](#): > > why should we consider your denigration of Clinton and Carter as anything more substantive and serious than mere partisan Democrat-hating? Rule of thumb - once a liberal starts back-pedalling and lying about what she has said, that is as close as we are going to get to an admission of defeat and the debate is over. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/43 "2006-12-05T17:08:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, exactly the opposite - the instant McCain moved closer to Bush (as you yourself admitted) the more you hated him. Nope; you completely misunderstood what I said. What I disdained in McCain’s cozying up to Bush was his tame willingness to overlook the nasty, unethical ways Bush attacked him in the 2000 primary campaign. (I would also not describe myself as actually “hating” even Bush, although I certainly have a very low opinion of his abilities or performance as President, and I definitely wouldn’t say I “hate” McCain.) > [@Shodan](#): > > The closer they get to the Presidency, and the more they act like Republicans, the more they would be hated. If McCain ever gets elected, he will be hated with the same knee-jerk fervor as Bush. Ah, now you’re saying something different: namely, you think that Bush is hated because he’s a Republican **President** , not just because he’s a Republican. You should have been more clear about that from the start. (Of course, it doesn’t bolster your argument much, because even some other Republican Presidents such as Ford and the elder Bush have not attracted anywhere near the animosity that the current one has.) Your remark about “acting like Republicans” is still just True Scotsman fallacy, though. A politician is either a member of the Republican Party or not. If what liberals hate in ( **some** ) Republican politicians is a certain set of attitudes or policies that you want to call “acting like Republicans”, then they’re not hating them just for **being** Republicans, because some Republicans adhere to those attitudes/policies and some don’t. > [@Shodan](#): > > Here, of course, you are telling a fairly straightforward lie - […] > Rule of thumb - once a liberal starts back-pedalling and lying about what she has said, that is as close as we are going to get to an admission of defeat and the debate is over. Sorry to interfere with your dash for the exit, but where exactly is the lie that you’re claiming I committed? I said quite clearly that while I **don’t** think you made up a list of “three worst Presidents” just to Democrat-bash (since after all, making up such a list was exactly the point of the thread in question), I think your inclusion of Clinton and Carter on that list is a pretty extreme negative criticism of them. And the point is that somebody who was willing to use your own low standards of debate, by which you sweepingly dismiss extreme negative criticisms of Bush as mere Republican-bashing, could just as easily sweepingly dismiss your extreme negative criticisms of Clinton and Carter as mere Democrat-bashing. Now do you understand? I can keep explaining if you still don’t get it, but I kind of get a feeling that you’re just looking for an excuse to end this argument without acknowledging that you were wrong about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/44 "2006-12-05T21:56:31Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > However, I do think that he wants to control spending. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] All of his actions show exactly the opposite. [/QUOTE] Well, Bush hasn’t done enough to control spending, in the sense that he hasn’t used his polical clout to try and get congress to control it. But, it is congress that is guilty of the spending. Bush’s proposed budgets have always had decreases in spending. It’s not until the budget gets to congress that it gets fattened up. (Not that I’m saying Bush has done enough, mind you. Just that there is _some_ evidence that he would prefer lower spending if he had his way with it.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/45 "2006-12-05T23:22:53Z")
[QUOTE=Debaser] Bush’s proposed budgets have always had decreases in spending. [/QUOTE] Cite? [Countercite](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html). **Kimstu** , you do know you’re wasting your time, right? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/46 "2006-12-06T00:30:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Kimstu, you do know you’re wasting your time, right? Eh, just call me a dedicated ignorance-fighter. As long as he wants to continue making sloppy arguments, I’m willing to continue pointing out where they’re sloppy. If he wants to drop it, we can drop it. (Or if the OP and/or the mods request that it be dropped, natch.) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290/47 "2006-12-06T16:34:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Bush’s proposed budgets have always had decreases in spending. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Cite? [Countercite](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html). [/QUOTE] Uh, you should read your own cites, **Elvis** … > [@](#): > > President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion federal budget yesterday that is designed to project U.S. power and priorities overseas while squeezing government programs at home but would not make a sizable dent in the nation’s record deficit next year, **despite politically painful cuts.** > > While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget for the 2006 fiscal year would slash funding for a broad array of other government services \*\*as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. \*\* > > … > > But as Bush targeted popular programs for farmers, low-income children and police departments, the reaction on Capitol Hill immediately signaled a tough slog for his budget. Democrats leapt to attack, and Republicans responded cautiously with an eye on their favorite programs facing the budget ax. That article backs up what I was saying. Bush tries to cut spending in some ways (albeit not with much enthusiasm) in his budgets, and it’s congress who looks at him like he’s nuts for wanting to take away all the free government handouts from the sick kids and poor farmers. If Bush’s budgets had all been passed as intended for the past six years, I think spending would have increased at only about the same overall rate as inflation, with domestic spending being cut and military and homeland defense spending being increased. That’s certainly true for the 2006 numbers from that cite, but IIRC that’s been the case for just about all of Bush’s budgets. It’s when congress gets ahold of them that they swell up like an tick on an artery. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-state-of-us-politics-be-like-now-if-bush-was-competant/382290.md?page=2)