I thought that would be obvious. I already know the arguments against Bush; what I want to know are the arguments in favor of the guy.
Not that I’m chainging my opinion, natch, 
but I want to know how things look for the folks wearing the George-tinted glasses. 
The thing that will get Bush re-elected will be the Democratic party. All the Dems are doing right now is ripping each other to shreds but when the fighting ends, they will act like none of it happened. Problem is, the voters won’t forget the negative attacks made against the candidate. Al Sharpton attacking Dean for hiring zero minorities will not be forgotten by minority voters.
Offer people a better alternative and they will flock to it. Clinton came from practically nowhere and beat Bush I. Is there a Dem candidate waiting in the wings to do the same to Bush II?
Funnily enough I think that the conservatives here are doing a pretty good job of arguing a Bush loss. Saying “the other guy will be worse” rarely if ever works in elections. Not to mention the fact that a lot of their information is false (IE Dean did hire minorities and tried to hire minorities for senior posts, but none of the ones he tried were interested) And the whole comment about Dean claiming he was anti-war when he has been claiming the opposite.
Anywais I think that the best arguement for voting for Bush would be that their personal situation has improved while Bush is president. Now obviously this would be untrue for many more people than it was true for, but that is still a reason for some people.
The reason I’ll (probably) vote for him is, like very other election I’ve been a part of, he’s the lesser of two evils.
I wasn’t really thrilled with him in 2000, but I was by far less enamored with Gore.
And right now, most of the Democrats I read about sound like an only-mildly-toned-down Diogenes; “Illegal” war, “stealing their oil”, “stole the election”, “destroying the country”, comparing Bush to Hitler, “murdering” our soldiers, “in the back pocket of big business”, ad nauseum.
Bush might not be my best choice, but the Democrats haven’t put forth anyone better. Campaigns always involve a modicum of hearsay about “my opponent did this or that Bad Thing” but so far, that’s ALL we’ve seen from the Dems.
And that’s NOT what I look for in a President.
The Long Road:
This is no different than any other primary. Candidates in the same party snipe at each other and then rally after the convention. People do forget (or at least discount) the sniping, and then go on to vote for their preferred candidate (or the lesser of two evils).
I don’t think it’s obvious at all. What specific data do you have that makes you think it is?
Joe Lieberman doesn’t support Israel? Why do you say that?
I do not hate Bush and I have voted Democratic in every election since I was eighteen. Were Gephardt to be the choice of the Democratic party I may even consider voting for him.
While I am with the crowd in agreeing that the war in Iraq is a foolish adventure, I have been pleased with several of his policies as President. His pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa was surprising and made him the first President to allocate significant money to a disease that threatens to destroy Africa. I will grant you that the money isn’t there yet, but at least he started the process.
His recent initiative to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants was a tough political stance to defend against criticism from his own party and took courage. The Republican party has become increasingly nativist over the past decade, and anyone willing to stem that tide gets some respect from me.
His Mars initiative, though much mocked, is welcome in my corner. Man has a natural need to explore. There will always be uses for the money on earth, that alone is not reason to dismantle the space program. The development of science is the most important use of our intellectual capital. Increasing our reach into space is a worthy use of our resources.
Finally, I believe in free trade. I believe in it almost without condition. I don’t mourn the loss of manufacturing jobs when they can be performed more efficiently overseas. I would like to see subsidies to inefficient business repealed altogether, but I realize that is a long ways off. Bush is not perfect, or even near perfect in this regard. He is however, a hell of a lot better than Gephardt and Kucinich with their naive and pandering views on free trade.
I likely will not vote for him, because I cannot stomach most of his views on social issues. I find Ashcroft and his desire to turn America into a land without privacy deplorable. I just wanted to put a voice in to say that, as partisan as we get here, he is responsible for some good along with the foolishness.
Bless you, fruitbat, for your wonderful post.
Others have done a fine job of dealing with your other points, but this silly lil’ thing has gone overlooked.
Funny you should mention Lay, since Andrew Fastow and his wife recently copped a guilty plea under which they will cooperate with prosecutors. That means the prosecution of Lay and Skilling are moving ahead, since a big part of reeling in the big fishes is making the little fishes start talking. In a complicated case like Enron, these things take time. The fact that it’s taken awhile doesn’t mean criminal charges aren’t eventually forthcoming.
As for Gates, one wonders what the fuck you’re talking about. I assume you’re referring to the antitrust case, which is stupid – even if you believe every last tidbit of the government’s case against Microsoft, Gates himself isn’t criminally liable for anything. At worst, the kinds of things Microsoft has been accused of would lead to government action against the company (see, e.g., the breakup of Ma Bell), and not against Gates personally.
No, but Joe would hopefully understand the idea that if costs are just transferred down the ladder (and to the future) so that taxes at that level are raised on him then the President’s policies are still responsible.
This idea that there is just this bunch of free money around so that we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and everyone is happier is kind of stupid. Once people are made to realize the Bush taxes they are and will be paying then they will realize that this was never about cutting the taxes for everyone and really about transferring the tax burden from the wealthy down to the rest. Whether this realization actually occurs to a great enough extent before the next election remains to be seen.
Not if Joe lives in CA. You and I went at it awhile back about whether the Feds should align the Fed tax structure with the states or vice versa. I don’t think there’s much point in rehashing that-- I’m very comfortable with the idea that it’s incumbent on the states to follow in this area. But if you’re game, so am I…
Yes the “increase spending” part is, and I aready noted that Joe will probably not give the Republicans a pass on this next time around.
Excellent point, including that about Gates. I would hate to be Ken Lay or Skelling just waiting for that knock on the door and knowing that I didn’t have anyone to roll-over on to get a reduction in charges or sentencing. Martha is another good example.
fruitbat also made some excellent points, especially considering s/he is not a supporter of Bush.
The things you’ve given him credit for are all words so far, with no followup and no tangible results. That hasn’t taken any courage or even the spending of any political capital. Not everything you’ve given him credit for simply saying is even right - AIDS was getting attention before and much of the money he said almost 3 years ago that he’d spend on it would have been simply transferred from other humanitarian budgets. For anyone who believes in free trade, his actions on steel and grain are, shall we say, odd.
It isn’t that simple; manufacturing has a tremendous multiplier factor in both jobs and new technologies that are lost along with the jobs themselves, but you’re generally right; free trade is better than protectionism.
And that might matter if either man had a snowball’s chance of getting the nomination, or if either’s views reflected the moderate mainstream that is the core of the Democratic party.
So what has Bush done (not just said) that he gets credit for? The subjugation of the Taliban, as far as it went and as temporary as it may turn out to be, was necessary and he did it. What else? I dunno. A nearly-apolitical co-worker puts it: “All I know is, as soon as he came in, everything turned to shit.”
Well, if Bush wants the states to adopt a more progressive taxation system, then I am sure he could use the bully-pulpit of the Presidency to make that happen. And, of course, if he gave the states sufficient funds to deal with the increased mandates due to security and other things, the states may not be forced to raise taxes or propose a bond act to just postpone the issue.
The fact is that the net effect of the Bush tax cuts is going to be (or already is to a large degree) a transfer of tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class. You can argue 'til you are blue in the face that this is not Bush’s fault and blah-blah-blah. But, that is simply what is going to happen when you cut the most progressive taxes hitting people in a pretty neutral way. One has to live in the real world where policies have consequences…Not in some la-la land where in theory the states could restructure all of their tax systems to be more progressive and money could fall from the sky to help them pay for greater security and education mandates, etc., etc.
It’s not like these people in the Administration are stupid and have no idea what they are doing. They know damn well what they are doing (at least some in the Administration); they simply can’t be complete idiots. And, they are doing it out of ideology…The same sort of ideology that leads the WSJ editorial page to whine about the “lucky duckies” who don’t pay federal income tax because they are too poor to and to whine about the increasing share of the federal tax burden borne by the richest 1% (without bothering to note that the reason this share has increased is because their share of the income has increased even more rapidly).
I’d like to say you’re right, because I think a big part of California’s energy and financial crisis can be laid on Enron’s doorsteps, but at the moment, the layman’s view of the matter is that George’s pal “Kenny boy” is getting away scott-free. Meanwhile, other corporate crooks like Martha Stewart get trussed up and plastered on the front page of the newspapers lickety-split. Why can’t the same efficiency be applied to folks who are pals of the Pres?
Sure, but “Microsoft and Ken Lay” doesn’t scan as well, being two dissimilar nouns. 
In any event, we’re still left with the glaring notion that a convicted monopolist is getting off the hook with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and plays into the overall impression that the Bush Administration is more interested in shielding George’s billionare friends instead of taking care of the average citizen.
I will grant that I am stretching here. Not being a Bush supporter and all, this is difficult for me. I would disagree by saying that words can use up political capital. I think we would all agree that if Bush said he supported gay marriage, even if he did nothing to further the aim, he would use vast reserves of political capital. Drawing the nation’s attention to problems in Africa uses his bully pulpit in a way I frankly did not expect.
I certainly agree, and find his actions deplorable. The Democrat contenders might just be far worse. Kucinich is certainly a non-entity, but Gephardt is an important figure in the party. I wouldn’t trust him to balance my checkbook. I would argue that Bush’s positions on trade are less protectionist than most of the Democratic candidates. No candidate is perfect.
Bush’s actual achievements are pretty ephemeral. His vanquishing of the Taliban was efficiently done, but does little to distinguish him. Any President would have been forced to take the same actions. On the tax front, his gradual elimination of the marriage penalties and some of his capital gains and dividend tax cuts made sense from a fairness point of view.
Finally, his amnesty for illegal aliens required an actual action that made a difference in millions of lives. Recently I feel like he is campaigning in some alternate universe. I can’t imagine he is solidifying his base by promising Mars and bringing illegal aliens into the mainstream. I have warmed to him recently because these actions don’t carry the stench on pandering and political maneuvering.
As a resident of Washington DC, my vote doesn’t much matter anway. I have the luxury of voting for a third party if I don’t like either of my two principal choices. That seems like the most likely course at this point.
It’s a crazy world where this would be true, but Bush and the Republicans are now officially the party of big government spending. Under their watch, spending has gone up at a higher rate (it actually went down under the Clinton/Republican House combo). It’s gone up in defense and on entitlements, but even if you write those off as necessary and inevitable, it’s still gone up. Nationally, Republican legislatures outspend Democratic ones (though not by a very high factor). You might make a case that Democrats would spend more, and that certainly seems to be the proposal of the Dem candidates (though how much they promise and what they actually deliver are two different things). But the fact is that under Clinton and a more Democratic Congress, far less was spent than has been spent under Bush and the Republican dominated Congress.
I think, basically, it boils down to the fact that the Republicans really are the party of the rich and well connected, and have a lot more expensive pork to be payed back.
In both cases, these things are likely to bring in key votes without losing him too much elsewhere. If you don’t think those two moves were political, you haven’t been paying attention.
Yes, but there is a vast difference between him saying he’d support gay marriage and him saying he’s against AIDs. The first would alienate a lot of his base. The latter won’t alienate very many people except a few real loonies. And, it makes him look good to the general public. That is what this President is all about…talking a good moderate game to appease people who don’t notice that how extremist many of his policies are. I mean this President is wonderful if you just listen to his words…He is concerned about climate change, he wants to make the skies clearer and the forests healthier, etc., etc. It’s just when you look behind the words to the policies that things really start to suck!
We’re living in an Orwellian world these days. You can’t just look at what is being said and take comfort in it unless you feel that ignorance is bliss!
Extremist policies such as…? If ‘many’ of his policies are extremist, I am sure you will not have trouble pointing out one?
GW launches an initiative to fight AIDS in Africa? He must be robbing other programs to accomplish that! Sure, you don’t actually have a cite for that, but gut feelings should be enough in GD! Dot.com bubble burst? Bush’s cronies in action! Hey, who cares that it happened under Clinton’s watch? California enacts moronic legislation that cripples its energy sector? Holy poop! The fell hand of GW flipped out the lights in Cali! :rolleyes:
You guys are going through more contortions than the Cirque de Soleil in your efforts (weak though they be) to attack this administration.