Question for Bush supporters

[clk]

Here's something I've always wanted to ask to Bush supporters: If George W. Bush is a good President, then what would he have to do to be a bad President?


Similarly, what is your opinion of Clinton? Was he a good or bad President? If he was a bad President, why?

 

[John Bentley]

I voted for Bush for only 2 reasons:
1. tax reductions - otherwise, his domestic policies are a hodge podge of pandering bs.
2. his opinion that terrorism can only be fought by removing the leaders and terminating the funding. You can't fight terrorism effectively by simply ignoring them and reacting to attacks when they occur. Nor can you reason with them diplomatically through the UN. - otherwise, his foreign policy is inconsistent and full of pandering bs, as well. If there had been a viable alternative, I would have had a harder time deciding.

Clinton was a slimey critter that I personally disliked, but that certainly wasn't the reason I didn't vote for him. That just made it personally satisfying to vote against him. His main fault was his insatiable appetite for other people's money (largest tax hike in the history of the country) in order to fund more and more "nanny state" domestic agendas. He didn't really seem to have much of a foreign policy, other than as a way to distract the public from his personal life.

 

[Rob Lister]

Here's something I've always wanted to ask to Bush supporters: If George W. Bush is a good President, then what would he have to do to be a bad President?


Similarly, what is your opinion of Clinton? Was he a good or bad President? If he was a bad President, why?

Bush: fairly good president because he is a strong leader. History might make him one of the best or one of the worst, depending on the actual outcome in the Middle East. Probably something in the middle. He certainly has legacy at least as large as Reagan, probably as large as Roosevelt, not as large as Lincoln.

Clinton: Fairly good to very good president because he was a very strong leader. No real legacy that I can see. I liked him for the most part.

Bush (Sr) mildly bad president because he had no vision, and assuminging my suspicions are correct, little desire.

Reagan: Very good president because he was an exceedingly strong leader. Fairly strong legacy.

Carter: Fairly bad president because he was a weak leader. Legacy limited to lessons learned in what not to do/say/imply after actually taking office.

Ford: Not much of an opinion. Weak leader but beaten by a weaker one. No legacy.

Nixon: Tough one. Mixed feelings. Boarding on dislike, mostly for his failure in Viet Nam. That’s his legacy in my view but it is a limited one.

 

[clk]

Rob Lister and John Bentley,

What would Bush have to do for you to think he is a bad President?

 

[toddjh]

I voted for Bush for only 2 reasons:
1. tax reductions - otherwise, his domestic policies are a hodge podge of pandering bs.

Which would you rather someone do: take cash out of your wallet, or run up your high-interest credit cards?

Jeremy

 

[clk]

He didn't really seem to have much of a foreign policy, other than as a way to distract the public from his personal life.

I remember when Clinton launched strikes against Bin Laden, the Republicans attacked Clinton, claming he was 'wagging the dog'. Now many of them claim that he didn't do enough to protect the US from terrorists.

So if Clinton strikes against terrorists, he gets attacked by Republicans. If he doesn't do anything, then he still gets attacked by Republicans. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I remember when Clinton launched strikes against Bin Laden, the Republicans attacked Clinton, claming he was 'wagging the dog'. Now many of them claim that he didn't do enough to protect the US from terrorists.

So if Clinton strikes against terrorists, he gets attacked by Republicans. If he doesn't do anything, then he still gets attacked by Republicans. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Republicans attacking Democrats?! Not fair ? Unbelievable!

 

[Rob Lister]

Rob Lister and John Bentley,

What would Bush have to do for you to think he is a bad President?

There are many, many things he could do. They range from getting caught in bed with Condie Rice* to abandoning Iraq to dissolving the congress. Suffice it to say that all things require context. Shades of gray abound.









*I might forgive that one because, while she's not much to look at, her intellect makes her very, very, sexy.

 

[Luke T.]

Here's something I've always wanted to ask to Bush supporters: If George W. Bush is a good President, then what would he have to do to be a bad President?


Similarly, what is your opinion of Clinton? Was he a good or bad President? If he was a bad President, why?

Bush would have to invade North Korea to be a bad president. With the condition that nothing much changes regarding NK. He would also have to succeed in getting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed. He would also have to institute a military draft.

My opinion of Clinton is that he was a brilliant politician who totally sleazed the decorum of the office of President of the United States which may in the long run have a greater effect on the office than anything anyone else has done since Nixon.

 

[John Bentley]

Rob Lister and John Bentley,
What would Bush have to do for you to think he is a bad President?

He's already done one thing I hate - that boondoggle of a medicare prescription drug bill. We are going to be so sorry for that one! The price tag is escalating every time they calculate it.
He hasn't done another thing that we need: Secure our borders! Don't get me wrong. I'm not a racist and I have no problem with anyone coming into this country legally, as long as they have a job and are not a parasite. That's how most of our ancestors got here.

Which would you rather someone do: take cash out of your wallet, or run up your high-interest credit cards?

I'd rather they keep their hands off of my wallet, and not use my credit cards! At the very least, they should live within their means, and spend money on essentials rather than presents to their loved ones.

 

[billydkid]

What

There are many, many things he could do. They range from getting caught in bed with Condie Rice* to abandoning Iraq to dissolving the congress. Suffice it to say that all things require context. Shades of gray abound.

*I might forgive that one because, while she's not much to look at, her intellect makes her very, very, sexy.

What would him sleeping with Rice have to do with how good or bad a President he is? She is sexy? Pulleeeeze.

 

[HarryKeogh]

wow, a thread where we get to hear what the other side thinks without everyone jumping all over each other. I like this!

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: What

What would him sleeping with Rice have to do with how good or bad a President he is? She is sexy? Pulleeeeze.

That's a two part question, the answers to which are better reserved for another thread...so I'll be brief: 1) he took an oath (to his current wife) not to do things like that and 2) very much so, IMO, once you listen to her speak.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: What

That's a two part question, the answers to which are better reserved for another thread...so I'll be brief: 1) he took an oath (to his current wife) not to do things like that and 2) very much so, IMO, once you listen to her speak.

NBC had a public service commercial some time back where kids were advised to stay in school, "because smart is sexier than stupid any day."

Of course, it was Jennifer Aniston making the pitch, which kinda diluted the message...

Condi is hothothot, and if 1) I didn't love Mrs. BPSCG very much and 2) I thought Condi might like me enough to even consider troubling herself to spit on my shoes, I'd find out where she lives and call her up for a date.

'Course, I'd probably get some unwanted attention from the Secret Service...

Question for you Democrats: Does Hillary do anything for you?

 

[Ladewig]

There are many, many things he could do. They range from getting caught in bed with Condie Rice* to abandoning Iraq to dissolving the congress. Suffice it to say that all things require context.

Yes, all things require context. Before I decided what to think on his getting caught with Condi Rice, I would want to know his response. If he says under oath, "I did not have sex with that woman," then I think we can all agree that he should resign promptly. And by promptly, I mean before the House could change the law so that Republicans are exempt from Constitutional Law (paging Mr. Delay, paging Mr. Delay). On the other hand, if he says, "Yeah, I did her, now shut your pie hole or you'll be next, beeeaitch," I would admire the chutzpah (although deep down I would know that it was the cocaine talking).

 

[Mona]

My views strongly resemble those of John Bentley's. I am not happy with the Medicare prescritpion drug program, and also am not on board with Bush's domestic views, inclduing those on gay marriage. I also favor some border control, but mostly for Muslims, for obvious reasons -- I have no problem with Mexicans as long as they will work.

I voted for George Bush for reasons of foreign policy. To a lesser extent, I also prefer the GOP making appts to the federal bench, because these do not tend to compel taxing and spending, or social engineering programs that I oppose. But mostly, my vote was for a strong leader against Islamic terrorists and their totalitarian nation-states. Kerry was a pussy, and a dangerous dilletante of one.

What would Bush have to do to render him a bad president? Well, many things come to mind, but I don't consider them likely. I mean, he could carpet-bomb Canada for its increasingly reasonable drug policy, but I doubt he'll be doing that.

 

[Rose]

I voted for Bush. I think he's an ok president, though I consider him about average so far overall. To rate as a bad president to me, he'd have to a) further extend our military in other operations. He's stretched them to the limit now, but I think there is sufficient justification for now. b) he'd have to start vacillating. One of his strengths is that he sets his goals and works towards them. If I see Bush suddenly altering his policies to get a few extra percentage points in his approval ratings, that will finish him for me. c) If he moves much further on erasing the separation of church and state. This is the aspect of Bush I am most uncomfortable with. I recognise that religious beliefs have an affect on how people will act. In Bush's case, I don't think he percieves the true dangers involved in moving towards a theocracy, though I also don't think he has any aspirations on consciously creating such a government here. And I think Bush has a lot more to prove in this four year cycle. 9/11 shook up a lot of things, and he's been playing catchup in a way. Now he has four years to prove his policies are the correct way to go.

Clinton as president. Great guy to have over, as long as your niece isn't around. Very charismatic, but I'd check for my wallet after he left my immediate area. As a president, not at all impressive. His biggest accomplishment was keeping his hands off the economy as much as possible. On an international front an utter failure. Ignored Iraq, piddled our forces here and there, used gestures instead of solid action when called for, and spent way too much time following the polls instead of leading. But being married to Hillary should be almost punishment enough for any faults he does have.

 

[clk]

I guess it's only fair that I provide a reason as to why I think Bush is a bad President. I think his domestic and foreign policies have been failures overall.
1. Domestic policy-Why do I think it has been a failure? Well, for several reasons. One reason is that I think the tax cuts he passed were the wrong type of tax cuts and were largely ineffective. How does giving money to rich people simulate the economy? I'm sure his tax cuts helped to some extent, but just about any tax cut will help the economy, the question is of degree. Passing a boatload of small business tax cuts would have been a better idea. Another thing he could have done is he could have provided tax cuts to small businesses buying computer equipment...this would have helped small businesses AND the ailing technology industry at the same time. Or he could have outlined a plan to bring broadband internet to every corner of this country. Or Bush could have taken away tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, as Kerry had outlined. This would have created more jobs at home while increasing revenues for the government. Again, this would have helped the economy much more than the tax cuts that he passed. Also, the economic gain caused by the Bush tax cuts may be ultimately erased because of the drag on the deficit they are causing. A large deficit will hurt the economy. Greenspan said so himself:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6529487/

Also, Bush's war in Iraq hurt the economy. This coupled with the reasons above, are why I think his economic policy has been bad.

Domestic policy is not just economic policy, obviously. The second reason I think Bush is a bad domestic President is because of the division he has caused. After 9/11, the country was united like never before. In two short years, Bush managed to turn the greatest unity into the greatest divide so that he could pursue his flawed foreign agenda. Inexcusable. I mean, wouldn't it actually be difficult to divide the country after it's so united? If I didn't know any better, I would say that he tried to divide the country, but I know that's not the case...it's just that he's incompetent.
There are many other reasons I dislike his domestic agenda...notice I have not even talked about the Patriot Act, or his enviornmental policies, or his divisive political policies (like outing CIA agents to get political revenge)


2. Foreign policy- Bush's foreign policy has been a failure because of Iraq. At the time Bush went to war, here were the top threats to the US, in my opinion:
1. Al Queda
2. Saudi Arabia
3. North Korea
4. Iran
Coming in at a distant 5th is Iraq. This isn't something I'm saying in hindsight...many people said from the beginning that Saudia Arabia is a far bigger threat than Iraq. But instead of dealing with Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Iran, Bush went to war with Iraq, which was an indirect threat to the US at best. Even if Saddam had WMDs, there was no way he could or would attack the US directly. At best, he would have given away WMDs to terrorists, and there was nothing he could have really gained from doing this.
After the weapons inspection process started, it became evident that Saddam had no WMDs. That meant that Saddam wasn't even an indirect threat. So why invade him and lose 1000 Americans and $200 billion? What was Saddam going to attack us with, spitballs?

Another reason I dislike Bush's foreign policy is because of what it has done to the US reputation around the world. Clinton made America one of the most respected and prosperous nations during his tenure. In countries like India, Clinton is incredibly well respected. There were not many countries outside the Middle East that despised the US during Clinton's term.
In 3 short years, Bush changed that and made America one of the most hated countries in the world. Again, Bush managed to turn the greatest unity of the world (after 9/11) into the greatest divide so that he could pursue his flawed foreign policy agenda. Again, this is inexcusable.
Those are just a few reasons I dislike Bush's foreign policy. Notice I did not talk about Abu Ghraib or Bush's complete mismanagement of the war.


I still cannot understand why so many people like Bush. Quite frankly, Bush's incompetence is mind boggling. And he ran on a ticket of being a uniter. Yeah right. He is probably the most divisive figure in the past 40 years, alteast.

 

[John Bentley]

So many fallacies, so little time. Not that I disagree about a lot of what you said, but some of it is just egregiously wrong. So:

How does giving money to rich people simulate the economy?

The government does not give money to the rich with the tax breaks. It simply doesn't take as big a cut from their income. If I make 10 times more money than you, I should pay 10 times more taxes (actually, I'm against income taxes altogether, but for the sake of argument...) not 33 times the taxes, as is the case now. Now if you want to talk about government give-away programs, let's talk about tax "rebates" to people who pay no taxes, or that Ponzi scheme known as Social Security and Medicare.

Passing a boatload of small business tax cuts would have been a better idea.

The devil is in the details. First you have to define what a small business is, then figure out the rules to qualify, yada, yada... It would probably be almost impossible to get a recognizable bill through Congress, and our tax code is byzantine enough as it is.

Or he could have outlined a plan to bring broadband internet to every corner of this country.

And who exactly do you want to pay for that?

Or Bush could have taken away tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, as Kerry had outlined. This would have created more jobs at home while increasing revenues for the government.

Maybe, or it could have unintended consequences such as drastic increases in wage costs for businesses which result in rising unemployment and drastic inflationary pressures on American made consumer goods. This in turn, could cause increased demand for foreign made goods, widening of the trade deficit, and causing even more unemployment in American manufacturing industry.

Also, the economic gain caused by the Bush tax cuts may be ultimately erased because of the drag on the deficit they are causing. A large deficit will hurt the economy. Greenspan said so himself:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6529487/

Lots of differing opinions on this one, but my own opinion is that deficits should be eliminated by spending cuts, not increasing the cut the government takes out of the money I make.

Also, Bush's war in Iraq hurt the economy.

Absolutely.

The second reason I think Bush is a bad domestic President is because of the division he has caused. After 9/11, the country was united like never before. In two short years, Bush managed to turn the greatest unity into the greatest divide so that he could pursue his flawed foreign agenda. Inexcusable. I mean, wouldn't it actually be difficult to divide the country after it's so united?

Wow. Did it all by himself, did he? No help from the news media who hated the very thought of a Republican president, the Democrats who hated the fact that they had lost enormous power in both the executive and legislative branches of government?

Now on foreign policy, I agree with your threat assessment list. Unfortunately, the invasion of Iraq turned out to be unnecessary for the safety of Americans, but I believe that is 20/20 hindsight. I blame the CIA and Washington policy wonks more for that mistake. Like it or not, though, we did it, and now we have to follow up on it.

 

[circuit slave]

Here's something I've always wanted to ask to Bush supporters: If George W. Bush is a good President, then what would he have to do to be a bad President?


Similarly, what is your opinion of Clinton? Was he a good or bad President? If he was a bad President, why?

There's the major thing he could do and that's pull out of Iraq and cave to the pressure. I mean just leave. He could also negotiate the hostage takers. He could also raise taxes like his daddy--that wouldn't be to good.


Clinton wasn't really a bad president--I voted for him once. He he was more of a failed president.