I mentioned in a comment yesterday that I regretted voting for George Bush and someone replied by asking me about that and if I thought John Kerry would have been a better choice.
I did vote for George W. Bush in both 2000 and in 2004. In 2000, Bush seemed like a pretty down to earth guy, pragmatically conservative when compared to other prominent Republicans, and appeared to have good business and management sense. I was of course in the majority in that opinion. (stolen elections, hanging chads, and the Illuminati aside)
So what happened? Why the disallusionment?
Actual policy initiatives under Bush have been a mixed bag (and I'm probably generous in saying that). Contrary to his supposed fiscal conservativism, domestic spending increased under Bush, highlighted by the Prescription Drug Bill that will end up costing far more than the administration claimed. Many fiscal conservatives will point to the Bush tax cuts as a victory, but tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are completely irresponsible.
Many Republicans will point to positive economic indicators as proof of Bush's sucess while Democrats will point to negative economic indicators to say otherwise. The truth though is that positive economic growth probably benefits more from government inaction and gridlock than anything else. The Clinton era is proof of that.
Even more disturbing that any actual policies have been Bush's decision-making process and the insular nature of his administration. It is one thing to have confidence and belief in one's own values. It is quite another thing to be unable to take a critical view of one's positions and be willing to understand one's opponents. Bush has shown neither the ability nor the inclination. Combine this with the blind loyalty that Bush shows to those around him (and yes I do mean blind) and you have the recipe for P.R. blunders like Harriet Myers and the recent U.S. Attorneys scandal.
Of course by now the idea of Bush as someone with great business and management sense should be readily apparent as an illusion. How well did the Bush administration manage the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? While I don't view our federal government as messiah, the performance of the Bush administration and especially "Brownie" should disuade those who think of Bush as a master manager.
And then there is the War on Terror.
In the weeks after 9/11, Bush appeared to many to be just the right person for the times. So much promise.
Yet so much heartache.
Like many right-leaning people, I believed that we were doing the right thing when we invaded Iraq. I was wrong.
Not that there weren't some valid and legitimate reasons for doing so. Contrary to many on the Left, there were legitimate and legal grounds for invading Iraq and Bush wasn't the first to think so. However, the planning (or lack thereof) of the invasion and occupation of Iraq will be a textbook example for decades to come of how NOT to do it. Any Republican or conservative who believes that everything has gone according to plan is blinded by partisanship.
Unfortunately we are to the point where most rhetoric on Iraq is juvenile and unhelpful. "Those who would have us pull out of Iraq are unwittingly encouraging our enemies" is simply a slur. "We must pull out of Iraq now!" ignores our responsibility for the mess we have been largely responsible for.
I certainly don't have the answers to the problems in Iraq and the Middle East. They are very complicated. Much of my frustration with Bush has been his unwillingness to recognize how complicated the Middle East and that there are no easy answers. In both word and posture, Bush has taken a very cavalier approach.
Beyond the direct engagement in Iraq, the manner in which the Bush administration has viewed legal rights in the War on Terror should be disturbing to all. Should we not fear a government that can "disappear" people without any due process or accountability? Is there any limit to government surveillance on American citizens in the name of fighting terrorism?
I have also become frustrated with the positioning of Bush as a great Christian leader. I cannot and do not pass any judgement upon Bush's heart and his motives. God knows that mine are often suspect. But it seems as if Bush's support of "Christian" political positions have often been only symbolic and intended to get out the vote. And it seems as if Christians have been encouraged to blindly support all of Bush's positions simply because he is a Christian. I know too many conservative Christians who blindly support Bush and "family values" without actually considering the substance of his policies.
Nor does it seem that Bush has shown much compassion during his term in office. I actually don't believe that government is capable or tasked with "showing compassion". But I do believe that leaders can show compassion and understanding to their political opponents. Most politicians are equally guilty of this but there is probably a greater responsibility placed on one who ran as a "compassionate conservative".
I am sure that there will be many questions about what I have written here and many who will disagree with me from one side or the other. Please feel free to engage me in the comments.
As to whether I think John Kerry would have made a better president: I don't know. I doubt it. I don't tend to view Kerry as a serious leader. But then again, neither is Bush. If I could do it over again, I would have abstained from voting in 2004. Some will view that as a cop-out. But all of our choices can send a message. Even the choice to abstain.
Comments
bush buyer's remorse
I must echo Will's sentiment that I think Bush was a bad choice for President and a cautionary tale for future decision making. Bush was elected b.c. people thought he was a good guy and would therefore make good decisions. What wasn't known was that he'd make some bad and expensive decisions that were contrary to stated positions made during the election.
He decried nation building as a candidate and IS nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said he was against big government and helped usher in the largest entitlement program in our nation's history, medicare drug benefit. I'm a novice in matters of history and politics, but I knew that invading Iraq wouldn't end well. It may have been legal, but thinking that removing Saddam Hussein by force would lead to a friendly democracy is a pipe dream.
We should have anticipated bad foreign policy from Bush, given his lack of experience in this. Bush I didn't do much better, and he had plenty of experience in foreign relations - so experience doesn't guarantee results.
GWB's presidency has made me rethink how I will vote in the future. My faith in Jesus is important to my life, but I'm doubly suspicious of any candidate who cites his/her faith background or is endorsed by religious figures.
President John Kerry may have made better choices than GWB. I haven't liked his past choices [although I'm a huge fan of Heinz ketchup], but I don't know how he could have done worse in the middle east short of employing nuclear weapons.
Well.....
I agree with everything, EVERYTHING, you say about the reasons for disillusionment, being so disillusioned myself. I might even add a few more points, as perhaps you would, too. For me, Bush was another in the long series of Republican candidates who did not quite satisfy, but who seemed better than the alternative offered by the other party. I would still vote for Bush, given the choice in the last election. I am not eager about any of leading candidates for the Republican nomination in the election coming up, and yet will probably vote for the Republican, whomever he might be. If there were another candidate from another party, who was overwhelmingly a better candidate, or who so completely articulated the politics I would like to see operating in U.S. government, I would vote for him. I do not see that person, yet.
However, I do not see the option of abstaining from from voting. In that, you merely join the vast apparently contented lot, or that discontented lot who complain, but do not participate. Voting is a duty, not a choice, the choice merely being in the candidates. When the choices are poor, you make the best of it and choose the least bad candidate. It grieves, but I think is the more honorable way to conduct ourselves as citizens.
Kate Pitrone
Kate: one of the problems
Kate: one of the problems with our country is our lack of choices in elections. It is almost impossible for an independent or third party candidate to get on the state ballots. And the deck is stacked against this happening. I think that it is a myth that we have choices in our elections. This is probably one of the primary reasons that many people don't vote.
Lack of choices, or lack of action?
I don't know, Will. On the national level you're certainly correct - we don't have much in the way of choices. On the state or local level, I think the problem is that we don't make much of the choices we do have. Case in point: Yesderday we had a municipal election here in Anchorage. The talk radio dials were filled with talk about how a vote for cadidate X was really a vote for candidate Y, because Mr. X is not really a viable candidate...so instead we should vote for candidate Z that doesn't represent our values but who isn't as bad as Ms. Y. I'm sure we've all seen some version of this on the local and state level, and it seems to be becoming more and more common. A viable 3rd party will never arise if we don't take the chance to throw our support behind candidates that we truly believe in, regardless of their chances of winning. OK, so the 3rd party candidate only pulls 5% of the vote this time. Well, that's a start, and with name recognition maybe he can pull 15% next time around, and thereby start the ball rolling towards a viable candidacy and the eventual rise of a 3rd party not beholden to the traditional base. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but it's the only route I can concieve of that will actually break the two party stranglehold in this country.
By the way, Will, thanks for sharing your thoughts on voting for W. I share many of your frustrations, and if given the chance to vote over again....well, I still don't know what I would do. I personally wouldn't abstain, as that comes across more as apathy than protest...but pulling the lever for George would be tough.
-Brian
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
Green
Alaska Brian has made an important point, I think. The Green Party (especially in Germany) acquired political power in a similar way. It took some time and commitment maybe more then most Americans have—we tend to be very myopic—but they succeeded. I’m not sure if this can happen in the US, but the “grassroots” is probably the place to start.
Third parties have found significant support in America too, but they were driven by personality (a bad long term strategy), and that made them less sustainable (e.g. Ross Perot and the Reform Party, Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party, maybe there were others).
Brian: this actually is an
Brian: this actually is an issue of lack of choices. Here in Georgia, it is pretty well impossible for an independent or third-party candidate to even get on the ballot. We have incredibly restrictive ballot access laws that protect both major parties from any competition. So there isn't even a choice here for 3% to vote independent and send a message.
And Georgia isn't alone in this (even though it is the most egregious). Most state have some sort of ballot access restrictions to protect the two major parties.
Presidents are lightening rods for frustration over DC-World
In many ways, I'm growing to believe that it doesn't make a heckuva lot of difference who the President is. I know they don't effect the economy as much as they are blamed or applauded. And eventually most Presidents come to a very similar conclusion on most issues.
But, the President is the lightening rod for our frustrations with the petty politics of all those elected officials, media, and congressional staffers who work inside the DC beltway and believe that they are concerned about the same things that the rest of the country is concerned about. The endless party talking points and hearings that politicians hold just to get their faces on TV or to score points with their congressional peers. It is not what our founders intended and unfortunately it can't be changed. Whether its hearings about "political" appointments or hearings about "political" finance or "non-binding" votes to send a message, they are all in their own little world and even the best intentioned President or other elected official becomes sucked in or burdened with the constant wrangling. And their political pettiness too often sets the agenda for our conversations.
So, regardless of who gets elected in 2008, it won't make much difference after they get into their second term. It is the corrupting of the President by the politics of congress, special interest and the beltway media.
How big is that problem?
Will, which independent or third party candidate were you wanting to see in office? Is there someone you see as a great potential president who has been frustrated by the system that we have? Maybe there is just IS no one available who would be able to fill the office, or meet the demands of our day.
I think people do not vote because they are too busy with their own lives or are too content. For most people, America chugs along pretty well. Most people I meet who do not vote are uninformed and like to remain that way. I don't see it, but it is a basic contentment with the status quo and a serious disinterest in politics that keeps folks from the ballot box, not some powerful discontent.
Kate Pitrone
You need to get a grip and
You need to get a grip and stop Voting Republican. You really want to be associated with a group of corrupt Pols whose main values are:
Incompetence
Self-Interest
Me, myself, and I
Burning the Planet
Torture
Imperialism
Destroying our reputation around the world
Fake Morality
Drugg addiction, alcoholism, and cronyism
Racism
Destroying the middle class
and the list goes on????????????
If you vote Republican that is what you stand for!!!
Pot, Kettle...
Kettle, Pot.
r.johnson
Re: Well....
Kate,
I don't know many people who aren't disappointed, and I embrace much of what you say.
I'd share the blame a little more, adding that I'm even more disappointed in the Congressional Republicans than in the President. They took what I regarded as a potentially interesting domestic agenda and made it into a license for pork-barrel spending. Bush didn't stop them, of course....
On third parties, I'm extremely hesitant to go that route, especially in our current circumstances, which are internationally very perilous. When sending a message effectively means electing someone who's not serious about national security, it's irresponsible to send the message. But if my vote "didn't matter," I'd be a little more willing to do it.
In other words, the Electoral College, with winner-take-all state races, actually facilitates responsible exercise of the kind of protest vote that might lead to the genesis of a viable third (or rather a new second) party.
Obviously certain poltiical conditions have to obtain for this to be the case. In a closely divided state, the argument against a "protest vote" still holds. But in a state that's more red or blue, where the Democrat or Republican candidate would require some sort of divine intervention to win, an alternative party can gain its legs, building for the future when it might actually supplant one of the existing parties.
Joe Knippenberg
On third parties
Joseph,
Where to start? I take issue with your suggestion that third party candidates are not serious about national security, or that a vote for a third party candidate would somehow endanger this country. I can look at the republican platform, and by no means do I think that what they are doing to this country is making us 'safe.' I can make a strong argument that a vote for George Bush has done far more damage to this country than any other vote, but we don't need to go there. And no, I am not saying that democrats would have been any better. John Kerry and the DNC tried a strategy of being more 'hawkish' than Bush. Many of the policies Bush is now advocating in Iraq (the surge, for example) were suggested by John Kerry, so no, democrats under Kerry would not make us any 'safer.' (Unless of course, you believe the republican rhetoric that Kerry was a liberal, and was just saying things to get elected.)
In the 2004 election, third party candidates offered far more comprehensive solutions to foreign policy, military spending, and over all safety, than did democrats or republicans. Pat Buchannan, for example, made 'anti-intervention' a cornerstone of his policy. You may not agree with the policy, but it was far more detailed and developed than anything coming from r's and d's. Ralph Nader, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik- if you were familiar with their platforms on foreign policy, you might recognize that it is the republican and democratic parties dismissiveness of these third parties that probably leads you to believe that these parties are 'not serious about national security.' They are serious, its just that they do not believe that we can continue with a policy of "might makes right" and not expect some form of retaliation from the rest of the world.
And not to wage a battle of semantics, but is not economic ruin a danger to this country? Sure, my philosophy is colored by Paul Kennedy and 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers', but when we spend so much on 'wealth protection' instead of
'wealth creation', history has shown that we are in decline as a superpower. Spending more than one half of our national budget on military arms is insanity.
And as the world's largest arms producer and exporter, the United States has no one to blame but itself for creating an environment where, guess what, we see a dangerous world and feel the need to arm ourselves. Cutting our military is not going to make us any less safe, and could even improve our fiscal health.
But the real issue for me is the notion that a winner take all system 'facilitates the responsible exercise of a protest vote' that might lead to a viable third party. Under your thinking, a vote for a third party in a close election would be irresponsible. To the contrary, there is no such thing. As John Quincy Adams once said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." You may decide to adopt the 'lesser of two evils' mindset, or you can vote for what you believe in. If you vote for what you believe in, even in a close election, you will never vote in protest, but in promotion of your values and ideals. It is only when you see the two main party candidates as 'the only options' that you construe a vote for a third party candidate as a 'protest' vote. That may be appropriate for your understanding, but your views on voting do not reflect the thinking of your typical third party voter. They reflect the thinking of a mainstream candidate voter who might occasionally vote outside the mainstream. You are selling third party voters short.
Maybe that is why I have to comment- I don't want a 'protest' voter to decide what is best for creating a 'viable third party.' (Why stop at three? In a country as big and diverse as ours, why is it that our choices are so limited?) The reason a protest vote will never lead to a viable third party is that the 'protest voter' is not loyal to the third party's cause. And if one of the mainstream party shapes their message to sound like the third party's message? Perhaps Kierkegaard described the problems best with this quote: "Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority." On any given issue, a third party is likely to have a strong, coherent, position on some topic, that will attract voters away from the two main parties. The two main parties, recognizing their lock on power could be threatened if a groundswell erupts behind the issue, generally see the merit in 'co-opting' the issue. It gets watered down, whittled away at, offering enough 'promise' for the proponents of the idea to consider voting for the mainstream party, as it means that their idea may actually get implemented. If it happens, it is not a regular occurrence. More likely than not, those proponents of the ideal see a greatly watered down proposal discussed, and discussed, and discussed until it is no longer an issue worth discussing.
Scrap the winner take all system. Implement Instant RunOff Voting or ranked choice voting. You will have a more meaningful exchange of ideas, more constructive dialogue, and more civil campaigns. THAT will create viable third parties, fourth parties, and more. The end result could still be that democrats and republicans maintain their lock on power, but more diverse views will be invested in this experiment we call democracy.
r.johnson
Re: your "Re:Well"
The Republican Congress WAS a source of endless conservative grief. What were they doing? Did they think that what they were doing would keep them in office in perpetuity? It was ghastly.
I do not see the third party route being particularly productive, yet. However, general disillusionment with the Republican Party could lead to a replacement party - I mean, I see the why, but maybe not the how, who or what of it. Maybe our alternative will grow out of the blogosphere. However, the way our election system seems to be working, we are more interested in the candidate than the party. The party facilitates, but the candidates do not represent the party, in any real way. I have been trying to puzzle out the effect of campaign finance reform on the main parties. I tend to think it has weakened them and strengthened the independent campaigns of candidates. The parties seem so divided within themselves into such differentiated camps. Finally, in our media-driven age, are we interested in party or personality?
That's a ramble, but as I said, I am just trying to figure this out.
Kate Pitrone
Such good stuff in there, Will
I don't regret voting for Bush. I did in 2000 and 2004. Admittedly, I was writing in his name for local judge positions where the candidates were running unopposed, but I didn't want him to be unemployed and since I was voting for Gore and then Kerry, I knew I didn't want him employed as the president.
But I do understand on some level what Will is talking about. While I didn't - and would never - have voted for W, his strong Christian position I found exciting and really wondered what a presidency would be like with someone who was apparently putting God first in their life.
I'm still wondering.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying he is a not a Christian. He probably is. But it never seems to do anything to motivate him with his presidential actions.
I have no doubt that John Kerry and/or Al Gore would have made a better president. Or John McCain or Bill Bradley or many other options! It's a fairly easy position to take because I don't think there is anyone who is even close to having been as terrible of a president as W. He's lapped the field in the race for worst president of all time. I'm not saying Kerry or Gore would be going on Rushmore, but what would they have done to be worse than Bush? Declared that Missouri had WMD's and destroyed them? Dropped their pants in the middle of the State of the Union address and pee'd on someone? Blamed Canada for being connected with 9-11 and enslaved Canucks to make them pay for it? I really can't imagine what you could do to be worse.
I agree with the point that our lack of choices is really bad. We very badly need more than two legitimate options every four years. If abstaining from voting prompts solid third and fourth parties to emerge to collect those disgruntled voters, than I totally support that idea.
I will continue to vote for the person whose positions are the best for our nation - regardless of party. Hopefully some time soon they will start winning again.
As far as W being the worst
As far as W being the worst president - apparently you were not alive when Jimmy Carter was president and have been the recepient of a public school education.
You are right about Bush,
You are right about Bush, how can the followers of a pacifist be so eager to wage war? And it is one thing to have positions on issues, people can agree or not about policy, but how can a Christian be so completely corrupt and dishonest? This administration has been one string of scandal that went uncovered while the GOP controlled Congress, including the bribery of Jack Abramoff, indictments of Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, etc., the lack of concern toward people suffering and dying during and after Katrina, the lies about WMD, wiretapping and jailing people without oversight, the lies of the attorney general's office, etc.
You are wrong, however, when you say Bush is like Clinton in any way. Clinton cut federal employment, balanced the budget, was respected overseas by just about the entire world, didn't send any soldiers to their deaths, generally ruled like an adult rather than a spoiled child emperor.
Jesus a pacifist?
At the risk of hijacking this thread, I had to reply to this one... "Followers of a pacifist"? I assume you're talking about Jesus? If so, I can't say that I agree that Christ is a pacifist.
Pacifism - the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I might point you to the clearing of the temple as an example. Taking the time to make a whip of cords and overturning tables does not seem "peaceful". I am not for a moment suggesting that Jesus would advocate waging war against Iraq, but suggesting that he is a pacifist is a gross mischaracterization of Christ as portrayed in scripture.
On a side note, Clinton did sent soldiers to their death in Mogadishu. Not as many, of course, but they were just as woefully unprepared for the task at hand as are the soldiers in Iraq.
-Brian
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
unprepared
Brian,
I don't want to hijack the thread either, but you are confusing issues when you say Clinton 'sent soldiers to their death' as they were 'just as woefully unprepared for the task at hand.' To think of all the money we spend on the military each year, and we don't do any training? Chances are, anytime we place our soldiers in the middle of armed conflict, there will be casualties. Casualties are not necessarily the signs of poorly conceived policies emanating from Wachington DC and the commander in chief.
r.johnson
Yup
I've never understood the idea of clearing the temple as being a violent act. There is no record of anyone being hurt or that Jesus directed his actions towards specific people.
Yet this is the same Jesus who spoke about turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, and doing good for those who hate you. No, suggesting Jesus was a pacifist is spot on.
Fair enough
Fair point, guru, but I still wouldn't classify Jesus as a pacifist. Clearing the temple may not have been violent, but it certainly wasn't "peaceful". Setting conflict solely through peaceful means is a hallmark of pacifism, and this is not what Christ did at all times. Jesus was a peaceful man, but not a pacifist.
Incidentally, for Christians who believe that Jesus was indeed God in the flesh, we can't discount the God-ordained conflicts of the Old Testament. God as portrayed in the Old Testament is most certainly not a pacifist. Again, I'm not at all suggesting that the war in Iraq was justified, but I can only shake my head when people try to paint God into the pacifism box. This shows a very incomplete understanding of scripture. I do not presume to know the mind of God, but what He has shown of Himself through scripture does not fit the idea of pacifism.
-Brian
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
Incomplete? No.
Brian,
As I read your comment here I bristle. Because I see Jesus as a pacifist, I have a 'very incomplete understanding of scripture'? Am I to assume that you believe you have a 'complete' view because you place emphasis on the old testament, while seeming to ignore the message of the new? Can you show me one example where Jesus called for us to strike down our neighbor before they had a chance to strike out at us, or any example where Christ called for us to use force and violence? His example, dying on the cross, is in itself, a rejection of your argument.
It was a subtle move, shifting from 'Jesus as pacifist' to 'Jesus as war maker' through semantics. The fact is, in many ways, the message of the new testament conflicts with the message of the old. Didn't Jesus repudiate the 'God ordained' laws that the Pharisees sought to uphold with such religious fervency? Isn't the message of the new testament a repudiation of the 'old order of things'? Are you following God's laws, set forth in the old testament, on dress, food, and making sacrifices, or do you believe that the testament marks a fundamental transformation in the message of God and his covenant? If so on food and dress, why not on violence?
My views clearly differ from yours, but different is not 'an incomplete understanding.'
r.johnson
I am truly sorry if I came
I am truly sorry if I came across as though I think of myself as more knowledgable or holy than you. I am merely trying to explain my understanding of such things, and my written words fail me at times. Please forgive me.
I am not ignorning the message of the new testament, and I fully get that "mercy triumphs over judgement". But, come on...there are so many times that we are reminded that God's nature is not so simple. I don't at all see God as a war maker, but I think it's a step too far to consider him a pacifist. Perhaps you and I have different understandings of that word. The pacifists I know repudiate all use of force, no matter the justification. This does not fit the God of the bible, at least as far as I understand scripture. Jesus came to make a new covenant with his people, but God's fundamental nature did not change when Jesus came to earth. God's nature was made more fully known with the coming of Jesus and his Holy Spirit, but it did not change. The God that led his people into battle is the same God that advocated turning the other cheek. We have a hard time reconciling those seemingly contradictory portions of God's nature, but that is due to our lack of understanding, not wavering on his part.
Alas, sorry if I offended - I promise you that was not my intent.
-Brian
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
Why Now?
Will,
Thanks for the insight. Not trying to pick on you, but am curious about what or when the scales finally tipped. Going into the 2000 election, Bush ran a good campaign. I think the people who voted for him (except maybe those who simply vote for a particular party) would agree. No, I did not vote for him, but based on the campaign he ran, he certainly had my attention. By 2004, we had the ability to evaluate Bush's campaign rhetoric with his action/inaction in office. Yet many of the reasons you express for 'regretting Bush' predate the 2004 election, so what changed for you from 2004 to now? How 'strong' was your support of Bush going into the 2004 election?
Also, you and I have discussed third party candidates and the difficulty third parties have in 'breaking into the game' (an easy cure is Instant Runoff Voting- which both republicans and democrats vehemently oppose as it could break their lock on government). So rather than not vote, why not vote for a third party candidate? Vote your dreams, not your fears? Granted, there may not be a third party candidate that represents your 'dreams' but given that no candidate is perfect, there should be someone that was close. Badnarik?
"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." ~Helen Keller
r.johnson
r.johnson: good question
r.johnson: good question about how I have come to this position. When I voted for Bush the first time, I didn't necessarily agree with every single position he held. Most people are that way. Rarely does anyone ever vote for someone that they agree with entirely.
Over time, there started to be chinks in the armor. Unlike guys like David Kuo and Matthew Dowd, I was never "in love" with Bush so I had to take a pragmatic approach to these shortcomings.
Usually when someone is confronted with facts that are counter to their currently held beliefs, it takes some time to work through that cognitive dissonance, even when the facts are obvious.
I was starting to have some serious doubts about Bush in 2004, but in no way could vote for Kerry. He was just about the worst candidate that the Democrats could have had and the results prove it. A good Democrat candidate should have been able to defeat Bush that year.
I'd love to vote for a third-party candidate. But ballot access laws here in Georgia prevent me from doing that. I can't even vote for a third-party candidate for county dogcatcher. The deck is stacked against a third-party or independent candidate even getting on the ballot.
The Bush Debate: Regret vs. Opportunity
Will, I was recently turned onto your blog by a colleague. Great format and I enjoy the stuff you put out.
I have been long time proponent of the Bush Administration. I still feel a boost in my adrenaline levels during his televised press conferences or appearances. I would consider myself a right-wing, Christian conservative. Certainly there are policies within this Administration that go against the grain of what I believe as fiscal or social conservative but I think it's important for those to consider what we have in this Administration (buyer remorse/regret) and what we could have had via Gore or Kerry (opportunity cost).
Those who do not support the Bush White House will have to divorce themselves from the feelings stirred up when we mention the politics of our current President. Several think tanks and moderate pollsters have published results citing that most of the country would rather have someone like President Bush at the helm versus the other option (Gore or Kerry). I think it was fairly clear closer to the devastating events in 2001 that Bush was our guy.
Today, the country is vastly divided by what was formerly known as the Global War on Terror (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/) but can you imagine how this country would have responded had Gore, who believes that global warming is more important than fighting terrorism, or Kerry, who has expressed sentiments accusing our soldiers of raping Iraqi women in the dark of night, had been in charge? I think Bush added a steel rod to his backbone when he brought in Tony Snow. Now if he can just keep up and deliver as a strong President his legacy will not soon be forgotten.
Certainly, Bush has his faults. No way do I think that he is the messiah of the GOP but at the time he was the best thing the Republican Party could produce. Gingrich had quickly risen as a stronghold leader within the party in the late to mid-90’s and he too encountered some personal and political obstacles that he could not overcome. Do I regret that Bush is our President? No way. Do I think he’s made mistakes? Of course. Are we better off as a country because he’s our Commander-in-Chief? Definitely. However, I believe with our current class of candidates representing the Grand Ol’ Party (or Gallant Old Party circa 1875) we are in driver’s seat yet again. I think things will shake out in our favor yet again because Clinton vs. Obama is more of a train wreck than a political fight. I strongly feel that there will not be a fight for the GOP in 2008. As many pundits have already claimed, the next President will likely be chosen by February 2008 as the states battle for an early primary season.
In this day and age, it’s easy to rip the President apart. Almost every media outlet refers to him as “Mr. Bush” as opposed to his earned title of “President Bush.” It’s mostly used as a sign of disrespect but it has been adopted as a universal way of showing that he’s not our President. From the Communist News Network (CNN) to PMSNBC to even the “fair and balanced” Fox News, Keith Olbermann to Rosie O’Donnell to Wolf Blitzer, it has suddenly become the standard to show this sign of disrespect.
I am sensitive to the emotion that, Republicans and Democrats alike, regret having Bush as our President. But like it or not, he’s just that – our President. During middle school and high school, I couldn’t stand the fact that our country chose (on two occasions) to elect Clinton to the White House. However, it was sometime in 2000 where the press and mainstream media felt it necessary to turn the tide on free speech. Can you imagine what Clinton’s presidency would have been like had the media worked against him as it has with Bush? We can regret having President Bush as our leader but we should do it respectfully. We can dislike him but we shouldn’t parade our hatred in a public forum where the rest of the world can see disloyalty to the leader of the free world. I support free speech but as a Conservative, I think we’ve taken that too far. If we regret the leaders elected into office, the best thing we can do as a nation is respect their position, and then when given an opportunity exercise our right to vote.
Over the last several years, President Bush’s approval ratings with the general public have fluctuated. He’s been hot and cold. But at the end of the day, he was elected to office twice. And he has done some great things for this country. He pulled us out of a recession, he endured the tragedy of 9/11, he managed to pull the country back both from a morale stand point but also economically, and a host of “wins” for our country (taxes, education, immigration, welfare, etc.; understanding those are debated by individuals who don’t see eye-to-eye with my politics).
So yes, there may be regret over President Bush. But there’s also pride, admiration and gratitude.
What color...
...is the sky in your world, RBLKN? Do the candy cane trees taste yummy? I keep re-reading that last paragraph plus of yours and wondering if you wrote this three days ago and you're just waiting to yell "April Fool's!". I can't even imagine just extreme right wing apologists as Limbaugh, Colter, or Hannity being so out of touch with the reality for the last eight years as to write that completely fictional puff piece like that. Wow.
guru: can't you make the
guru: can't you make the same point without being so condescending?
I don't know
I probably could and certainly should, but I've been pissed off at the crap that President Bush has been pulling for 6+ years now and even more pissed off that people are ignorant and/or dishonest about it so much. I apologize for how I wrote that.
Guru, I am a realist and I
Guru, I am a realist and I respect your opinion. No where in my post did I say that is was my way or the high way. As I stated, I realize there are individuals who will disagree with me. But I would like to challenge your comment on Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter as being apologists. If you listen to Sean or Rush, you would know that they take the President and other Republicans to task when they disagree with them on an issue. I do not believe they are out of touch on the issues important to their listeners no more than Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann are out of touch with issues that their audience supports. Individuals are always quick to point out conservatives as being closed minded, but you are disregarding my points and calling it a puff piece only because you disagree with my position. Calm down. Let's agree to disagree but don't get so worked up. I'm just one guy with an opinion.
PS. In case you were genuinely interested, the sky in Alpharetta is a nice spring blue and mostly sunny. There's also a cool breeze in the air that makes me think this global warming idea may not be such a bad idea. And no, we do not have candy cane trees here but we have plenty of soccer moms.
Apologies for any disrespect
I don't think it's a puff piece because I disagree with you. I think it's a puff piece because it's highly inaccurate with the reality of the W.Bush years as president. It reminds me of the exit polls after the 2004 election where the majority of Bush voters also said they did still believe there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam Hussien had been involved with 9-11. Conservatives don't corner any market on being close minded. Close minded people do.
I am emotional about this. I'm not irrational about it at all. I've listened to Hannity, Limbaugh, Matthews, and Olbermann and I don't terribly like any of them, but comparing them and their levels of being "out of touch" is ridiculous. Olbermann and especially Matthews are working to be journalists. Hannity and Limbaugh are working to try to have every elected position in the country be held by a Republican. W.Bush is the worst president this country has ever had and even if you are some millionaire with stock in Halliburton who is greatly profiting off this administration to sit back and take in everything that has been done by them for the last six years plus in all areas and come away with a positive feeling about it strikes me as either being dishonest or insane. I don't say that to be offensive - I truly don't see any other path to such conclusions, though.
Anyways, Happy Easter to everyone!
Bush a good guy?
I'm sorry - but maybe those of you who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 missed the interview in which the then-Governor of Texas actively made fun of a woman who had pleaded for her life from Texas's Death Row. Karla Faye Tucker, who committed murder while under the influence of drugs, became a born-again Christian in prison and ministered to others in prison. She pleaded to have her sentence commuted to life without parole. Bush was asked about her after he allowed her execution and, upon remembering her case, raised his open palms in the defensive position and mocking her in a high-pitched voice said, "Please, don't kill me!"
That turned my stomach and, in my mind at least, exposed him for the fraud that his is.
Shame on any person of any faith or who professes the sanctity of life who can hear that story (and Google "Karla Faye Tucker Bush" if you don't believe me) and still think this monster is worth defending in any way.
Anyone would have made a better president.
Good business sense??
I have just picked myself up off the floor at reading that you ever thought Bush has "good business sense."
Pick youself out any biography and you'll learn that he never was a successful business person. Even his "part ownership" of a professional baseball team was the very definition of a "sweetheart deal" - we should all be so lucky.
Bush is just flat stupid. George "Smith" would never have gotten so far.
(And, despite his "victory," I'm not sure the majority ever did agree with your favorable assessment of George's smarts.)
April's Fool
I’m generally with RBLKN, and I think we live in the same world. The sky is blue, and the candy cane trees are awwwwesome. As one of the ignorant and/or dishonest bunch I did want to add the following (but first had to acknowledge yet another emotional and irrational outburst from guru who should at least find some solace in the link I provide below).
Funny, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and somehow Bush managed to swoop in and steal it away, I was not excited. I more-or-less thought of Bush as a spoiled rich kid all grown up. I never considered him a fiscal conservative. It always surprises me to read about conservatives' surprise at Bush’s acceptance of government intervention. How in the world was he going to simultaneously satisfy fiscal conservatives and at the same time fulfill his stated desire to compromise with Democrats? The two are mutually incompatible. The Bush-Kennedy education bill should have been your first tangible clue. That was, what, six years ago?
(I understand there may be one or two here that find the idea of Bush compromising with Democrats absurd, so in deference to them here’s a link expressing the Democrats’ assessment of how well Bush followed through on that campaign promise three months into his first term:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=3173)
Also, I don’t think anyone has mentioned his inconsistency with regard to trade policy yet, so while we are taking out our frustrations on the President, let’s not forget the fact that he has been a strong proponent of free trade in word but not necessarily in deed (e.g., the steel tariffs in 2002, the Chinese paper tariffs this month, etc.).
For my part I have become increasingly partial to Bush not least because of his leadership after 9/11.
I'm off to find some high ground, or good cover at least...
Is is possible for some of
Is is possible for some of you who dislike Bush to refrain from comparing him to the Spawn of Satan and his supporters as evil minions?
If you want to know why many conservatives and Republicans have taken some time to see many of Bush's flaw, it is often because of the over-the-top and ridiculous comments from Bush's opponents.
Is is at all possible to discuss Bush (or Clinton for that matter) without foaming at the mouth? Can we please have some reasonable dialog?
Guest posting privilages?
Will - Have you ever considered not allowing unregistered guests to post? It may not make much of a difference, but I notice that a fair amount of the unreasonable dialogue comes from those who have not registered. I help run a forum on outdoors issues here in Alaska, and we do not allow unregistered guests to post. We find that by only allowing those who have a stake in our little online community to post, we recieve far fewer posts that are relying on demagoguery to stir the pot. I love the diverse range of views here, but I loathe those handful of posts that forgo reason for hyperbole and complete falsehoods. Just a thought....and thank you for all you do to provide this forum.
-Brian
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
I don't know?
I don't understand how anyone who looked at Bush's business ventures could come to the conclusion that he was a "good" businessman. He failed in every business venture up to the present day, I would say. I said this back then and no one would listen. When John McCain was hornswaggled in South Carolina we had another warning of things to come, but still no one listened. After the last six years of politics I have come to the conclusion that people only see what they want to see, even when you take the blinders off.
Slur
While there is much to debate in your post, I want to focus on one statement that you made for now.
"’Those who would have us pull out of Iraq are unwittingly encouraging our enemies’ is simply a slur.”
Will, it is not a slur. I would love to read the logical contortions that brings one to conclude that our withdrawal, unwittingly or otherwise, discourages our enemies (or perhaps has not impact at all). To “pull out of Iraq” or to “withdraw” at present is simply a euphemism for surrender (and apparently Sen. Reid would write this into law—what foolishness). How does surrender not encourage our enemies?
With All Due Respect
"Bush seemed like a pretty down to earth guy, pragmatically conservative when compared to other prominent Republicans, and appeared to have good business and management sense. I was of course in the majority in that opinion." How do you define "majority?" President Bush did not receive the majority of popular votes in 2000 and he did not receive the majority of electoral votes until the Supreme Court cut off the counting in Florida and ignored thousands of uncounted votes to produce a 534-vote win and the electoral votes necessary to claim the White House. This is all so well documented. What do you mean by "majority?"
"Many fiscal conservatives will point to the Bush tax cuts as a victory, but tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are completely irresponsible." Completely. The only fiscal conservatives I know who support the cutting and spending of the last 6+ years are those who do not care a wit for our grandchildren and the grotesque debt this Administration is putting upon them.
"Contrary to many on the Left, there were legitimate and legal grounds for invading Iraq and Bush wasn't the first to think so." Legal? Please explain to me the legality of unilaterally invading a sovereign nation in direct defiance of the United Nations.
"We must pull out of Iraq now!" ignores our responsibility for the mess we have been largely responsible for." No, it can also indicate that there are other ways of cleaning up the murderous mess that Afghanistan and Iraq have become. We exercise vastly more responsibility by getting our troops out immediately and putting our energy and money into massive international diplomacy and backing international peacekeeping efforts.
"As to whether I think John Kerry would have made a better president: I don't know. I doubt it. I don't tend to view Kerry as a serious leader." I deeply believe John Kerry's career in public office is one of tremendously serious work. One may not always agree with Kerry's positions over the past three decades, but what evidence is there to assert that he is not a serious leader? Besides, Gore and Kerry are far more likely to have properly regarded 9/11 as a horrific criminal act warranting a massive international police response - rather than concocting this mind-numbing, fear-generating, hysteria known as the "war" on terror. As razor-thin as President Bush's margin of victory was in 2004, does anyone truly believe that it would have occurred with even the slightest lessening of the relentlessly-manufactured level of fear still pulsing through the electorate in 2004?
TheOldMan
[quote]However, the planning
[quote]However, the planning (or lack thereof) of the invasion and occupation of Iraq will be a textbook example for decades to come of how NOT to do it.[/quote]
Although I agree with most of your post and I applaud you admitting that voting for Bush were mistakes I think you still have a ways to go if you think the only thing wrong with invading Iraq was how it was done. Are you blaming the military? They did a perfect job.
No, the blame is all on Bush for ginning up a non problem into an unnecessary war. There is no way that it could have come out any better. Powell was right. It was the pottery Barn and we busted it. Too bad Powell sold out and agreed to shill for the whole stupid enterprise.
Post new comment