Can't support Bush anymore

[12volt_man]

Pres. Bush is under an absolute microscope, like all Presidents, but I feel that he has been under even more fire because of the way that he has rubbed the Democrats -- he is the epitome of a Republican on foreign affairs and has truly polarized the US in ways that it has not been in the entirety of my memory (admittedly, not very long).

I feel that there was no way that the Hurricane response could have been perfect and free of criticism; we have not had a major natural disaster like that in so long that we were bound to experience a lot of problems. Unfortunately, Pres. Bush was on watch, and he has to take the fire for it.

Overall, the President has done some great things -- in the midst of economic recession he fixed the economy (putting us back in the 4% growth rate number, which looked like a challenge with so many Democrats saying we were in recession); he liberated two nations and brought liberalized and lax policies to several other nations through aggressive diplomacy.

He is not the perfect President but I do not feel as if he has let us down, or disappointed us as a whole. I am happy with the way that I voted. I am sad to see someone give up the GOP and say this about our President.

Let's not forget that he's being judged by an unfair standard.

For instance, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, the UN, German intelligence, British intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. No one said a word.

President Bush said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. The left says that he lied.

The same statements, all made on good faith and based on the same information. So, tell me, why is it the truth when the left said it, but a lie when President Bush said it?

What is the difference between the two, other than hypocrisy and partisanship on the left?

They say that President Bush did nothing about the hurricane but they conveniently fail to mention that the president can only act within the parameters set for him by the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow him to act in this way, unless he is asked by the governor of that state.

Why won't the left be straight with us about what President Bush's authority allows him to do?

More to the point, why are they so quick to condemn the President for not doing what he doesn't have the authority to do in the first place, but won't question the actions of the Democrat mayor of New Orleans or the Democrat governor of LA, except to make vague statements, such as "there were failures at all levels of government"?

 

[12volt_man]

His response to Katrina was the last straw for me also.

Peace.

What would you like for him to have done?

 

[12volt_man]

Since that time, I personally have had problems with his handling of both foreign and domestic issues. I'm all for tax cuts, but they need to be targeted to help the largest amount of the population

What's wrong with President Bush's across the board tax cuts that target the entire population?

(trickle down economics have proven not to work).

What???

Are you serious? Trickle down economics has been hugely successful everytime it's been tried.

JFK did it and it was a success.

Reagan did it and we had the largest economic growth in history.

President Bush 43 did it and it's been hugely successful.

Please take a moment to educate yourself before you say things like this.

But I think my biggest problem with Bush is that I don't feel that he is a Republican. He is a foreign policy hawk. He has expanded the role of the government (think TSA), not shrunk it, he has introduced Big Brother in the form of the Patriot Act, he has crippled free market competition, and he is selling out the workers of this country, who should be his first responsibility.

Can we assume that examples of this will be forthcoming?

 

[12volt_man]

Yea, i have been having my fair share of doubts about Bush as well. Look at how Europe sees us now. In the 90's weren't we respected by Germany, France, and other European nations?

Do you think it's possible at all that the reason Europe sees us as you claim that they do is because liberals are constantly telling the world how awful we are?

 

[whatbogsends]

Let's not forget that he's being judged by an unfair standard.

For instance, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, the UN, German intelligence, British intelligence all said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. No one said a word.

President Bush said that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the US. The left says that he lied.

The same statements, all made on good faith and based on the same information. So, tell me, why is it the truth when the left said it, but a lie when President Bush said it?

What is the difference between the two, other than hypocrisy and partisanship on the left?

Do you really not understand the difference? Claims were made by both sides, depicting Saddam as a threat. At no point was there solid evidence to support these claims. The "chemical trucks" that Colin Powell showed were shown to be nothing well before we launched our attack. Weapons inspectors turned up nothing.

Bush, despite the lack of evidence supporting these claims, took action - specifically, launched a war of aggression based on the claims, still with no supporting evidence.

It is one thing to make claims about a threat. However, to launch a war based on claims requires a different level of confidence in the intelligence. The intelligence reports that came out used terms like "we believe Saddam has..." or "our best estimates suggest that Saddam has...", whereas Bush used statements like "we know that Saddam has...." or simply "Saddam has..."

If Clinton had the audacity to wage war based on such claims, i would have been equally critical. I'm not a democrat, nor a republican. I am anti-Bush, but only in response to Bush's actions as president. I was Bush-neutral in 2000-2001. It wasn't until late 2002, when it was clear that Bush was going to launch a war of aggression in Iraq, did i begin to open my eyes to the way this adminstration conducts itself.

They say that President Bush did nothing about the hurricane but they conveniently fail to mention that the president can only act within the parameters set for him by the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow him to act in this way, unless he is asked by the governor of that state.

Why won't the left be straight with us about what President Bush's authority allows him to do?

More to the point, why are they so quick to condemn the President for not doing what he doesn't have the authority to do in the first place, but won't question the actions of the Democrat mayor of New Orleans or the Democrat governor of LA, except to make vague statements, such as "there were failures at all levels of government"?

I really haven't gotten involved with allocating blame in the poor Katrina response. I think the greater issue lies in lack of preperation, than in the red tape surrounding the response. The lack of preperation, however, seems to point in the direction of Bush, as in the post 9/11 era, this adminstration has touted itself as being prepared for disasters, yet the Katrina situation has shown that it has not done this at all.

 

[HumbleMan]

What's wrong with President Bush's across the board tax cuts that target the entire population?

While the wealthiest 5% are enjoying one of the lowest tax rates, the middle class taxes are disproportionate. They are carrying the burden. This includes loopholes such as tax deductions for gas guzzling SUV's

What???

Are you serious? Trickle down economics has been hugely successful everytime it's been tried.

JFK did it and it was a success.

Reagan did it and we had the largest economic growth in history.

President Bush 43 did it and it's been hugely successful.

Please take a moment to educate yourself before you say things like this.

Trickle down economics unfairly hurt the small business owner and consumer. In this administration, it's been proven by all the companies that have laid off employees here to open operations in India and Indonesia. The benefits of lowering taxes has not helped the working class.

Please don't speculate on my education.

Can we assume that examples of this will be forthcoming?

He has added substantially to the federal payroll by federalizing the airport screeners. It hasn't been proven they are doing any better job now than when they were emplyed by the airports.

The PA grants too much leeway in the name of fighting terror. If this government was transparent and open, it would be a shining example, but instead, paranoia and good old boy politics are running rampant.

 

[12volt_man]

Do you really not understand the difference? Claims were made by both sides, depicting Saddam as a threat. At no point was there solid evidence to support these claims.

So then why was it true when the Democrats said it?

Bush, despite the lack of evidence supporting these claims, took action - specifically, launched a war of aggression based on the claims, still with no supporting evidence.

That's not entirely true.

First of all, it was not a "war of aggression".

Second, there was supporting evidence, plus justification outside of the presence of WMDs. But, of course, this is all beside the point.

Once again, he is being condemned for pursuing war, and you completely ignore the fact that every democrat in Congress urged him to do it.

It is one thing to make claims about a threat. However, to launch a war based on claims requires a different level of confidence in the intelligence.

Do you believe that the Democrats in Congress had confidence in this intelligence when they urged President Bush to act or when they voted to authorize the use of force?

If Clinton had the audacity to wage war based on such claims, i would have been equally critical.

I don't believe that this is true. If it were, then you would be criticizing Congressional Democrats who authorized the use of war in this case.

The lack of preperation, however, seems to point in the direction of Bush, as in the post 9/11 era, this adminstration has touted itself as being prepared for disasters, yet the Katrina situation has shown that it has not done this at all.

So, how is he supposed to prepare for something that he doesn't have the authority to act on in the first place?

 

[ballfan]

trickle down economics have proven not to work

Is there actually some other kind?

 

[saami]

a good politician he is not. one of the things i do admire about him however is his unflinching determination. most politicians change sides everytime a CNN poll is released, but not Bush. I can admire that even if i do get dissappointed with him sometimes.

is unflinching detemination a virtue when you are wrong and hurting the nation? That's like seeing that Interstate 10 is washed out and driving across Mobile Bay anyway.

"All Hat - No Cattle" Texas Democrats tried to warn America

 

[utdbear]

I'll be honest. There are things that I wish Bush would do better. Quite frankly I think he has been way too moderate for my taste. I voted for the Republicans because I do not like the Democratic platform period. I want a country that is heading to the right, not to the left. Bush has not done anything to head the country to the right, he is too busy worrying about hacking off some Democrat senators. Frankly, I think Roberts might be too moderate for me as well, I think he should have put a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia type up for nomination, and shoved it down the Democrats throats. But, at the same time, the man deserves praise, he has been fought every single step of the way by the left, and attacked over everything. Quite honestly, there was nothing, I mean NOTHING that could have happened in New Orleans that would have satisfied the left. Nothing he can do will please them, and he has tried to build bridges numerous times with them and has been met with more venom. I think its time to tell the left to go screw themselves, and get on with our agenda, and make them get in our way. If the left wants to work with us on making this country a better place, they can bring their options to the table. Otherwise, get off the tracks or get run over.

 

[ZaraDurden]

Awesome OP. Its always really, really tough to come to those sorts of realizations, and I give you a lot of credit. It takes courage.

No I told you so's. No time for that, its only destructive. All of us who you now agree with are delighted that you have recognized the problems too, and we look forward to working with you for a better future. How will we get there? Not sure, the answer doesn't lie in any party, its not black and white. Our best shot is remaining open to all options...but of course, that's what democracy is all about.

I want to echo Humbleman's comments that we are 'in a dark age of politics.' I really am scared of such labels in general, but i basically agree. Since Reagan (and before) the only things that seem to matter in our government are the political consequences of actions and ideology. This, under GWB, has reached new terrifying heights. When Bush makes a speech, the media (and everyone) asks, "How did he sound? Did people believe him?" Rather than, "Is what he saying true? Is what he saying logical? What will the real world consquences of this policy be?" Until we get back to dealing with the real world instead of political theories and ideologies that may or may not work, things are not going to get better for all of us.

 

[HumbleMan]

When Bush makes a speech, the media (and everyone) asks, "How did he sound? Did people believe him?" Rather than, "Is what he saying true? Is what he saying logical? What will the real world consquences of this policy be?" Until we get back to dealing with the real world instead of political theories and ideologies that may or may not work, things are not going to get better for all of us.

I think that's a consequence of the entertainment value of news being mined for market share.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Good for you OP guy. I think that the reason why Bush is under such a microscope from the dems is that we disagree with so many things that he has done, but his supporters will admit no wrong. This makes us look to every little thing, almost salivating at the prospect of egg on his face. This is a bad thing. He is the darned President and there's no point in complaining about it. I think that Katrina will end up being a good thing for his domestic policy since the dems wont be constantly looking for something to rub our elephantine friends noses in.

 

[whatbogsends]

What's wrong with President Bush's across the board tax cuts that target the entire population?

What???

Are you serious? Trickle down economics has been hugely successful everytime it's been tried.

JFK did it and it was a success.

Reagan did it and we had the largest economic growth in history.

President Bush 43 did it and it's been hugely successful.

Please take a moment to educate yourself before you say things like this.

Can we assume that examples of this will be forthcoming?

Let's educate ourselves, shall we?

Economic growth:

"The recent news about fast rates of economic growth is undoubtedly puzzling to those millions of Americans still struggling to make ends meet. There is a simple explanation for the disconnect between what aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) numbers are telling us and what many working families feel: this is the most profit-biased recovery since World War II. While corporate profits have soared, growth in labor compensation (the paychecks that families live on) has been historically sluggish.

In the first seven quarters of the current recovery, a historically low share of income growth in the U.S. corporate sector is accounted for by rising labor compensation, while a historically high share is accounted for by corporate profits."

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12032003


Now, let's look at the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

The last 5 years of Clinton's presidency, the CPI went up approximately 18 percent, from ~150 to ~168. In 5 years of Bush's presidency, the CPI went up 32 percent, from ~168 to ~190. This year it has risen from ~190 in January to ~195 in July. I wonder what the data from August in the post Katrina statistics will look like.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx

You talk about how well the economy is doing under Bush, but for the average American, we're all worse off now then we were 5 years ago.

You also mentioned earlier on this thread that unemployment was at an all time low.

I agree. A booming economy, near record low unemployment, a sucessful war on terrorism.

While the recent (last 6 months) unemployment rate is down, it is still not as low as it was in the late 90's.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000&data_tool=%22EaG%22

However, while unemployment may be down now, the poverty level has increased.

"Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million."

"The poverty rate climbed in 2004 to 12.7 percent, from 12.5 percent in 2003 -- the fourth year in a row that poverty has risen."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001727.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/

So, while, yes - growth is high and unemployment is down, the economic picture of the US is not anywhere near as bright and rosy as you claim it to be.

 

[parousia70]

Overall, the President has done some great things -- he liberated two nations.....

There are Several Iraqi women who were former college professors, doctors, lawyers, etc... in the pre invasion Iraq who would disagree with your view that their new status as jobless, required to be robed from head to toe, not allowed to be in public without a male escort, etc... constitutes "liberation".

 

[AirPo]

Pres. Bush is under an absolute microscope, like all Presidents, but I feel that he has been under even more fire because of the way that he has rubbed the Democrats -- he is the epitome of a Republican on foreign affairs and has truly polarized the US in ways that it has not been in the entirety of my memory (admittedly, not very long).

I feel that there was no way that the Hurricane response could have been perfect and free of criticism; we have not had a major natural disaster like that in so long that we were bound to experience a lot of problems. Unfortunately, Pres. Bush was on watch, and he has to take the fire for it.

Overall, the President has done some great things -- in the midst of economic recession he fixed the economy (putting us back in the 4% growth rate number, which looked like a challenge with so many Democrats saying we were in recession); he liberated two nations and brought liberalized and lax policies to several other nations through aggressive diplomacy.

He is not the perfect President but I do not feel as if he has let us down, or disappointed us as a whole. I am happy with the way that I voted. I am sad to see someone give up the GOP and say this about our President.

That's why I call him The Great Divider.

 

[Caprice]

There are Several Iraqi women who were former college professors, doctors, lawyers, etc... in the pre invasion Iraq who would disagree with your view that their new status as jobless, required to be robed from head to toe, not allowed to be in public without a male escort, etc... constitutes "liberation".

Care to share some source material for that little spout off? I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

 

[blueapplepaste]

What would you like for him to have done?

Let's be honest. Everyone screwed up royally. Local, state, and, yes, the federal government under Bush. I'll admit, as far as prevention and that stuff there's not much he could have done. My anger is his post Katrina reaction. How he took forever to even view the damage, to come visit with people, and his comment about Trent Lott's house was plain stupid. He came across as not caring and uninterested in the people's suffering. I'm sure that's not the case. But that's the way he came across. You're lying to yourself if you can't admit that.

You can put blame at the mayor and governor (which they rightly deserve) but in a time of crisis such as this, people look to their President for reassurance and leadership. In both of these Bush failed miserably. The Bush right after 9/11 was great. Even myself (a staunch Democrat) was inspired by him and he made me think "everything's going to be ok." That Bush was missing, instead we got some apathetic cold hearted person. That's what he could have done better.

 

[MethodMan]

What would you like for him to have done?

Let's be honest. Everyone screwed up royally. Local, state, and, yes, the federal government under Bush. I'll admit, as far as prevention and that stuff there's not much he could have done. My anger is his post Katrina reaction. How he took forever to even view the damage, to come visit with people, and his comment about Trent Lott's house was plain stupid. He came across as not caring and uninterested in the people's suffering. I'm sure that's not the case. But that's the way he came across. You're lying to yourself if you can't admit that.

You can put blame at the mayor and governor (which they rightly deserve) but in a time of crisis such as this, people look to their President for reassurance and leadership. In both of these Bush failed miserably. The Bush right after 9/11 was great. Even myself (a staunch Democrat) was inspired by him and he made me think "everything's going to be ok." That Bush was missing, instead we got some apathetic cold hearted person. That's what he could have done better.

Best non-answer I have seen in a long time.

 

[12volt_man]

Let's educate ourselves, shall we?

One can only hope.

Economic growth:

"The recent news about fast rates of economic growth is undoubtedly puzzling to those millions of Americans still struggling to make ends meet.

False premise. You post this in order to make it appear that they cannot make ends meet bacause of the failure of President Bush's policies, but you neglect to show a connection.

That someone has trouble making ends meet does not correlate to failure by President Bush.

There is a simple explanation for the disconnect between what aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) numbers are telling us and what many working families feel: this is the most profit-biased recovery since World War II. While corporate profits have soared, growth in labor compensation (the paychecks that families live on) has been historically sluggish.

Could you please explain to us what happens when profits go up?

In the first seven quarters of the current recovery, a historically low share of income growth in the U.S. corporate sector is accounted for by rising labor compensation, while a historically high share is accounted for by corporate profits."

And what do you believe that this shows?

Now, let's look at the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

The last 5 years of Clinton's presidency, the CPI went up approximately 18 percent, from ~150 to ~168. In 5 years of Bush's presidency, the CPI went up 32 percent, from ~168 to ~190. This year it has risen from ~190 in January to ~195 in July. I wonder what the data from August in the post Katrina statistics will look like.

You're joking, right? Do you even know what the CPI is?

You talk about how well the economy is doing under Bush, but for the average American, we're all worse off now then we were 5 years ago.

Based on what?

You also mentioned earlier on this thread that unemployment was at an all time low.

No I didn't.

While the recent (last 6 months) unemployment rate is down, it is still not as low as it was in the late 90's.

However, while unemployment may be down now, the poverty level has increased.

"Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million."

"The poverty rate climbed in 2004 to 12.7 percent, from 12.5 percent in 2003 -- the fourth year in a row that poverty has risen."

Which is offset by falling unemployment and rising median income.

So, while, yes - growth is high and unemployment is down, the economic picture of the US is not anywhere near as bright and rosy as you claim it to be.

I believe that it's very bright and rosy.

This is one of the problems of the left. They can never build on a positive. They must find a negative and tear down. This is why liberalism will never be successful.