Why make it an emotional plea right from the start? Why guarantee that you'll sound biased against the man, making your case against his policies immediately suspect?
I don't hate Bush. Bush the man seems like a nice enough guy, I got no problem with him.
I dislike nearly all of his policies, and I definitely disagree with his "end justifies the means" style of governing. I think that the war with Iraq was justifiable but avoidable, and that there was no good reason to have done it when we did and squander the international good will we had right after 9-11. I think his insistence on massive tax cuts contributed greatly to the current deficit. I think that if he wants Medicare and welfare fixed he should work to fix them, not purposely starve them in the budget so that people suffer while the programs strangle. I think he needs to accept that the No Child Left Behind law needs work and to stop pinning his entire education program on it, letting the others lapse or fade. I think that too many of his social policies are based on religious beliefs and not on scientific evidence. I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance. I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy. I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting. I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like. I think that he and his administration are incapable of admitting to a mistake, no matter how small. I think that all of the things I dislike about his presidency will become much worse if he has a term when re-election is no longer a factor.
I think that, with the best of intentions, Bush and his people are crafting an America that no longer represents freedom and democracy. What I - or anyone - thinks of Bush the man is entirely besides the point and should have nothing to do with whom you vote for.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, you kinda made it hard to vote.
If I come into this thread based on the thread title, and just want to vote "Yea -- I like Bush".....but then read everything you said above, it sounds like "Yea - I agree with you."
What happened to the simple vote?
Farmgirl
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I can't say that I like Bush, but I have to admit that "Glycerine" was a pretty catchy tune.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I guess sometimes people get passionate about politics to the point of attacking politicians personally.
I know in the past 12 months, I have been known to comment loudly on how much I hate John Howard (PM of Australia). Do I actually hate the guy? No. And I have met him. Do I disapprove of a lot of his policies? Oh yes. And am I getting disenheartened that despite the harm he is doing to our country, he may get re-elected? Yes. Very much so.
Chris, you are, of course, right. It isn't about personal feelings. But sometimes, I can understand how people vent their frustration with public figures by framing that frustration in terms of personal anatagonism.
(Edit to Frisco: ha ha)
[ February 03, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Basically, Bush's approval rating is below 50%, and Kerry is beating Bush in the polls.
The economy matters more to voters than Iraq, and most voters think a generic Dem will do better with the economy than Bush.
I have to once more roll my eyes at those who avow Bush is a shoo-in.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Farmgirl: you're more than welcome to discuss anything I posted. I was careful to preface each one with "I think." That's true. These are my opinions. I try not to state them like they're absolute fact, since that encourages emotional rebuttals. And I'm very conscious of the fact that I could very well be wrong, that my own biases keep me from seeing the good that his policies do.
And make no mistake, some of his policies have done good. I'm just not convinced that different policies might have done better.
And I never said vote for Bush, after all... Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But I DO plan to vote for Bush...
...however that certainly doesn't mean I agree with him on every point. I see a lot of error.
I don't know ANY person I agree with on every point.
and I'm beginning to think more and more that it doesn't matter WHICH puppet we have in the White House -- so much is beyond our (voters) control and being controlled by things that are out of control....
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that Bush is the only President of recent history who could aptly be characterized as a puppet.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But do we really want to bring up presidents of the recent past?
If no third party arises, I imagine I'll vote for Bush because I'm strongly pro-life and I'm disappointed with the democratic filibusters to block court nominations. The main issue I disagree with Republicans on is gun control, but I don't really see that as something the dems are going after. Edit: The poll does not seem to overwhelmingly favor the dems. We'll see how Kerry is doing tomorrow.
It looks like it will all depend on how the economy appears to be doing at the time of the election.
For someone to vote Bush, the economy only has to be seeming to improve. Which given the press of the last two years, shouldn't be that hard.
[ February 03, 2004, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I think that Bush is the only President of recent history who could aptly be characterized as a puppet.
Wow, that's insightful. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Filibusters are a way of life for politicians of all parties...and while I'm also pro-life, I don't like that Bush is trying to stack the SC with obviously strongly biased judges.
Besides, abortion isn't something that can be brought to a screeching halt, as hard as the man may try.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pooka -- I think you'd find this article fascinating in its discussion of the recent history of the courts:
Its a long article, but its very enlightening.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
I'm just curious, is everyone on this site so incredibly liberal, or is the reason that your arguements are so biased is because your mommy and daddy just happened to talk like this during breakfast?
It's time to understand the big picture, and actually consider everything that has happened instead of just picking and choosing the situations, you really don't understand anyway, in order to support your faulty point of view
[ February 03, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: mickey_mouse ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
It was meant to be funny, not insightful. If you'd prefer, I could find a pro Bush cartoon for you and post that too.
Posted by TroII (Member # 6099) on :
yeah i agree with the mouse. liberals are dumb don't you guys know that bush is the best and is totally going to win?
dumb kids.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
just to clarify, my comments are predominantly directed towards the original post, by Chris Bridges
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
your funny troll
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, Mickey, I'll say this much: most of the more literate, well-spoken people on the site nowadays lean slightly left. There are a few exceptions, but we'd be glad to get more; you're always welcome to start turning over rocks to find some well-spoken conservatives. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think this thread needs some giner snaps! On the house.
And Tom,
Hobbes Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Am I literate and well-spoken? I lean to the right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are, indeed, literate and well-spoken. So's Hobbes, for that matter.
I conditioned that response because I think what most rabid conservatives are missing when they get to this site and accuse us all of being "flaming" liberals is the drool factor; we have very few babbling, angry idiots on Hatrack, and there's a certain tradition on conservative boards to associate conservative thought with angry babbling.
Maybe if one of you were to post a hate-filled screed about Chelsea Clinton, mickey would feel more at home. *grin*
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
No, that just means your left leg is too long.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Aah, Hobbes, you're a liberal at heart.
You just haven't figured that out yet.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ha, actually I am, it's just that all the times I'm arguing on this board seems to be about things on which I'm conservitive, I actually hold more liberal viewpoints than conservitive. At least the more important issues (to me) I'm liberal one.
But it's been a while since I've had a conversation with Tom where I wasn't on the conservitive side.
Hobbes Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm with Farmgirl on this. There's a healthy amount about the man's policies that I disagree with, but enough that I support that I'll probably end up voting for him, barring unforseen circumstances. I don't have time to make a list as long as the one in the first post if I'm going to be at work on time. But I can list the first examples that come to mind.
Dislike:
I like, in theory, the idea of cutting back government and passing the savings on to the hardworking taxpayers. I can also see the point in increasing spending for the benefit of all, although I don't support that type of idea as often. The problem I have with Bush is that I saw the tax cuts, but I've never saw the cutting back on spending that would have to accompany such a measure. Granted, I haven't studied his economic plan in detail, but this is what I see: "We're going to need $80 Billion for this, and an extra $200 Billion for that, and by the way, I'm so good at managing money, here's some back." Kind of a "have your cake and eat it too" vibe I'm picking up.
I also wish he would have stayed as focused on education as he was at the beginning of the term, but there were some things that diverted his attention, so I'll give him a little benefit of the doubt.
I also am a little disturbed at the anti-gay-marriage amendment. But I'll let Lalo rant about that one on my behalf.
Like:
He seems to be the only candidate that's more concerned with taking steps to root out and deal with the causes of skyrocketing health care costs than just sending the bill to the taxpayer. Even Lieberman, who I like, said in an interview that he would rather have the government pay for health care than try to make it cheaper. This could be a thread of its own, so I won't derail this one with any further comment, but it is an important issue to me.
Also, when I was considering the war with Iraq, their actual posession of WMDs was of minor importance in my personal list of pros and cons, so even if they never find any, I won't be too disturbed. Again, other threads have discussed this, so I won't do any more derailing...
And finally, I know it may have been a move of politically motivated pandering, but I was impressed with the theory behind his immigration reforms. It's about time we noticed the difference between people that want to come here to work and the ones that want want to come here because they heard that there's lots of cool free stuff.
Like I said, I don't think he's any kind of Messiah, and I am getting a little cynical about the political process in general, but if I end up choosing a major party candidate, he's got a pretty good lock on my "lesser of two evils" vote.
[ February 03, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Troll is a joker having some fun at the expense of the real troll, mickey_mouse.
BTW, pooka, you might find it interesting that Mr. Pickering, one of those candidates the Democrats have been opposing and whom Bush recently appointed as an interim appointee, strongly advocated increasing the penalties on interracial marriage during his college years, among other things advocating a new law by the state legislature in his school's Law Review.
And you know this administration's insistence that sentencing guidelines be adhered to by judges? Well, Pickering says he agrees with that. However, in the mid 90s he pressed to get a person sentenced for arson's sentence reduced to far below that allowed by federal guidelines -- so low that it likely would have violated federal law to do so. He had done this in no other cases, always sentencing well within federal guidelines. Part of the crime in question? Burning a cross on an African American family's lawn.
He also has a record of "incorrectly answering" questions which would make his record seem clearer -- for instance when questioned about a plee bargain in that same case, stating he did not know when he approved the bargain that the defendant had mere days earlier fired a gun into the house of the victims, despite it being part of the testimony he had heard -- the sentencing document bears his signature and includes that information.
Or another time, when he denied involvement with the Sovereignty Commission, a racist commission, despite a memo from the commission's records showing he had specifically asked to be kept informed on one of their actions.
More recently when he needed letters of recommendation due to his nomination, he specifically asked several lawyers to write him letters of recommendation and collected and faxed them himself (which would definitely have allowed him to read them). Even without being able to read them, but especially with that, this would have been a problem because several of the lawyers he asked currently had cases before him.
This wasn't years ago, even a comparatively few years such as the 94 arson case, or the many more back to when he was advocating higher sentences against interracial marriage. This was last year for his appointment hearings.
And you wonder why the Democrats would oppose him?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and that article for the Law Review wasn't just some minor thing. The legislature ended up following several of his recommendations.
Oh, and he doesn't think much of our system of government. According to him, "one-person, one-vote" is "obtrusive".
And for some reason he seems to have lost about 40% of his unpublished opinions -- he had over 1000 of them, and fewer than 100 published opinions. He only produced about 600 when asked to by the Senate, and said the rest were unavailable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It's time to understand the big picture, and actually consider everything that has happened instead of just picking and choosing the situations, you really don't understand anyway, in order to support your faulty point of view.
And that's one of the things I come here for. Tell me where I'm wrong. I'd appreciate it if you'd start from the assumption that I have thought out my opinions instead of just parroting a party line, but I would like to know what I'm missing. As my topic-starter suggested, I admit I don't know everything.
I listed my major objections, one by one. I did not assault his character or his personality, only his methods. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible to discuss the issues and not the man, the party, or the ideology. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
Chris -
Saying that I disagree with everything that you have said would be inaccurate. I agree with your disapproval of Bush's stance on education. Although I'm not sure that I would oppose it for the same reasons. My experience with education was a highly competitive one in which the hardest working excelled and the less motivated were left far behind. I believe that this is a perfect system when our eduation should prepare us for life in the capitalist world that we find ourselves in. Funding for education should be distributed based on this system.
My main disagreement stems from your comments on the war. The war was necessary. The war with Iraq was intended to attend to issues that should have been solved over ten years ago. Lets not forget that America was not the only nation that believed Iraq to be highly dangerous. Even the governments of France and Germany believed this. They just choose to do little about it. We did something. And the world is a little bit safer for it.
I'm not entirely sure that I like the way in which the situation has been handled since the callopse of Saddam's regime, although I don't see a better way to handle it.
You argued that America should not have jeopordized the small amount of good will that we had after 9-11. Good will? You do understand that most of the world blames their problems on us. Not for any logical reason but simply because we have it good and they don't. [And don't lay into a history lesson on America's foreign policy here, I already know it.] That good will started to fade on 9-12.
Here's my main point. you started your post by saying that Bush is a nice guy but you disagree with nearly all of his policies. I want Bush to stay in office because I feel that he is about as Moral and ethical a guy that has been in the office in 20-30 years. I want to be able to trust my president. I don't agree with eveything that he does, but I do believe that he proceeds most of his decisions with the thought ... "is this really the right thing to do?"
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I want to be able to trust my president. I don't agree with eveything that he does, but I do believe that he proceeds most of his decisions with the thought ... "What would Jesus do?"
Fixed it.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
Frisco -
If he really did that with every decision, I would do everything in my power to keep him as our president forever.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So so long as a person asks themselves WWJD, regardless of whether or not they do a very good job of guessing what jesus would do, they deserve to run our country?
Uh huh.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If I thought he had the first clue as to what Jesus would actually do, I would, too.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Jesus tells me to burn things.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Remind me not to come over for dinner.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
you guys are hilarious
[ February 03, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: mickey_mouse ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Don't be modest. I think your first post in this thread has been the funniest one so far.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: You do understand that most of the world blames their problems on us. Not for any logical reason but simply because we have it good and they don't.
From a 'most of the world' veiwpoint... you don't really believe that do you?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Not even for an all-flambé menu, Frisco?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Frisco, based on your posting in the last three hours or so, I'm nominating you for the Hatrack Funny award.
Not sure if one exists.. but if it does, you'll get the official notification in the mail
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
do you have any idea how long it would take me to answer that question?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Micky_Mouse: If it was my question - I was hoping for a simple 'no'. Or at least a 'I don't know, given I have never visited the countries in question, observed their governments, talked to their people, viewed their media, read their newspapers, and actually experienced what they thought about the USA and why'.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:My main disagreement stems from your comments on the war. The war was necessary. The war with Iraq was intended to attend to issues that should have been solved over ten years ago. Lets not forget that America was not the only nation that believed Iraq to be highly dangerous. Even the governments of France and Germany believed this. They just choose to do little about it. We did something. And the world is a little bit safer for it.
The war may or may not have been necessary. It wasn't necessary then. What was necessary then was going after terrorists and terrorist-protectors in a big way. What was wasted was a golden opportunity to form alliances with countries that did not love us but hated terrorists more. To devise policies based on police "hot pursuit" policies to allow better investigation and information sharing. There was no reason we couldn't have waited six months to let the inspectors dig a bit more. There was no reason to wheedle, bully, and finally ignore the U.N.. The war on Iraq was based on an urgent need that now appears to not be there.
My own experiences with education run counter to yours, I'm afraid. The highly skilled do well only where the incompetent have not become entrenched, or gone into school administration. I think that basing a school's funding solely on how well their kids perform on tests will result in kids who graduate ready to get a job taking that test, because they won't be very suitable for anything else. It also results in adminstrators bending the records so they make quota. Funding for schools should be based on standardized tests, as well as local population growth and density, condition of the school, level of staffing, and historical comparison to check for unusual changes in performance. This is not, as supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act have suggested, a lessening of accountability. If anything I'm demanding that schools be more accountable, especially in audits, day-to-day performance, and human resources.
I have to admit, I don't see Bush as an ethical person, or at least not an ethical politician. He's publicly supported programs that he knew were being gutted or underfunded, apparently for the photo op. He's taken credit for bills that passed only after he fought them tooth and nail, and then without his signature.
Still don't hate him, though Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I should point out now, before the inevitable comparisons to former presidents pop up, that I am not comparing Mr. Bush to any other president, living or dead.
I'm comparing him to the president I would vote for whole-heartedly, without reservation or doubt. Haven't met that person yet, but I can dream.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I want to be able to trust my president."
So do I. That's part of why I can't stand Bush.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You can trust Bush. He's doing what is best for the country. Just because the spin of the left is trying to make it seem like he's a liar doesn't mean that he is. You can trust him word for word. I'm so glad he's in there and can't wait for him to win again. He's a very religious person. Devoted both to his faith and family. I'll never understand the hatred and jealously of him when he's just trying to what's best.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Have you ever considered working for a subliminal advertising firm?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You can trust Bush. He's doing what is best for the country. Just because the spin of the left is trying to make it seem like he's a liar doesn't mean that he is. You can trust him word for word. I'm so glad he's in there and can't wait for him to win again. He's a very religious person. Devoted both to his faith and family. I'll never understand the hatred and jealously of him when he's just trying to what's best.
But Jay, being a Democrat, I'm less concerned with what I can do for my country than what my country can do for me.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
What's that, Destineer? Could you repeat it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*has a headache* I stil haven't a clue or any proof that he really is honest and doing what is right for the country. Give me some examples...
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
Instead of wasting my time searching for information that you say your looking for, how about you do the research yourself. Read the paper, read the press releases, and then wait to see if what he claims is what he follows through with.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Read the paper, read the press releases, and then wait to see if what he claims is what he follows through with.
What like, "We know they have WMD... oops, no they didn't"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....Yeah. Actually, it's really hard to look at anything Bush has ever said and NOT realize that he lies with every breath.
The man does not give without taking away; he speaks out of the corner of his mouth on a regular basis, and every program he's ever instituted has dripped with poison.
What has Bush ever done that's been a GOOD thing?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do look at the news papers on yahoo occasionally... It seems that mostly... Perhaps I am reading into it incorrectly, but it seems as if most of his actions are negative. Give me just five examples of a good action of his with good results...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
For bush's character, I'd like to reference a blog written by a member of ornery.
Oh, some of the tax cuts were a decent idea. I quite liked the capital gains cut, for instance. And a lot of the rate restructuring aspects. Lets see, what else . . . Oh yeah, hiring Paul O'Neill. I liked that. Of course, then he fired him. I dislike that quite a bit. O'Neill was a sound believer in actual economics, unlike the gibberish from this administration, even though I occasionally disagreed with him.
Some of the things Bush has said have been quite nice . . . increase the members and funding of AmeriCorps, protecting veteran's rights and benefits, setting a much higher level for Pell grants, adequately funding LIHEAP, providing prescription drug coverage for all Medicare covered seniors . . . among others. Of course, he hasn't done any of these, so I wouldn't really call that a positive record.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I should point out that he actually advocated (and succeeded in some cases) cutting the funding for several of those initiatives I listed that he stated he supported.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes... sadly he let them cut Americorps, which does affect me because I'd like to join again. I'd actually make more money from it then I do the job I am on. And none of these capital gains tax cuts benefit me either... What I care about is- The environment personal responsibility doing what is really best for the country and not just snuggling up with special interest groups on BOTH sides...
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
For the last two presidential elections, the Republicans have been running on character issues. Their message has been, "Can you trust Slick Willie after he lied about sleeping with an intern?" "Wouldn't you rather vote for a straight talking Texan than a inside the beltway robot who claimed to have invented the internet?"
It is absolutely fair to hate Bush because a large part of his appeal was based on his carefully crafted image of a honest, albeit average, leader. He won a lot of the swing votes based on the fact that he just appeared to be a more trustworthy person than Al Gore.
You cannot run on character and then expect people to conveniently ignore it.
[ February 03, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I didn't vote based on the images any of the candidates presented for my enjoyment. I read up on their positions, their voting records, their major contributors, and what they actually did in office.
I don't plan to waste my time worrying about Bush's image or what he (or the other candidates) present themselves as, or what they say in press conferences, or what their ghost-writers present as their opinions. What did they do? And will they do it again.
Anyone who votes for a candidate based on anything else is wasting a vote and possibly negating an informed one. With the Internet it is ridiculously easy to dig this stuff out even if it wasn't thrown at you from any number of political sites from any point of the idelogical spectrum. Voting without knowing what you're voting for is a waste of the whole process and as dangerous as letting someone drive because they can turn the key.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I did not vote for Bush because of his image. But just because I didn't buy into his "character" platform does not mean I cannot challenge the Republicans to be internally consistent. Republicans wanted us to vote on him based on his character, and now we shall.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Bush is a nice enough guy, I don't hate him. I will not vote for him however. The two largest political parties are trash.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish there was a third party who would REALLy do what is best for the country instead of say, the religious right or corporations. Who will do things that are reasonable like limit guns, look out for the environment and find the middle ground in major issues.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um, Syne? That would be the Democrats, as far as I can tell, based on your description. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: limit guns, look out for the environment and find the middle ground in major issues.
You have a party that stands for those "reasonable" things, the democrats.
Hell, Tom beat me to it.
[ February 03, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But even the Democrats aren't much different. Sure they attackt the Republicans on their policies, but what difference does that make? It's just foolish arguing. Plus sometimes the Republicans do make some good points... But that sort of middle ground is impossible, getting them to listen instead of attack... Somehow having one big party would be less democratic... like having purple instead of red and blue.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Somehow having one big party would be less democratic...
We have one big party now. Just two wings of it. They both spend in reflex to any problem, and neither recognizes the problem of having a 7 trillion dollar debt.
Also, what do you mean by middle ground? It seems like you let the two parties decide your stance on the issues.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not really. Both parties make interesting points... Which I will elborate on later because soon I must go to work. but Paul, that article on Bush is interesting so far. I'm reminded of the Frat boys I went to school with, their drunkness and the fear that guys like that would one day run the world... Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I have no idea what to think of Bush. He really jumps around. More concerning to me than his policies and image is the fact that I honestly have no idea what his response will be to anything, nor what he will do next. I don't like that level of unpredictability.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unfortunately I'm not fond of Democrats (as a class) either. I tend to like a few positions from all the parties, and a few of my opinions are ones I haven't seen from anybody.
Using the party line to assess your problems is like going to a dermatologist no matter what your sickness is. Sometimes, you might just have to look somewhere else for a solution.
If a problem arises, look at the problem and figure out the best way to handle it. Don't apply the liberal solution because it's popular right now, or the conservative way because you like it better. Use the method that works. If it doesn't, acknowledge it and use another method.
This is hard?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Maybe if one of you were to post a hate-filled screed about Chelsea Clinton, mickey would feel more at home. *grin*
Now why would I do that? I don't care for Chelsea's parents, but I have nothing against her.
Though I do hope she turns Republican when she grows up.
Mostly because it would really piss off her parents. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think she should start dating Dick Cheney's daughter.
Seriously, it would be great. The media wouldn't know what to do! Is it a Democratic scandal or a Republican one? What would Rush say?
These two crazy kids just have to get together, for the good of the country. Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
Okay, I usually don't get involved in this sort of thing, since these types of threads are the ones that seriously drain my time. Nonetheless, here goes:
quote:I dislike nearly all of his policies, and I definitely disagree with his "end justifies the means" style of governing.
Okay, that's pretty general. I'm not a big fan of "the ends justifies the means" concept, although I would be very careful in characterizing Bush's administration as using this notion as doctrine. I think it's more accurate to say that Bush has very absolutist notions of right and wrong, and can be very single-minded in the pursuit of what he thinks to be right.
quote:I think that the war with Iraq was justifiable but avoidable, and that there was no good reason to have done it when we did and squander the international good will we had right after 9-11.
The war on Iraq was a tough call. To be honest, I'm not sure that we'll ever know for certain if it was the right decision. Chris, you're right that it was justifiable but avoidable, but so is chemotherapy. Both are terrible to endure and potentially unnecessary, but the longer you wait the more you run the risk of allowing a greater problem to develop. Sure, we could have allowed the inspectors more time. But remember, they had already been given the runaround for 10 years. How much more time do you need?
quote:I think his insistence on massive tax cuts contributed greatly to the current deficit.
I agree on this somewhat, but I tend to suspect that the tax cuts may have helped the sagging economy. This is another "what if" scenario--if the tax cuts had not been implemented, where would the economy be today? Despite all the massive brainpower that has been applied to this topic, no one can know for sure. In any case, the cuts ransom tomorrow for today, which I'm not very comfortable with.
quote:I think that if he wants Medicare and welfare fixed he should work to fix them, not purposely starve them in the budget so that people suffer while the programs strangle. I think he needs to accept that the No Child Left Behind law needs work and to stop pinning his entire education program on it, letting the others lapse or fade.
I haven't looked at either of these two programs in much depth, so I can't really comment on them much. I think Bush's heart is in the right place with regard to education--I think he understands that the bottom line is to have educated children, and he's genuinely trying to find the best means, be they public or private, to reach that goal. Does that mean that his methods are the best? Again, I'm not an expert in that area, so I can't say.
quote:I think that too many of his social policies are based on religious beliefs and not on scientific evidence.
I concede that his religious beliefs to have a massive impact on his behavior. Since I share those religious beliefs, I don't mind it at all. I don't think that having a moral worldview based on religion causes you to reject logic, and I feel that Bush's decisions on matters where religion comes into play also have a logical background as well.
quote:I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance.
I don't know much about this at all.
quote:I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy.
I don't follow what you mean by the latter part of this statement. Offshore tax havens? Anyway, I support the Adam Smith free-enterprise model, where government involvment keeps things fair and honest but otherwise does not interfere.
quote:I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting.
Don't know about this one either. I'm not much of a finance geek. Could you be a bit more specific?
quote:I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like.
Yes, somewhat, no. The first is part of the reality of political hardball, and there is an implicit assumption that the other parties get to fight back with their own means. If we're talking about the Bush Administration forcing the Defenseless Little Old Ladies' Association to discontinue their controversial Knitting for Nannies program, then yeah I would have a problem with Bush Administration strongarming people. But the reality is that in most cases we're talking about the Democratic Party or well-funded special interest groups, groups that are not pushovers. This leads into a detailed political science discussion about what tactics are okay. If you haven't read him already, I would suggest Graham Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then we can debate realpolitik and structural realism vs. liberalism etc.
Does the Bush Administration hide stuff? Probably. I'm uncomfortable with what I suspect is happening, although I don't think that they're doing anything that is outright criminal. Rather, I suspect it's the more usual sort of spin-doctoring mind games popular with any politician.
I don't think that Bush ignores stuff that it doesn't like. Care to provide any examples?
quote:I think that he and his administration are incapable of admitting to a mistake, no matter how small.
Well, Bush did just recently order the probe into the intelligence gathered as a justification for the war. More importantly, I think that Bush has publically accepted responsibility for not preventing 11 September. He has acknowledged that many government agencies needed to be improved in the wake of the attack, and I think he has genuinely attempted to improve them so that something similar can never happen again.
quote:I think that all of the things I dislike about his presidency will become much worse if he has a term when re-election is no longer a factor.
Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates. He's a politician, there's no doubt about that, but the aforementioned moral absolutism keeps him fairly consistent. Thus, I don't think that there will be much of a difference between how he makes decisions now and how he might make decisions in a second term.
There are things that I like and dislike about Bush, to be sure. But the likes outweigh the dislikes, so I'll be voting for him.
[ February 03, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Taberah ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Bravo! Perfectly said.
Rhaegar
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates."
So, um, let me ask this again: why do you think he did the steel tariffs and that huge Medicare bill? Those weren't poll-driven at all?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:I think he understands that the bottom line is to have educated children, and he's genuinely trying to find the best means, be they pubic or private
You may want to fix that. Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
Whew, thanks Bob. Freudian slip, I suppose.
Tom--If we conducted a poll about steel tariffs, do you think that the masses would have much passion about it? You're not reading your lines right. You're supposed to harp on the fact that Bush is a lackey of corporations and special interest groups. I just don't think that the average joe cares about steel tariffs all that much. Do you really think that Bush's approval rating would have gone down had he not implemented the tariffs? As for medicare, I think it's arguable that Bush is legitimately trying to meet people's needs, albeit in a way that has the additional benefit of garnering him public support.
I think of a poll responsive president as one who never wants to offend anyone, and rejects principles for popularity. Considering Bush's willingness to offend people with his policies, I really don't think this can be said of him.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, but certain unions and corporations, who have a decent electoral power, do care about steel tariffs, muchly. Even though he mentioned in his campaign for president that he didn't like the idea of tariffs, since he felt US business could compete with anyone, he did exactly opposite when it came to a sizeable group of voters who generally agree with many of Bush's policies, but for whom a steel tariff would be a make it or break issue.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom--If we conducted a poll about steel tariffs, do you think that the masses would have much passion about it?"
I think a statistically significant percentage of steelworkers in Pennsylvania cared about it. And no one has ever accused Bush of caring about the whole country when he could just care about individually important voting blocs. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Steel tariffs were clearly a special interest thing -- and also show Bush is clearly not acting on what he knows to be best for the economy, since he has an economics background.
Also, you completely mischaracterize the tax cuts. The ones that have already happened are the popular parts of the tax cuts, the ones most people agreed upon, even those against the overall package. Everyone was saying that some tax cuts were warranted. The problem is that the tax cut package is hideously back loaded, and more and more provisions are coming into effect each year. Most of the Bush tax cut hasn't even happened yet, but he's pushing for a big extension of its effects. And I might point out that the economic "gain" of the tax cuts (almost entirely due to the capital gains cut) is largely a temporary boost that allows the fed to catch an upswing -- its still the rates changes that do the work, the tax cuts mean almost zilch except an increased deficit.
Also, you seem willing to put off many of his initiatives due to not being an expert, despite numerous experts in the fields speaking out against them -- notice the condemnation of no child left behind educators, for instance.
And I think Bush has numerous times based his publicly stated opinion on what the polls say -- lied about what he was going to do and done the anti poll thing anyways. Did you read my list earlier? Those are all initiatives Bush said he would support, then did not, and often opposed. To quote myself:
quote:increase the members and funding of AmeriCorps, protecting veteran's rights and benefits, setting a much higher level for Pell grants, adequately funding LIHEAP, providing prescription drug coverage for all Medicare covered seniors
. In fact, despite promising to do all of those, the only one he hasn't explicitly tried to cut is the prescription drug coverage, and his plan only covers a small percentage of seniors on medicare. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with some sort of defense for these behaviors in an ethical politician! In what way is it defensible to publicly voice support for programs, pledge additional funding in such speeches as the state of the union, and then actively work to undercut those programs?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let's see...
Sure, we could have allowed the inspectors more time. But remember, they had already been given the runaround for 10 years. How much more time do you need?
They were also making progress, and had more access than ever before just before Bush and friends imposed a deadline. But without actual WMDs, it simply was not more important at the time than hunting down terrorists.
I agree on this somewhat, but I tend to suspect that the tax cuts may have helped the sagging economy. This is another "what if" scenario--if the tax cuts had not been implemented, where would the economy be today?
I think the tax cuts helped a lot of people. I think the extension of those cuts, and the larger ones coming up, will hurt the economy far more than the initial ones helped.
I concede that his religious beliefs to have a massive impact on his behavior. Since I share those religious beliefs, I don't mind it at all. I don't think that having a moral worldview based on religion causes you to reject logic, and I feel that Bush's decisions on matters where religion comes into play also have a logical background as well.
Religious and idelogical beliefs, I should have said (and did, just not together). The White House has reportedly pressured several agencies to alter wording in reports to better fit their worldview. Here's a column that lists the most obvious ones, I can provide news links for each if needed.
"I think that the practice of removing regulations and adding barriers to the individual's legal options against a corporation is opening the door wide to corruption and malfeasance."
I don't know much about this at all.
This might take a while. The short version is that while Bush's was in Texas he presided over the dismantling of the anti-pollution regulations that were cramping the oil companies' styles. Regulations were made voluntary, and to date (as far as I know) have not been adhered to at all, by any of the companies. This same method has been applied to several industries since he has been in the White House.
"I think that cutting taxes for the rich is fine within reason, but that allowing massive tax evasion and even rewarding companies with offshore tax havens by granting them major government contracts is foolhardy."
I don't follow what you mean by the latter part of this statement. Offshore tax havens? Anyway, I support the Adam Smith free-enterprise model, where government involvment keeps things fair and honest but otherwise does not interfere.
More and more businesses (including Halliburton, Cheney's old company) are establishing corporate headquarters in countries with laxer tax laws, thus keeping huge amounts of taxable income out of the United States entirely.
"I think that the practice of disarming regulatory boards and action committees by appointing only poeple who have spent their career fighting against the regulations and practices their job now requires them to enact is not only useless, it's insulting."
Don't know about this one either. I'm not much of a finance geek. Could you be a bit more specific?"
Probably more than anyone wants to read.
Harvey Pitt was placed in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before his nomination, Pitt, an attorney with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, represented the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen, which served as Enron's independent auditors and allegedly facilitated Enron's issuance of misleading financial statements that hid the company's true financial condition. He has also represented clients accused of accounting irregularities before the SEC, most notably Canadian entertainment executive Garth Drabinsky.
Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, was most recently a leading lobbyist for the auto industry's American Automobile Manufacturers Association. He opposed rules requiring cleaner-running cars, fought EPA smog and soot rules, and helped lobby against the Kyoto treaty. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, is a former lobbyist for "property rights" groups in the West seeking to undo environmental rules. She is a disciple of James Watt, the notorious Reagan administration Secretary of the Interior who said that trees cause pollution and tried to undo ten years of environmental rules. J. Steven Griles, Norton's deputy at Interior, is a former lobbyist for mining and chemical interests. (One candidate passed over for the job: Bush Sr.'s secretary of Fish & Wildlife.) Camden Toohey, Norton's official in charge of aAlaska, is a former lobbyist for Arctic oil drilling. Kit Himball, Norton's official in charge of the West, was a lobbyist for Western business issues. The new head of the Consumer Products Safety Commission has a decade-long track record of voting against proposed safety rules. She has criticized the commission for creating a "federal nanny state." The new head of the Federal Trade Commission has said that the Clinton administration restricted too many big corporate mergers. Dr. W. David hager was appointed to the FDA Federal Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The same Dr. Hager has written a book with his wife entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body" where he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.
John D. Graham, the new head of Bush's budget review process, is a Harvard professor whose studies on risk said that many environmental regulations (including limits on dioxin) have costs that outweigh the benefits. The "costs," of course, are borne almost entirely by industry; the "benefits" by people who don't get cancer. Michael Powell, the new chair of the FCC, has opposed every action to limit the size and scope of cable and phone companies.
Of the top 100 Bush appointees in the present administration, 50 came from for-profit businesses or lobbying firms and law firms with significant lobbying operations. 20 of the top 100 officials in the Bush administration work in departments, agencies or offices that their former, private sector employers lobbied or from which they sought federal contracts in 2001.
It's also worthwhile to note the officials who quit in protest over Bush's agendas. Christine Whitman, head of the EPA, left office to spend more time with her family. I'm sure it's coincidental that she was often at odds with the White House's environmental policies. Mike Dombeck, the chief of the US Forest Service, quit in March, 2001, after senior people said they wanted to "move in a different direction" from the Clinton administration. Eric Schaeffer, for five years the director of regulatory enforcement at EPA, quit in February, 2002, saying the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."
This is a small listing, I can add more if you like. I agree that appointees to regulatory boards need to have experience with the industry or service they are regulating. I do not think that experience should be from working to weaken the very regulations that they are now supposed to enforce, yet an amazing number of Mr. Bush's appointees are in just that position.
"I think his administration strong-arms those who disagree with it, hides anything that makes it look suspect, and ignores anything it doesn't like."
Yes, somewhat, no. The first is part of the reality of political hardball, and there is an implicit assumption that the other parties get to fight back with their own means. If we're talking about the Bush Administration forcing the Defenseless Little Old Ladies' Association to discontinue their controversial Knitting for Nannies program, then yeah I would have a problem with Bush Administration strongarming people. But the reality is that in most cases we're talking about the Democratic Party or well-funded special interest groups, groups that are not pushovers.
See the column link above for examples of altered reports. Also see the report on sex education filed by Surgeon General David Satcher, which was downplayed and nearly buried by the White House because of its findings on abstinence-only sex education, the only type the Bush administration will support.
Unlike Clinton, Bush really isn't the sort to base his actions on what the latest poll indicates.
Granted. But he also seems immune to any sort of outside opinion unless it fits his already-agreed-upon plans. I don't think the president should bend to public opinion, but I also don't think he can act as if he has the backing of the whole country when fully half of them voted for someone else.
There's more points, but that's enough to have to scroll past for now.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
It was crime at the time but the laws, we changed 'em, though the hero for hire's forever the same one. Introducing for the first time, Pharaoh on the microphone. Sing all hail, what'll be revealed today when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne? Awakened to cheers after years on the faultline, we are shocked to be here in the face of the meantime. Pharaoh, all your methods have taught me is to separate my blood from bone. It will all fail, feeling what I feel today, when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne. Form a line through here, form a line to the throne. Alone in the chain, it remains to be seen how, how well you can play when the pawn takes a queen now. Introducing for the first time, Pharaoh on the microphone. Sing all hail, what'll be revealed today when we peer into the great unknown, from the line to the throne? Form a line through here, form a line to the throne. It was crime at the time but the laws have changed, yeah.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If you are a politician you should NOT be allowed to let your religious veiws affect your policies. A politician should instead do what is right for the country. However, they should be governed by the principals involved in their beliefs. They should be governed by them whole heartedly and be honest, honourable and they should not be hypocritical. So far, I have not seen this of Bush. Perhaps it's because I've only heard the negative things about Bush and his policies even from people who like him.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:In fact, despite promising to do all of those, the only one he hasn't explicitly tried to cut is the prescription drug coverage, and his plan only covers a small percentage of seniors on medicare.
Strange. Every single thing I read, by people on both sides of the Medicare issue, agree that it covers all seniors.
quote:Well, Pickering says he agrees with that. However, in the mid 90s he pressed to get a person sentenced for arson's sentence reduced to far below that allowed by federal guidelines -- so low that it likely would have violated federal law to do so. He had done this in no other cases, always sentencing well within federal guidelines. Part of the crime in question? Burning a cross on an African American family's lawn.
He followed the Justice department's recommendation on that issue. And the only reason he wanted the sentence reduced was because the man in question was not a racist, he was just drunk and going along with some of his friends. He had seven character witnesses on his side and no criminal record. Pickering actually wanted a much stiffer penalty for the ring leader of the group. He had plea bargained (with the justice department) for a misdemeanor and no jail time, because he was 17 at the time.
In short, I see no evidence of wrongdoing on Pickerings part in this case. Furthermore, I am a skeptical of the other cases you mention, because they show the same bias. I frankly regard this case as more evidence of the Bush-haters' unreliability.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I have been seeing a lot of people claim that Bush is a puppet. I haven't seen anyone saying who his puppetmaster is, or what makes them think it.
Could someone explain this point of view to my literate but not very informed self?
[ February 04, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, the justice department recommended 7 1/2 years in jail for swan, not what Pickering wanted, which was more like 2 years:
Also, its worth noting that the Justice Department repeatedly tried to deal with Swan, yet he continuously refused to admit wrongdoing in exchange for a lesser sentence.
And yes, the 17 yr old was the ringleader. It was also known and on the plea agreement documentation that he had fired a rifle into the couple's house, yet Pickering still signed that documentation, knowing this.
I can provide quotes from Pickering for the rest of what I've said, such as him denying any relation to the Sovereignty Commission, and quotes from the commission memo that show he did, in fact have a relationship with them. If you'd like to dispute the facts, could you at least do so with evidence?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)