| Author | Message | ||
     kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 41 Registered: 6-2002 |
I know everyone finds great fun in the ongoing debate here (myself included), but I wonder if there are basic issues that conservatives and liberals can agree on. And, may I suggest, the first issue that we may agree on is competence (and the lack thereof). Hey, I'm pretty liberal but I've got to believe that conservatives have to be losing their mind over our listless response to Katrina, the failure to plan for and later support our military in Iraq, the prescription drug plan, Harriet Miers, carte blanche use of executive powers even if it infringes on constitutional rights.....In fact, the conservatives I know are as dissatisfied with Bush as I am, only they have never had any faith in governmenmt so they don't expect anyone to succeed. But I have found very few- really no- Bush supporters that will argue his ability to govern. As for the November election, w}hether from the right or the left, I think any competent adult will get wide support. Hell, at this point I would vote for anyone who simply knew what they were talking about, Republican or Democrat. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4333 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well there are a couple right here on this board who will argue his ability to walk on water. Stick around a little while, you'll see. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1506 Registered: 8-2004  |
Bill , I don't think the incompetency issue will fly. Not enough support from conservatives. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3017 Registered: 9-2001  |
I think there are more and more Cons not happy with Bush II these days. My arch-conservative ex-brother-in-law, who I have fought good-naturedly with for many years over politics, recently said that he can't stand how Bush is running the country and wishes he had voted for Kerry. After I regained consciousness, I checked to make sure he had not lapsed into a crack habit. Nope, he is dead serious. Katrina and FEMA put him over the edge, but he is widely critical of Iraq (how it is being done, not the war itself), the Abramoff scandal, the budget deficit, and the whole tone of Washington arrogance in the administration and congressional leadership. He did love the Roberts and Alito appointments. And we both agree the Dems really have no one that lights us up, either. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 380 Registered: 8-2004 |
I'll agree with that. And for what its worth the Republicans in my family are also unhappy with this Administration. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 42 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hey Guy, I wouldn't bet on that, even in a quarter ante poker game...I just got back from Grand Rapids, Gerald Ford Country and conservative as hell. I got sucked into a political conversation in a cigar bar with a bunch of western Michigan police chiefs (honest, there was a convention there...). I tried out the incompetence issue, and I got a lame "but look at the choices..". I asked if that meant that they thought he was doing a good job. They laughed, "of course not". And its not just a bunch of guys I drank with...at any given point you will find the likes of George Will or others taking him on for growing government or messing up the war. My point is that this is not a Republican-Democrat issue and its not a liberal-conservative issue. At least not for me at this point. Yeah, I'd prefer to have a more liberal president in there, but I would gladly take a competent Republican at this point. The first Bush seems like Lincoln at this point- bring him back if we have to. What does a conservative say these days about the prescription drug benefit or the NSA wiretaps? I heard Grover Nordquist on NPR yesterday (I said I was a liberal- you think I listen to Rush?) and he was up in arms about the wiretapping and was criticising Rove by name. I'm not thrilled with the Dems choices or the Republicans right now, but there is still time for someone to emerge. i just hope they won't have more to undo than they can handle. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1507 Registered: 8-2004 |
Bill, I can only go with the polls I see and the people I talk to. Most polls show 80% of Republicans approving of Bush. Of course George Will conservatives may have a different take. As I said before , I don't agree with everything Bush does, but that doesn't translate into incompetency. You should have asked you buddies if they thought GWB was doing a good job protecting this country. You may have gotten a different response. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 43 Registered: 6-2002 |
I wish I had asked that, but do YOU think he is doing a good job protecting the country? Not is he "doing everything he can" but is he doing a good job? Is he showing real leadership? Creativity in solving difficult problems? Appointing the best minds to develop new strategies? I could almost buy an argument that we are in a post 9/11 world where the rules have changed and no one is able to react to the new dynamics, so Bush is overwhelmed as anyone would be. I think it is, in the end, cynical but I understand the POV. But I am hard pressed to understand how anyone could say he is doing a GOOD job protecting us. By the way, Guy, I don't know if I accept that as the sole criteria- not that you said it was. But Karl Rove and the last Presidential campaign suggested it was, and I just don't accept it. There is more at stake.} | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1508 Registered: 8-2004 |
Bill , in the words of that world famous liberal, Ed Koch: "While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has enunciated the Bush Doctrine and proven his ability to fight this war," said Koch. "The Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to go after terrorists." | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 652 Registered: 2-2004 |
Yet another whine thread by the libs, although somewhat disguised. Listen, I feel your pain. Us conservatives went through it during the Clinton years. It is nothing new. Don't blame Bush, blame your own party and candidates. I never one time blamed Clinton for being a good campaigner. I blamed Bush 41 and Dole. Those guys allowed Clinton to roll them. Why don't you upset libs go after the people you are really upset with - McAuliffe, Gore, Schrum, and Kerry. Those four guys have screwed you for the past 6 years now and Gore and Kerry want to have some more action. Are you going to let them? Bush isn't perfect, but he is doing a lot better job than Gore or Kerry would have ever done. Of course, I guess during Katrina, Kerry might have called his Swiftboat buddies to head down that way. I just can't wait to see this Democratic thrashing in November. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 44 Registered: 6-2002 |
Sorry, Guy- and with all due respect for Ed Koch (who hasn't been a liberal since the 70s) many Dems sided w/ Repubs early on, and I would argue that there are many Dems that have other good, but different, ideas and how to protect our country. Look, Bush initially resisted the Dept. of Homeland Security and most Dems supported it. Did Bush NOT have the stomach to go after terrorists until he did? Or did the Dems not have the stomach until they didn't....or something like that. Here is one way that I believe Bush has made our country less secure: 63% of the Army's active duty force is currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually there, not supporting from the US or another theater. Let's say you support the war (and I did but now I don't) and let's say you believe that we are making a difference in bringing democracy to the middle east-- a valid, noble argument. Even with that, does it make any sense to involve ourselves unilaterally and to that degree in a venture that does not directly protect our shores? Lets pretend: Korea becomes unruly, or maybe Pat Robertson convinces Bush to go to war with Venezuala or Quebec makes demands that we start speaking French- what then?? I'm sure the remaining 37% will do a great job and we haven't really tapped the Coast Guard yet, and I do know smoe French so maybe it isn't all that bad, but how does that make Bush "good" at protecting our country? And I haven't even started about FEMA, chemical plants, etc. To me the arguments that make this about Dems-Repubs are inane and outdated. There are Republicans I respect on this issue and Democrats as well. Making this partisan is like debating Mets-Yankees (and I think we have). It gets the blood boiling and makes for a good debate but it has little to do with baseball, just rivalry. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 45 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hey Southerner, yeah I guess I'm busted. I am a Democrat and am liberal on some issues- you outed me (although I mentioned it from the beginning). And, by the way, I guess it is as a liberal Dem that I am upset with the lack of direction in Iraq (after I initially supported the war, along with many, many Dems). And since I am wary of the gov't looking over my shoulder, I think there are some legitimate questions to ask about the NSA wiretap plan (along with other raving libs such as Norquist and Brownback). And I have yet to understand how the beloved conservative President develops a prescription plan that no one understands and costs more than the moon launch-- but that is the other position we Dems take, right? Mr. Southerner (a term of respect), I actually think we can all have valid opinions, despite our party affiliation. I was critical of Reagan and Bush for some things, but I always felt they were generally competent. I just disagreed with them. Since you are certain the Bush is doing better than Gore or Kerry, I might ask you to look into your crystal ball and see if the war might have gone more smoothly if we planned for the period after the fighting. Or maybe the tea leaves would let us all know what might have happened if Bush had pieced together the varied rumblings about terrorists before 9/11. And could you please let us know what the hell we have to do make sense of our commitments in Iraq? I don't have the same ability to determine the "what-ifs", so I usually don't like to play the game. Its kind of like "what would happen if FDR could fly and have laser beam eyes"-- crazy arguments I gave up in Middle School. But if we have to play your way, lets try this-do you think any of the following might have a chance at doing a better job: Lamar Alexander, Orin Hatch, John McCain, Bob Dole, George HW Bush, Bill Bradley, Richard Lugar, Tom Kean, Wesley Clark, Brent Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton, Warren Rudmann....and thats just a few from recent primaries or the headlines. Unless your position really is that Bush is the very best man in America to get us through this, the argument then seems to be Bush is either "doing well enough" or "doing the best he can". I am terrified of both arguments. I am talking about simple, ordinary competence. Is this man up to the job-- and I think I'm like alot of people who say no. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4340 Registered: 5-2001 |
kendalbill, as I predicted the Bush Walks On Water crowd has come out already. Pointless wisecracks about the swift boat veterans aside, Southerner is asking you to accept the idea that Gore would have put such a bunch of incompetent lackeys in charge of FEMA. Remember how much abuse he got during the 2000 campaign about his trips to disaster sites? Can you believe that after those experiences he would have put less responsibility on FEMA. Is it possible to believe that any Federal response to Katrina could have been worse than what we got? Southerner wants us to believe that none could have been better. Drink the Kool-Aid. That is plain old gushing hero-worship. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1915 Registered: 8-2003  |
does "southerner" actually even exist? I suspect it's a bot that at random intervals generates a post that's made from selections out of a group of phrases that include such gems as "Us conservatives went through it during the Clinton years." and "I just can't wait to see this Democratic thrashing in November." which seem to appear in approximately 50% of its posts. sheesh, get some new material. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 668 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hey kendallbill- Can we twist this topic a bit? May I ask the following question? Is there ANYTHING the left can credit Bush for? Yes, I am being serious. You must understand, the problem with us Bush supporters is that we become immediately skeptical of those who criticize him because it is so trendy and hip to do so these days. Does the administration deserve criticism? Sure it does and I don't think any right leaning individual would deny that unless they are completely densed. But the fact that no one can give the man ANY credit leaves me to suspect that they are blinded by their own biased political leanings.... | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 46 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hey, if it isn't clear already, I'm not claiming to be a spokesman for "the left". In fact, as I made clear, right and left are becoming more irrelevant as time goes on. Will Al Franken ever have a meaningful agreement with Rush? Carville and whoever from the right? Who really cares-- that is the entertainment side of the equation and I think it doesn't respect the real problems out there. So, if your question is whether Bush has done some things or merit, I can only give you my opinion. And yes, absolutely. I think that he has defined certain issues and stepped out, with some occasional signs of courage, to try to implement. Not to be long winded here, let me give you a few where I think he brought that spirit to the debate: immigration, education, AIDS in Africa. I will even argue that he showed some courage and idealism (albeit often naive)in his approach to the middle east. I am willing to get sucked into these arguments and often find myself arguing the merits of Bush's intent (not execution) with conservatives and republicans as well as the left. So there you go. But, again, I'm talking about something else here...whether or not you agree with Bush or you don't or whatever issue, I think you have to still consider the incompetence. On the four issues I mentioned above, I would give him a B on ideas and intent and a D or an F on execution. And no, I don't feel particularly safe right now. If Katrina was a drill for how a disaster would be addressed, I am terrified. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 654 Registered: 2-2004 |
Kendall, Listen, politics isn't the real world. Why do you intelligent people not get this! Of course Bush is not the best man to be President. None of the candidates were and none of us know who is. I'd tend to favor guys like Bill Gates who have proven they know how to run a multi-billion dollar business. With that said, we have to play with the cards we are dealt. I don't live in a fantasy world. I live in reality and politics is some very ugly reality. Most politicians are nothing more than empty suits who can raise money and have a hint of charm and the right connections (Bush and Gore are poster boys for this). So, the only decisions we as citizens have is which empty suit do we support. Since I tend to agree with the conservatives on more issues I support their candidate, and I assume you support the candidate you agree with (even though we agree none of them are the best pick for the job). Could the war have been handled better? Yes. Could Katrina have been handled better? Yes. But we can't go back now and fix any of this. All Presidents can be second guessed. Look at the current situation of Iran. If Carter would have acted decisively 30 years ago maybe the next Pres wouldn't have this issue on his plate. If Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton had taken Al-Quaeda seriously maybe we wouldn't have this never ending war on terror. While I don't agree with Bush on everything, I do believe he is doing what he believes is the right thing and I agree with him on a lot of these issues. And since he was just re-elected it is a pretty safe assumption that most Americans do as well (I know this drives you libs nuts but either it is a true statement or millions of libs just didn't vote). And Dr. Boogie, I pull out the typical mantra's when the libs make their typical nutty remarks. Kendall made the statement that many conservatives are dissatisfied with Bush. To that I say prove it. He can't and I can't disprove it. The only way we measure the public's sentiment is on election day. I don't see why you take offense to me pointing out the obvious. If Kendall is correct then when the results come in and the Dems take over Congress I will be the first one saying he was correct and will compliment the libs for getting their message out. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1515 Registered: 3-2004 |
Scrotey: Let me voluntarily fall into the trap: I will credit Bush for aggressively going after the terrorists who planned 9/11 and for staying on his message. You can't shake him from it. I will credit him for recognizing that pursuit of the terrorists would probably be the sole differentiator of his administration and provides him with the chance to be portrayed in a special light "in the history books." That's not a cynical comment. Just a neutral observation. I will credit him for his frequent (but not consistent) support of Israel and its right to exist in a region threatened by anti-Israeli sentiments (whether terrorist-driven or not). I will credit him with trying to cement a bond with Tony Blair, whose political leanings are mostly the opposite of Bush's, so that the UK and the US are linked in the "war on terrorism." It's not Bush's fault that the bond is having a very negative effect on the perception of Blair among his own constituents and among his opponents. All that being said, I candidly find Bush is a mediocre chief executive: he doesn't project the public image that a lot of us grew up with about a US president: Bush- -doesn't have the stature of a Lincoln (historical perspective aside, L. was literate; bootstrapped his way from dirt poor beginnings to high office; -doesn't have the charm and allure of JFK--- war hero, again well-spoken, literate, well-read, politically nuanced, faced down the Soviet Union in the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis;faced down the steel industry; -doesn't have the natural communicator style of Ron Reagan; effortless ease in speaking; daring concepts even if you disagreed with them; also bootstrapped from humble beginnings to get where he got to in media, California, US Govt; and let's remember the comeback from the assassination attempt -doesn't have the bedrock midwestern toughness of Harry Truman, who succeeded on his own merits, ran small businesses, served in the army in WWI, took over as president and made the tough decisions to drop the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -doesn't appear to have the understanding of global politics of a Richard Nixon (yes, I will praise RMN for opening up dialogs with China and Soviet Union, even though he was a brigand); the experience of humiliation and defeat in 1960 and 1962, and the resiliance to make a comeback in 1968. -doesn't come near the background, accomplishments, experience of DDE: West Point graduate, Army officer, Kansas farm boy, Supreme Allied Commander, and one could go on; Bush pales compared to these few presidents. Many of them had extremely tough decisions to make and they made those decisions without publicly giving themselves credit for "their toughness," as Bush does. What's he trying to prove? You will notice that I have omitted Bill Clinton. He had the most potential of any recent president, and we had good economic times in his administration, but his selfish appetites squandered it, aided and abetted by irrational Republican dislike for him. Neither he nor the Republicans who pursued him did any good for this country. Bush had a great opportunity after 9/11. He has consistently squandered it by poor planning and execution, cronyism, substituting "image" for substance, total chaos and anarchy in the fiscal dimension, big financial blunders (a war whose finances are out of control, a deficit that will start to kill us when the tax cuts expire in 2010, a senior prescription drug program billed at $400 Bn, whose real costs will be in the $700 Bn range), absolute inconsistency of focus and approach ("put a man on Mars" and then forget it, "move to alternative energy sources," eg, switch grass, and then next day his energy secretary says "he didn't really mean that.") Bush seems to be running an administration where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and gives an impression of confusion except for his message on terrorism. What he is running seems more like a frat house. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 308 Registered: 6-2001 |
Bush brought courage to the 'debate' on AIDS in Africa? What debate? His administration is pouring millions of funding into abstinence-only programs, in regions where there is forced marriage, female circumcision, and where women frequently have only their bodies to barter for food. Abstinence is a luxury people desperate to survive simply can't afford, but Bush wants to keep his radical Christian base happy, not actually, you know, save African lives. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 47 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ina, I agree that the right has sometimes narrowed the response to Aids and contraception to the point of negligence. And negligence can kill in this issue. But Bush could have simply ignored the problem or only talked in terms of abstinence only- but he didn't. He did step out (probably on the urging of Blair) to address Africa, and did pledge funds to help. Its not enough and not the right thinking, but he did stepp out and did catch flack on it. And people I agree with, like Bono and Kristoff, have given him some credit for the position. Ina, also notice the broader point. Implementaion in Bush's world stink. The implementation here is everything, and as I said, I'd give a D or an F. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 309 Registered: 6-2001 |
Kendalbill, the right hasn't "sometimes" narrowed the resonse to AIDS to the point of negligence. With their virulent homophobia, their outright lies and scapegoating they are exacerbating the epidemic. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4755 Registered: 9-2001  |
Everything is not always the way it seems. Say what you will, but mark my words_____ by the end of this decade, George W. Bush will be thought to be one of the best President ever... | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 48 Registered: 6-2002 |
First, Ina, I am trying to get away from the right and left broad brush on this string. I might agree with most of those positions you hold dear, but as I said before, I am learning in my old age that labels don't mean diddly and are often dangerously distracting. Therefore, I don't want to buy into the notion that "the right" is "homophobic". Does that mean "the left" isn't? I know a lot of liberals that are homophobes personally, and I know quite a few conservatives that are libretarians as well and have no problem with gay rights. Besides, I was hoping to keep the conversation on the subject of competence. And Art, on what basis will Bush be seen as the best? I am not looking for an argument here, I honestly want to know. You are saying that in 4 years, Bush will be seen as the best president... how? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 956 Registered: 2-2002 |
Thanks Art, -you always make me chuckle. He, (Bush) certainly will be remembered as being the "best". -The best at creating escalating universal havoc, engendering derisive international scorn, fostering obscenely bloated fiscal irresponsible chaos, nurturing shameless, boundless, endemic pervasive corruption and institutionalizing oblivious hack incompetence at every level and in endeavor. He has been very thorough in that regard. And he accomplished all of that in only 5 short years! -Quite impressive. With his particular brand of "Midas touch" the nation will be requiring large doses of "Midol" for decades to come to even partially recover from all the inflicted damage promulgated by this walking pandemic cramp known simply as "W". (I wonder if we'll be able to get that through the impossible maze of the new drug "benefit" program). I think that you may have gotten a little too much sun but welcome back brother! Cheers! | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1519 Registered: 3-2004 |
"Everything is not always the way it seems. Say what you will, but mark my words_____ by the end of this decade, George W. Bush will be thought to be one of the best President ever..." Thus sayeth AJC. Reminds me of a story about Benjamin Disraeli in a sharp verbal duel with an opposition bench MP. The opposition bencher, after some heated debate on differing points of view, said to Disraeli: "Mark my words, sir, your end will come either by hanging or by venereal disease"! To which Disraeli replied, "That, my good man, will depend on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." When I read AJC's comments about Bush, I feel a bit like Disraeli. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1510 Registered: 8-2004 |
Iran is celebrating the 27 th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. That is how long the west has been at war with Islamic Terrorists. In 2001 GWB said enough swatting flies. He set out to change the entire landscape of the Middle East. The status quo of supporting tryannical dictators was over. As Chris Matthews (quoting liberals again) "If [President Bush's] gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world" is successful, "he belongs on Mount Rushmore." So AJC is not too far off. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 49 Registered: 6-2002 |
So, Guy, by your definition the measure of whether Bush is successful is whether he will actually change the landscape of the middle east. Not whether he came up with the vision or communicated it but whether he will succeed. And to that effect, what intentional policy decisions have the administration initiated? Not reactions and not decisions to drop relationships, but stated policy changes that were executed. In the first part of his administration, did he articulate these positions? When he entered the White House, did he outline this policy? Was changing the landscape of the middle east the primary goal of entering Iraq and Afghanistan? And, cmon, do you think Rumsfeld has led the military effort in accordance with that sweeping a goal? I think I said before, I admire the intent- although I don't agree with every aspect and I doubt it was the original plan. Its the absolute inability to execute. If Bush was a CEO he'd have been fired a long time ago. Ironic that he is the first Harvard MBA in the White House. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 657 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hey Kendall, it was only 16 months ago that the Board of Directors gave him a big vote of confidence. I guess they like what he is doing. You may not and you have your own discretion to move forward politically as you choose. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 50 Registered: 6-2002 |
Fair enough, Southerner. At least as far as the analogy goes. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2589 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hey Kendall, it was only 16 months ago that the Board of Directors gave him a big vote of confidence. I guess they like what he is doing. I disagree. They half-heartedly renewed his contract because they thought the alternative was worse. by the end of this decade, George W. Bush will be thought to be one of the best President ever At the end of this decade those who today think Bush is a great President will still think it, and those who today think he is terrible will still think he was terrible. The end of the decade is not very far away and nothing is likely to happen in the interim to change opinions. Now, if you want to speculate on how he will be thought of by the end of the Century.... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 660 Registered: 2-2004 |
anon, This is what drives me nuts. It doesn't matter one bit why he won the election. The only thing that matters is that he did win. Whether by one vote or 20 million. Every Pres will have supporters and detractors regardless of who holds office. And can't we agree the minority always have the loudest voices. For the eight years of Clinton all you heard was the far right tearing him apart. Now for Bush it's the far left. Why can't the guys who won be allowed to govern. If a Dem wins in 2008 I will not make his job harder by creating the atomsphere of malcontent. I will work hard to better get the conservative message out, but if a Dem wins then he gets the rewards. Then again, maybe, I'll just do what most libs have done to Bush - and that is nothing!! With all your drivel he is still calling the shots, still has Rummey, Rove, and Cheney in place and has set the tone for the SC for years. For such a dumb guy he has torched you smart libs. This is a great time to be a conservative on MOL. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4757 Registered: 9-2001 |
What I said Kendallbill was, "one" of the best ever, and I mean it! Listen, I'm not going to argue with you guys, so you'll all just have to wait it out until 2010...  | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 51 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hey Southerner, republicans won the election, thats the way it works, so be it. I'm frustrated by the results but thats old news. Thats not the issue. Had a minute and figured I'd go back to a previous comment, Southerner. You mentioned I couldn't "prove" that many conservatives are dissatisfied. Without taking the time to define "many", let me restate that some prominent conservatives have issues, OK? How about two reliably conservative newspapers-- Budget Issues- The Manchester Union Leader http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Bush%e2%80%99s+new+budget%3a+We +waited+five+years+for+this%3f&articleId=f19792bc-79e6-46f5-97bf-23abc12b431a Iraq- The Pittsburgh Tribune (Richard Scaife's paper) http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_414074.html And others, at random: Reagan's Secty of Navy changes parties and might run for senate in Virginia http://www.draftjameswebb.com/ Christian right splits with Bush on environment http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evangelicals-environm ent,1,440821.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines I mentioned columns by George Will before, but let me add Peggy Noonan who also took Bush on over the state of the union- not necessarily abandoning ship, granted, but critical: http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=264 And I refer you to the James Risen book that recounts a conversation between the two Bush presidents that got heated enough that one hung up on the other. Hard to prove, true, but when Scowcroft comes out early and strong is there any real doubt that the first Bush's opinions were being voiced? Then there are moderate views that have shifted, such as Andrew Sullivan. And other republicans such as Hagel, Susan Collins, Chris Shays. But in answering this, I am playing into something I said I'd resist. I asked whether he is competent and the best I see here from supporters is (paraphrasing) "he's doing the best he can" or "he's not perfect but better than the alternative". I really appreciate Art's boast that he will be seen as the best-- bravo for your convictions, no matter how wrong. And Art, I'll wait till 2010 but how do you define "one of the best"? Top 43 Presidents of all time? Let me just ask one last question: do you really believe Bush is conservative? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 661 Registered: 2-2004 |
Kendal, I don't dispute all those articles. Sure they may disagree but that doesn't mean they will vote against. When you can point to me large number of conservatives voting for a Democratic candidate then I will raise an eyebrow. But to try and point to people disagreeing doesn't mean much other than they disagree. I don't believe for one minute that any of those folks will switch their vote to a Democrat. Besides, Bush can't run again so all the discontent for him won't hurt the next Repub candidate. If it gets so bad for Bush then I expect both the Dem and Repub candidate to run a similar campaign against what Bush did. Of course, I don't think this will happen and we still have enough electoral votes to win no matter how many blue staters vote blue. As a fan of politics I would actually love to see the Repubs win the electoral college and the Dems win the popular vote. That would send many of you libs over the edge and would be fun to watch. It's like all the whiny libs who make claims that many Republican Senators represent a very small percentage of voters compared to their blue state brethren. To that I say, maybe some of you libs should try something daring and actually move further than a few miles from where your ancestors came ashore decades ago. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 52 Registered: 6-2002 |
My contention here is that Bush is incompetent. I don't care if you are right/left, red/blue whatever. All I am getting from everybody is inside baseball political opinion. I started my life as a republican and actually worked for the Bush campaign briefly in 1980. I come from CT where being a moderate anything is seen as a positive value. What I have seen since 1980 is a hard right turn in the republican party and a culture of paty boosterism that ignores the realities of governing. The fact that the democrats have their problems seems utterly irrelevant to the question when executive, both chambers of legislative, judicial and states are all republican. I'm a democrat now but I take no pleasure in seeing us mismanage wars based on mismanaging intelligence and driving up debt to cynically offer "solutions" to problems that are worse than the problem itself (drug benefit). I have always said I would gladly cross party lines for a moderate, competent republican. So lets get back to competence, not whether the republicans will win 2008. I just pray whoever wins knows what the hell they are doing. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2593 Registered: 6-2002 |
anon, This is what drives me nuts. Southerner: Here is what drives me nuts: First you say: the Board of Directors gave him a big vote of confidence Then when I disagree that it was "a big vote of confidence" you say: It doesn't matter one bit why he won the election. The only thing that matters is that he did win. Whether by one vote or 20 million You also posted that you would be pleased to see the Dem candidate win the popular vote and the Republican win the electoral vote. So you want the country to be run by the person rejected by most of the voters! | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2594 Registered: 6-2002 |
kendalbill: Would you vote for John McCain? | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 53 Registered: 6-2002 |
I might. I admire the hell out of the guy and I think his integrity counts for something. I know I sound like a broken record, but his ability to run the government is a big deal, too. I alsothink he is wrong on many, many issues however. I know everyone is eager to paint him as a moderate, but he really is very, very conservative on too many issues. But can I see myself evr voting for the guy for president? I just might. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1522 Registered: 3-2004 |
My only objection to Southerner's "board of directors" comment arises from my point of view as a long time, experienced observer of such boards and advisor to senior executives. Most boards today have little discretionary power. Like most voters, they are led around like lambs. The vote of confidence that our "national board of directors" gave to this chief executive was not a unanimous one, and the "board's" understanding of the business strategy proposed by the incumbent was predicated on irrational fear of the marketplace (instilled by the incumbent) and unfounded hesitation to change horses in midstream. A real "board of directors" that understood the business of this nation and looked for real, effective strategies to succeed in that business would have thrown this incumbent out on his ear at the first opportunity, along with his entire management team. Ergo, many of the members of the national board of directors are either dumb, poorly informed, or can't see through what's happening when the current chief executive tells them what he thinks they want to hear. Yes, many of our fellow citizens are stupid, ill-informed, poorly read. Therefore they are easy prey for the Swift Boaters for "truth," the Limp Limbaughs, the Hannity insanities, the Levin lies. Many of our fellow citizens succumb to the rule that light travels faster than sound---- which explains why Bush makes a great impression when you see him and loses it when he opens his mouth. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 682 Registered: 10-2005 |
Innisowen says: "Yes, many of our fellow citizens are stupid, ill-informed, poorly read. Therefore they are easy prey for the Swift Boaters for "truth," the Limp Limbaughs, the Hannity insanities, the Levin lies." This is one pretty bombast statement, especially from an alleged "i"ndependent. Are you sure you are such? So if I agree with even one statement by Limbaugh, Levin or Hannity then am I "stupid, ill-informed, poorly read and an easy prey?" And the only the right wing has limp, insane liars? Innisowen, had one too many drinks last night? Your arrogant jesuit meglomania is surely seeping through...go shovel or something you biased _ _ _ _ -SLK |
