Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Al, this is not a simple question you ask. And the answer is deeply complex, multi-faceted, and multi-layered. For example: we live in a sports culture, our language, our movies, our books, our culture, all speak to games of chance or victors and losers. Thus, a part of what drives folks to fervently and loyally support their party’s candidate has little if anything to do with the candidate, but, a great deal to do with the team on which that candidate is sponsored.

This is one of the primary reasons psychologically that we have only a two party system and why it is virtually impossible today for a third party candidate such as Ross Perot to have a chance at the Rose Bowl, regardless of how much money is spent. This is but one example, projection, identification, and a host of other defense mechanisms come into play as emotional factors which attach a person to a party loyalty regardless of the merits or lack thereof, in the candidate supported.

To answer your question would take a book or few to explore thoroughly. And it is a topic few have any interest in. It gets in the way of spectator, sideline participant sporting called American Politics.

I thought David Brooks had a good column recently about the factors
underlying political loyalties.

Your question (though sincerely and reasonably asked) is a surprising one. Can you really not think of a single reason why anyone would support Bush? Obviously you might not agree with these reasons, but you can’t even think of what might they might be (that is, what they might be beyond cliches you’ve dug up with Google). Very odd.

I’m a 100% for Bush’s reelection but I can think of many reasons why someone would support Kerry instead. I even prefer Kerry’s stands over Bush’s on several issues (like stem cell research).

I wonder if there’s any postion whatsoever you support Bush over Kerry on? You’ve already implied that there is absolutely none, that you can’t even imagine even a tiny point on which Bush is better than Kerry. Blinkered partisanship? There seems to be more than enough to go around in this election.

I was actually going to make a post along Martin’s response, but I couldnt come up with a good way to say it. I really want everyone to try to come up with ONE thing they like about each party’s major candidate- and if you cant, you should really worry that you have talked yourself in a partisan corner.

For example- I like John kerry’s strong record in support of free trade throughout his career.

Also for example- I like George W. Bush’s moral clarity in clearly explaining and addressing the true nature of regimes like Saddam’s Iraq and North Korea.

On the other hand, I dislike Kerry’s plan to use class warfare in addressing who gets to “keep” their tax cuts, and I dislike Bush’s dumbfounding lack of fiscal disipline.

I think anyone with an independent bone in their body can come up with ONE thing they like and dislike about each of these two candidates. I urge you to try (maybe even on this thread…)

I can come up with reasons why I think people would support Bush, but not usually the logical reasoning behind that support - well except for the well known wedge/moral issues. Even with issues that Kerry and Bush seem to agree on, I’ve come to mistrust the Bush appointees’ ability to implement them without hugely slanting those implementation to special interests. Is it really the slanting towards special interests that bothers me, or slanting to interests that I disagree with? Probably both.

Even with something as simple as “moral clarity in clearly explaining and addressing the true nature of regimes like Saddam’s Iraq and North Korea” I see simplistic tagging of a label (evil) without the necessary communication of the vision, necessity, and impact of that nature, as well as the follow up strategy to effectively meet the administration goals.

Now over simplification can be a useful tool, and I tried to use it in this post. Perhaps Bush is better at this than I am.

“Now over simplification can be a useful tool, and I tried to use it in this post. Perhaps Bush is better at this than I am.”

I hate to malign you Al, but I thought you weren’t going to demean Kerry’s opponent in yorur next post?

Here you go Misha:

John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

John Kerry honestly believes in his liberal social agenda.

John Kerry honestly cares about sending men into harms way.

See, that is the difference between myself and some of the hate-filled left on this board. They can’t bring themselves to say one kind word about a guy like Bush.

I support Bush not because he is my God, but because I want an aggressive approach to fighting terrorism that utilizes our military. I could go on, but that is the basic theme of my support.

Lastly, Al, if you think tagging the North Korean regime as evil is simplistic, I encourage you to watch the 2 hour documentary on North Korea that reruns on the History Channel from time to time. I think liberals try to overthink things too much.

I’m brand new here but here is why I would vote for Bush.

The number one issue for the next few years will be the war against Islamic militants. Bush has done a great job, if imperfect. The potential for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just a side benefit for those people in our war, but part of a potential long-term strategy to win the war. We have had Libya give up its WMD and Pakistan its nuclear weapon development.

Good people may disagree with the decision to invade Hussein’s Iraq, but I believe that we need to have a pre-emptive battle against terrorists. There are terrorists out there who want to attack innocent Americans with a nuclear weapon. The next most important battles will be against the nuclear technology available in Iran and North Korea.

My impression is that Bush will do a better job. I think Kerry may delay too long to attempt to achieve a consensus among the other countries in the world, and it would cost American lives. We need to do what is right, and hopefully with more allied support; but we need to do what is right with or without more support.

I can honestly say that I generally agree with (or at least favor) the Bush/Republican position on a few issues — anti-protectionism/free trade and affirmative action top my list.

What I ultimately don’t like about Bush goes well beyond all the policy positions I disagree with. Very simply stated: BUSH IS NOT A LEADER.

I want my president, above all, to be a true leader. Leadership is earned and garnered through actions. Bush has never exhibited the actions of a leader, and every leadership position he has held has been because of his name and not achievement.

Kerry at least has been a leader throughout his life, working hard to rise through the ranks. He became a leader of his unit in Vietnam, he became a leader of the Vietnam anti-war movement, he became a leader working his way up through various political offices. On a national level, however, leadership is a more difficult task and I unfortunately don’t think he has the natural charisma to be a uniter.

Nevertheless I respect his ability to lead and his track record of doing so.

Bush, on the other hand, has basically exhibited poor leadership in every position he’s held (with only his governorship in Texas being debatable). I mean, this guy ran company after company into the ground. And while Kerry was out fighting wars and caring enough to lead an anti-war movement, young Georgie was eroding his liver and blowing lines with his buddies.

Bush is unfairly painted as a leader because of his “strength” and unwillingness to waver. I also find this to be a dangerous quality and in direct opposition to what leadership is. Leaders exhibit responsibility. Responsibility literally means “the ability to respond”. A leader must see things in shades of grey and determine the most effective course of action at a given point in time.

If a coach goes into a game with a gameplan but the gameplan isn’t working, he needs to be able to respond to the situation and change course. Bush is unwilling to do so, and that is a sign of arrogance, not leadership.

There is a more basic way to approach the “Why Bush?” question. Here is a little background information before I answer this very good question:

Republican politicians and voters have historically favored “traditional” ideology. This ideology says that American men and women should have traditional roles, attend church, and have children (at whatever cost). We should be good consumers who contribute to capitalism, and help other people/countries to see our point of view and be more like us, and to retaliate against those who might be contrary to our way of life.

This “like me” syndrome is a common aspect of the Republican voter’s thought process. George W. Bush is not any different than any other candidate in history, insofar as…he’s a Republican. Any staunch Republican would vote for him as long as his track record showed that he has not deviated from the values listed above.

Young Bush supporters, in my experience, have very little knowledge of the issues and simply echo the views of their conservative parents. They feel that Bush is the best candidate, but are unable to voice any logical rationale for their position.

Older voters tend to be more “traditional” and have more money (at least, they do in my state). Assets tend to equal Republican.

I have paid close attention to what voters on both sides are saying, and it seems that many on Bush’s side are still misinformed on certain issues, primarily Iraq and 9/11. I just saw one woman on MSNBC this morning who is the wife of a soldier in Iraq. This woman is still under the impression, as are many, that Iraq and Saddam had a direct role in the events of 9/11…an idea which has been shown repeatedly to be false. Bush, whether deliberate or accidental, misled the country in the aftermath of 9/11, thereby garnering public support for a war based on what turned out to be bogus intelligence reports.

However, because of the “traditional” mindset of many Americans, paramount importance is placed upon “family values”, religion, wealth, etc. These voters would prefer not to be confused with the facts, and, therefore, vote in a way that is illogical and irresponsible.

To reiterate, the reasons to vote for Bush are:
You’re rich.
You’re a born-again Christian.
You harbor irrational negative feelings toward a particular group, race, or religion.
Or, the most common reason…You haven’t exposed yourself to enough of the information currently available on the issues.

Such simplistic, partisan and amateur arguments. Some of you need to stop embarrassing yourselves and take a course somewhere on writing persuasive essays.

Getting back to the task of this thread, here’s another:

Bill Clinton was intelligent and an excellent public speaker.

It doesn’t hurt me one bit to compliment the other side. See the difference between you and me?

“Such simplistic, partisan and amateur arguments. Some of you need to stop embarrassing yourselves and take a course somewhere on writing persuasive essays.

Getting back to the task of this thread, here’s another:

Bill Clinton was intelligent and an excellent public speaker.

It doesn’t hurt me one bit to compliment the other side. See the difference between you and me?”

Typical republican arrogance. “Look, see how good I am? See how I’m better than you? I’m so much better than you! If I say it enough times, it becomes true.”

The only person “embarrassing” themselves with simplistic arguments is you. Calling out others without even offering a reasonable counteragument to something you disagree with is the only simplistic argument I see in this thread.

Calm down or you’re going to hyperventilate. I can’t help you with your self-esteem issue though.

I have stuck with the theme of the thread. You have not. The casual observers will decide who is being childish, simplistic, and blinded by partisanship.

Aldaron,

I take great offense at your characterization of the varied and thoughtful opinions expressed in this Comment thread, so far. From a relative newcomer to WatchBlog, such a flippant and arrogant statement will win you few friends, or respect.

Al has posed an intriguing and daunting question, and the responses so far from regular WB editors and debaters, have been eye opening and genuine. In particular, poster Robert’s assessment of Republican voters is accurate and fair.

To answer the question at hand - no. I can think of no reason that makes Bush a good President. Before you dismiss me as hypocritically partisan, and not playing fair, hear me out.

There are a few core Conservative principles I admire - smaller government, deficit reduction, lower (fair) taxes and individual freedom. And, if Bush had implemented to any of these during his tenure, I’d have this opportunity to praise him for it.

It hurts me dearly that I have offended you, but they have in no way stuck with what was asked for in this thread. This wasn’t suppose to be a Bushbashing thread.

Also, I’m not looking for respect or friends on the internet.

Robert:

Please try to be fair. You can find good smart people on both sides. I have voted both. As you imply, as I got older and less poor (not rich) I have tended to drift Republican. It is not, however, because I have been getting greedier. I was greedier in my more liberal youth. Then I thought I deserved to have more things, often at someone else’s expense. Now I devote 10% of my income to “good causes” and pay the way for my family and myself. I am a better citizen than I was when I was 21 and contribute more to society. I have not given up a desire to make things better, but I have narrowed my focus to things I can actually affect. I have found that a simple change in semantics explains a lot. I now say “I am going to do something about that” while I used to say, “I am going to demand something be done.”

Experience has shown me that liberal programs are very attractive, but often do not work as advertised and sometime produce the opposite of the intended result. Think of the “war on poverty”. Not only did poverty win, it created a whole underclass of criminally inclined welfare dependents. If you want to have freedom and prosperity, you have no choice but to work with the free market and individual responsibility and you have to forget about creating a perfect society. Utopian dreams of the 2Oth Century killed millions. What do Communism, Fascism and Nazism all have in common? That all shared the desire to use government to create a new social order, a more just social order in the eyes of its proponents. There is a role for government in a well-ordered society, of course, and it is a very big role. You can’t have a free society or a free market without a strong and competent government, but we should always be careful when we ask government to play a transformative role.

As for Republicans and Democrats, neither can be trusted as the repository of good and justice or even liberal or conservative. They are creatures that evolved by absorbing a variety of sometimes conflicting people and ideas. They are really less than the sum of their parts, but let’s consider liberals and conservatives in the U.S. sense. The difference between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. is not great. We have to look to the extremes to find differences. Even here, they are tendencies, not absolutes, often a degree of preference for things both sides consider good. The differences come down to individual versus group responsibility, liberty versus equality and centralized versus defuse decision-making. Choose what you like best.

Individual versus groups

1. What should government done for blacks, women, Hispanics etc? The proper answer should be – NOTHING? The government’s responsibility is to individuals, not groups. If individuals prosper, so do groups. But it is possible for groups to prosper at the expense of individuals.
2. Society is a amalgam of groups. We can identify the interests of blacks, women, Hispanics etc and the government should do what is right for these groups. Individuals prosper when the groups they are in prosper. This is the Democrat view.

Liberty versus equality
1. Give people the freedom to choose and they will choose what they want most. Not everyone wants the same thing. This is the basis of market exchange. Since nobody can really know what anyone else needs or wants, it is best for government to stay away from the exchange and act mostly as a referee.

2. All men are created equal, but they don’t stay that way very long. Accidents of birth, luck, talent and even hard work will give people very different outcomes. It is the government’s job to make the world a fair place. Government officials know what is best.

Centralized versus diffuse decision-making

1. Those close to the problem should make decisions even when the decision maker’s reasons might be wrong. . Often these individual decisions will make little sense to others and will lead to unequal outcomes, but it the long run the sum of the small decisions will be better than any expert decisions made centrally.

2. Individual decisions will lead to chaos and will be made for selfish reasons. Effective regulation is required to protect others and even the decision-makers from their own folly. Experts who study problems make the best decision-makers.

And Robert, never let your self believe that you opponents just haven’t been exposed to enough information. Thinking people differ. and even in your own posting you claim that as people get more experience (older) the drift conservative. Maybe that is just the way of life. Remember the saying, “if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist at 40, you have no brain.”

Good move by Bush? Going into Afghanistan.
Wish we’d gone in faster. Wish we’d used our own troops at Tora Bora, instead of mercenaries. Those are quibbles. Going in was, in my opinion, a good call by Bush.
If we look at Afghanistan today… never mind. Leave it at that. Bush made the right decision by taking down the Taliban.

Don, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Afghanistan. It was well planned and well executed. I congratulate the Bush Administration for their actions immediately following 9/11.

Then, somewhere along the way, Bush lost his bearings. He has done little right since.

Jerome, there is a phrase for that, it is “one trick pony”. Any President born in America and capable of achieving the Presidency would have acted similarly to Bush in invading Afghanistan upon learning it was the breeding and support home ground for those who attacked us. Yes, I too commend Bush for invading Afghanistan, but, it was not a distinguishing act, it was what any American President would have done with the same information.

The only thing good I can say about #41 is that he began the war on terrorism with some consideration for Islam. George made an effort to separate our military and political battle with al Qaeda (and other extremists groups) from the sordid history of religious wars which the West has waged on the Middle East. Did he succeed in that objective?

I will vote for Bush because I feel a change in foreign policy will send the wrong message at this time, and because I can’t determine Kerr’s foreign policy at all. I also support this administration’s efforts including Iraq. I guess I’m a single issue voter this year.

Kerry’s politics are polar opposite of mine. I would, however, support any socially conservative Democrat, and did support Lieberman in the primaries, as I think that is what is required to restore the party’s balance. It has swayed way too far to the socially progressive agenda.

Something nice about Kerry? He supported NAFTA and has been a free trader.

Ok I’ll bite, Why will I vote for Bush?

1. War on Terror
2. War on Terror
3. War on Terror
4. Lower taxes for EVERYONE

I agree with Don on Afghanistan, I wish we’d turned Tora Bora into burning cinder, but that’s me.

I credit Bush in turning Pakistan into an ally, removing Libya’s WMD program, and forcing Saudi Arabia to start taking it’s terrorist problem seriously (they’ve still got a lot of work to do).

I’ll even credit Bush on Iraq. No one can deny that Saddam supported terrorism, maybe he didn’t support Osama, but he undoubtedly supported Palestinian suicide bombers. You can argue about Israel’s actions, but have to admit that the suicide bombers are terrorists. I see them as much a part of the war on terror as anything. Most of the Middle East points to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the root cause of other terrorism. Well, that won’t get fixed till they stop blowing themselves up, and that wasn’t going to stop until Saddam stopped paying for it. As far as I’m concerned the WMD argument was always a stupid one and I don’t know why Bush used that rather than the terrorism argument.

I believe in Bush’s vision for spreading democracy throughout the world. I believe the only way to stop terrorism is to stop the true root cause, poverty and oppression in most of the Middle East countries. I believe in democratic realism.

We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity—meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.

And I believe we pay too many taxes, wasted in too many pet projects. So I guess I believe in the old theory that if the government has less money to start with, maybe they’ll spend less.

-D

In the continuing spirit of ending blind partisanship, I respect moderate and conservative Democrats like Senators Evan Byah, Joe Lieberman, and Zell Miller. I would be comfortable with any of them as President.

Also, everyone please take notice of who is particpating in this thread and who can’t bring themselves to say one kind word about the opposition. Many of the partisans are MIA on this thread.

Sorry Delzario, if you actually checked the numbers you would see that your taxes have gone up, unless your money is only used for investments, then you be shittin’ in high cotton. To whatever extent your Federal taxes were lowered, your State and local taxes have skyrocketed due to economic hemorrhaging. Terrorist events are at an all-time high and we have spent $200 billion in Iraq so reasons unrelated to the war on terror. WWII against two mighty Industrial States costs $350 billion, a price well worth paying. Meanwhile Afghanistan is falling apart and our invasion of Iraq has destabilized the Middle East causing oil prices to spike and essentially handing Iraq over to Iran. Our dry drunk alleged leader has done nothing but put sand in the vaseline.

That didn’t take long.

Delzario, I agree with you.

Man… this is a great idea for a post, Al. And Martin, it’s nice that you start outright by condescending to the poster. You’re in your usual form, I see.

I have no problem understanding what the poster meant - obviously we can think of reasons others support Bush, but in every case there’s a loud “Yes, but…” in my mind.

It took me a while to think of something Bush has done that I approve of, but I found it. I like the fact that he imposed illegal tarrifs on Steel and Lumber, even though those actions are in direct oposition to his avowed position. In both cases, imports were wholesaling for less then the cost of domestic production - an undeniable death knell for an industry. Not only do I think that American jobs should be protected in general (through proactive free-trade policies, not protectionism), but our steel production capability is an obvious matter of national security.

As for Kerry, I’ve got a huge list of reasons I support him. I’ll include my responses to the common Conservative “Yes, but…”s that I hear:

* His time as a DA: The “iron butt for grunt work” he exibited in clearing a huge backlog of cases, and the willingness to attack politically strong people on both sides of the aisle. This speaks to his ethic. Wrong is Wrong. (I’ve never heard a Conservative “Yes, but…” on this one)

* His service in the Senate: Again, his willingness to tackle the unpopular problems is stunning - the POW investigation, the fight for a balanced budget, efforts to protect our environment, and the vote giving authority for Bush to use military force in Iraq as a last resort. (re Conservative rebuttal: Kerry passed 57 pieces of legislation compared to Cheney’s 2, so he is not unaccomplished. Furthermore, the man is running for President, so of course he isn’t in Washington attending meetings. I didn’t see anyone complain about Bush’s shirking of his Governor’s duty in 2000.)

* His actions after the Vietnam War: By the vast majority of Americans, Vietnam is seen as a gigantic fuck-up - a misguided foray that needed to end. I applaud Kerry’s moral courage taking on the Nixon Administration’s policies, and incurring their wrath in the form of John O’Neill, etc. (re Conservative rebuttal: Kerry did not lie before the Senate. Kerry did not tarnish the image of the American military servicemen - he attacked the policy makers, not the enlisted men. Further, people were already calling returning vets Baby Killers in ‘66, years before Kerry “created the meme.” I recognize that many vets, especially those in captivity, were and are furious about this, perhaps because a lost war makes their sacrifices seem lessened to them. It shouldn’t. Regardless of the real difficulty, Kerry’s anti-war activities were the right thing to do.)

* Kerry’s support for moderate Fair Free Trade: Kerry recognizes the point that I just made about the steel industry - in general, our economy and industry are matters of national security, and therefore shouldn’t be burned frivolously. Nor should they be so protected that consumers pay the price. (re Conservative rebuttal: Actually, I think President Bush agrees with this, given his past actions and despite what he says on the stump.)

* Kerry’s Service in Vietnam: A young man volunteering for combat service is always honorable, and all the more remarkable because Kerry was in a position where he could have easily avoided the duty, as so many others did, or even gotten a cushy posting on a deepwater vessel if all he was after was the service record. All Naval records prove that Kerry showed surpassing heroism, with a confirmed kill count in the 20s, I seem to recall. The act of turning his boat into enemy fire is revealing. (re Conservative SBVFT rebuttal: I see attacks on Kerry’s medals or service as an afront to veterans. The entire thing is based on attacks from partisans that run counter to the facts established by the Navy. To say that Kerry “wrote his own medal citations” is ridiculous, for were it possible it would cheapen drastically every medal ever given to a member of the armed services. I have people who served in my family, and I take offense. Finally, the only accounts of events that are really conclusive and convincing are those from people actually directly involved, such as Mr. Rassman, the Republican who Kerry saved.)

* Kerry’s position regarding the War on Terrorism: That this is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement effort is undoubtable. Large scale military action is a blunt force that tends not to solve problems, although it definately was the right approach in Afganistan. Kerry recognizes that full military wars will sometimes be neccessary, but also that the majority of the work will be done in forging alliances, coordinating internationally on intelligence, and capturing or killing those who intend us harm. I personally would add that Kerry’s approach will make us safer by not engaging in activities that can easily be used as Al Qaeda recruitment points. For example, shelling the Iman Ali Shrine enrages all Shiites, but assasinating bin Laden or Zarqawi only enrages people already members of terrorist organizations. The Bush Administration has proven a failure on all acounts.

* Kerry’s position on science and policy: In believing that sound, unbiased science should be the basis for policy, Kerry sets himself in a stark contrast to President Bush. Religious beliefs do not have a place in government policy. I think Ron Reagan made this point beautifully. (re Conservative rebuttal: Furthermore, religious arguments against stem cell research, for instance, don’t even make sense since this research in no way encourages the taking of what Christian Conservatives would call life.)

* His plan to allow tax cuts for the rich to expire: Bush’s tax cuts have been some of the most regressive in history, transferring the tax burden to the middle class. No one likes taxes, but taxing the most fortunate (and sometimes hardest working) among us in order to make America stronger seems not so much like a burden as it does a patriotic duty. (re Conservative rebuttal: It is true that with a diminishment of available capital, job creation might be impacted. That is why Kerry has proposed a (3%) tax cut for Corporations, which are the actual entities creating the jobs. Wealthy individuals will have slightly less cash on hand which they may or may not use, but Corporations will have more. Also, tax cuts to the lower classes would result in a more effective stimulus, since you know that every dime of that money will be spent back into the economy, increasing demand which is the only way to truly increase supply, aka jobs.)

I could go on, and perhaps I will later, but work beckons.

Now, for the one real thing I dislike about Kerry: His public speaking style is sometimes painful. As a subset of this, he sometimes says things that make excellent sense in a way that soundbites terribly. This is the only problem with his candidacy that I see, and it would be trivial if we didn’t live in a cosmetic society.

I like GW’s personality,his affability,I’m sure he’d be fun at a BBQ.

John Kerry would probably be stuffy and boring.

But, I cannot honestly say I support any of GW’s policies. The idea of smaller government and reducing taxes are great ideas, they just aren’t GW’s policies. The tax burden has been shifted onto my back for the bigger government he has produced.

I don’t support all of John Kerry’s rhetoric either, neither candidate has seriously addressed economic and budget issues. It’s all promise everything and figure out how to pay for it later.

I don’t find any real departures in Iraq or terror policies among them. GW would have us believe he’s stronger on this issue. His rhetoric may be more populist, but his policy seems all Israel, all the time and please ignore the current quagmire.

Good idea for a post, Al

I’ll play this game. First, I’ll say that Bush’s domestic policy, both economic and social policies, are either unmitigated disasters (the tax cuts, the prescription drug plan) or pure expressions of ideological oppression (Family Marriage Amendment, abstinance-only sex education, the crippling of stem-cell research). I am opposed to his policies in these areas across the board - most of them don’t even meet the common-sense test.

I will list below all the things I think Bush has done right. They are all foreign-policy related, and, with only one exception, they are all examples of Bush making an obvious common-sense right choice, the choice that experts and leaders on both sides already pretty much agree on. And, again with one exception, he follows up by squandering his success.

1) Hiring Colin Powell. Powell is good guy, a rational Republican with a great sense of responsibility to his country and a great feel for how things work globally… BUT… it’s too bad Bush never listened to a single word of advice Colin Powell has ever said. Never. Ever. Zilch. It seems the only purpose in hiring Colin Powell was to degrade and humiliate him to such a degree that he could never be a viable challenger to a more conservative Republican candidate in the future.

2) Afghanistan. At least at first. He quickly formed a coalition that was truly internationalized (America made up less than half of the force initially). We routed the Taliban and installed Karzai, who thus far has seemed to be both an enlightened and effective leader… BUT… Unfortunately, much of this victory was squandered by our immediate shift of attention to Iraq. Where is Osama?

3) “With us or with the terrorists.” I thought that was good. Putting nations that harbor terrorists on notice that they were fair game. Good call. As soon as he said it, the world fell into line: the countries that were truly on our side lined up with us, and those that did not fall into line became crystal clear. Nations like Pakistan, in particular, were forced to make a difficult choice. BUT… again, this clarity was dissolved when we decided to invade Iraq. Now many (most?) of those who enthusiastically chose our side are fractured into smaller factions. The alliance against terrorism was essentially dissolved unilaterally by the very man who built it. A trumph became a tragedy, almost overnight.

4) Weapons inspectors, late 2002. Bush’s belligerence towards Saddam in late 2002 was, frankly, chilling to me. It seemed like he was just getting geared up to invade Iraq, but he hadn’t even come close to making a case as to why, much less getting a coalition together. I thought he was crazy. But lo and behold, by years end the UN Weapons inspectors were back in Iraq, in greater numbers than ever before. I thought, “Wow, Bush is crazy… like a fox!”. Yes, I actually thought this was a brilliant strategic move. We had Saddam pinned, contained, and under greater control than Clinton ever did — and we couldn’t have done it without a President who exuded the kind of determination to go to war that Bush exuded… BUT… it turns out I was giving Bush too much credit. I thought his approach was either a brilliant bluff or a judicious application of brinksmanship to acheive the desired result of getting Saddam to submit to inspections. But I was wrong. His approach was exactly what I thought it was in the first place: a single-minded run-up to an invasion. He had no intention whatsoever of not invading. There was nothing Saddam could have done at any point in the run-up to the invasion to have prevented it (short of shooting himself in the head). Still, I think he came close to acheiving one of the greatest foreign policy successes since the Cuban Missle Crisis, and I don’t think Al Gore or Bill Clinton could have done the same thing, at least not so quickly. Kerry maybe, but probably not.

5) The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS, as far as I can tell, is coming along fine. It’s going to take time for it to work out, and I think these color-coded “elevated terror threat” announcements are disgustingly political, but on the whole I give the DHS a passing grade and I am hopeful for it’s future. Bush, of course, initially opposed this idea, which had been planned by Democrats like Joe Lieberman for years. Anyway, there’s no “BUT…” here!

All other things being equal, the invasion of Iraq was a collossal national blunder, and it will forever mark Bush as a man of extraordinarily poor judgement (that’s even presuming that didn’t lie about it). At best, he was hoodwinked by Ahmed Chalabi. He was ideologically dazzled by neoconservative armchair generals and think-tank neo-imperialists. He was tempted by a newfound sense of self-importance, a thirst for world-shaking historical strides, possibly even to avenge his father. He disregarded the advice of Colin Powell, the Democratic Party, many leading Republicans, and almost all of our closest and most powerful allies in the War on Terrorism. He rushed to war without giving diplomacy a chance at all. He mocked our oldest allies and broke ties with our newest allies. In short, even if I agreed on him with his domestic and economic policies, and even given the good things I freely listed above, the Iraq invasion was such a fantastic display of poor judgement that we cannot possibly trust him to not make such a mistake again.

Think of it this way: Would you get in a car with someone who was generally a good driver, but who, on a whim one day, tried to do a Dukes of Hazzard jump over an open drawbridge and ended up killing one of his passengers? I wouldn’t.

-Cf

Aldaron wrote:
> Also, everyone please take notice of who is
> particpating in this thread and who can’t
> bring themselves to say one kind word about
> the opposition. Many of the partisans are
> MIA on this thread.

Aldaron, I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but the original post was asking Bush supporters to list reasons why to vote for him. And you’re right, the usual partisans who like Bush are MIA on this thread. Eric? Sebastian? joebagodonuts? Even Martin didn’t answer.

Aldaron, do you have any good things to say about Bush besides that he, like you, wants “an aggressive approach to fighting terrorism that utilizes our military”?

-Cf

Chris:

I actually posted a response to this thread, but it disappeared into the ethernet, so I’ll have to reconstruct my comments.

Essentially, the question is valid, though many readers of the response will try to invalidate the responses because they will disagree with them. For instance, I think Bush is a good leader, but Andrew L. thinks Bush is a horrible leader. My reasons are that good leaders make a solid decision on which way to go, and then accomplish that. Bush has done so with regard to Iraq as well as tax cuts etc. But Andrew would disagree with my assessment here—-it makes it neither more nor less valid, though.

Another part of being a good leader is being able to make good choices on what the direction should be. Its not enough to simply go in a direction ( hell, even Hitler managed to do that) but a good leader must choose the right direction. I think Bush has done so. But I doubt you’ll agree.

My rationale is that something needed to be done to show terrorists around the globe that there is a price to pay for attacking the US. For many years, they have done so with relative impunity. Note the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the ‘93 WTC bombing, Somalia, the Iranian hostage crisis etc as examples. Now terrorists know the sleeping dragon has been awakened.

I recognize that others will disagree with my logic, but it is one of the reasons I like Bush.

Chris, there’s a big difference between Kerry and Bush. I dont see Kerry as someone with the ability to get things done. His statements have been so varied and contrary that it seems he is governed by which way the political winds are blowing. When faced with the Howard Dean anti war wind, Kerry became stridently antiwar, only to come back and say that even with what we now know, he would still have invaded Iraq.

So, I like the directness and forcefulness in Bush that you perhaps see as a weakness.

> Note the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the
> ‘93 WTC bombing, Somalia, the Iranian
> hostage crisis etc as examples.

During all of these pre 9/11 crises, I don’t remember hearing any Republicans advocating the kind of “direct” and “forceful” military action that everyone, Republican and Democrat, today agrees would be the new American response. George W. Bush never criticised Clinton for his response to any of the incidents you listed. He didn’t seem to see any problem with those responses (except, of course, that we should have used them as excuses to invade Iraq). Hell, I don’t remember George W. Bush being forceful and determined about any issue at all until late 2000, and about terrorism George W. Bush had not uttered one peep until September 11, 2001. You see Kerry’s long record as waffling, I see him as experienced in dealing with issues. George Bush has spent precisely 3 years of his life being “determined” about something, and for the most part, as I outlined above, that determination has led not only to fiascos like Iraq, but to the nearly-total dismantling of the few successes he has ever had.

If you take Iraq out of the anti-terror equation (which I do), 90% of the good that Bush has accomplished with regards to the war on Terrorism falls under the category of “no-brainers”:
—> Invade Afghanistan? Well, duh, of course.
—> Create a Department of Homeland Security (which Bush opposed)? Any fool would have done that.
—> Investigate our 9/11 intelligence failures (which, again, Bush opposed)? We’d be stupid not to.

Hell, even Ralph Nader would have done all of those things if he was President!

With the exception of his single-minded drive to recklessly invade Iraq and to recklessly cut taxes, can you name any important policy area in which his “directness and forcefulness” has acheieved positive results?

-Cf

I guess pro-Bush people have some kind of idea that, if Kerry wins, all of the terrorists will go “Hooray, we can now go back to attacking America with impunity! Kerry is such a pussy cat, he’ll never strike back at us, not like the invincible Bush, our most feared enemy!”

Or maybe they have this idea that, if Kerry wins, Kim Jong Il will think, “Hooray, now Kerry will give me access to more nuclear fuel (like Clinton did unknowingly and like Bush did knowingly) but this time I’ll use it to build a rocket and destroy Tokyo and Seattle - and Kerry will reward me for it because he is such an appeasing pussy cat”.

Or maybe they’re thinking that, if Kerry wins, France and Germany will say “Hooray, now we can go back to encouraging our local muslims to attack the USA, because that pussy cat John Kerry will let us do anything we want because we’re evil Europeans and he loves us!”

Seriously, what exactly do you think Kerry will be irresolute about? What about John Kerry makes you think that he will *not* fight the war on terrorism with enough directness and forcefulness?

Is it just that you admire Bush for directly and forcefully invading Iraq even in the face of mountains of evidence telling him that it was a stupid idea… Perhaps because, in the big picture, it’s better that the terrorists know that we’re so freaking direct and forceful that we’ll even invade the wrong country and plunge the world and our own economy into chaos even if we’re totally unsure who the enemy really is or how much of a threat they are. It’s like we’re saying “You think Iraq was bad? Imagine what we would do when we’re actually right! Today we may have invaded Iraq, but next time it might actually be a real threat. So if you’re even thinking about attacking America - hell, if we even suspect that you might look like you’re thinking about attacking America - you will get the Bush smackdown!”

Is that the idea? Is it like that scene in Goodfellas where Tommy (Joe Pesci) shoots Spider (Michael Imperioli) in the foot just to show the other guys at the table how he was not to be messed with? Is that what is meant by “direct and forceful”?

-Cf

[some cuss words altered by WatchBlog Manager to keep spammers from ID’ing this site as playground]

CF-

Maybe we just think that the fist major attack on American forces and Kerry we’ll say, this is too hard, I’m going home. But it’ll sound like “My concern for the men and women in military has convinced me to withdrawal from (insert hot spot here)”

Maybe we think the cause of spreading democracy in to the heart of the evil that wishes us dead is a battle worth fighting. And Kerry’s never convinced us that he’d keep fighting that battle.

To some of us, the end game is when Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Syria and the rest are democracies too. Now the dissidents in those countries know that Uncle Sam is in town and with Bush behind the wheel we’re not going anywhere. Now they can make some more noise, try to make a change for the better. I vote for Bush not for what is or has been, but for what could be. He’s given a vision for a future, Kerry’s only vision is a return to status quo.

Maybe that makes me a ‘neocon’ nut, but I’d bet George Washington and some of those ‘nuts’ would be with me on this one. There is no greater cause than the battle for freedom.

-D

Joe - “When faced with the Howard Dean anti war wind, Kerry became stridently antiwar, only to come back and say that even with what we now know, he would still have invaded Iraq.”

Actually, I don’t think that’s true. He said would have still voted the same way - to give the President the authority to go to war. However, with Kerry as President, and the Senate giving him the exact same power, I don’t think Kerry would have ended up invading Iraq. As Mr. Cf said, the brinksmanship was a good ploy that yeilded fantastic results. Once the hordes of inspectors started dismantling the few proscribed arms he still had, and started sending back reports that he probably didn’t have any WMD, then why go to war? The Al Qaeda connections never would have been made in the first place, since they were widely discredited before the Administration even began flogging them. Where is the threat to America?

At that point it would still be possible to make a case about the threat Iraq posed to Israel by paying the families of suicide bombers, or that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, but I doubt the American people would have swallowed it. Who knows?

Via Mr. Marshall:

“We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world.”
— George W. Bush
July 30th 2004.

“I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
— George W. Bush
Aug. 29th, 2004.

Maybe that makes me a ‘neocon’ nut, but I’d bet George Washington and some of those ‘nuts’ would be with me on this one. There is no greater cause than the battle for freedom.

I think that it would far more likely be stated that there is no greater cause than the battle for *one’s own* freedom. There’s a reason George Washington never tried raising an armada, going back across the ocean, and freeing the poor oppressed English from the clutches of King George when he was made our first president.

Gaelen - sounds like a fish out of water doesn’t he. :-)

Jarin -

So only the powerful should be free. Does our superpower status not give is a duty to help the powerless? What a world we live in when the GOP is arguing for helping the powerless and the DNC thinks that unless their powerful enough to gain their own freedom they should rot under a dictator.

No, Pres. George didn’t seek to remove King George, he would have certainly failed. But it didn’t take long for us to stand up to Imperial Europe in the defense of the rest of the American colonies.

(To those that will ask why we don’t go into Africa or other oppressed places, read my post about Democratic realism)

-D

Gaelen:

You seem to have bought into Kerry’s rhetoric. So I guess he was just bluffing—-yknow, never would have actually fought the fight, but wanted people to think he would have. What exactly is giving the President the authority to go to war if you dont allow the President to exercize that authority. It sure aint authority, but then again, I’m not an effete liberal intellectual, so who do I know.

Gaelen, if you’ve been watching, you seen Kerry be more anti war and less anti war at different times. He’s done this due to politicking, which he’s very good at. But that also aint leadership.

The Bush quote about not being able to win a war on terror makes sense. Its not a traditional war. There is no country to issue a peace treaty with, there is no solid organization with which to negotiate and there is no territory involved. So the threat of future attacks will always be there.

Chris:

Your comments simply prove my point. I said the question was valid, but readers will try to disprove my opinions, as you tried to by using the “Well, Republicans did too” argument. My argument was that since its my opinion of how to view relevant facts, and since you and others will choose to disagree how I view them, the answers to the question wont accomplish much.

Your question faces the same problem, but even more so. Since you wont agree with my answers as being achievements, what will it accomplish. But, so as not to be cast as truculentor unresponsive, I’ll give you one.

Bush has done the right thing regarding stem cell research. Stem cell “cures” are theory at this point, and another part of the theory is that adult stem cells might be able to provide the same “cures” that fetal stem cells can. This means that the cures are not evident yet, but there is hope there. By forcing people to gain fundraising from outside the government, overall research in this area is increasing. Thus, the hope that stem cells will help cure diseases is NOT stopping—it is actually moving ahead with vigor.

Now, Chris, you can go ahead with your reasons why you disagree with my opinion on stem cells, but that really just shows why the question doesnt work. What I see as good, you might see as bad. What I see as effective, you might see negatively. And round and round we go.

I am really getting a better sense from these posts who can be objective and think about the candidates in more than the party-line way. To the couple of you that have made the attempt to say truly good things about the candidates you oppose, I applaud you. well done.

“Aldaron, do you have any good things to say about Bush besides that he, like you, wants “an aggressive approach to fighting terrorism that utilizes our military”?

I spend my time writing on my own site therefore my posts are usually no longer than two paragraphs. I also think that people tune out after that length, something you guys that keep writing your dissertations in every post should consider.

I believe the Republicans see terrorism more in the big picture when it comes to the middle east. That entire region needs a fundamental change. It needs a Marshal Plan and I believe Iraq is the first step. I’m fairly certain that 10 years from now its going to be a lot harder for some of you to defend your position on Iraq than for me. Everyone in that region is better off. Change the radical states and address the Palestianian issue and you will see a fundamental change in that region finally.

Second, let’s face it, Bush is a walking embarassment whenever he opens he mouth. The other day he said something about Iraq being a “catatrophic success”. His understanding of the English language is questionable at best. Believe me, I cringe everytime he doesn’t have a prepared speech in front of him.

However, taking Bush out of the equation, I always vote Republican because they are the party that is most likely to have lower taxes and place less impediments in the way of businesses. It’s a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Lastly, there are many, many, many times when I think to myself, “I wish John McCain had won the G$% D#$% Republican primary in 2000.” He would have beat Al Gore handily and there wouldn’t be this “victim” status being expressed by Democrats now, and the hate-filled left wouldn’t have become so rabid. President McCain would be doing everything Bush is doing now in regards to foreign policy. The media would fawn all over him like they do now and all would be well in the world.

Joe,

I am a frequent lurker who enjoys the give and take of these columns. I need to correct a point of fact. You said that stem cell research was not being delayed by the current ban on using cell lines other than the original set of lines. The National Institutes of Health fund more than 95% of all biological research in the US. The block on funding stem cell research outside of this small number of cell lines has slowed this work to a crawl in the US since the number of approved cell lines is small and the number that are actually usable for research, of any type, is even smaller. The last number I remember is about 10-15 lines that are actually available and usable. The method used to develop these few lines makes them unsuitable for most human research. By this, I mean that they were developed for use in proof of principle experiments, but nothing more substantial. I can go into more detail, but I think I made my point. I personally know 2 leading investigators who have moved their research to the UK because of the barriers that have been imposed as a result of this decision. The private efforts to replace government funding, while promising, really amount to a small drop in the bucket compared to the funding that was halted. I cannot say that stem cell research is moving forward with any vigor in the US any longer.

regards,

csb

joebag-

if you really don’t understand kerry’s vote on the iraq war, then i don’t know how to help you. this has been explained so many times! but i’ll try again. the reason to vote to give the president authority is to allow the president to face iraq with the threat of imminent war. it creates leverage that does not exist otherwise. you can believe that this would be an effective tactic while also believing that rushing to war would be an ineffective tactic. therefore, it is possible to believe in that vote while also believing that going to war the way bush did is bad. kerry wanted bush to try some other stuff before going to war. he believes that the war didn’t need to happen so urgently, and other options could have been explored. this is not because kerry is weak and wouldn’t protect the nation. it’s because iraq was not actually an imminent threat to us at the time. he believes that bush abused the power that the congress gave him. this is not rhetoric. you may disagree with kerry’s vote, but it makes perfect sense. i suspect you already knew this, but then again, what good would talking points be if they went away with something frivolous like solid refutation?

now, as to the question posed by this thread…

i have to say that the things i could say to compliment bush are incredibly trivial. there is actually nothing that i find outstanding about him as a president. and there are plenty of things that i find downright scary about him.

i find him to be convinced that his own ideologies are the best for the country and the world. take the gay rights ammendment issue for instance. even many fellow republicans aren’t willing to support that issue. this is a great example of the way that bush allows his religious beliefs to influence his policy decisions. he has every right to his beliefs, but to be president, you must defend the rights of those who do not believe as you do.

many people say that bush is a strong leader, because he can make the hard choices and stand by them. he can take action when needed. but i fear that he does this to an extreme. his administration believes itself to be above questioning or criticism. this is also extremely frightening to me. if the president believes he doesn’t have to explain himself to people, then he doesn’t understand the office that he holds.

but honestly, bush alone wouldn’t be nearly as scary as what we are facing. the scariest element of this president is his “posse.” along with bush comes cheney, ashcroft, rumsfeld, rove, and the rest. bush may be a fairly simple guy with strong guiding religious principles, a love of wealth, and little interest in paying attention to things like budget meetings. that’s scary enough. but i don’t believe that bush is actually setting out to do evil. i cannot say the same for the rest of these people. there are some seriously scary members of this administration, and i believe it is jeopardizing the future of our democracy and our respect in the world community to allow this administration to govern us any longer.

nothing positive about bush could come close to tempering these concerns i have about him. he is a frighteningly bad president. in my opinion. but i also don’t know how much longer this country is going to be able to stand having one central government. because people just have fundamentally different ideas of what the government should be.

as for kerry….

the list gaelen posted is an excellent summary of kerry’s strengths. i support kerry for each of the reasons he mentioned (with special emphasis on the issue of attitudes towards science), but additionally, i respect that kerry seems genuinely interested in the business of government. this is an important issue to me. people like bush’s personality, and they think he seems like a regular guy in a lot of ways, and maybe kerry seems a bit aloof. but when it comes to choosing a president, i want someone who seems like they will enjoy their job even in its most tedious hours. that is the person who will be paying attention to the details, understanding the decisions he is making, and being a truly strong leader. and that is the person to whom i would trust my money, my safety, and my freedom.

Delzario:

So only the powerful should be free.

Do you think that America was more powerful than the british empire when we declared independence? Do you think the peasants of France were more powerful than the noble class? The issue is not strength, but a willingness to fight for one’s own freedom. If one does not value freedom enough to fight for it, will they truly value it enough to hold onto when freely given to them?

Does our superpower status not give is a duty to help the powerless? What a world we live in when the GOP is arguing for helping the powerless and the DNC thinks that unless their powerful enough to gain their own freedom they should rot under a dictator.

First, I don’t think that they are powerless. I’m not that arrogant. The citizens of a country always outnumber the people of the government, if it is truly their will to change their government they have the capacity and the right to revolt and overthrow their government. This is the basis of our own country’s reasoning when we chose to break our ties to England. These were our words then:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Read that again… it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. Not the right of a foreign nation. Not the right of a superpower to save the powerless masses from an evil dictator. The Right of the People. The Right of the governed.

No, Pres. George didn’t seek to remove King George, he would have certainly failed. But it didn’t take long for us to stand up to Imperial Europe in the defense of the rest of the American colonies.

Correct… because the colonies made the decision themselves to stand as one against their common enemy. They pledged their own lives, their fortunes, and their very honor to see this thing done together, as one new nation. But they did not seek to free even one other british colony outside of America. They made the decision themselves how they would be ruled, and fought in defense of that decision. They did not decide how any other group of people would be ruled, however.

Post your comment on why you think Bush is a good president. Try to stay away from clichés that don’t have supporting arguments.

Guess I should weigh in here.

I should think that much of this should be obvious to those who are willing to take an impartial look at Bush as a man, as a leader, and as a manager. Bush has been a great President. For one thing you know where he stands. He has shown that he definitely has core beliefs and those bedrock principles do not change according to the direction of the political winds. It is one thing to change your mind, but it is another to change your very values. On Iraq he has admitted mistakes in the liberation of Iraq but nevertheless Iraq’s liberation was the right thing to do. This is not stubborness as some would call it but principle and perserverance. These are essential values in a leader.

Likewise tax cuts are not just a political short cut to get votes. It is the right thing to do. George Bush has come under hail and fire for ‘cutting taxes at a time of war’. But George Bush believes tax cuts will stimulate the economy and bring in more taxes in the long run. Again, the right thing to do.

He is also personable and likeable in a way that is down to earth, and in a very ‘country’ middle america sort of way. I live in a somewhat rural area, and George Bush would fit in here as a private citizen without standing out. He’s unpretencious and speaks like an unprofessional politician. Though he’s been tagged as being stupid by liberals, he is in fact a very intelligent man. Perhaps his manner of public speaking gives them the impression that he is not bright, but smooth talking does not necessarily equate with intelligence. I know many people who are in fact high IQ who get tripped up verbally, especially in public speaking.

As a leader and manager Bush does not micromanage the office of President. Good leadership is often not being afraid of having smarter people around you so that you can rely on their expertise and delegating to them the responsibility necessary for them to accomplish the task. The best example of this is in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some say both are a complete disaster but I disagree, Sherman didn’t say war is hell without reason. War is messy, chaotic, bloody, and it is hell. All told Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of success rather than failure, and time and some distance from this present political battle will show that. The commanders on the ground in Iraq right now are not being micromanaged by the Bush administration. The commanders in the field are being given the responsibility to take care of the job and they are doing superbly. Unlike the war we are refighting today (Vietnam).

That’s good for a start. To be continued…

Kathryn:

I know precisely why Kerry voted the way he did. Pure Politics. You have manufactured a reasonable explanation for it, and perhaps Kerry even believes it himself. But his meandering on the issue, moving from side to side on the fence, shows me that it was just politics. We’ll disagree on that of course, but that’s my opinion.
Its not that I cant see how your rationale works, but rather that I dont see Kerry as having that rationale when he voted.

CSB:

Thanks for your comments. I’m not totally in disagreement with you either. I didnt want to get this thread off onto the stem cell issue, but did want to point out that there are alternative options to fetal stem cells. If one believes that a fetus is actually a life, then it would be wrong to end one life in order to save another.

Of course, the whole issue is far more complicated, but I like the idea of exploring whether adult stem cells can be used in the same way as people are theorizing that fetal stem cells can be used. If fetal stem cell research is fully funded, this wont happen. So I applaud Bush for his stance, which creates a middle ground for research.

Let me correct something I said.

“Catastrophic success” is actually a term that has been used by Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers over and over again during the last year to describe the military’s quick win over Saddam’s military. I understand what he meant now. It was an overwhelming success, but catastrophic in that they weren’t able to destroy enough of these guys before they faded into the background. It was dishonest for Time magazine to report it recently as news, and as if it was another Bush gaffe.

I’ve been more than fair to Kerry and the Democrats throughout this thread but there is no way I would vote for Kerry because he is indecisve and he overthinks things, something I find common among the liberal crowd.

This is a nice thread.

Reason to vote for the boy George….

1. I like Dubya’s rogueish charm, he seems to possess an an easy going warmth that Kerry is deficient in.

2. Removing the Taliban was the right thing to do.

3. Having core beliefs (as he does) is a good thing, but his apparent in ability to perceive or tolerate ambiguity perhaps cancels out the former.

I am sure there are other reasons on top of these to vote for him which I am umaware of, but when it comes to the issues that I am most interested in, I completely disagree with the positions he holds on….

Iraq
Israel
Social policy
Fiscal policy
Environment

I think he has been wrong on all these issues, and as such I find it hard to think of anything positive to say about him with regard to them.

And to show (perhaps) that “I’ve not talked myself [too far] into a partisan corner”, I am skeptical of both parties and candidates. I would guess that in practice there would be little to separate Kerry and Dubya on most issues. I just happen to believe that Kerry would have less of a net negative effect on world in which we live. So, if I was voting, he would get my mine.

JoeBag - “If one believes that a fetus is actually a life, then it would be wrong to end one life in order to save another.”

Did you not hear me say this is a nonsense arguement? There are ways of working with these stem cells without encouraging the “taking of life!” In no way will this lead to increased abortions, or increased loss of life!

There are tons of suitable embryos simply thrown away every year - the overflow from artificial insemination programs, etc. I’m getting this information directly from National Institute of Health scientists, by the way. When people are finished getting pregnant, or whatever procedure they were doing with the eggs, they are asked what they want done with the unused eggs. The vast majority are thrown away. They could just have easily been used for stem cell research. Who gets hurt in this case, even from a Christian Conservative’s point of view? Whole areas of new research are available even under an Evangelical moral system, but Bush can’t make his policy reflect that because he’s afraid of nuance.

I’ll add one more good thing Bush did: visiting the troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving. That was a great gesture to the troops, and probably took at least a little bit of courage.

-Cf

> Maybe we just think that the fist major attack on
> American forces and Kerry we’ll say, this is too
> hard, I’m going home. But it’ll sound like “My
> concern for the men and women in military has
> convinced me to withdrawal from (insert hot spot here)”

Delzario, are you being rhetorical here? Are you trying to paint Kerry as a soft coward because you’re trying to sway the minds of somebody else, somebody who doesn’t understand politics? Or do Bush supporters really think that? Do they really think that a President Kerry would actually do something so stupid? I most certainly don’t think that. I wouldn’t vote for the guy if I thought that.

Ronald Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon after 200+ of them were killed by a truck bomb (out of “concern for the men and women in military”, no doubt). But I have no doubt that if Reagan were President today and the same thing happened, he would not make the same decision. Times have changed, and the conventional wisdom now is that we all must be firm on the war on terrorism. We Democrats most certainly understand this. If you don’t think we do, then your opinion of Democrats must be based on GOP advertising and Fox News’s Democratic caricatures and not on actual fact.

Here’s how I see things: Bush happened to be President on September 11, 2001. After that day, America’s political leaders (in both parties) and the non-partisan military and intelligence leaders who shape our nation’s policies and strategies radically changed their focus. Before September 11, NOBODY was proposing that we should be focused on terrorism. NOBODY in either party had ever proposed that we invade Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda. I repeat, NOBODY. Bill Clinton was attacked by Republicans every single time he did something about Al Qaeda - not because he didn’t do enough, but because they thought that he was trying to distract attention away from (a) Star Wars missle defense, (b) Saddam, and (c) Kenneth Starr.

In short, before 9/11, there is no evidence whatsoever that Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, had any particular advantage over Democrats in fighting terrorism.

But after 9/11, EVERYBODY agreed on the new strategy. Democrats, Republicans, EVERYBODY. It’s not like Bush took the lead after 9/11. He wasn’t pro-active about things at all. He simply did all of the things that any idiot would have done. Invading Afghanistan? Even a President Nader would have done that!!

So, what exactly is so unique about Bush’s approach?

I don’t understand how you guys think that Bush and the Republicans are uniquely determined to fight terrorism vigorously. There’s nothing Bush has proposed since 9/11 regarding the war on terrorism that wasn’t either fully supported by or even originally proposed by Democrats. In fact, many of Bush’s biggest war on terrorism decisions were made only under democratic pressure. If not for Democrats, there would be no 9/11 Commission and no Department of Homeland Security at all. Bush would have happily continued without any changes whatsoever to the way our internal intelligence and law enforcement operations operated. Is that leadership? I don’t think so.

So how have Bush’s decisions regarding the war on terrorism differed from what the Democrats would have done if they were in power? How, in fact, have they differed from simple common sense policies? What has Bush done that say, Al Gore wouldn’t have done, or that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done?

Oh, yeah, now I remember: Iraq. You guys still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, or that he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and well, even if he wasn’t, well, he was an evil Arab leader and we needed to set an example out of somebody. You guys are still so proud of the fact that Bush had the ‘courage’ to attack Iraq in spite of all the ‘obstacles’ he faced. It’s the one policy where Bush diverges from the Democrats.

So, besides Iraq, what has Bush done that makes him so uniquely strong on the issue of terrorism? Can anybody name anything at all? Or does it all come down to Iraq?

-Cf

It comes down to being willing to do what has to be done, something I am very uncomfortable with Kerry considering his past voting record in the Senate.

Thank you for your post. I also want to know why I should vote FOR either candidate instead of against the other. Can we rise above the usual squabbling and answer the question?

This is slightly off subject, but everyone’s posts (and the campaigns) have got me thinking:
The reason Bush and his stance are so popular with the public after 9/11 is because he offers certainty and resolve. (“We WILL win the war on terror.”) There is no ambiguity about his message.
Kerry and the Democrats, on the other hand, are forced by their nature (and their voter base) to believe in cultural relativity and diversity of opinion and so therefore must admit the possibility that they might be wrong and someone else might be right.
While resolve and open-mindedness are both strengths and weaknesses in their own respects, resolve is generally seen as positive in today’s America and open-mindedness is seen as waffling. This is partly due to a nation’s insecurity following the horror of 9/11, but I think it’s also a cultural phenomenon created by the media, where he who speaks loudest gets the most air time.
Any thoughts?

You could apply Alejo’s insight to other aspects of American culture, as well; for example, the popularity of huge, “tough” SUVs.