Rick Moran, who is still a strident Bush supporter, lists where he thinks the administration has failed. Personally, I don’t really like Kerry, but I am hard pressed to see how things would be worse with him as President. As I have stated repeatedly, the way Republicans have been behaving since the election, the Democrats just don’t seem so scary anymore.
At any rate, I agree with damn near all of his criticisms of this administration both large and small, and I could throw in a dozen dozens more. If I could point to one general failing, I would point to his being unable or unwilling to take on the wild-eye fringers in Congress. You can’t preach you are a moderate compassionate conservative and then just sign every wingnut wishlist that comes along through Congress. Unless, of course you believe they are right, something I don’t want to entertain.
And why can’t anyone admit they are wrong anymore? And I mean on both sides of the aisle. Why is this impossible?
Darrell
“wingnut” wish lists like the Education bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, signed by Bush at a time when conservatives were trying to abolish the Dept of Education.. or the Agriculture spend-till-we-drop bill (wide support among Dems).. Prescription drug benefit legislation? Would those be the wild-eyed wingnut wish lists you’re referring to? Puh-leeze.
Bush is a far bigger spender than Clinton on non-military programs and he is horribly wrong on immigration.. and he has been widely criticized from conservatives on these issues, so can we drop the pretend game that Bush is the lapdog of the right wing? In truth, liberals should support Bush as he is a believer in big spending, big govt.
Not sure what you mean by why can’t anyone admit that are wrong anymore without more specifics. Probably wouldn’t hurt though for Bush to make some sort of (tear-filled?) admission while telling the American people “I feel your pain”. Seems to have worked before with another President
JoshA
The most accurate description of Bush I’ve ever heard is: social reactionary, fiscal relativist.
He’s fairly far to the right on social issues. Same-sex marriage, first and foremost, but this is really reflected in the type of judges he appoints. It seems he’s trying to make policy through the judiciary rather than having to push stuff through Congress—funny for someone who rails against activist judges.
And he’s not really a liberal on government spending. Sure, he spends a lot (more than Clinton or Carter), but even big-government liberals believed you have to raise taxes to pay for the spending—ie, balance the budget, or at least keep it close.
Bush, on the other, apparently belives that you can run deficits till the cows come.
Darrell
Bush’s position on same sex marriage can hardly be considered “far to the right” given that 60% of Californians (arguably one of the most liberal states in the country) voted against it.
I can understand how Bush would seem far right to those standing on the extreme left.
llerrad
social reactionary, fiscal relativist.
Is that the same as a monarchist?
laurence haughton
You ask: “why can’t anyone admit they are wrong anymore? And I mean on both sides of the aisle.”
I think it’s because there are no significant benefits for admiting and no significant sanctions for failing to admit.
tim
Darrell,
Would it be too much to ask, what the bloody hell you are actually in support of? After that rant (the one at the top, there), I have no idea what you would like to see happen, other than seeing lots of various champions of lots of various things end up with horse heads in their beds.
So, for the record, please state what it is for which you stand. Specifics would be good, like ‘nerfing Social Security’, ‘promoting basket ball over soccer’, or ‘killing people who don’t chop the dicks of their sons’. Sorry for the leading examples – I’m just trying to get the conversation going.
Ben Lange
Ba’athist thugs taking over Iraq in our wake, democracy movements across the ME smothered at birth by governments now free to commit any kind of oppression, higher taxes (meaning fewer jobs), the EU constitution on the verge of ratification, North Korea appeased (and already reneging on their end of the deal, not that we’d know until the next administration), Arafat’s thugs running rampant over the Pals, stealing what they can (OK, not much worse than it is now), relations between the U.S. and its real allies (UK, Japan, Australia, India, Israel) in the toilet after Kerry’s staggering betrayal…….
Yeah, how could President Kerry be any worse?
Darrell
tim, take a pill. JohnC’s post stated that Bush was unable to stand up to the “wingnuts” signing every piece of right wing legislation coming his way.
My comments (“rant” as you called it) were intended to demonstrate that far from being a lapdog of the right wing, Bush has a history of signing into law quite a bit of what many/most would describe as ‘liberal’ legislation, much of it the opposite of what conservatives wanted to see.
Ben
Darrell,
Bush has signed on to the following wingnut, fundie causes publicly: FMA, Schiavo (and the completely unconservative anti-states rights position on this issue), faith based bullshit and it’s unintended consequences and stem cells… just to name a few. I’m a life long Republican until now. Bush is completely owned by the jesus freaks who don’t represent anything even close to conservatism.
Darrell
“jesus freaks”. Lovely.. and so tolerant.
FMA = reaction to activist judges who were thwarting the will of the people. In CA, 60% voted against legalizing same sex marriages. Sorry you don’t like it, but Bush siding with 60% of one of most liberal states in the union is hardly a sign of being in the “wingnut” category
Schiavo – Tell me, exactly what ‘wingnut’ legislation did Bush sign that stopped her husband from having her starved to death? Must have been some hard-line right wing legislation, huh?
Stem cells – blah, blah, there were never restrictions on private research
I take it Bush’s signing of Ted Kennedy’s hugely expensive education bill was part of the right wing conspiracy plot too? C’mon, these attempts to portray Bush as some pawn of the right wing are bullsh*t and don’t square with the facts
Ben
Darrell,
Semantics… it’s not about Bush “signing legislation”… it’s about him supporting wingnut causes. You listen to lush limbaugh and sean insanity too much Darrell.
FMA – it has nothing to do with activist judges, it has to do with equal rights. End of discussion. Besides, if heteros are so fucking concerned with marriage why don’t they stop divorcing at 50% rate, stop their abortions, illigetimate children and adultery? It’s got nothing to do with activist judges.
Schiavo – Republicans, in the past, have been the party that championed states rights… like the right of the state of Florida to determine what will happen to Schaivo. All of the sudden, when the cameras are rolling and the fundies are upset, Bush steps in a supports the total and complete sellout of conservative principles (federalism).
Stem cells – so Bush wants to federally fund abstinence only education, faith based blah blah blah, but not stem cells? Again Darrell, you are using symantecs (like lush limbaugh preaches daily).
Yes, i used the term jesus freaks on purpose… it pisses off the JF’s and the fundie whackjobs don’t deserve any more tolerance than they give other people.
Darrell, learn to think for yourself and stop being a political lemming for the likes of senator sanctimonious. You spout the party line verbatim on all of those issues. Great, think whatever you want but stop trying to control other people.
Rick
What Darrell said (several times).
Bush has been too insoucient about spending. But the pubbie Congress has behaved as badly as I’d expect a Democratic one would, with the exception that I’d be poorer for the higher tax rate I’d have.
I am delighted with the progress of foreign affairs (a President Kerry would be currently selling out the ME democrats by getting the feckless U.N. more involved), and, contra Mr. Moran, that Powell has been sidelined, rather than Rumsfeld.
Cordially…
Ben
Rick,
That’s one of the frustrating things about the Bush presidency…he has done some things well (foreign policy, Condi, taxes), but he has dropped the ball on many issues due to his focus on social issues. I love the low taxes, as long as they are accompanied by lower spending… which isn’t happening.
Darrell
I see Ben, you’re FOR states rights when it came to Schiavo being starved to death..um, I mean relieved of her misery. But you are AGAINST states rights if the population votes, as California and other states have done, against same sex marriage, and those state laws are enforced. Is that about right?
I gotta go now, 700 Club is coming on, and well, lemmings like me need to be told what to think so we can spout talking points against ‘independent’ thinkers like yourself.
Elephant Bill
I love the low taxes, too.
Bush’s one major failure, as I see it, is failing to engage Mexico in a limited, regulated free slavery trade pact. Right now, as we speak, my gardener, handyman, and maids are all starting to think they deserve minimum wage. And yet our sons and daughters can’t even find a good job, because all the Mexicans are taking them. Slavery is the obvious solution.
Elephant Bill
Clearly, I’m letting minor disappointments slide–not bombing Morocco, Libya, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Arab Emirates has made Bush’s foreign policy a slight degree weaker in my eyes. Why do you build nuclear weapons if you’re not going to use them?
Elephant Bill
And I should add that I am rather unhappy that Americans can still receive our taxpayer money just because they have a disability and cannot work. Our economy would not be moving sluggishly if these people were forced to man shifts like they should be.
shark
Why can’t anyone admit they’re wrong?
Simple:
If a Republican or member of the Administration admits they’re wrong, the Dems and their media lackeys will use that admission to crush them.
If a Dem admits they’re wrong, it goes down the media memory hole. So they shouldn’t even bother.
W.B. Reeves
Re: Darrell,
“FMA = reaction to activist judges who were thwarting the will of the people.”
Excuse me but judges are supposed thwart “the will of the People” whenever it conflicts with the law. The cited justification is nothing more than an excuse for yet another power grab by both the legislative and executive branches. I think support for this positon qualifies as wingnut. Which flavor is irrelevant.
As for why people find it hard to admit it when they are wrong, the short answer is that those who set the conditions of public discourse like it that way. Admitting error confers legitimacy on the opposing viewpoint. It means seeing the other side’s viewpoint as something worthy of consideration. Consideration might lead to communication perhaps even agreement.
Is there any political opinion making institution in American life today that basis itself on consensus rather than division? Off hand I can’t think of one.
Another motor may be fear. No one is so rigid as a person who feels under threat. The politics of fear are alive and well in the U.S.A. today.
JonBuck
Darryl:
Can you explain the difference between the Jim Crow laws that were passed by the majority in the South, and the California law (Which is not part of the state constitution) you’ve cited so much?
opit
Time for levity. Queen Elizabeth’s opinion of British politics : Too antagonistic (Wrong word, right idea.) Then again, thinking of a Scot testifying on this side of the pond …
Kimmitt
No, Darryl, you’ve got it backwards — Bush is FOR States’ Rights when it comes to gay marriage, unless a state actually passes a gay marriage, when he’s AGAINST States’ Rights. Also, Bush is FOR States’ Rights when it comes to restricting access to abortion but AGAINST States’ Rights when it comes to Terry Schiavo.
Me? I’m against States’ Rights for most things; I have seen a grand total of once in my lifetime when States’ Rights was invoked for any purpose other than to justify governmental oppression of women, minorities or gays. I just wish that you lot would pick a side and stick with it. Or, more to the point, I wish you’d take the side you have picked — power at any price — and own up to it.
Kimmitt
Why is this impossible?
I don’t know about all this highfalutin’ political theory, but I do know that John Kerry is a flip-flopper.
p.lukasiak
The one word that sums up the Bush regime is “irresponsible”.
Bush’s foreign policy has been a complete disaster — we have so alienated the rest of the world that most nations would prefer to threats to American security grow rather than work with the US to reduce those threats. We’re losing the “war on terror” — we’ve lost the moral authority that is necessary to combat terrorism while acting in a manner that affirms the characterizations of those who see terror as the only effective means of opposing the USA.
But as bad as Bush has been on foreign policy, those mistakes pale in comparison to the economic disaster he is creating. At a time when its absolutely necessary for this nation to pursue a course of fiscal prudence to be able to deal with a rapidly aging population, Bush is racking up massive budget deficits — and backing proposals that will increase those deficits — and wants to rob the middle class of their social security benefits to (slightly) allieviate the burden those deficits will have on future generations.
America itself has never been so divided thanks to Bush, who has gone out of his way to anger and alienate Democrats by acting as if the worst re-election margin for an incumbent president in history (during wartime, no less) represents a “mandate” to do whatever he wants. The battle over judges is completely unnecessary and utterly destructive of national unity — does it really matter if Bush only gets 90% of his judges seated?
People focus on “social issues”, but every president has pandered to his base on those kinds of issues, and “gay marriage” and “stem cell research” really don’t have that significant an impact on this nation, and can be easily remedied by the next administration. But the damage being done by Bush in foreign affairs, economic issues, and America’s sense of itself are going to cost this nation greatly in the long-term, and could easily wind up destroying what made America great.
Worst President Ever.
Brian
This idea that if Kerry was elected we’d immediately surrender to Osama and he’d force us all to convert to Islam is hilarious.
What have we spent the last 6 months on?
Schiavo. Social Security. Judges. Stem Cells.
Bush mumbles a bit about freedom now and then, but where is the freaking War on Terror, allegedly the most important war at least since WWII?
It was a gimmick to get re-elected, like whipping people into a frenzy over gay marriage. Nothing more.
Ben Lange
This idea that if Kerry was elected we’d immediately surrender to Osama and he’d force us all to convert to Islam is hilarious.
Our enemies have a habit of thinking wishfully, and no doubt believe Kerry can be bullied. At the very least we would no longer be in Iraq, as Kerry would have the excuse of “it’s not my mess”.
Once Zarqawi could claim victory over us in Iraq, his ranks would swell with recruits driven to the inevitable victory. ME regimes would know any threats from America could be safely ignored, thus Syria would have went in the tanks to deal with the protests in Lebanon and at home.
The root of our problem with terrorism is the myth of American weakness (the”paper tiger”). A President Kerry, with his penchant for dithering and hand-wringing and nuancing everything, would have reinforced that image.
Ben Lange
P.S. As for alienating the rest of the world: that’s a feature, not a bug. The rest of the world is swirling down the toilet in a socialist death spiral. It’s natural for other countries to resent our success; it makes their failure more humiliating. If they just did things the way we do, they’d succeed like us. It’s so simple.
But as it is, if they like us, we’re doing something terribly wrong.
Mr Furious
“…he has done some things well (foreign policy, Condi, taxes)…”
I would dispute every one of those as done “well”, but I am completetely flabbergasted at the listing of Condoleeza Rice as a highlight of the Bush presidency.
In my opinion she was the most stark example of sheer incompetence and abject failure in the entire Administration (and that’s saying a lot) in her role as NSA and as time goes on she will underperform in her new role as well.
“I believe the title was ‘Bin laden Determined to Strike in the US'”, “Flying airplanes into buildings? No one could have anticipated such a strategy”
Ring any bells? She is awful.
Kimmitt
But she’s African-American! And female! Holding female African-Americans to the same standards as other persons is racist or something!
willyb
“I believe the title was ‘Bin laden Determined to Strike in the US'”, “Flying airplanes into buildings? No one could have anticipated such a strategy”
These quotes give the impression that there was some sort of information given to “Condi” that would have led her to stopping 911. What was the document that had this title?
willyb
“But she’s African-American! And female! Holding female African-Americans to the same standards as other persons is racist or something!”
What is this . . . the anti-race card.? It seems to me that your support of racial equality is pretty slim if you can slander a qualified person bevause of her politics, and use race as way to misdirect the discussion away from your lack of any evidence of that person’s incompetence. What are these “same standards” of which you speak?
Kimmitt
It’s no slander to mock Secretary Rice for her claim that “No one could have anticipated such a strategy” shortly after 9/11, when we came to understand that multiple memoes which passed through her hands to the President’s mentioned precisely that possibility.
Dr. Rice is either incompetent or a liar, or, you know, both.
willyb
Mocking Dr. Rice is one thing . . . but calling her incompetent or a liar on the basis of the quote you used??? What was the context of her quote? If this is a direct quote, maybe you could provide the entire text, or at least a couple of paragraphs before and after the quote.
Yes, I’m sure there are memos that hypothesized all kinds of potential scenarios, including a nuclear weapon being detonated on U.S. soil. Are you saying someone specifically advised Dr. Rice, in a memo, that the events of 911 (or some close facsimile) were about to unfold in the near future? In other words, are you saying she ignored a specific threat (i.e., 911)?
This is a revelation! How long have you keeping this to yourself? Let’s get this information out!
Ken Hahn
I’ve never been too impressed with Bush, although the Democrats have done their best to make him look like Washington by nominating Gore and then Kerry. I’ll give it a try at what he’s done wrong.
1. The southern border is still wide open.
2. The Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a ton of wasteful bureaucracies still exist.
3. Norman Mineta is still Secretary of Transportation.
4. We are still members of the United Nations.
5. The TSA is a union based jobs program for unemployable Democrats rather than a security agency.
6. McCain-Feingold
7. Trusting Vladimir Putin.
8. There has been no attempt to foment an insurgency in China.
9.Taxes remain too high, spending is obscene.
10. No effort to stop the vote fraud that has kept the Democrats competative in many states.
11. Left wing hate groups like PFAW remain tax exempt.
12. No leadership on military base closings, which remain a political football.
13. NPR and CPB are still swilling at the public trough.
That’s a baker’s dozen. There’s many more. I think this administration is close to an abject failure, yet it is the best since Reagan. Sad, isn’t it?
The choice available is no longer between left and right, but between socialist of varying enthusiasm. Bush is more reluctant than his opponents. It’s cold comfort but I guess it’ll have to do.
Rick
(con’t)
…and ditto what Ken Hahn said this morning.
Cordially…