|
Post by sayne on Oct 9, 2008 23:10:01 GMT -5
I don't feel like going to "Below the Fold" with this because I'm only interested on what we on this board think. Through the years, we have debated and argued (sometimes quite vociferously) about elections, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc. and I've enjoyed the discourse. But, for this thread, I have no intention of arguing or debating or even responding, but I am really curious to hear from those board members who voted for George Bush.
Obviously, 8 years ago you thought Bush would be a better President than Gore, and again 4 years ago you thought he would be better than Kerry. That's fair and you may have been right. We will NEVER know how good or bad a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been.
I'm not interested in statements about Gore really winning or Kerry getting "swift boated". My interested is in "satisfaction." For those who voted for Bush, how do you feel now about him and his presidency? Looking back at all the things he conveyed about himself, how he was going to govern, his judgement, his policies, his intelligence, everything, how would you rate him? Is he your "FDR" or "Carter"? "Was he "Reagan" or "Hoover"? Obviously, Democrats and Liberals will have nothing good to say, but I don't want to hear from them. I want to know what people who voted for Bush 8 and 4 years ago think now?
Again, I promise that I have no intention of flaming anyone. I'm just very curious. Thank you for indulging me and trusting that I will not be throwing any bombs.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 11, 2008 14:05:23 GMT -5
I can really only respond as one that voted for Bush in 2000; I went third party in 2004, but if I HAD to pick between Bush or Kerry in 2004, I would have gone with Bush. That the Dems have put up the most liberal possible candidate (based on voting records) in both 2004 and now in 2008 doesn't make that an attractive option for me.
To answer your question, I have not been satisfied with Bush. I expected a more conservative approach to the office. I could give a list of items where I have been disappointed if I took a long time to think it over, but off the top of my head, here are a few:
I have not been happy with the free spending in Congress that outstripped the increased revenues from the tax cuts. Bush had a part in that.
I don't care how much the Democrats were whining about regulating Fannie and Freddie, it had to be done, and just because the liberals put in a financially idiotic program was no reason to continue it. A little backbone, especially in the first term, would have helped.
He swore to uphold the Constitution, and then signed McCain/Feingold's campaign finance reform. He thought (or so I've been led to believe) that the courts would overturn it. As it turned out, it was NOT ruled unconstitutional, but the point is he thought it was and signed it anyway.
His approach to border control has been weak.
He increased federal control over education, despite the clear emperical evidence that the more the feds have become involved in it, the worse things have become.
Now, some of his policies are going to take some time to unfold. The most recent is the financial bailout. It goes against everything I believe in except one--I don't believe I want to live through a depression! The support for it seemed to go across party lines--Mitch McConnell was on board, and John Boehner in the house--so I know some with a like ideology to mine approved it.
Likewise, the notion that the world will be safer if there are functioning democracies in the Middle East makes sense, but if it is abandoned by the next administration, we're not going to know if it would result in less havens for terrorists. Now, the question about whether we should have been there in the first place is another matter--and one on which conservatives have disagreed for half a decade.
I do not question Bush's intelligence by the way he communicates. More than once, I've read accounts from those that spent time with him privately. Most of those are surprised at how different he is when the camera is on as opposed to those private sessions.
As to your final question, and not being too flippant, but Bush is my "Bush"--that is, his dad. I never did figure out why the elder Bush didn't model himself more after the successful Reagan, and I can't figure out why the younger one didn't learn from his dad's failures.
Hope this is what you were looking for.
JcS
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 11, 2008 16:35:09 GMT -5
Sayne, you may be interested in an angle from a foreigner - an Australian.
I think the US has had some very low-quality people standing for president. From the main stream, Bush, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama and McCain seem from here to be dreadful alternatives to have to choose between. (Maybe it's a world thing: there are no men of vision to be seen, apparently!)
You are lucky not to have got Gore or Kerry; and unlucky to have got Bush (twice! how did that happen). Here we know little about the Bush domestic policies and actions, but internationally he talks like a goose, acts like a goose, and looks bewildered and confused like a goose just before Christmas.
My feeling is that Obama will turn out to be completely out of his depth - and you will be lucky not to get McCain!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 11, 2008 21:05:52 GMT -5
Thank you both for you comments. Yes, that gives me insight. Just as it's interesting to hear what Beatle fans think about a dubious Beatle accomplishment, I think it's interesting to hear supporters of George Bush evaluate his presidency, for they were the ones that were so optimistic way back when - especially when they held both the Presidency and the Congress.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 11, 2008 23:04:34 GMT -5
. . . I have not been satisfied with Bush . . . So, assuming 9/11 would have happened regardless of who was President, and knowing how Bush handled the last 8 years, which of these Republicans who ran against him in 2000 do you suspect would have handled things closer to your liking? How do you think this person would have handled the situations you mentioned? Or, do you still hold that Bush was the best in the bunch? Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, Dan Quayle, Robert C. Smith. Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 12, 2008 0:43:25 GMT -5
Good question, and I'm not sure I know. Forbes certainly would have been better on economic matters and fiscal responsibility; I think he'd have surrounded himself with strong people on matters of national security. While the presidency isn't normally an "entry level position," Eisenhower seemed to get the feel for it without much trouble.
I liked Kasich back then, but thought he was a couple of elections away from being ready for prime time. Hatch would have been the dark horse of that bunch for me--probably acceptable until we found someone better. I don't think any of the rest would have been someone I'd have WANTED there, but maybe wanted MORE than Gore.
I frankly don't remember who I supported in that race--probably Forbes or Keyes, maybe, but I'm not as impressed with him now as I was then.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Oct 12, 2008 9:45:52 GMT -5
I won't comment, for obvious reasons, other than to say that this was a very interesting approach to the topic by sayne (what else is new?) and it was a great read . Thanks to the few who have participated thus far...any one else out there who qualify to comment? I'd love to hear more from the "other" side.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 12, 2008 9:51:59 GMT -5
I didn't vote for Bush. Then again, I didn't vote for Clinton...
I've never voted.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 12, 2008 10:51:36 GMT -5
. . . I expected a more conservative approach to the office. Joey, as you know, I am liberal, in fact VERY liberal. Of the mainstream candidates, I am a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, but I usually vote 3rd party. Although I think George Bush will be considered one of the worst presidents we have ever had, I am not one who thinks he is stupid or the "village idiot." I didn't think Dan Quayle was a potatoe , nor do I think Sarah Palin is empty. Even the fact that John Mc Cain graduated toward the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy doesn't make me think any less of him intellectually. Even with connections, one doesn't graduate from the Naval Academy or Yale, or become a senator or governor of a state if one is stupid. Quayle, Palin, Bush, and Mc Cain may not be the sharpest of minds, but neither am I. To get where they have gotten requires some good amount of gray matter. Now, they may not be sophisticated thinkers or creative thinkers, and their experiences may limit their views of the world, but "dumb"? No. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were very smart. Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were less so and have had more positive things said about their respective presidencies. Barack Obama is probably smarter than John McCain. Does that ensure that he would be better President? No. ;D Now, finally, to my point. I think George Bush's failure was not attributible to his intelligence. It was attributable to his motivation. I think it was about power, not service. It was not about "country first." Believe me, I would have loved it if George Bush's presidency was the greatest ever, for that would mean that we would have become a richer, stronger, more respected, cleaner, smarter, and safer country than when he got into office. I'm also not saying that a Kerry or Gore presidency would have been better. We never REALLY know who will be good or not. Just like all of us, circumstances reveal. I think circumstances revealed that Jimmy Carter was smart and wanted to serve, but he was indecisive. Circumstances revealed the real Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, and Reagan. Sadly, it revealed the real George Bush, too. Even though I'm from the far left, I really wish it had been otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 12, 2008 20:34:22 GMT -5
I don't feel Obviously, 8 years ago you thought Bush would be a better President than Gore, and again 4 years ago you thought he would be better than Kerry. That's fair and you may have been right. We will NEVER know how good or bad a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been. I'll be careful here, Sayne, to heed your request because I'm not among the voices you're looking for. However, you keep making a point to state that we'll never know what a Gore or Kerry presidency would have achieved. Of course we don't, but I'm still proud of my vote in both cases and I am confident that either man would have made much better decisions for this country. By the way, I don't understand hopeless third party voting. You might see it as simply exercising your right; I still see it as giving us someone like George Bush. Maybe those on the right and left cancel each other out, but I'd like our chances better in 2000 if Nader had simply shut the hell up and stayed home. In my eyes, he gave up his right to complain about anything this administration has botched.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 12, 2008 22:02:36 GMT -5
By the way, I don't understand hopeless third party voting. You might see it as simply exercising your right; I still see it as giving us someone like George Bush . . . I get what you're saying because I'm a realist and I understand politics. But, I wouldn't vote 3rd party simply to vote 3rd party. For me, it's more than just exercising a right. I don't think it is ever a "wasted" vote. Let's look back at the Nixon/McGovern election. The polls showed that Nixon was going to win by a landslide. In that circumstance, would a vote for McGovern have been a wasted vote? I don't think so. But, more to the point. In another thread I wrote about people/organizations who are at the extremes - PETA, the avant garde in art, Gandhi, Jesus, etc. It's these "outsiders" that move the center. Without them, stagnation sets it. Think of any endeavor - politics, music, religion, sports, science, etc. History is full of fringe people with radical ideas shaking things up. Quite often the ideas are seen as strange, and sometimes dangerous. But, the status quo was disturbed and society moved forward. What does that have to do with voting 3rd party? I believe that sometimes it's not about who is in power. It's not about who is elected. It's about ideas. If enough people vote 3rd party, new ideas get noticed. Slowly, those ideas work themselves into the mainstream. Women's rights, civil rights, the peace movement, anti-slavery, and other ideas all came from outside the mainstream political machinery. That's why I believe my 3rd party vote is not wasted. It's my opportunity to tell the mainstream politicians that I do not endorse their policies. If enough people do that, instead of just sitting out an election, then real new ideas work themselves into the mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 12, 2008 22:37:35 GMT -5
Sayne, I agree with your reasoning on 3rd party voting. I've never done it when the outcome in my state was in question. I knew in 1992 that native son Bill Clinton was going to carry Arkansas, and I voted for Perot. Now, I knew he was crazier than a sackfull of rabid weasels (my cousin used to be a VP for EDS), but he was a deficit hawk. That 19% he got caught the attention of the major parties, and I believe it was due in large part to the Perot supporters that Congress was handed over to the Republicans in 1994 (that, and the nature of the Clinton administration in the first two years).
However, I also see merit in Jim's position that a vote for the 3rd party candidate that most supports your views may wind up helping the one you like least. I thought Nadar on the left and Barr on the right had that potential this time, but from what I've seen, that may not be the case. Of course, such a position assumes that the voter would have come out anyway and picked the major party candidate closest to his ideology, and that's not necessarily a given. Staying home seems to suit many folks.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 13, 2008 0:43:10 GMT -5
Staying home seems to suit many folks. Joey, have you heard of the "None of the Above" movement? Now, THAT would shake things up!
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 13, 2008 19:56:43 GMT -5
Interesting discussion, and good points Sayne and Joey. I just can't imagine staying home. I wouldn't have a right, in my view, to say a word unless I had exercised that right. We all have a voice that day.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 22, 2008 17:22:29 GMT -5
Hey Sayne -- here's a political "joke" someone told me at work today:
Obama goes to heaven and meets St. Peter. St. Peter asks, "And who are you, my son?" Obama says: "Oh, come on, don't you recognize me? I'm Barack Obama!" St. Peter looks confused: "How shall I know you? Tell me, what was your purpose on Earth?" Obama answers: "Why, I was President of the United States!" St. Peter is still not sure... "How long ago was this?" Obama replies: "Oh, about 20 minutes ago!"
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 22, 2008 22:20:14 GMT -5
Hey Sayne -- here's a political "joke" someone told me at work today: Obama goes to heaven and meets St. Peter. St. Peter asks, "And who are you, my son?" Obama says: "Oh, come on, don't you recognize me? I'm Barack Obama!" St. Peter looks confused: "How shall I know you? Tell me, what was your purpose on Earth?" Obama answers: "Why, I was President of the United States!" St. Peter is still not sure... "How long ago was this?" Obama replies: "Oh, about 20 minutes ago!" Here's a better joke and one that won't make ME look bad (Instant Karma's gonna get you): If you think that despite John Mc Cain's age and Sarah Palin's ineptitude and George Bush's negativity rating and the blaming of Republican's for where we are now and the economy and the War in Iraq and the 10 point lead Obama has nationwide you still think the Democrats will find a way to lose this election, you just might be a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 23, 2008 5:08:46 GMT -5
Not sure I know what you mean about Instant Karma silliness (heck, if there's any truth to that then you'd be the first to get bopped on the head by IK!) and "making ME look bad". All I did was tell someone else's "joke" (and notice how I specifically put the word in quotations in my original post ) that someone else told me. Why, I didn't even say if I thought it was funny, pathetic, indifferent, or anything ...
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 23, 2008 8:06:02 GMT -5
Not sure I know what you mean about Instant Karma silliness (heck, if there's any truth to that then you'd be the first to get bopped on the head by IK!) and "making ME look bad". All I did was tell someone else's "joke" (and notice how I specifically put the word in quotations in my original post ) that someone else told me. Why, I didn't even say if I thought it was funny, pathetic, indifferent, or anything ... If one repeats it, one usually does so because they think it's a good one . . . unless, of course, one says, "Here's a really bad joke I heard . . ."
|
|