Question for COnservatives

[chonce]

I am sure that most non-conservatives will grade him poorly, so rather than turn this into a pissing contest between the right and left, I thought I would ask a question just too conservatives.


I am just wondering about what your likes and dislikes of President Bush are, compared to other conservative presidents, and your ideal conservative ideology.

What decisions did he make that you disagreed with, or thought could have been handled better?


His best moves?

His worst?

How would you grade him compared to other conservatives presidents? (not to democrats)

What aspects of his presidency were least adherent to conventional conservatism, and which were the most?


Just curious. I cant tell if Bush is praised by the republicans because he is a great conservative president, or because he is a conservative president, and not a liberal.


Thanks in advance for any input.

 

[Shotgun]

Bush spends way too much money...the Medicare bill is Exhibit A. There is little difference between the GOP and the Democrats on the domestic front; conservatives try to shrink the government and he is making no effort to do so. After the election he may do so...who knows? But he certainly isn't a fiscal conservative.

Positives: Tax cut. If you think the economy is weak now, imagine how it would be if people didn't have the extra money to spend. The economic bubble burst in 2000; to blame the downturn since on tax cuts is silly and blatently partisan.

Foreign policy: Clinton failed to take advantage of the opportunities/responsibilities of being the world's only superpower. Bush knows our power is greater than any ever seen on this planet, and isn't squeamish about using that power. We will protect our interests where we need to, and we will promote our democratic ideals where we can. Establishing pro-western, civilized, democratic leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan will be an example; these countries will change the balance of power in the West's battle against Islamic radicalism now in the Arab World.

National defense is the most important factor in voting for me. Kerry's voting record shows he can't be trusted in using the military correctly and equipping the Armed Forces with the tools needed to keep loss of life on both sides down to a minimum.

If a pro-military Democrat (are there any left?) ran against Bush, I might be tempted. He'd have to repudiate the "global community" trash that has infested the Dem party before he made much headway with the rest of conservatives however.

Similarities to other presidents? Maybe Kennedy with his tax cuts and spending...Reagan and Truman for his willingness to take the fight to the enemy...Nixon for his domestic agenda. He isn't a conservative; what I find entertaining is how hated Bush is by the left when he is actually pushing much of their agenda.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Bush is not a conservative. Bush is moderate to liberal. A joke hearing a guy talk protectionism and out of the other side of his mouth speak up for free trade.

There are no conservatives left, the left wing scum has advanced their agenda enough now, that it is abnormal to expect people to get ahead on their own. Everyone is entitled to some government handout, and since those folks inevitably vote to protect their dole, it ain't going to change anytime soon.

They are likely to phuck up the medical system next, like they phucked up the legal system, the taxation system, the education system, SSI and just abt every other institution known to man

The term medical breakthrough is now almost exclusively an American expression, our poor get better treatment than most countrie's rich. We can get life altering drugs to market for less than a billion dollars a shot here. If they have their way they will phuck that up as well.

 

[dickman]

I think that Bush has done a good job using the United States military after 9/11. The only aspect that I dislike is how he handled Iraq.
Regarding the United States deficit, Bush isn't totally responsible because the congress which include republicans and democrats alike gave the president the appropriate funds to battle terrorism.

As for Bush's popularity around the planet, my question is how Clinton would have handled 9/11. Though he was also a good president I believe that Mr. Clinton wouldn't have handled the war in Afghanistan or implemented Homeland security like Bush. Afterall, Osama Bil Laden had made three attacks against the United States during his administration.

1. The car bombing in the world trade center.
2. The twin bombings of the US embassies.
3. The US Cole.

Clinton knew that Bin Laden was a threat and never made the appropriate means to excecute him. The reason why, he always preferred to look good in front of the Global public.

 

[SanJose]

Chonce,

Bush has been outstanding in terms of foreign policy and mediocre at best in terms of domestic policy.

His best move? Understanding the enormity of the threat facing Western Civilization relative to terrorism and Islamic extremism. The decisions made in the years following 9/11 will be the most critical since the early post-World War II years. Bush seems to grasp the painfully obvious failures of the past relative to dealing with the Middle East and the threat of terrorism. Every President since Nixon has had to deal with a growing terror problem and every President, even Reagan, was not up to the challenge. We talked and talked and talked and accomplished nothing...nothing except we dismantled the CIA, propped up totalitarian regimes in the Middle East, aided the rapid expansion of Islamic extremism when Carter allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran after years of exile, etc, etc, etc. Essentially we fiddled while the fire burned...the fire of religious extremism. Bush understands that if there ever was a time where diplomacy would work, that time has surely past, probably by about three decades. That's why Bush MAY do enough to save the future of the civilized world, but then again he may be out of office by next year, and if that happens, The Democrats will allow America to go back to sleep, and the next 9/11 may be a nice nuclear surprise to kill 300,000 instead of 3,000.

Bush's worst move? Retaining George Tenet as CIA Director after he took office. Tenet was a holdover from the Clinton years and he has been an absolute disaster before and during the Bush presidency.

How does he compare to other Conservative presidents? Well, he doesn't inspire me the way Reagan did, but he's a major improvement on his father, and he's actually been a far better President than even Republicans think. 100 years from now, the history books will treat him kinder than his contemporaries have.

What aspects is he most and least like a Conservative? Well, he's most like a Conservative in his fierce commitment to national defense. This should not be a conservative/liberal issue, but the Democratic Party has turned it into a conservative issue by becoming Utopian pacifists. Bush is least like a Conservative when it comes to immigration where he has been weak on defending the Mexican border. Contrary to what others might say, the large budget deficits are NOT contradictory with conservative beliefs because we are running deficits at a time of war, which is to be expected.

 

[TheGeneral+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's why Bush MAY do enough to save the future of the civilized world, but then again he may be out of office by next year, and if that happens, The Democrats will allow America to go back to sleep, and the next 9/11 may be a nice nuclear surprise to kill 300,000 instead of 3,000.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bush saving the future.

As for another attack, foreign or domestic, it will happen, no matter what anyone does, but atleast get me a guy in office that can try and help americans and not the foreign countries. Bush can go enjoy watching oil shoot from the ground and look forward to executions.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:

If a pro-military Democrat (are there any left?) ran against Bush, I might be tempted. He'd have to repudiate the "global community" trash that has infested the Dem party before he made much headway with the rest of conservatives however.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, what do you mean by 'pro-military Democrat'. I find it somewhat amusing whwen people link being pro-military to being pro-war. I think it's just the opposite. A President who is pro military would not be so quick and so flippant about going into a war like this. A pro-military President would go to war only after exhausting all diplomatic means and only as a last resort in response to an immient threat or inresponse to an attack. That's pro-military IMO. Going to war whenever it's politicall expedient is not pro-miltary and neither is cutting funding to VA hopsitals and cutting veterans benefits.

As to the "global commuity trash" I don't know aht to say. We have what everyone calls a global war on terror which is well recognized to need a multilateral approach of trusty and cooperation. We cannot do it alone, we must rely on the global community, the vast majority of which is, or at least wants to be, on board with us on this. The "global community" appraoch is preciely the correct approach to the situation we face. I think even Dubya recognizes this to an extent though his execution of it is awkward at best. His father would have handled the situation much much better.

 

[SanJose]

The General,

You say the next attack is inevitable? So I guess in your mind that means we should just sit back, try and grow the economy, so at least we'll have a booming economy when the first nuclear device goes off...nice theory.

 

[chonce]

San Jose,

Its not sitting back, its just an issue of bieng pragmatic. You cannot kill, and capture every radical islamic findamentalist. It is impossible.

We could spend every tax that we pay on bombing iraq, and there will still be threats in North Korea, Al qaeda etc..


I cant be sure of Bush's motives. I hope he truly believed that a war with iraq was his last resort, and a necassary evil. I hope he was misguided, but not willingly negligent. I cant be sure.

However, in my opinion, most of the reservations about the war that were posed by dissenters seem to becoming to fruition.

There were no WMD's. We have no good exit strategy. Some of Bush's statements were found to be inaccurate, and weather it was a lie, a flawed piece of intelligence, or the fault of people other than him, the idealistic expectations of the pro-war crowd have not come to realization.

I appreciate your opinion, that this war was a good thing given the circumstances, but frankly, I truly dont think it is/was. I think it was a bad idea, and the state of the war as it stands now, seems to favor my position.

Disclaimer:
* I am not a democrat, I just think Bush has failed in his presidency. Please do not refer to me as a commie, liberal, unpatriotic traitor.
I care very much for this country.


I digress. I am still interested in the responses to the initial post. It is hard to keep from debating...I know.

 

[SanJose]

Chonce,

No, why on earth would I accuse you of any of those things. It's not like you have a double standard in your response to the posts in this thread...it's not like you typed a long response arguing with conservatives then said absolutely nothing to criticize the liberals...who would ever you accuse you of that? You've obviously been a bastion of unbiased commentary in this thread, they must have just deleted your posts where you argued with the liberals the way you're arguing with me...right?

 

[Shotgun]

Originally posted by D2bets:

First, what do you mean by 'pro-military Democrat'. I find it somewhat amusing whwen people link being pro-military to being pro-war. I think it's just the opposite. A President who is pro military would not be so quick and so flippant about going into a war like this. A pro-military President would go to war only after exhausting all diplomatic means and only as a last resort in response to an immient threat or inresponse to an attack. That's pro-military IMO. Going to war whenever it's politicall expedient is not pro-miltary and neither is cutting funding to VA hopsitals and cutting veterans benefits.

As to the "global commuity trash" I don't know aht to say. We have what everyone calls a global war on terror which is well recognized to need a multilateral approach of trusty and cooperation. We cannot do it alone, we must rely on the global community, the vast majority of which is, or at least wants to be, on board with us on this. The "global community" appraoch is preciely the correct approach to the situation we face. I think even Dubya recognizes this to an extent though his execution of it is awkward at best. His father would have handled the situation much much better.

It is you linking pro-military with pro-war, not I. Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagan, but there is little doubt as to which president was more pro-military. The hawks have for the most part abandoned the Democratic Party; Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Kirkpatrick were all democrats until the McGovern/Carter wing drove them out of the party. And enough with the cliches about multilateral cooperation. The global community does not care about American interests unless it coincides with theirs. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking differently.

 

[PatPatriot]

D2..<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First, what do you mean by 'pro-military Democrat'. I find it somewhat amusing whwen people link being pro-military to being pro-war. I think it's just the opposite. A President who is pro military would not be so quick and so flippant about going into a war like this. A pro-military President would go to war only after exhausting all diplomatic means and only as a last resort in response to an immient threat or inresponse to an attack. That's pro-military IMO. Going to war whenever it's politicall expedient is not pro-miltary and neither is cutting funding to VA hopsitals and cutting veterans benefits.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A pro military democrat would not gut the CIA and the military like the last administration did...then try to take credit for "shrinking fedral goverment."
They don't understand that military systems have to be constantly upgraded and advanced just like med research has to be on the ball for new viruses that crop up.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Let's deal in facts.


1)Guy violated 18 UN resolutions

2)There were plenty of world leaders and domestic politicians on both sides of the aisle who fervently believed that the man possessed weapons in violation of the UN accords. If every single solitary one was depending upon our proprietary information, then WTF nowhere else has any credible information?{NOTE NOT A FACT} I still believe the guy was upto no good and there is a good liklihood that whatever he was upto was shipped to Syria or is hidden.



3)The area is the asshole on earth. Been around as long as any other civilizations, possess reasonable resources and yet are in the stone age.

4)This guy is obviously a sociopath. He had his own kingdom, have you seen the palaces on TV? his foremost concern should've been retention of power, his actions suggest that was the least of his concerns.

5)You no longer have to been in proximity of an target to create an imminent threat. We have the asshole of the earth, combined with a ton of resources. That is scary, yes alot of threats around the world. NoKorea, the Pakistani/Indian border,Syria, Iran China.......list goes on and on and on. so what do you want to do? Be better off waiting until the guy has nukes within our borders? At some point you have to be proactive, find out what is out there rather just waiting for the next bomb to drop.

6)It would be pretty hard to live with yourself thinking you are marching folks off to their deaths for the sake of money or personal glory. I am all ears though, I would like to seed an economic breakdown, I would like to see a guess as to some potential returns for the billions we are sending there?

7)Our foreign policy has always been consistent with liberation. Not imperialism or colonialism like the scumbags like to suggest.

Not facts.

1)It is farcical to not believe that alot of bad folks on earth are in cahoots with one another. If you look at anything analogous? How abt pro sports originators? They may not be generatinmg plays together, but they know what each other is doing. It is no different with the world's malcontents.

2)If I owned the weather channel, I would not be rooting for F5 tornados every day, I would accept that they are part of life and when they arose i would do my best to provide my customers, the tv viewers the best product I possibly could. WOuld I charge advertisers more? Yea probably, would I charge the cable companies more? yea probably if I could. There is no difference with Cheney and HAL. Have more audacity than Hussein himself to suggest that the man in any way shape or form is sending kids to theri death so he can pick up a few $$$, here is a guy with a decent amount of public service and a decent net worth. You think HAL pushes for wars to push their product? Probably not, you think they accept it as part of life? Probably, you think when it happens they aren't going to try and make a little more, probably?

3)I really despise the scumbags out there who are openly rooting for bin Laden to stay on the loose so it can be used as a campaign issue. People are seriously lacking in even the remotest hint of morality.

[This message was edited by Sodium Pentethol V on February 22, 2004 at 12:36 PM.]

[This message was edited by Sodium Pentethol V on February 22, 2004 at 12:42 PM.]

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

.

[This message was edited by Sodium Pentethol V on February 22, 2004 at 12:38 PM.]

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:

Originally posted by D2bets:

First, what do you mean by 'pro-military Democrat'. I find it somewhat amusing whwen people link being pro-military to being pro-war. I think it's just the opposite. A President who is pro military would not be so quick and so flippant about going into a war like this. A pro-military President would go to war only after exhausting all diplomatic means and only as a last resort in response to an immient threat or inresponse to an attack. That's pro-military IMO. Going to war whenever it's politicall expedient is not pro-miltary and neither is cutting funding to VA hopsitals and cutting veterans benefits.

As to the "global commuity trash" I don't know aht to say. We have what everyone calls a global war on terror which is well recognized to need a multilateral approach of trusty and cooperation. We cannot do it alone, we must rely on the global community, the vast majority of which is, or at least wants to be, on board with us on this. The "global community" appraoch is preciely the correct approach to the situation we face. I think even Dubya recognizes this to an extent though his execution of it is awkward at best. His father would have handled the situation much much better.

_It is you linking pro-military with pro-war, not I. Bill Clinton bombed more countries than Ronald Reagan, but there is little doubt as to which president was more pro-military. The hawks have for the most part abandoned the Democratic Party; Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Kirkpatrick were all democrats until the McGovern/Carter wing drove them out of the party. And enough with the cliches about multilateral cooperation. The global community does not care about American interests unless it coincides with theirs. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking differently._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our interest in ridding the world of global terror and ridding Al Qaeda does in fact coincide with "their" interest. The entire world (or I should say the vast majority of free countiries) knows well that it has a strong stake in the prevention of foreign terrorists attacks against the US, and other free countries, and for the most part is willing to do what it takes in cooperation. But when we systematically thumb our nose at the global community by withdrawing from gobal treaties and accords and working around the UN and the opinion of many countries in prematurely invading IRAQ then we unnecessarily squander much of the goodwill that is needed to protect ourselves.

 

[chonce]

San jose

Foreign policy was brought up, I responeded to it. I am opposed to the war in iraq...I am not pro-democrat.

If we were talking about welfare, I would do critizise liberals. Same would go for 2nd amendment rights, taxes, privatized social security, and affirmitave action.

I would be glad to rip into those liberal stances, they are just brought up less often.

I can understand one labeling me anti- Bush. I have made no secret about that.

But my opposition for Bush, and the war, are not in the name of preaching the liberal line.

I dislike both parties, and thier collective stranglehold on our nation.

I vote Libererian. So does John Stossel. Would you accuse him of bieng a biased liberal?

I will concede that given the fact that I started this thread, and targeted the question towards conservatives, I should have probably saved my response, as I could have made it in a thread about the war on terror.

Sorry.

[This message was edited by chonce on February 23, 2004 at 01:42 AM.]

[This message was edited by chonce on February 23, 2004 at 01:43 AM.]

[This message was edited by chonce on February 23, 2004 at 01:43 AM.]

 

[SanJose]

Chonce,

No problem. Like I told you in the other thread, you have been a gentleman.