Question for those who will be voting for Bush:
Objectively, why should Bush be re-elected?
Please, nothing subjective.
because 9 out of 10 terrorists back Kerry.
I posted this on another thread, but I think it is entirely appropriate here, as an answer to your question: Bush’s leadership.
Wall Street Journale Editorial
The Bush Record
November 1, 2004; Page A14
Of our handful of meetings with George W. Bush, the one that lingers as a harbinger of his Presidency is lunch in Austin, Texas, in late 1999. One of us asked the then-Governor what lesson he had learned from his father’s White House experience. Without missing a beat, Mr. Bush replied that he’d learned that if you have political capital, you should spend it.
In his four turbulent years, he certainly has. Among the many ironies of this year’s election campaign is that the challenger, John Kerry, has been running as the candidate of caution and old ideas. The incumbent says he has much more to do. If Mr. Bush loses his bid for re-election tomorrow, it won’t be because he has tried to achieve too little. The reason may be that many Americans, nostalgic for the illusory calm of the 1990s, want to take a breather from Mr. Bush’s habit of accelerating history.
In a sense, Mr. Bush was granted Bill Clinton’s wish to live in “interesting times,” as the Chinese curse has it. Instead of inheriting an economic recovery as Mr. Clinton did, Mr. Bush began his term facing the end of the 1990s’ investment bubble and a looming recession. And instead of inheriting a placid post-Cold War world, he was presented with September 11. In both cases, the two largest issues of his Presidency, Mr. Bush’s choice was not to play it safe but to spend his political capital to set a new policy direction.
On the economy, he compromised on his first tax cut to win 12 Democratic Senate votes, but it proved too Keynesian and too long-delayed to pack much punch. So Mr. Bush used his Senate victory in 2002 to double down on his tax cut bet. This time, however, he aimed the fiscal incentives more precisely on the problem of post-bubble investment weakness. Since that second tax cut passed in mid-2003, the economy has grown by more than 4%, and on Friday the third quarter was scored at 3.7%. That is a better recent record than nearly all of the world, China notably excepted.
Yes, the deficit has returned, and Mr. Bush could have done more to control spending. But when his opponents on the left attack him for “deficits,” what they really mean is that Mr. Bush should have imitated his father and raised taxes. Then Democrats would have blamed him for the slower recovery. Without the boldness of his 2003 tax cut, in short, the economy would be weaker than it is today and Mr. Bush would be heading to almost certain defeat.
Mr. Bush’s other great political bet has been in reordering American foreign policy. Any President would have had to pursue al Qaeda, though the success of Afghanistan allows Mr. Kerry and others to say they would have done it the same way. We doubt it. At the time, there were cries of “quagmire” and don’t topple the Taliban or work with the unsavory Northern Alliance. Mr. Bush took the risk of doing both, and the recent Afghan elections mark a major strategic anti-terror victory.
The President further upset the security establishment with his strategy of “pre-emption,” and pursuing the states that sponsor terror. This led him inevitably to Saddam Hussein, and the initial success followed by difficulty in Iraq. Mr. Bush now finds himself running for re-election when the costs in Iraq are more obvious to voters than the potential long-term benefits, which remain enormous if that country can follow the Afghan path. But no one can deny Mr. Bush’s boldness in toppling a ruler that everyone (including Messrs. Clinton and Kerry) said was a threat but had refused to act against.
His critics would have us believe that Mr. Bush’s Iraq invasion has made the Middle East more unstable, but what pre-war “stability” are they imagining? The Oil for Food scandal has shown why the containment of Saddam was unsustainable, and 9/11 proved that we can’t sit out the civil war that al Qaeda has begun in the Muslim world. Mr. Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom” in Iraq and the Mideast recognizes that reality. If Dick Holbrooke or Brent Scowcroft have an alternative beyond returning to the “realist” illusions that led us to 9/11, we haven’t heard it.
With ambitions this large, Mr. Bush has suffered from his failures as a communicator. Especially amid the troubles in Iraq, Americans have yearned for a President who could better explain the dilemmas of acting or not in Fallujah, the mistakes of Abu Ghraib, and the nature of the insurgency. Mr. Bush did himself no favors with his reluctance to hold more press conferences, a lack of practice in making his case that showed during the first Presidential debate.
We also recognize that Mr. Bush has shown he is capable of some crass political retreats, notwithstanding his campaign theme as a leader who never bends a principle. Steel tariffs, McCain-Feingold, the farm bill, Medicare prescription drugs, and most recently his surrender on intelligence reform – these have not been profiles in political courage.
Yet in the larger arc of the Bush Presidency, all of these are also of secondary importance. A leader’s first priorities are peace and prosperity, which in our time mean keeping the U.S. economy competitive amid the emerging challenge from India and China, and of course the battle against terrorism.
A frequent lament among journalists, and often voters, is that politicians always take the easy way out; they never risk their personal popularity or re-election chances for the sake of longer run gains in the national interest. In Iraq and the Middle East, Mr. Bush has done precisely that. We will find out on Tuesday how much Presidential leadership the voters really want in a dangerous world.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
because 9 out of 10 terrorists back Kerry. [/quote]
Lame excuse. You could say the same of Bush.
I don’t think the people voting for Bush can really give a good reason. I think many seem to have been brainwashed.
If the war is the reason, it’s not enough of a reason to back Bush. No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans. So you can’t use that as your reasoning, and I think many people are using that as the reason to vote for Bush.
If you think about what he has done in the past four years, is it really what you want for the next four years? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Even Republicans are voting against him.
- Bush has the kind of forward facing resolve we have seen in great wartime leaders before. I’m not ready to put Bush on the level of FDR or Lincoln, but he has the kind of stubborness and tenacity that wins the kinds of conflicts we have faced in the past. Moreover, Bush has the moral clarity required to make decisions confidently - nowadays, decisionmakers get completely paralyzed when they have to decide between ‘good and bad’ or ‘good and evil’, etc. You see it all the time. No one wants to hurt anyone’s feelings, not just in politics but in the business world as well. We’ve been trained to tolerate everything in the name of avoiding a ruckus.
When we reach critical mass in foreign policy - as in national security - I don’t want a leader who can pontificate for days but turns white as a ghost when he is called upon to make can executive decision. I want moral certainty, or as close as you can get to it when beset with complicated situations.
Bush does that. He’s not interested in moral equivalence, and I’m not either. Bush doesn’t apologize for American exceptionalism, and I don’t either.
- The alternative is not an option in a post-9/11 world. John Kerry is a good man who means well for his country. I don’t doubt that. But I do not take him at his word that he is truly resolute in seeking out America’s enemies and defeating them. In my view, he seems to talk tough about ‘killing terrorists’ because he knows he has to. That’s why Kerry always manufactures a ‘I’ll hunt them down and kill them’ in awkward spots in his speeches. I think he would rather placate those that would harm America in hopes that he could forestall an attack.
Like Churchill said, “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” I believe this is Kerry’s position, and it just won’t do.
- Bush promotes an ‘ownership society’ which I fully support compared to Kerry’s vision of a European-style social economy. I’m not a rabid small-government conservative, but I do believe that going forward, there must be a practical solution to our pension and health care problems that ‘sees around the corner’, ie, tries to create a solution in the long-term. Bush’s proposals - done moderately and acceptably - are the better long-term solutions. Kerry should see where Europe is presently: pinned under the massive pension crisis and shrinking paying class (fewer people being born to pay in).
I don’t want a European solution, and Bush has the better, more progressive (!) approach.
A few thoughts. I have my issues with Bush on a number of things he’s done (or hasn’t done). I don’t think he’s perfect or infallible. He’s missed some great opportunities to do good things in the name of politics.
That being said, in the times we currently face, Bush is the better leader.
Mostly, because there isn’t a better choice.
This whole bunch has gotten their arguments out on the table, but the fact remains (for me), Bush is a better choice of the two. The reasons are endless, but it boils down to Bush being a better choice to pull us through the challenges that we face. I have a very strong feeling that Kerry doesn’t possess the conviction, vision, or discipline to bring us to a better tomorrow.
Nate,
“I don’t think the people voting for Bush can really give a good reason. I think many seem to have been brainwashed.”
Read up, and see if you think me, BostonBarrister, Zeb, or Rainjack (and many others) are brainwashed. This is a simplistic and naive charge.
“If the war is the reason, it’s not enough of a reason to back Bush.”
Sure it is, see below.
“No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans. So you can’t use that as your reasoning, and I think many people are using that as the reason to vote for Bush.”
Your claim ignore the value of how the plans work or how effective they are. That matters to everyone - Bush critics claim it’s not enough that Bush has a plan, he has the wrong plan. Likewise, I think Kerry’s approach is futile - just having a plan is not enough.
Let’s revisit this:
“No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism.”
Then why hasn’t it been done? The first real appearance of it was on Jimmy Carter’s watch in 1979 - has it been stopped through four different administrations?
“If you think about what he has done in the past four years, is it really what you want for the next four years?”
Yes.
“Even Republicans are voting against him.”
Yeah, and even Democrats are voting for him.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I posted this on another thread, but I think it is entirely appropriate here, as an answer to your question: Bush’s leadership.
[/quote]
Interesting. Most of the examples they give are very, very debatable, but I agree with the general theme: Americans tend to want a President who displays strong leadership. I don’t think there’s any denying that Bush is a strong leader. However, many feel he is leading in the wrong direction.
Wow. I’m amazed. I hope Bush doesn’t win tomorrow. This sort of thinking is going to cause many problems for Americans.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans.
[/quote]
That is not true. What did Clinton do? Not a damn thing. He allowed us to become complacent. Remember, the WTC incident was the SECOND in the last 11 years. The first was on Clinton’s watch, and nothing was done. Your statement is so far from fact that I’m not even sure where to begin with you. This close to election day, I’ll simply take a step back and let it go.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans.
That is not true. What did Clinton do? Not a damn thing. He allowed us to become complacent. Remember, the WTC incident was the SECOND in the last 11 years. The first was on Clinton’s watch, and nothing was done. Your statement is so far from fact that I’m not even sure where to begin with you. This close to election day, I’ll simply take a step back and let it go.[/quote]
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but not much would have changed in homeland security as far as airports or any other potential target had 9/11 not occured regardless of who was in office. America was the land of freedom (it still is, only in different aspects) before that time. As long as you didn’t have a weapon in hand, you could potentially board an airplane. Bush would not have changed that had 9/11 not happened. I know you would love to believe otherwise, but at least be truthful with yourself.
I’m not talking about pre 9/11. I’m talking about now. Bush and Kerry both have their own plans. So voting for Bush because you think he did the right thing and not think about all the wrong things, is not reason enough to give him my vote.
It seems to me that those supporting Bush, are doing it based on the war in Iraq. He didn’t listen to those that told him what must be done to win the war. And now, our friends, family and neighbors are being killed each day because he didn’t plan properly and neglected to listen to those that told him otherwise.
What about all the other things? What about his stance against stem cell research? What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs? Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor? What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate? Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
I’m sorry, but all these other issues are reasons why I wouldn’t vote for Bush. I’m not going to base it on the fact that he is doing the right thing with the war (subjective).
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
What about all the other things? What about his stance against stem cell research? What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs? Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor? What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate? Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
I’m sorry, but all these other issues are reasons why I wouldn’t vote for Bush. I’m not going to base it on the fact that he is doing the right thing with the war (subjective).[/quote]
Thank you very much. That’s my point but no one wants to approach it. I’m honestly curious as to why, but no one has answered my initial question (I’ve been asking friends and acquaintances for a while and haven’t got anything). Give me science, give me rationality, give me objectivity. There have to be reasons, I just can’t find any and am hoping that someone better versed on Bush’s strong points can help.
I really feel that many have been blinded by the war and it is their sole reason for voting for Bush. That’s not good because his other views could have a resounding affect on all Americans (and not for the better).
We’ll have to see what happens after the votes are in tomorrow evening.
[quote]ninjaboner wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
What about all the other things? What about his stance against stem cell research? What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs? Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor? What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate? Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
I’m sorry, but all these other issues are reasons why I wouldn’t vote for Bush. I’m not going to base it on the fact that he is doing the right thing with the war (subjective).
Thank you very much. That’s my point but no one wants to approach it. I’m honestly curious as to why, but no one has answered my initial question (I’ve been asking friends and acquaintances for a while and haven’t got anything). Give me science, give me rationality, give me objectivity. There have to be reasons, I just can’t find any and am hoping that someone better versed on Bush’s strong points can help. [/quote]
It is blatantly obvious that neither of you have spent much time in the political forum. These issues have been hashed out for months, so don’t expect us to waste our time on you because of your ignorance. Most of us, that spend day after day in this part of the T-Nation forums, have agreed and disagreed until we were blue in the face on every issue that you slackers want to bring up the day before the election. I will not waste my time going over all of this shit again, when you guys can clearly do a little work on your own and find supporting answers to all of your instigation, right here in this forum. Do your homework noobs.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
because 9 out of 10 terrorists back Kerry.
Lame excuse. You could say the same of Bush.
I don’t think the people voting for Bush can really give a good reason. I think many seem to have been brainwashed.
If the war is the reason, it’s not enough of a reason to back Bush. No matter who is president, they will do what it takes to stop terrorism. Even if they have different plans. So you can’t use that as your reasoning, and I think many people are using that as the reason to vote for Bush.
If you think about what he has done in the past four years, is it really what you want for the next four years? It just doesn’t make sense to me. Even Republicans are voting against him.
[/quote]
this is bullshit…they might both fight the war on terrorism but they wont fight it in the same way as you yourself admitted…I am betting on the Guns and Steel Approach over the “terrorism should be more of a nuisance, like fighting prostitution or drugs” approach of john kerry.
The truth is that I can give you 1000 reasons why bush is better than kerry, but the only one that matters to me is dubya’s leadership on the war on terror. On september 13th, with the ambers still smoldering where my friends and relatives worked, Dubya visited the Twin Towers, grabbed a bullhorn and said “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” and he has delivered.
Nate -What about all the other things? What about his stance against stem cell research? What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs? Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor? What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate? Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
I love ya bro but these are not issues that are making a difference in your life and most of them are not bush’s stance anyways.
“What about his stance against stem cell research?”
His stance is that the federal government should not be dishing out money on this for fetal stem cells, which require a fetus to be aborted to collect them. Hence if he has a stance against abortion this makes sense. He is not banning it, or not giving funds to other types of stem cell research.
What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs?
Uh, I’d say the war, the recession, 9/11 have significantly reduced our governments ability to fund social programs, guess what social programs during WWI and WWII were reduced also. He had to fund a whole new department of homeland security etc… He really had no choice. Oh and the war funding is 87 billion so no, avoiding the war would not have made a difference.
Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor?
I am certainly not rich and I recieved a tax cut, as did many “poor” people I know
What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate?
A liberal talking point and cannot be proven. Of course his religion plays a role in his decision making, so does everyone elses religion, including john kerry.
Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
Can you inject steroids into yourself legally right now? Of course not. Bush didn’t invent controlling substances. I’m sure he knows little about the issue and just passed the damn bill because his conservative house had more pull on the subject and of course he will listen to them on a subject he knows little about.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
Wow. I’m amazed. I hope Bush doesn’t win tomorrow. This sort of thinking is going to cause many problems for Americans.[/quote]
what sort of thinking?..not running pussy assed with your cock between your legs when the fight is at your doorstep.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
I’m not talking about pre 9/11. I’m talking about now. Bush and Kerry both have their own plans. So voting for Bush because you think he did the right thing and not think about all the wrong things, is not reason enough to give him my vote.
It seems to me that those supporting Bush, are doing it based on the war in Iraq. He didn’t listen to those that told him what must be done to win the war. And now, our friends, family and neighbors are being killed each day because he didn’t plan properly and neglected to listen to those that told him otherwise.
What about all the other things? What about his stance against stem cell research? What about all the cuts to various agencies and educational programs? Tax cuts for the rich but not for the poor? What about his views that State and Church should be together and not separate? Or the fact that a government should be able to decide what someone does to their body?
I’m sorry, but all these other issues are reasons why I wouldn’t vote for Bush. I’m not going to base it on the fact that he is doing the right thing with the war (subjective).[/quote]
perhaps because other people dont agree with you on these issues. Just a thought.
many, including myself happen to think the presidents decision on stem cells is a very fair one that balances the needs of science and the ethical dilemmas involved. I wont get into abortion here, but I am sure you know many people have differing opinions from you.
Bush has never said church and state should be together…thats the dumbest thing i have heard posted in awhile.
Bush has expanded education more so than any other president in history.
Silly liberals never one to let facts get in the way of their own opinions
“When we reach critical mass in foreign policy - as in national security - I don’t want a leader who can pontificate for days but turns white as a ghost when he is called upon to make can executive decision. I want moral certainty, or as close as you can get to it when beset with complicated situations.”
Oh please. Bush reads intel in August 2001 that bin Laden was determined to strike the US, possibly by using planes as weapons, and the first thing that goes through his mind when the first plane hit is “Boy, that’s some bad pilot”. Then, after being told of the second plane into the second tower, he sits on his ass for seven minutes reading about goats. What a joke.