What about Bush?

While I am called a Bushie, a Neo-con, and many other epithets by those who hate Bush, the truth is that while I am conservative, I am no Bush Lover.  I like him ok, but I do have problems with some of his policies.

I like his resolute determination in pursuing the war on Terror.  Unfortunately in the past, after a terror attack, we have lobbed a few bombs, killed a few people and then proclaimed Victory.  Bush told us this is going to be a long war, and indeed it will be.

I like the Tax cut he gave me.  I am not rich.  You can say I am smack in the middle of middle class.  Yet the tax cut was real and welcomed.

I like that he wants to appoint judges that will interpret the law, and not enforce their values in adjudicating the law.  I do not want a jurist that will strike down a law just because they do not like it, even if I did not like that law either.  I want them to examine the law, apply the test of the constitution and precedence against it, and then make a ruling.

I like his plan for Social Security.  I am approaching 50, and desperatly want to see reformations to keep it solvent.  This is in stark contrast to my mother, who is in her 70s, and while she is more conservative than I, hates any SS reform.

I do not like his No Child Left Behind.  I worked for over 10 years in education (as a Technical advisor, not a teacher).  Any time the federal government sticks its claws into education, it mucks it up. I have stories that would make most people fume on how the Federal government and the state government waste so much money on their programs.

I do not like the Prescription drug plan for seniors either.  While we heard of anecdotal evidence of seniors eating dog food, the simple fact was that they were few and far between (and could have been addressed through private programs instead of a new massive layer of the federal Bureaucracy).  It is stupid that now when he retires, Bill Gates will get subsidized drug coverage.

Overall, I give him a C on Domestic programs, but an A- on Foriegn Policy. 

p.s.  Excellent topic!  I hope more respond.

While I think Bush was too quick to jump into war with Iraq, I support his foreign policies.

I disagree with His not being more candid with the public about some issues.

His loyalty to staff members cut both ways, he should have dumped the sec.def. two years ago.

He should have never let his sec.state go {Colin Powell}

His not being willing to hit back at a weak Democratic Party Has left the public thinking he is weak, bad for a sitting President.

Domestic policy, C to C+ foreign policy strong B to B+

Let me use some of the points Dr Guy used to respond to your question.

Many, including Dr Guy, would dismiss me as a Bush hater. I can assure you I DO HATE GWB but I would evaluate him differently then Dr Guy.


On to answering your question. I very much support protecting our nation. Without security we have nothing. The issue I have with Bush is that his choice to attack Iraq had NOTHING to do with protecting the United States. We have diverted our resources and blunted our sward in Iraq with no reduction in the risks to our nation from the elements that perpetrated 9/11, the attack on the Cole and all the other terrorists’ attacks. The fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq it has everything to do with better homeland defense.

The tax cuts were justified on the basis that we had this surplus and were therefore over taxing the American Taxpayer. Had that been the fact, the tax cuts would have been fully justified. However, a series is changes became evident including a slow down in the economy that started in 2000. The impact of 9/11 including the increased need to defend ourselves added to a loss in federal revenue. The Iraq war which in my opinion was not an effective of necessary part of protecting us from the types of terrorism that brought 9/11. At the same time that our spending skyrocketed, Bush cut taxes with the of the largest tax cuts in our history. Those tax cuts and the reduced revenue that resulted and the increased spending created a structural deficit where in we are spending far more then we are taxing. That has taken the National debt from $5.7 Trillion to $8.3 Trillion and is projected by Bush to hit $10 Trillion by 2009. That will require the interest to be paid to go from about $230 Billion per year to $500 Billion per year. That will suck the money out of the federal budget need for defense, the impact of the baby boomers, education etc.

We have a triple problem associated with the baby boomers- Funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The Bush solution to SS was to divert some of the tax money into accounts for younger workers. That would have taken Trillions of dollars from the money needed to meet the Baby boomer retirement and made that funding problem even worse. It may have helped the younger workers but there was no way to solve the existing problem in Social Security much less provide a replacement for the trillions that would have been placed into the private account. Thus the Bush plan made the funding problems over the next 40-50 yeas worse. As for Medicare, he and the conservatives along with many Democrats added the largest new entitlement program called the Medicare Part D Prescription drugs. The problem is that NOT ONE CENT was provided to pay for this new plan. Bottom line the problems to fund Medicare are much worse today. The Medicaid issue was addressed by cutting the federal contribution and pushing the added responsibility to the states. Again NO SOLUTION.

The No Child Left Behind was another unfunded Federal mandate. It is not working and was predicated on a plan in Houston Texas that was shown to be a FRAUD and LIE!


My grade for the policies Bush and the conservatives in Congress have enacted is a F.

I am a Moderate Republican and have been so for over 40 years. I am at the top of the middle income scale and have not scene any real benefit from all the Bush tax cuts nor was I seeking to lower my taxes. I had two distinct careers one as an Army officer with 5.5 years on Active Duty and 24.5 in the Reserves. My civilian career was as an executive at various levels in education and industry. My last position was as COO of a
$120 Million dollar per year public school district. I was a Bank officer, financial analyst and a mid lever administrator at a Ivy League university, medical college and dean of a community college

Prs Bush is a great president because he set an agenda from the begining and has done what he can to stick to it. This is called "leadership" and is something too many of our elected officials are completely lacking.

Whether a person agrees with his decisions or not, his #1 priority in those decisions is what he thinks is best for the U.S. Again, that is his job and a sign of great leadership.

I do disagree on him on a few things. I think he should have understood the threat from the bacteria in Iraq more; I am completely against his No Child Left Behind measures and disagree with about 1/2 of his illegal immigration policy.

I'm glad he has started standing up to the spineless democrats who have no ideas, but are quick to find fault with his.

From what I've seen, MOST of the arguments against him are either inflamatory (but mindless) political statements or based on things that never was the job of the president in the first place. Both are par for the political course though, and he has given both the total lack of priority they deserve.

Yes I stick up for Bush. Does that mean I agree with him 100%? Nope! Border security? SUCKS! NCLB? Not enough funding! The way the war was being run in Iraq? Nope! He shold have given the troops a litle more lee-way. But when he says he's going to do "x"...by God he does it! No hesitating and no clowning around.

Prs Bush is a great president because he set an agenda from the begining and has done what he can to stick to it. This is called "leadership" and is something too many of our elected officials are completely lacking.

Let me clarify something, and thank you Parated for bringing it up.  While I disagree with his No Child and Drug Plans, He did promise them when he was running for president.  So as Parated says, he keeps his promises, whether we like them or not.  And for that I respect him, even if I dont agree with him.

The issue I have with Bush is that his choice to attack Iraq had NOTHING to do with protecting the United States

the war is one of the main issues that has confused me the most. i always believed that the war was somehow attatched to 9/11, because when he mentioned one, it seemed he'd mention the other in the same sentence to try and relate the two.
really, i just wonder if the war is our attempt to force our form of government onto another country. i don't know that it's our business, but i believe it was an excellent thing to have Saddam out of power over there.
i too disagree with the NCLB act, and don't think it's really working. but like a couple of you have mentioned

he keeps his promises, whether we like them or not. And for that I respect him, even if I dont agree with him.

i wasn't sure if i was the only one lukewarm on this topic. because i do consider myself to be conservative, so it's always been a given that i'm supposed to be a Bush-supporter. I think he is a great man, and does stick to what he says, but i wonder if he truly believes that he has made no mistakes in his time as President. Or if he really does know this, but won't admit it.

Strong leadership is not the same as good leadership. The world has had many strong leaders that took their countries and the world into disasters. Hitler and Stalin are two of the strongest and worst leaders in history!

the war is one of the main issues that has confused me the most. i always believed that the war was somehow attatched to 9/11, because when he mentioned one, it seemed he'd mention the other in the same sentence to try and relate the two. really, i just wonder if the war is our attempt to force our form of government onto another country. i don't know that it's our business, but i believe it was an excellent thing to have Saddam out of power over there.

Saddam did not plan, or execute the attack on 9-11.  However, like Afghanistan, he did give training and safe harbor to terrorist.  This is not the war of 9-11.  This is a war on terrorism.  What would you call a man that offers a $25,000 bounty to every suicide bomber?  Most would call him a terrorist.

but i wonder if he truly believes that he has made no mistakes in his time as President. Or if he really does know this, but won't admit it.

Prs. Bush has admitted to making mistakes while president. Which is another thing that shows that he is true leader.

If you notice, the only people who expect Prs. Bush to be perfect are those who hate him anyway. Nothing he does will please them, so (like a true leader) he doesn't care what they think. He knows his responsiblities and does what he thinks it right.

Dr. Guy:

Let me clarify something, and thank you Parated for bringing it up. While I disagree with his No Child and Drug Plans,

True, neither were a surprise. Everyone knew what to expect from Prs. Bush, unlike Sen. Kerry who somehow ran from his senate record, instead of running on it.

If you have a reason for not liking him, please back it up.

I guess I dislike him for the same reason some people here like him. He makes up his mind and forms opinions without becoming fully informed or listening to contrary points of view. Dissenting opinions aren't welcomed in his administration and there is no honest debate. He has no intellectual curiosity. He tries to filter public access to scientific information that doesn't fit his agenda or beliefs. His is the most secretive administration is U.S. history. He has polarized the nation with his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric. Everything is political to him,even the 9/11 attack. He has never done an admirable thing in his life. He was a failure as a businessman and has been successful in politics only because of his nasty smear campaigns, architected by Karl Rove. He is extremely arrogant, but has no record to back it up. He is a poor public speaker.


I have a question for you Bush sheep who think he's such a great leader. If someone leads you over the edge of a cliff, but does so with resolve and unflinching determination to stick to his agenda, is he still a good leader? Those of us who are able to think for ourselves don't think so.

Those of us who are able to think for ourselves don't think so.

are you saying that people who don't think like you don't think for themselves?
just curious.

i guess one of the reasons for me not liking him was the fact that he makes up his mind about something, and won't change even when he knows that he's wrong. idk. i'm still straddling the fence. i guess i'll stay that way tho. that's ok with me. no one is perfect, so no one is going to make the right choice EVERY time.

are you saying that people who don't think like you don't think for themselves? just curious.

That gets you an insightful.

Bush admitted he was wrong very seldom. The only situation that I heard was with the Federal Response of Katrina. Even there he never admitted he appointed Brown without him having ANY background for the job.

Saddam was an evil dictator. The issue is how did that threaten the United States? The war has cost this country dearly and we have created many new enemies just because we are occupying a Moslem country. On balance, we are not safer and that begs the question, how can the sacrifice of the American lives, injuries and dollars be wort it if we are not safer?

Bush admitted he was wrong very seldom.

that's what i thought.

but maybe he really has been wrong very seldom.

i just don't understand how the war was beneficial to our country at all. or how it really was our business to go in.

just don't understand how the war was beneficial to our country at all. or how it really was our business to go in.

That question deserves an article of its own.  Many have been written both pro and con, but you might want to earmark that for your next article.

If you look at the Deficit, trade imbalance, lack of enforcement of our laws, energy problems, non solutions for Social security, Medicare and Medicaid I would say he has screwed up much more often then he admitted!

I think Bush has made the same mistake that many other Presidents, espectially wartime Presidents, have made. You take upon yourself a military initiative with the *personal* understanding that it will be difficult. Then, you spend all your time on PR convincing people that it won't be.

When things do get difficult you start letting public opinion make your military decisions for you. When a village has an arch-terrorist in it, but it would cause civilian casualities that would make for bad PR, you pass. When you could gain victory with bombs but you choose to stand soldiers in harms way to prevent civilian harm, you've let world opinion make your decisions for you.

Bush says one thing and does another in those terms. He likes to portray himself as a 'get it done' cowboy who is defiant of world opinion, but he always stops just short of that. The same goes for his economic programs, and his stance on abortion, etc.

For that reason, I don't think he's been nearly as effective as he could have been. I would have loved to have seen what a solidly conservative, nose to the grindstone and public opinion-be-damned effort for 8 years could have accomplished. Instead, we'll be thinking of what might have been done if it weren't for needing to keep people happy whould would have hated us either way.

Instead, we'll be thinking of what might have been done if it weren't for needing to keep people happy whould would have hated us either way.

but isn't that always the case? no matter what Bush does he's never going to make everyone happy. no matter what ANY president does, everybody won't be happy.

in George Washington's Farewell Address, he warned the nation against forming political parties, knowing full well what it would do to the nation. it divides us. there's a barrier that will never be crossed. so i don't see a point in trying to make everyone happy, because it will never ever happen.
i've never thought of Bush as trying to please people. i have seen him as that "get it done cowboy", the image he wants the world to see. and i think so far he's proven himself to be just that. but that is so easily interpreted as stubbornness, or arrogance, and an unwillingness to admit he may have not always been right. but if he did do that, it would also show weakness, and cause people to doubt his leadership, not that people aren't already.
at the Grand Ole Opry house the night after his State of the Union Address, he tried to comfort the nation and build up their confidence in both himself and America.
but i'm not so sure we should be that confident.

"and i think so far he's proven himself to be just that."

On the contrary, I think if you go back and look at all the major issues, and look at the steps he has taken, you'll not find a single one that was done without major steps taken to appease those who oppose the effort. Some issues, like abortion and other things he supposedly feels "strongly" about, he's done absolutely nothing.

Some issues, like abortion and other things he supposedly feels "strongly" about, he's done absolutely nothing.

true.

but what i meant about "i think so far he's proven himself to be just that", was when he makes his mind up about what he is going to do, he does go through with it.

but i do notice how he tries not to step on the people's toes.

Ummm... after our *ahem* lively *grins* discussion the other night, you know how I feel. Love you.

On the contrary, I think if you go back and look at all the major issues, and look at the steps he has taken, you'll not find a single one that was done without major steps taken to appease those who oppose the effort. Some issues, like abortion and other things he supposedly feels "strongly" about, he's done absolutely nothing.

Sorry baker but I just don't get it. Just what do you expect him to do about abortion? That has to be done by the court.

He makes up his mind and forms opinions without becoming fully informed or listening to contrary points of view. Dissenting opinions aren't welcomed in his administration and there is no honest debate. He has no intellectual curiosity.

How would you know? There appear to be a number of people who, unlike you, have been present at the table and disagree quite strongly with that assessment. How/why is their opinion any less valid than Paul O'Neill's?

He tries to filter public access to scientific information that doesn't fit his agenda or beliefs.

It appears some senior NASA officials may have allowed political considerations to cloud their judgment at times. To what extent, if any, this was directly demanded by the White House is unclear to me and seems a bit unlikely. More probable that they, consciously or otherwise, did whatever they did on their own. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems improbable to me that the White House has the kind of choke hold on the millions of things going on at any one time that would permit it. Bigger fish to fry, etc. And I, too, would be upset if legitimate scientific information was flat out buried, never to see the light of day, but that has not happened. The information was released, just not on your timetable.

His is the most secretive administration is U.S. history.

You get this from the National Bureau of Secrecy Metrics at the Naval Observatory, or something? The White House press corps says so, so it must be true? I'd really like to see the scholarly study on this, but there isn't one & it's just another sappy campaign slogan, like "culture of corruption." Straight from the DNC or DU.

He has polarized the nation with his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

Hmm... So Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean & John Kerry, to name only a few, have been trying to "build a bridge" to better understanding and cooperation? Divisive rhetoric from the Dems like we've never seen in my lifetime & Bush is solely responsible?

Everything is political to him

As it appears to be to you.