I wonder what Clintons ratings were...

I need to start selling drugs because it looks like crack is back.

Trickle-down does have some benefits. However if you aren't controlling spending at the same time, you accomplish very little. I have no problem with tax cuts as long as they are part of a balanced budget. Let's face it, if business is doing the spending instead of government (outside of essential services), it will be more efficient. It appears from the outside that the current US government is pissing away dollars on pork barrel projects instead of focusing on appropriate government services.

From the Wall Street Journal using the Harris poll, here is how the last 5 two term presidents have compared at this time in their presidency:


hxxp://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113216347138199155-5Z1Ri_om8ITUbV_jD2bx6maguMY_20061116.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Wrong:




Wrong:




I'm pretty sure that Alan Greenspan is on record as saying that no one is really responsible for affecting the economy. If I remember correctly, it's one of his central beliefs. But maybe you know better.

Better than Bush's.

32 yes votes now, and I'm still waiting for a single one of their casters to respond to these earlier posts.

Let me get this right, you think there actualy IS a better reason for their votes that the "balance" argument?

Come on now, thats just silly.....

Heh. :)

Guess I'm just looking for someone to either justify their vote or feel bad for lying.

The Davos President in full swing! Bush defends 'outsourcing', even though he acknowledges 'pain' to some workers! Hey, 1 billion new workers at $2.00 an hour can't be wrong, right! Story is on Drudge, among other places...link wouldn't take.

Oh yeah, one surprise...India has many barriers to us selling them stuff, but they should be able to flood our markets freely, right? After all, the Chinese get that deal, and fair is fair! Don't be a bigot!

A-Husker-4-Life, NoMyths & Daimyo. Let me try. I do want to support my 'yes' decision for GWB. Can we agree to isolate our discussion of pros-and-cons to a specific list of issues?

I am proposing a top-5 list of pros-for-GB and I am requesting you create a top-5 list of cons-for-GB. After these lists have been established, I think the discussion will be more cogent, otherwise the 'yes' folks (ex. me) will be chasing 'what about this' forever.

Here is my pro-list

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.
(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

I did not add the economy (or tax policy) because (a) it was bad first term (b) it is good second term (c) there are alot of factors about the economy that a president cannot influence (d) if the experts can't agree, how can we?

Also, I do have my own top-5 con list, but I'll let you guys set it up.

Not to undercut your defense any, but you can't limit your choices when it comes to wether the president is doing a good job, you have to look at the entire term.

As for your list, 1 and 2 are certainly not positives. he's bungled them as badly as any president could have in regards to management and public relations for the events. The abortion issue? how is that a positive? he's done nothing about it, nothing. He has waved his hands and smiled and taken the republican line on teh conservative side of the issue, but that isn't doing anything, that's protecting his slowly dying christian vote.

Not sure about #4, can you show me something he's actually done or promoted to cause this? I don't see much that has changed in 20+ years. He brought in Rice and Powell, but its not as if they were historic steps forward.

As for the 5th, yay, oorah or whatever that is supposed to represent. Its still not anything I've seen in this presidents statements or actions to be honest.

His first term was bad, his second term is worse based on the economy, not sure where your "good" is coming from there, and yes I agree the president doesn't have a huge affect on the economy either way.

as for D) you're dead on right ;)

Just my response...take what you can from that nickel.

RendeR. I stand by my proposal, otherwise I'll be chasing 'what about this' forever. The 'no' crowd should be able to select 5 to start this discussion.

The problem with your list, though, is that 4 of the items can be on someone else's con list (increased diversity probably wouldn't appear on most people's con list, but I guess it could fit as well). If someone's con list starts with the "war in iraq" (which is pretty likely), exactly what purpose does your proposal serve?

Ignoring what I just said, here is an easy list of 5 (in no particular order):

1) War in Iraq
2) Handling of Katrina
3) Politicization of Science
4) Erosion of Civil Liberties through the War on Terror
5) Corruption

To what purpose?

I mean, seriously, would any effort do anything except push this thread toward an all-out flame fest?

(FTR, I don't even think I've voted on the poll, mostly because there wasn't an option for "Yes and No -- Yes, better than any alternative I can think of AND No, not nearly as good as I would like" )

John Galt. Thank you. I'll give NoMyths & Daimyo a chance to create their list and try to consolodate all the 'no' lists into 1 set of 5. Just trying to bring some structure here.

It obvious the 'no' are in the large majority and I know I cannot answer all of their 'what about this' properly so I believe it is best to work off a short list. Thanks again.

I'll give this a shot.

1) Failing to change course/adjust to facts on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Keeping staff on board even though they have been consistently wrong

3) Pursuing tax and spending policies that are completely unsustainable

4) Obsessive control of information (science, torture, Congressional briefings, etc.)

5) Lack of intellectual curiousity and inability to learn from past mistakes

I tried to leave out individual events and focus on major problems. If I had some more numbers I'd add facilitation/encouragement of corruption of the government contracting process and politicizing the war on terror to the detriment of actual progress.

Con-List:

1. Invading Iraq
2. Reckless Spending
3. Unconstitutional and quite possibly illegal attempted expansion of Executive Branch powers
4. Culture of irresponsibilty in White House (i.e. "buck doesn't stop here, c.f. Katrina)
5. Erosion of civil liberties
5a. "nukular" ;)

Exactly. I've long wondered why people even bother to ask questions like that. Nine times out of ten (if not more), they don't to engage in any meaningful conversation. They know they won't change anyone's mind, and I seriously doubt they'd allow theirs to be changed. So what's the point? Typically, it's to either mock someone or just get enraged, two things I think people on this board enjoy doing far too often.

But then again, maybe I'm just jaded. :D

JPhillips. Thanks. I'll let NoMyths & Daimyo consolodate the list, I guess it won't be fair for me to do the 5-cons.

Being jaded doesn't automatically make you wrong, and damn sure not in this instance.

Thing is, my enjoyment of those two instances has become less & less.

Finding people to mock here is, well, too damned easy. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't warranted or earned, but it's just too easy.

And I really don't need a message board to provide just cause for rage, all I have to do is go outside for a couple of minutes, read the newspaper, or pretty much interact with the world outside my f'n house. Any/all of those give me more than enough to work with.

1, 3, 4 (changed to Downing Street, the GB equivalent) 5 are major problems over here as well with Blair.

'All' you need to add in are education failures, increased crime/reduction of personal security, signing away our soveriegnty to Europe without telling anyone, diminishment of public services, the 'jobs for the boys' mentality, and bare-faced lying of the government and you've got the start of a critique of Blair and his cronies over here.

Right. I feel the same way, which is why I really don't understand the reasoning.

I mean, let's be honest. NoMyths is a sharp fellow. I disagree with him quite often, but he's clearly an intelligent individual. When he asks someone, "Please explain where you're coming from. I want to hear your opinion," it seems a bit disingenuous. He doesn't actually need to hear the other side. He already knows it. He just disagrees with it.

What comes of rehashing it all again other than bitterness and/or denigration? It seems like it's happened so many times on this board, I've lost count. Sometimes, FOFC is nothing if not recycled.

It's the rare moments of novelty, though, (almost never political in nature) that keep me coming back. ;)

'nukular' is actually how the military pronounces the word. It's not a mistake on his (and Carter's) part, but a deliberate attempt to sound more military.

Cuckoo, JonInMiddleGA. I don't know about anyone else but I believe (okay hope) that we can have a reasoned discussion about these 5 pros and 5 cons. True they may be rehashed stuff, but I didn't participate back then and this gives me a chance to share my point of view.

Fair enough. Just don't say I didn't warn you... :D

Yeah... I feel bad for what I said to Dutch. :(

I am sorry, Dutch, old man. Didn't mean it to be a personal attack or the like.

What a joke, if you think any of this is true then you must be smoking something!!!

(1) Never caught Osama...enemy #1!!!
(2) Created a war because good old DICK cheney told it was a good idea
(3) Abortion...what a joke! Bush has set America back 40 years...congrats!
(4) Minorities...are you kidding me! He won't even admit the disgraceful lack of action that took place with Katrina! Empty promises made to the poor minorities that suffered in New Orleans.
(5) bootstraps!!! give me a break, bush has done nothing but divide this country. After 9/11 this country should have been united for years to come, instead we argue over everything. Thank George you have done a hell of a job!!!

Not sure what military experiene you've had but this is absolute hogwash. I've worked and supervised 2 NuCLear reactors on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and no one, including the fleet command group ever used the term "nukular" in relation to our engines, weapons or activities in any fashion.

Your statement is incorrect. Bush, as it has been reported on both CNN and MSNBC, simply can't pronounce the word properly, it always comes out wrong.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Edward64. I don't have as much time to respond in detail to each of the points on my list as I'd like, but I'll try to do so if any need clarification.

1) Eroding of U.S. reputation overseas, particularly amongst Muslims, due to clumsy and bullying foreign policy.

2) The invasion of Iraq and the handling of post-war operations.

3) Supporting and promoting an administration that embraces illegal wiretapping, anti-Constitutional imprisonment, torture, the leaking of top-secret information, cronyism, and human rights abuses, thus illustrating an anti-American philosophy and policy.

4) The fiscal stewardship of America.

5) The handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.


While I appreciate some of what you've said, I'd clarify one thing: I actually am interested in hearing thoughtfulness and reason from "the other side". I've spent so much time over the past six years listening to bad logic and lies that I enjoy and respect the times the discussion is elevated. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my conclusions if they have good reasons -- if they're good enough, I'll change my point of view. Lord knows that's happened throughout my life, and I hope it continues to happen. If I simply ignore the voices of those who come at the issues from a different angle, I'm shutting myself off to the possibility for education, and that's antithetical to my philosophy. While I can certainly anticipate the easy, familiar arguments from "the other side", I always look forward to the more thoughtful, unexpected aspects that I haven't previously considered, and treat those with the respect they deserve. It's posts like Edward64's that make me glad for the political discussions in this forum.

It's always funny how people drop completely out of threads when you prove their bluster so outrageously wrong. :)

Fair enough. My point is that 9 times out of 10, you're going to consider any argument from the other side "bad logic" and "lies" because you disagree with it. You're smart enough to know that there are shades of gray, different interpretations of the same information, and most importantly, different priorities by those offering their opinions.

One person says "the invasion of Iraq." Another says "the emancipation of the Iraqi people." Which is right? Probably a bit of neither and a bit of both.

The truth is I share your desire for reasoned, thought-provoking debate on issues. It just seems like it always turns into a mess around here, nothing but name-calling and grandstanding (sometimes subtle, sometimes outrageous).

Like I said before, maybe I've just become jaded, and I certainly don't mean to sell you short. I just honestly cannot possibly see anyone ever making an argument here that will make you change your mind. The reason with you is that you have likely already considered most alternative arguments and come upon your conclusion of opinion. The reason with some others is that their ignorance and stubbornness anchors them into variations on the same "talking points." Either way, it just always seems to be a recipe in futility to me.

Edit: I should also point out that I don't consider you, NoMyths, to be one of the people that contributes to the climate I'm describing. In fact, I believe you when you say your motives of discussion are pure. I think the only difference between you and I (aside from obvious political differences) is that the need to tune out the "garbage" doesn't prevent you from attempting the debate. The "garbage" so irritates me in each discussion that I don't even try anymore, which is too bad because occasionally there's a nice dialogue here. :)

1. In hind sight it could have been handled better, with a better post invasion lpan. But it was the right thing to do. Sadaam was toying with a UN directive and someone had to step up and enforce it.

2. More so than what administration?

3. More so than what administration? Also, funny how you have applauded judges in the past for their liberal interpretation of laws that is equal to legislating from the bench. I guess this arguement about a branch of the government stepping out only works when it's in your favor.

4. WTF are you talking about? Bush is responsible for Katrina now? Can you reach a little farther?

5. Just what has eroded in your liberties? I guarantee that there is not one person on this board who has a legitimate example of something that has changed for them? Of course, I know I can find a pro gun control stance by you on this board somewhere and that is a liberty guaranteed in the constitution so I guess this is one of those otehr arguements that is only made when it "fits" your ideas.

5a. I know this can't be a serious ons eo I won't comment. If it was serious, than I say this, are we feraking in grade school? Plus it's been described as a possible military pronunciation and has been used by others in the past and present.

Some of you think that the Legislative Branch does not exist.

Pros:
My life is just as good if not better than when Clinton was President. Therefore, he has done a good job for me.

FTR, since I was one of the ones who made the original comment about "balancing the vote," I'll give my reasons.

First, it was largely meant in jest, hence my Mr. Green smiley.

But there is a bit of truth to it, and I suppose the best way to explain it is this. When considering every facet of his presidency, there are many who think he should receive a 0. Therefore, in their mind, this poll should read 100% "No." I personally think it should read about what it currently reads. For the most part, he has not done a good job. But I don't think it's nearly as bad as others do (the extremists that make ridiculous comments about him), so I vote "Yes" to help the results end up toward my true opinion of his presidency.

The reason for that is a "Yes" or "No" vote is too restrictive a method of expressing my opinion on Bush's presidency. That makes me have to base my decision on 1. whether there are more pros or more cons for his terms or 2. whether I think the alternative would have been better. Since I have no desire nor the time to make a list of everything I think he's done well or poorly, I went with number 2. In my humble opinion, the alternative would have been worse.

All of that said, I am no fan of Bush. In fact, I consider myself to be let down by him, almost "betrayed" to use the hyperbolic language of politics. I was for the original decision to go into Iraq but am disgusted by the way it has turned out. I am a huge opponent of the kind of spending that has gone on in the legislature, that he has continued to allow and even encourage. Although I am a fan of the tax cuts he put through, any intelligent person will tell you that tax cuts in conjunction with increased spending is pretty much a recipe for disaster.

All in all, I give him about a 30-40% on his job effectiveness to date. I think I've rambled quite a bit, but maybe that gives some indication of where I was coming from.

There, I'm doing my part to attempt to foster meaningful discussion. :)

Weren't you in grade school when Clinton was in office? :)

I think it's important here to understand what the difference is between disagreeing on the analysis of the facts and just sheer idiocy.

For example, let's take Iraq and the difference between my viewpoint and Dutch's viewpoint.

Dutch has, in the past, posted that he agrees with invading Iraq because it is consistent with his view of what needs to be done vis-a-vis the Middle East and Radical Islam in the near, middle and long-term.

I, obviously, disagree with this in that I think it's unlikely in the extreme that invading Iraq will prove to be advantageous for us in dealing with these "problems" in the intervening years.

However, I can respect Dutch's opinion a hell of a lot more than I can respect the bullshit "WMD-Bad! Saddam-Bad!" political posturing that's passed off as debate too often in this country. In fact, I believe Dutch has even posted in the past (and correct me if I'm wrong) that he'd be happier if Bush just articulated his rationale for invading Iraq along these lines from the start, instead of hiding behind political weasel words.


Now, for a change, let's take a look at someone who doesn't get it:


UN directives get toyed with all the time without ramifications. Hell, even the United States does it at times. Try again.

Plus, it's all well and good that things "could have been handled better", but when the result of "was handled poorly" is a sectarian civil war and a rise in the power of islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East couldn't we say, perchance, that it was a bad idea?


More spending than any administration since World War II. Look it up. While you're at it, look up the current debt, deficit and trade deficit levels.


Link to where I "applauded judges in the past for their liberal interpretation of laws". I'll wait.


Yeah, that's exactly what I said.... Can you brush up on your reading comprehension just a little more? KTHX.


Please re-write this so it makes some actual sense, thanks.


I'm glad to hear it, especially since I used the ;) smiley. You know, if everyone...


Oh, I guess you had to comment, then.

I've seen no proof of this "military pronunciation". You have some proof of this? Tell you what, though, I can guarantee you that no one in my brother's National Guard Unit mispronounces it that way.

On this con-side of the ring is ...

NoMyths, Render, John Galt, JPhillips, flere-imsaho, Jari, TwinCitiesFan

with their ...

5-Cons.

1) Eroding of U.S. reputation overseas, particularly amongst Muslims, due to clumsy and bullying foreign policy.
2) The invasion of Iraq and the handling of post-war operations.
3) Supporting and promoting an administration that embraces illegal wiretapping, anti-Constitutional imprisonment, torture, the leaking of top-secret information, cronyism, and human rights abuses, thus illustrating an anti-American philosophy and policy.
4) The fiscal stewardship of America.
5) The handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

On the other pro-side of the ring

Edward64 (with EagleFan, Cuckoo, Buccaneer invited if they choose to participate?)

with his/their ...

5-Pros.

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.
(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

....Both side have agreed to keep this a clean fight and to the Points listed.

If you're referring to James Lee Witt, then you're absolutely wrong. He was well qualified for the job, and he received praise from republicans and democrats for his solid management of FEMA.

Here's where I'm coming from. The title of the poll 'is Bush doing a good job as president'. We are doing a subjective rating of his presidency. The general framework I use to grade Bush (and will use in this discussion with you guys) are:

Premise #1. I don't do an assessment whether Bush is better than Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter etc. I do an assessment whether Bush is better than what Gore/Kerry would have done. It is easy to point out the bad points, but we have to ask ourselves if anyone else (ex. Gore/Kerry) could have done better based on the then-and-there situation that was presented to Bush? This of course presents other challenges, how can we know what Gore/Kerry would have done ... don't know for sure, but (thats what makes this fun and) its definitely more fair to grade Bush against those 2 during/for the same time period.

This is not to say I will not refer back to past acts as examples and indicators of their actions (ex. Gore), however my grading system is what would the other guy have done.

Premise #2. I don't blame everything that went wrong in the execution and maintenance to Bush. The cliche is the bucks stops here, but under most conditions people tend to state (ex. specific Abu Grahib acts, levee's) I just don't agree with. You cannot blame the CEO of a multi-national, $x trillion dollar conglomerate for "details" that go wrong.

So talk to me about policy, the strategic elements ... that's where he holds the blame (possibly with Congress and the Judiciary branches).

(to the specific points later, when I get more time...)

Finally to the guys. I am pretty sure I'll get overwhelmed even with these 10 issues unless I get some help. So if you would, any point you consider a must-respond-to or a key gotcha, please highlight or list as bullet points.

Things I like about Bush:

1. He signed the Do-Not-Call-List bill

I can't think of anymore

Not sure about the US, but over here (and hence part of the reason I find Bush's trying to wriggle out of the Katrina political after-effects unbelievable) CEOs of large companies are held responsible under law - company directors have been tried and convicted for corporate manslaughter (for deaths in the workplace), although it is fair to say that many of the cases do not end in convictions (e.g. Railtrack & Balfour Beatty directors after the Hatfield Rail Disaster)

But the principle that the head man should be legally responsible for the actions/inaction of those below is written in law here, and that is why I feel that by taking the stance he has over Katrina, Bush deserves a great deal of criticism.

Edward: But you absolutely can hold him responsible for hiring the wrong people and putting loyalty above competence. The only people that have been dismissed have been those that have publicly disagreed with assertions by the White House. Numerous persons who have proven to be wrong almost 100% of the time are retained and given medals. It is the CEO's job to make sure the right people are on the job and here Bush has been a major failure.

I also don't think it makes any sense to compare Bush to Gore/Kerry. We don't have any idea what they would have done differently or how well run their admins may have been. I'm willing to stipulate that they could have been worse, but we have no way of knowing. Applying a hypothetical view of things that didn't happen doesn't lead us anywhere.

All we can do is judge the actions that have taken place. My complaints about Bush are based on what he did given the facts at hand. I don't look at what Gore or Kerry would have done differently because I have no way of knowing that. What I can judge is what has happened not conterfactual arguments based on political biases.

Bubba - maybe I'm nuts here - when did you turn on Bush?

This is a good point. I love that thing. I have slapped down 2 frequent callers to my old house by threatening to report them to the FTC. It's the only time I have ever pulled the "I'm an attorney" line. It worked like a charm. Never heard from either company again.

My military experience is nearly 6 years in special forces, and I have a hard time saying the word the right way. "Nukular" was about the only way I heard it pronounced in that time. I have heard Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter pronounce the word "nukular" as well. Having said that, it is possible that Bush is simply incapable of pronouncing it correctly. I think it's more likely that it's a form of macho posturing.

What we need is a strong, intelligent President with principles - not a "macho" cowboy.

That's asking for the near-impossible. The last time we had one of those, the Boston Pilgrims baseball team was in the World Series.

Like I said, life got a little better. ;)

I agree. :(

:D

From your response and in retrospect of the other people I have ever heard the "nukular" pronunciation from leads me to think its a dialect problem. Perhaps those of southern decent or uppringing should learn to enunciate properly =)

Ike and Carter were both southerner/farmstead raised, and the president is also a southerner, so were a few people I remember using the term in that way.

I think its a failing of basic education.

I suppose it's possible in his time earning degrees from Harvard and Yale than nobody ever taught GWB how to say that word correctly.

LOL...sorry, you put the terms EArning, and degree in the same sentence with GWB.......


seriously though. His language usage is pathetic. Nukular is just his most famous vocal oddity.

DOLA: and I said BASIC education, Harvard and Yale do not teach speaking or pronunciation/spelling classes.

I understand. :)

As I've said before, I think our President is much brighter than his detractors give him credit for.

See thats just it...I honestly don't. I think he is the single stupidest president we've ever elected, and he got elected because there are VERY intelligent people with latex gloves shoved FAR up the man's ass =)

Jari. Your response to premise #2. I am not a lawyer but I have to believe some sort of 'reasonableness' test is given in the situations you are referring to. I just can't believe a CEO is culpable for 'the actions/inaction of those below' ... where does it stop? There has to be a certain level of negligence or intent. I consult in big companies and I see all sorts of inappropriate things, none that I can remember should be a CEO's fault ... it is his underlings, which leads to...

JPhillips. Your response about Bush hiring the wrong people etc. It is not a CEOs reponsibility to hire 2+ levels down (ex. you can hold Bush accountable for Chertoff (and cabinet members). This is not to say CEOs do not "okay/sign-off" 2+ levels down but clearly Level 1 does not hire Level 3, Level 2 hires Level 3. Also, there are alot of people he inherited (ex. Tenet and CIA/FBI infrastructure).

I have done recruiting before in my business which is very specific software consulting and I know my stuff. I can tell you that sometimes, regardless of your best effort in interviewing, you don't know you have a dud or a mediocre performer until they get on-site and start working, even then it may take awhile to find out. Its not easy to hire the right people all the time, especially for jobs with soft skills (ex. not easily accessed like programming).

Therefore, Bush clearly is accountable for cabinet members. I do not concede you can blame Bush (all the time) for levels below that.

About comparing Bush to Gore/Kerry instead of Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan etc. In consulting, sometimes things happen or go wrong that was caused by a user or another consultant. I tend to ask myself as I am analyzing the situation 'could/would I have done something differently'.

If I cannot clearly say, 'yes, I would have done things differently that would have avoided this problem from occurring', then I chalk it up to 'shit happens, lets move on and fix it'.

I know it doesn't change your mind but just so you know why I gauge accountability the way I do.

Therefore, specific to the Bush grading methodology, an important consideration is:

If no one else could have done better, I cannot fault Bush.

You're absolutely right there is no way of knowing for sure what Gore/Kerry would have done differently but I think there is 'conventional wisdom' that Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Afghanistan or into Iraq ... would you disagree?

Therefore, my argument for pro-Bush in Afghanistan is:

Bush went into Afghanistan. Gore/Kerry would have gone the UN route to futility. Afghanistan is still not secure/stable/democratic/homefree but the Gore/Kerry alternative would have been worse. Therefore, I put Afghanistan as a 'pro'.

TwinCitiesFan. I just read your response to my 5-pros. Wry sarcasm is not going to be productive in this conversation (and I really want this to be professional, non-personal and educational). I would ask that if you participate, please state your case plainly and explain it without the extras.

Please keep my 2 premises in mind (even if you disagree with them) as you read my explanations for pros. Also, in many passages I have conceded I don't know but suspect/assume, keep that in mind and allow me some wiggle room.

I did started commenting on the 5-cons but decided to drop it. I believe I could spend an hour commenting and find out that I was not really rebutting the real meaning behind the 5-cons. Therefore, before doing so, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the 5-cons. Fair enough?

Here goes...

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.

I will concede initially I was wondering if Afghanistan was the right path ex. I was not sure how firm the linkage was. In my mind, there is now no doubt there was direct linkage between Taliban-AQ-911. It was our right to unilaterally go in there and handle the situation. Period.

Gore/Kerry would have (conventional wisdom) gone the convoluted UN/diplomacy path into futility. After a year or two of fruitless negotiations, they would probably have gone in also after slowly building up domestic support.

Bush=Y. Because it was just the right thing to do and ends clearly justify the means.

(2) Military intervention in Iraq.

I concede no linkage and (most) probably no WMD and definitely no widespread WMD. My belief (developed from reading op-eds from Thomas Friedman) is one of Bush's primary goals was to create the dynamic for change (in addition to personal reasons, and misplaced belief of WMD) in the region.

Although I am currently not optimistic that Iraq will turn out well, I believe the $ and 2000+ US lives and thousands of Iraqi lives *may* well be worth the gamble. It will be interesting to read this in the history books 20 years from now.

(thinking about my d20 days in college, who knows we could still roll an 16-20).

ex. with imminent invasion, Saddam was still playing chicken ... I infer from this that UN/diplomacy with Saddam would never have been productive.

ex. on the bigger question of bringing US-Muslim relationship back to neutral, I just don't see it. Even if we forced Israel's hand into concessions, even if we withdrew from Saudi Arabia, the adverserial relationship would still have been there. Radical muslims would still have found *something else* to hate the US for.

ex. even with Bosnia Muslim intervention, even with Indonesia aid, even with Kuwait rescue I see very little evidence of Muslims population giving US some 'credit'. Our perceived 'cons' far outweighed the quantifiable good things we've done for the Muslim world.

To hopefully create (at least) a neutral relationship, we need to acknowledge (1) current Muslim generation is a lost cause (2) create an 'example' of western democracy in the region (3) do a much better job of 'propoganda/education' and yes (4) bribing with whatever it takes.

There is no doubt Gore/Kerry would NOT have gone into Iraq. They would have tried the UN/diplomacy path along with half hearted efforts at propoganda ... in my opinion, this would never have worked.

Look at it this way. If there was WMD, if Iraq had elected and reunited under a sectarian government ... I think the majority of US would have said it was worth it.

Unfortunately, that is not the case ... yet, I still have hope for that roll 16-20.

Bush=Y. Because Gore/Kerry would still be talking and the $ and lives is worth the gamble to change the region in the long run.

(3) Anti-abortion stance.

Can we all agree that abortion is not a good thing? Not talking about rights of women etc., just on the face value of it, abortion is not a good thing?

Under the assumption we can all agree on this, the next thing is to consider what is/would have been done under Bush vs Gore/Kerry.

Bush clearly wants to restrict abortion. Gore/Kerry would have given some lip service but not have done anything to lower it. I think conventional wisdom tells me that the Democratic special interests would never allow this.

Here's my opinion. I don't know when life begins but I clearly know life exists in a 8-9 month fetus (I have 2 kids). Late term abortion *even* in the case of the health of the mother should never be allowed. I know this steps on some civil liberties but sorry, killing an innocent to save your own life should not be allowed.

With that said, not encouraging morning-after pills, allowing first trimester abortion in case of rape, incest, mothers health is clearly not reasonable in my opinion.

Therefore, 1st trimester = probably okay, 2nd trimester = probably a bad thing, 3rd trimester = most definitely a bad thing.

Bush=Y. Although I do not fully agree with his methods, he is trying to actively reduce abortions. I am okay with this (for the most part) even if it steps on some civil liberties ex. overall social good > individual civil liberties. Gore/Kerry would not have done anything to reduce abortions other than to pay lip service to it.

(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)

Before 911, Bush was well on his way to help Mexican's illegals/day laborers become legit. Hispanics now (legal + illegal) exceed the population of African Americans. This shows Bush being very inclusive of Hispanics. I agree one reason is to ensure a large Republican political base for years to come. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason, his intent was clear.

Other minority groups like the American Chinese and (not native) Indians, who tend to be more affluent in general, most probably are more Republican than Democrat. I concede I have no proof of this but believe its true via non-scientific polling of co-workers. (Interestingly, the Chinese and Indians that are foreign born, new immigrants, H1-Bs tend to go Democratic).

The only minorities that have not responded well (I think) are the African Americans. As per my theory, this may be self-imposed.

I don't really know what Gore/Kerry would have done here. I suspect that although they would also want the Hispanic vote, however the African American vote they currently already have would have resisted in allowing a greater Hispanic influence in the Democratic party.

Bush=Y. Nothing will stop the growth of our hispanic population. The future is clear and he has (or wanted to take) steps to include/integrate the hispanic population into our country.


(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

Bush's cut in social programs (or at least not increasing the funding to keep up) will either force the less fortunate to actively try to do better for themselves and/or increase the hopelessness felt by them.

I know this is a brutal and selfish point of view but I believe social programs (in general) tend to encourage a give-me, its-my-right, feed-me type mentality.

Please do not extrapolate this to me saying all social programs are bad.

ex. Public school education is a social program. I'm for this.
ex. Universal healthcare would be a social program. I'm for this, different thread.
ex. Medicare/SS is a social program. I'm for this, with some modifications.

I am saying, many social programs are bad, many social programs are good, most social programs should have reduced funding.

Bush=Y. Conventional wisdom tells me where Gore/Kerry would have gone with this. Bush is trying, don't know how successful he will be.

I love this video:

hxxp://www.break.com/index/presidential.html

Why would you say that?

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." —during a Dec. 2002 Oval Office meeting with Rep. Tom Lantos, as reported by the New York Times

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

I've said and done some pretty stupid things myself, over the years. You all are entitled to you're opinions, but I definitely think GWB is smarter than me, and malaprops won't convince me otherwise.

So what was it like to watch Cy Young in his prime at the old Huntington Avenue Grounds, Buc? ;)

SI

As JPhillips said, I don't think this is a fair litmus test at all. We really have no idea what Gore/Kerry would have done if they were in office. There have been some previously stark raving liberals go completely the other direction on foreign policy following 9/11 (Dennis Miller comes to mind). There are quite a few staunch conservatives who have been fed up with the current government spending which flies in face of their view of their party and have voted against it.

It's just not a legit basis to judge whether the current president is doing a good job. "I really didn't like who I was voting against" versus "I didn't like who I was voting against a little" is no basis on how to judge how the current guy is doing his job. You're then handicapping the job performance based on the opposition.

Presidents should be judged based on the job they do not on how much you liked or disliked the job they did and not whether you thought they are doing a better job than Gore/Kerry as opposed to Carter/Mondale.

SI

And this is a perfect illustration of the previous post. I think that Gore would have had to go into Afghanistan, considering the political climate of the time. Remember the Patriot Act was signed by a really strong majority even if now there's been a ton of squabbling as things have gotten back into their "normal" ruts again.

However, I don't think he'd have stepped anywhere near Iraq as it really had nothing to do with the war on terror and, frankly, to this day, I'm still not entirely sure the real reason we did it.

But it's all just conjecture as we don't have anything that can tell us whether you're right or whether I'm right. That's why I don't think it's at all a good test of how good a job the President is doing.

By that same token, look at Katrina. Frankly, I don't really spread a lot of blame around on that as it's a crazy situation of unprescedented magnitude. There's no telling if Kerry would have appointed someone more competent for the post. Well, likely he would have because Brown was on the low rung of the competency ladder, as we're now seeing. Does Kerry nominate someone a friendly Democrat from the Arabian Horse Association (or whatever it's called) or does he go after someone more qualified?

However, what's to say he nominates an old Massachusetts emergency relief official who he thinks can do a good job. Does it matter in the end? Or was the handling, although botched pretty good, fairly inconsequential to the fact that a city was pretty much going to be wiped out anyway?

If you really want to boil it down to a single point, does his FEMA head manage to coordinate better than Brown did, find out earlier about the breach in the levee and is able to do something about it before it becomes too massive and floods the city between Monday afternoon and Tuesday? Or was there simply nothing that could have been done and we're just shifting around blame because everyone wants an outlet?

Frankly, I believe more of the latter which is why, if I made a list, the handling of Katrina would not be on the top 5 botches because, while people can argue a lot more he could have done, I'm not convinced it would have helped a whole lot. However, rampant cronyism certainly would be in the top 5 and that was evidenced in the Katrina handling as well as in many other appointments.

SI

This is my take as well. He most definately isn't a gifted orator, nor is he quick thinking on his feet. Those things are not the sole traits of intelligence. You can be smart, and not quick a quick thinker. I think he's probably of above average intelligence, he just doesn't come off all that well in public.

Of course you can.

Unfortunately, his thought out decisions haven't turned out all that well either!

sterlingice. Your 'boil it down to a single point' above is why I believe it is useful to compare like-with-like, same time period, same event and try to hypothesize what the other guy would/could have done.

When it comes down to it I think we are closer than you think because my rationalization of grading Bush on Katrina is your viewpoint expressed above.

Can we at least agree that it is a helpful indicator (however theorectical it is) but not the full grading system?

I agree, I don't think we're that far off in our assessment of that particular situation. However, I do think we have a fundamental disagreement in that I strongly believe using "what Gore/Kerry might have done" as a barometer is a severely flawed methodology. The only logical reason I can come up with for doing it is to "grade by a curve", so to speak.

SI

Get a life!!!

Well, looks like Bush can't hit 35% on FOFC. I wonder how many votes he lost to trout, though. :)

I don't like the Gore/Kerry barometer because you don't KNOW what Gore/Kerry would've done.


And I just thought of 2 more positive things about Bush
2. Comedy Central's now defunct show "That's My Bush" (although Absolute Al would've been good too)

3. The video of Bush trying to open the locked door at the Chinese press conference is pure comedy gold.

Greyroofoo, Sterlingice. I respect you disagreeing with my methodology. We will just have to agree to disagree here. In the defense of my methodology, I do believe we do can assume (with high probability) how Gore/Kerry would have reacted to 3 of my pro issues

(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude

TwinCitiesFan. I get from your response that I have offended you. That was not my intent and I apologize.

I like the "grade on the curve" analogy. It is pretty much the only way Bush can make much of a case. "Hey, the other guys suck too."

My thing with Bush is that while a lot of his decisions have sent him spiraling out of control, he does have an agenda. He set out to accomplish something, and eventhough he hasn't been all that effective in implementing it along the way, he has stuck to it. Like it or not he isn't a "do nothing" president, and he doesn't govern by public opinion poll. I think I'm getting what I expected out of my vote, at least with regard to his overall style. He is leading, and although I don't like all of the places he is wanting to go, I give him credit for leading. I'd give him a hell of a lot more credit if he did a better job implementing, or at least hiring the right people to implement his agenda.

My grade for him. I'd say he balances out right now to a low C in my book. He's not doing a good job, but is doing something. In twenty or thirty years we'll know more about how successful he was.

Oh dear, it looks like SFL Cat & EagleFan have run away.... And after all the time I took in responding to them, too.... :rolleyes:

Glen: I don't get the myth that Bush doesn't use public opinion polls. We know that they use pollsters and we know that they create policy around public opinion. Bush is most certainly not a guy that just follows his gut. He polls and uses those polls as much as any in the last thirty years.

He does have a couple of issues that he has stuck too, but every President does. Clinton's healthcare package didn't poll well, but he believed in it. The idea that Bush governs from his heart is at best pure fantasy, and more likely a calculated attack on Clinton.

We can go through policies that came from polls, but I don't think that;s going to get us anywhere. Lets just remember that the whole WMD sales pitch for Iraq came from polling.

Hear hear. I agree 100%.


This would be a more compelling statement if it were not for his complete inaction regarding Katrina.


I find this hard to believe. One of his closest advisers, Karl Rove, has made calculated responses to polling an art form. I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that and expect it to be true.

I'm not saying that Bush doesn't use opinion polls. I'm saying that he has an actual agenda that he is working to implement. He has a master plan, and he continues to work on it, even in the face of public resistance.

I dunno if I would characterize what Clinton did with his healthcare proposal when it was polling badly as sticking to his guns. That is just a nit-pick though. I'm a little surprised you'd take my "governing through opinion poll" bit as an attack on Clinton. A bit of a sensitive area, is that?

I do see Bush as quite often going against public opinion. Stem-Cells, the Schiavo "incident", the Torture debate(although he did give in eventually, due almost certainly to public opinion), the FISA/call intercept/wiretap "scandal", and Jose Padilla. I'm sure I could come up with more, but it is my impression that this president is doing what he feels is right, whether it is popular or not. I'll note that I don't agree with the President's position on a lot of these issues, but I do give him some credit for

On the WMD bit. I actually agree that the admin made the choice to hold up WMD as the poster boy for war in Iraq was done to "sell" the war. That the decision was specifically and directly the result of a poll, I'm less sold on. In any case this is not an example of governing by public opionion poll, it is an example of selling a piece of hte administration's agenda to the public. Not the same thing.

Glen: First let me say I'm sorry if the Clinton reference seemed directed at you. It was really a criticism directed at a volume of right-wingers who quite often end "Bush doesn't govern by polls" with "unlike Clinton". Its been a rather constant talking point and I quite obviously think its ridiculous.

I guess I don't see the master plan that you do. I hear a lot of rhetoric, some I like some I don't, but I see very little evidence of a grand plan either at home or away.

What is the Bush economic plan, for example. Someties it includes free trade and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its prime the pump spending and sometimes its no government handouts. I don't think I could find a short description of the Bush economic plan that matches reality.

The same goes for his foreign policy. We hear democracy promotion, but that doesn't seem to matter outside of Iran/Iraq/Syria. We hear non-proliferation, but N. Korea and India can have nukes without any action taken. We hear that our image is important unless we're telling other countries to fuck off. Again, I don't know how to summarize the Bush foriegn policy in a way that matches reality.

I'd also question some of your specifics that show Bush isn't making policy based on polls. The stem cell position was polled to death to find something that appeased the base and didn't piss off too much of the rest of the country. It most certainly was not a principled decision made without thought of politics.

Perhaps the Schiavo position wasn't polled nationally, but you can't tell me this wasn't political payback based on polling. The base ate this up and it seemed like a no-risk way for the President to earn points with the base. Notice how quickly he backed away from the issue when the polls showed how unpopular it was.

I don't think Bush has no principles, he certainly does, but to claim that he governs without thought to polls is ridiculous. This admin is incredibly savvy and they know the political implications for most everything they do. They poll a lot and they have a ton of pollers and political advisors on the payroll. I don't think that makes him any worse than those that have come before him, but it sure as Hell should dismiss the notion that he governs without thought of public opinion polls.

When I say that he doesn't govern by poll, that shouldn't imply that polls aren't used. I'm saying that many of his policy decisions aren't made in reaction to polls.

His plan to address the Middle East is clearly to spread democracy to that region. I think the plan has merit. Time will tell. Admittedly, it certainly doesn't look like a bed of roses right now.

I'll give it to you on the economic plan. I don't see it. Although things like the administration's position on the outsourcing of jobs show that there, too, he is taking a position squarely opposite of the opinion polls.

For nuclear proliferation. India has had nukes for some time. Nothing can be done. North Korea. The cat is out of the bag, and it is really too late to address the issue.

On the Schiavo case and appealing the base. Does it really help to appeal to the base, when something on the order of %85 of the public is going the other way?