Why Bush may not get my vote

7 problems I have with Bush

Published on July 13, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

I am what you would call an undecided voter. But it's really more complicated than that since the choice for me isn't whether I would vote for Bush or Kerry but rather will I vote for Bush or not. There is no way I'll vote for Kerry. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to vote for Bush. Unlike many neophyte ideologues, I don't imagine the end of the world coming simply because the "other guy" gets elected. Therefore, the side I tend to be more sympathetic to doesn't automatically get my vote.

I've read on-line where people think I'm some sort of Bush supporter simply because I support the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. That's not the case. I do find a great deal of amusement seeing the way Bush somehow turns his left-wing opponents into raving lunatics. Never in my lifetime have I seen the opposing party of someone become so hysterical. Most Americans are fairly ignorant on US history, what makes the left unique is that they try to claim an intellectual high ground even as they demonstrate their complete ignorance. To history buffs, the spazzing about whether we should have gone into Iraq or not comes across as bizarre. Just to recap, here is a link to a list of wars the US has been in and why we went in.

My two favorites have to be the Mexican American war, where we conquered Mexico (culminating with the capture of Mexico City) on the justification that we really really wanted their land. At least things were more straight forward back then. But the best one of all has to be the US war against Spain in 1898 where we declared war on Spain because one of our ships in Havana harbor blew up (turned out it was due to an accident on the ship). That's it. That was the justification. Over 2,000 Americans died in that "war" and that was over a century ago when the US population was much smaller. No hysteria then. No anti-war protesters. No calls for impeachment. No international condemnation.

So seeing melodramatic articles about Bush and "casualties in Iraq" asserting that Bush is the worst President in US history or that he should be impeached or whatever just strike me as evidence that George W. Bush has a super power: He makes left wingers look nuts.

But like I said, having a low opinion of hysterical left wing rantings doesn't automatically make me a Bush fan. So let me tell you the problems I have with Bush:

1) Economic irresponsibility. I really don't like deficit spending. I can live with it as long as I feel like the government is taking its spending seriously. But the pork has been record breaking. Huge farm subsidies, huge increases in spending for both the EPA and dept of health and human services show that a) He doesn't take spending seriously and He's politically naive. Even at the time I was shaking my head knowing that even with these increases he wouldn't gain anything since Republicans automatically get tarred for being anti-poor and anti-environment regardless of the facts.

2) Incredibly inarticulate. Every time he holds a press conference I cringe. I keep waiting for him to say something stupid. "Given the choice between trusting a mad man or defending America I will choose to defend America every single time!" Ack. Who writes this stuff? You may not like Clinton but his intelligence was apparent and he really understood many of these issues even if he didn't do what I would have liked him to do. Is it really asking so much to have a President who behaves as if he has a clue? Look at Tony Blair, regardless of what you think about him, he comes across as supremely knowledgeable.

3) Messing with the constitution. If the choice boils down to accepting gay marriage or messing with the constitution I'll choose to accept gay marriage. It makes me think that Bush is the same kind of fanatic who would have pushed through the prohibition amendments. The constitution isn't a political toy. It's the closest thing I have to a secular religion. Don't screw with it over something pidly like this. And yes, I'm aware of the full faith and service clause.

4) Crazy Projects. What the hell was the whole Mission to Mars thing about? Here we're running record deficits and he's talking about going to Mars? Meanwhile, he proposes killing the Hubble Space telescope. Hello?

5) Afraid of leveling with us. All the spastic left wingers who are, to some degree of success, able to retroactively claim that we went into Iraq to confiscate stockpiles of WMD would never be able to make that case if Bush had been more clear about why we went in. We went in because a) We believed (correctly) that Saddam had WMD PROGRAMS (not stockpiles). That he was a declared enemy of the US in a region where we could no longer tolerate one and c) After 9/11, there was no way we were going to let Saddam stay in place to wait out the sanctions. But Bush made a great deal of noise about nerve gas and other things. Nobody who supported the war gave a crap about chemical weapons. We wanted Saddam gone because after 9/11 we could imagine very plausible scenarios where 5 to 10 years down the line in a post-sanctions Iraq that Saddam would either be practicing nuclear blackmail or covertly supplying terrorists with WMDs. I didn't want my children having to deal with that. But Bush, because of issue #2, couldn't manage to coherently put that together leaving a gaping hole for the leftbots to spew their latest reason for being against the war (because, you know, they would have been totally for going in if we had found mustard gas stockpiles in Iraq...NOT).

6) Totally incompetent post-war handling in Iraq. I don't care if it was Bremer's decision to decommission Iraq's army. It was still incredibly foolish. How does someone with such a basic management failing get into that position in the first place? If you walk into a corporation that needs to be rebuilt, you don't fire everyone and rehire from scratch. You reorganize it. This isn't complicated stuff.

The whole occupation was poorly run from start to finish. From a PR point of view, US troops should have totally secured Baghdad even if the hinterlands were less secure. Want proof? Do you think Afghanistan is some sort of cosmopolitan land of peace now? Of course not. But the occupation has seemed a lot more successful because Kabul, where all the press are, is reasonably secure. If you listen to the news, you'd think Iraq was some bloody quagmire. As of June 21, we've lost 619 soldiers due to combat. That includes the actual war and the subsequent year + occupation. In that time, nearly as many people in Washington D.C. have been murdered. That doesn't make things any less tragic but Iraq isn't particularly bloody.

But because reporters have seen so much violence because the Bush administration hasn't locked down Baghdad this perception has been allowed to grow. Sorry but if you can't control elementary perception, you're too inept to be President.

7) I'm not sure where he's hoping to go next. What's the plan? War on terror? What next? Domestic policy? Whatcha gonna do?

So there's 7 reasons off the top of my head that Bush needs to deal with before I'll vote for him. If he doesn't make a good on some of these, he won't get my vote. I'll either vote for a minor candidate or not at all. I know quite a few people in that boat with me and the result has been Kerry's gradual lead as mixed ideologists such as me, who are generally more sympathetic to Republicans than Democrats, migrate off the reservation.

Next: Why Kerry won't get my vote.

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Jul 14, 2004

Because he's so far right, and so bad at it as well, that it infurates people.

JG: I think if you'll look a little closer Brad is saying that on some points he isn't far enough right...

on Jul 14, 2004

Intresting, even tough I didn't agree with some of points.

greywar

on Jul 14, 2004

Because he's so far right

I think the point of the article trucked right by you Jeremy.

Solitair

on Jul 14, 2004

Brad,
as a matter of interest are those 7 points in any particular order?

Paul.

Madine

on Jul 14, 2004

Conservatives vs. Clinton was pretty close if not equal to the hysteria.

Not really. What is the 1996 equivalent to Farenheit 9/11?

The solution to points 1,4,7 would be a pledge for serious fiscal responsibility, which I would welcome. There has been a pledge to cut the deficit in half in 5 years. While I welcome deficit reduction, that seems like too little too late. I would like to see a pledge to eliminate the deficit in four years.

Draginol

on Jul 14, 2004

Yea, I want a commitment to return to surpluses. That would be a good start. He can't resolve his inarticulateness but I could live with it if he solved some of the other things. And if Iraq calms down and there's a demonstration that they were on the ball there then that would help as well.

As for Bush being "Very far right" what a load of nonsense. In what way is he "really far right"? I swear, the left is increasingly acting like vampires. If they even see a crucifix they freak out. As a non-religious person I don't care about Bush's religion (and he's quite religious). But generally speaking, it's not particularly right-wing.

oleteach

on Jul 14, 2004

Thanks for this article. If you have the time and inclination please give your comments on the info I posted about why nobody should vote for Kerry.

Don Bemont

on Jul 14, 2004

Never in my lifetime have I seen the opposing party of someone become so hysterical.

Conservatives vs. Clinton was pretty close if not equal to the hysteria.

I still hold that this is a more serious problem than who wins the 2004 presidential election. On the whole, neither Clinton nor Bush were good presidents, but neither was so bad that hysteria is an appropriate response.

So why does it happen? Because the current method of political discussion is such that argument is irrlevant. The election is not decided on the basis of issues stated, logic tested, and facts refuted. Visual images, photo ops, one liners, political ads, and sound bites do not add up to anything like, "I believe in..." Thus, opponents have nothing to argue with, and they later have little to hold the winner to, once he is in office.

Sample issues: As Draginol says,

Republicans automatically get tarred for being anti-poor and anti-environment regardless of the facts

And the reverse: no matter what the fact, the Democrats are always seen as suspect in the areas of patriotism and military preparedness...

There reason that these labels reamin "regardless of the facts" is that nothing close to a debate on these matters occurs on a stage witnessed by the public. How might Republican ideas benefit the poor better than Demcoratic ideas? What Repuclican ideas? For that matter, what Democratic ideas?

None of this means that the actions of government have no effect on everyday citizens. Governemt matters, and, if you are not the beneficiary under the current arrangements, you need an outlet to respond. In the absence of debate, we get ... hysteria. And this will continue as long as we communicate our ideas by means of entertainment (Limbaugh and Moore) and imagery (that damed aircraft carrier). During the crucial moments of the impeachment, Clinton's tactic was to come to the neighborhood deemed safest and appear on television in the most "unimpeachable" setting. He spoke at a patriotic rally here in Buffalo, with a bunch of local high school bands supplying patiotic music. [I ought to know... I refused to allow my then-high school aged son to be used in this proceeding. The irony of it all was that the Republican superintendent of schools, the Republican principal, and all my Republican friends just couldn't understand how I would deny my son the opportunity to be so close to greatness and history... and I am a Democrat.]

Anyway, I would not celebrate the hysteria of either the right or the left. This is a symptom of a structural problem in our current system, and it is one that will prove extremely difficult to address.

****************************************************************************************

To switch topics temporarily, I don't know which historians are

spazzing about whether we should have gone into Iraq or not comes across as bizarre.

The wars you mention (against Spain and Mexico) are the two examples historians give of America's participation in the Age of Imperialism. Have you noticed the frequency which our foreign opponents hurl the word "imperialist" at our country? And the certainty with which we deny such accusations?

A great deal of history has passed since the Spanish American War, and, at every turn, our country has borne the anti-imperialistic banner. Your examples go a long ways to explain why there is quite a bit of opposition to the Iraqi war coming from the well educated. Those who know history realize that the era when this sort of thing was still considered internationally respectable goes back somehting like a hundred years. Further, the justifications for war during political discussions in France, Germany, England, and Austria leading up to World War I were eerily similar to the kind of talk we are hearing from this administration.

My strongest feeling here, though, is that this ties back into my first point in an important way. I think that the Bush administration believes that, with the end of the Cold War, the world has reverted to its historical condition, where a country that is strong enough can and should act

on the justification that we really really wanted

the land, or the oil, or the security or the business opportunities, or whatever... As you say:

things were more straight forward back then

and I think that this is what the current administration wants to re-live. We have little real memory of Teddy Roosevelt, but this is pretty much what he stood for.

Many liberal opponents believe that the lessons of the world since World War I are far more salient: among other things that 1)modern weaponry has changed the nature of war for all time, 2)the rise in calls for local self determinism are extremely difficult to fight in the age of modern communications, 3)long term safety is better pursued through international cooperation and, especially, stability, than through quick recourse to direct use of the military, and 4)given modern imagery technology, any war will soon turn into a public relations nightmare, bringing new meaning to the old concept of a war of attrition... And, maybe most telling, liberal opponents are well aware that imperialism in its later stages was NOT particularly beneficial for the imperialistic countries as a whole. Rather, it was extraordinarily profitable for the few well placed businessmen who had the right connections -- a situation liberals feel is mirrored in the Bush administration.

But do you see that this comes back to my first point? The country needs an open discussion about these ideas. What is the true nature of today's world, and where is our country's place in this world. Since I believe in one side of that debate, I am not in a position to state both sides fairly, but they need to be laid out -- not in terms of flag waving, not in terms of pictures of burned babies, not in terms of "Mission Accomplished" signs, not in terms of 30 second political ads and 5 second slogans.

Madine

on Jul 14, 2004

that damed aircraft carrier

Are you talking about the one John Kerry was on when he announced his candidacy?

long term safety is better pursued through international cooperation

Yeah, international cooperation did a great job stopping Hitler.

Don Bemont

on Jul 14, 2004

Are you talking about the one John Kerry was on when he announced his candidacy?

Every appearance of this kind, by all candidates of all parties -- but your response says it all. When an opponent candidate does this kind of thing, opponents can respond with line liners and one-upmanship, but no real argument, as such.

Yeah, international cooperation did a great job stopping Hitler.

What are you refuting here? We can state both sides of the issue on a board like this, but until there is open debate about it, central to elections, there is no democratic basis for decision making.

My read on your answer (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that the Republicans are so correct at the moment that there is no need for clearcut rational debate where everyone's reasoning is out in the open. It is there that I disagree with you.

stevendedalus

on Jul 14, 2004

"justification that we really really wanted their land. At least things were more straight forward back then." We should have made it a state.

"That's it. That was the justification. Over 2,000 Americans died in that "war" and that was over a century ago when the US population was much smaller. No hysteria then. No anti-war protesters. No calls for impeachment. No international condemnation." I guarantee you there would have been if the media were as today.

"As of June 21, we've lost 619 soldiers due to combat. That includes the actual war and the subsequent year + occupation. In that time, nearly as many people in Washington D.C. have been murdered. That doesn't make things any less tragic but Iraq isn't particularly bloody." Yeah, and were the troops not safely in Vietnam, it was a sure thing they would have died on the highways.

"So there's 7 reasons off the top of my head that Bush needs to deal with before I'll vote for him." I don't get it. Compromisiing your values for a candidate that could conceivably handle these issues better is nothing to be ashamed of.

Draginol

on Jul 14, 2004

We lost around 60,000 troops in Vietnam in combat deaths. We're at 1% of that figure in Iraq and the war is already over, we're in the occupation phase (btw, Americans died in Germany during the occupation there too, not in significant quantities but they did die).

I agree, the media today is so ideological that it's a complete opposite of what it was a century ago (which was equally bad but different). I'd go for a media that simply tries to report the facts rather than blatantly trying to jam its own agenda down our throats.

As for "compromising" my values, I'm willing to overlook a lot of things. I'm pro-choice on abortion, for instance. At some point, a candidate passes a threshold in which you can no longer support them. Presently, Bush is over that threshold.

Madine

on Jul 14, 2004

Personally, I'm not bothered by a politician making a speech on an aircraft carrier.

What are you refuting here?

I am refuting the idea that international cooperation brings safety. Nazi Germany is the classic example of how pacifist diplomacy made a bad situation worse.

I have put forward an argument to justify the Iraq war on my blog. The short version is this:

1. The sanctions against Iraq needed to be lifted.
2. Saddam in charge of an Iraq with no sanctions would pose an unacceptable security risk.
3. The only way to remove Saddam from power is through the use of force.

dubz

on Jul 14, 2004

why vote bush. has kerry done any of the disgusting things bush has done. kerry is better because how far can we fall, at least picking kerry is a different chance. if bush is in, we keep falling. at least its something better. My views are not all democrat. i agree alot with nader but i am desperate to get bush out. kerry has programs that we ougth to give him a chance. bush abused his chance. why after bush's discriminatuing, allowing the patriot act and very anti gay and is confused and caused 9/11. if gore won, we wouldnt complain. 2 towers would be standing, pentagon would be ok. iraq and soldiers would still be walking this planet. Bush executed 152 people as governor and mimicked a person who was begging for their life is disgusting. i know saddam was disgusting, but bush planned the war before 9/11. used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war. i dont know why people think kerry is so evil, dont know why. Also bush's brother jeb bush had a list of convicted felons on a list who were all democrats. cnn looked at it and usually 47% is hispanic that vote republican in florida.. only 61 were hispanic and there were either 45000 people or 4500 people on the list. 61 does not equal 47%. he took most hispanics off cause they were republican. so he tried to get democratic felons not vote because they were democrats and he wants bush to win. its disgusting. luckily he let the people on the list vote now thanks to cnn. anyways, why vote bush, he created terrorism issue and we are not safer. remember the pics of kerry at an anti vietnam rally? well republicans put his face in when he really wasnt there just to make kerry look stupid. the republican party has gone crooked and needs help. our country needs help. so kerry at least gives us a chance for us to live better. kerry thinks abortion should be rare, but thinks people have a choice and the government is blocking that from women. its disgusting. we need stem cell research that may cure cancer and aids and many diseases that we need help with. but bush claims to be a good christian. i didnt know that meant to prevent life. save lives people. And we need a 3rd party to be big. like nader said the system is rigged and it is. but kerry at least gives us a chance. people we need that chance instead of having a limited life. and bush refused to visit the naacp which was not right. anyways, people, you have to realize we need a better future and we need better education, jobs,health care. the economy is not going up. dont believe everything you hear and especially on the news. kerry gives us at least a turning point to a better future instead of going down the same road. bush had his chance, it's kerry's time now. I urge you whoever is 18 or over, vote Kerry/Edwards in 04.

bakerstreet

on Jul 14, 2004

if gore won, we wouldnt complain. 2 towers would be standing, pentagon would be ok. iraq and soldiers would still be walking this planet. "

are you serious?

"anyways, why vote bush, he created terrorism issue and we are not safrer."

you can't be serious...

"kerry thinks abortion should be rare, but thinks people have a choice and the government is blocking that from women."

Any proof to that effect? Could you name one instance where the Bush administration did anything that prevented a woman from getting an abortion?

and bush refused to visit the naacp which was not right.

After the chairman of the organization likened Republicans to Nazis. He doesn't deserve my spit, he's a racist pig.

dont believe everything you hear and especially on the news.

And yet you keep spouting the same tired things I keep hearing over and over, most of it you apparantly misunderstood. I don't see anything that you came up with in your post. Where do you get it if not from what you "hear" or in the news? Are you positive you are old enough to vote?

so he tried to get democratic felons not vote because they were democrats and he wants bush to win.

You realize that it is illegal for felons to vote in some states, right?

Come on. At least TRY and tell the truth. This is where Democracy can go really, really wrong...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!