Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Why the Bush presidency may be remembered as a failure
Published on November 6, 2005 By Draginol In Republican

George W. Bush is on the brink of having his presidency remembered as a failure.  His poll numbers are very low -- less than 40%.  That's worse that Reagan's at the height of Iran-Contra and Clinton's during impeachment.  How did it come to this?

Simply put, Bush's character flaws and poor judgment finally passed an unspoken threshold in which people, even those inclined to support his policies, have concluded that Bush is a lost cause.

The straw that broke the camel's back was Hariet Miers. His nomination of her to the supreme court might as well have been a confession that Bush's detractors were right on some of their points: Bush is a shallow, unintelligent, old rich boy who is so far removed from ordinary people that he has few of their values.  That nomination demonstrated croneyism at its worse and given how much under the microscope modern presidents are, it revealed a mind boggling arrogance.

Sure, Miers is no longer in the running. But it doesn't matter. The damage is done.  We no longer know whether Bush is driven by what is best for the country instead of doing favors for his friends.  The reason things like Halliburton never stuck the the President (other than in the minds of the whacko left) is because it was unimaginable that the administration would be so stupid and corrupt to send deals to their friends so brazenly.  There's so many other reasonable and more likely explanations about Halliburton that the charges of excess make no sense.  But yet...now...there's that tingling of doubt.  Anyone who would appoint their own personal attorney to the supreme court...you never know... 

Then there's the botching of fiscal policy.  Conservates like tax cuts because A) the government is too inept to really help people effectively (Katrina kind of sent that message home) and hence people are better off having as much of their money as possible to spend more wisely. And In theory, tax cuts force the government to become smaller.

But look out, here comes Bush. He'll cut taxes and have party.  With Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, the conservatives should be able to institute their long-claimed desire of smaller government and effective fiscal policy.  Instead, we have deficits that bordering on insulting in that congress and the President want to throw money at everything. 

Then there's the war in Iraq.  I supported the invasion.  I am glad we went in there.  I am still glad we toppled Saddam.  The idea in a post 9/11 world that we'd allow a guy like Saddam to stay in power in a strategically vital region is nuts.  He had to go.  But he's gone now.  And over two years have passed and it's still a mess over there.  Yes yes, we're still over in Korea, Japan, and Germany and pretty much everywhere else we've ever fought a war.  But we're not having to keep 150,000 combat troops those places.  We're not having to suck down the National guard in those places.  At some point, Iraq is going to have to sink or swim on its own.  If their people don't care enough about freedom and keeping themselves from becoming a terrorist state, then there's nothing we can do about that.  Not to make too fine a point on it but it was relativley cheap to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq the first time.  The rehabilitation of Iraq is proving to be far more costly. 

Until recently, I had hoped that the administration had quietly let the Iraqi's know that they have until say next May to get their act together because at that point we would declare victory and start to bring troops back (not all of course, 10,000 here, 10,000 there).  I just don't have the confidence that Bush's team knows what they're doing over there. 

If there's any "anti-war" people reading this, don't get your hopes up that I'm coming on your side.  My complaint is that we're not being tougher.  I would have the "glass surface nation" policy if I were emperor. Deterrence may not work on terrorists but you can bet your ass that it would motivate the host countries of these terrorists to weed them out.

But on this and many other policies Bush wants to have it both ways.  Sometimes you have to make a tough decision and go all the way.  Half-way usually fails and satisfies neither contingent.

It's not so much that any of these things on its own is enough to cause me to lose faith in Bush.  It's the combination.  When put together (particularly the Miers nomination) it gives credence to the belief that Bush really is just a pampered good old boy of sub-normal intelligence who really has no business being President but is only President because the left-wing of American politics took a sanity vacation (which they're still on) and gave us no viable alternative (I mean what the hell were you left wingers thinking? Michael Moore sitting next to Carter at the DNC?? Hello! Goddam nutballs need to take your noses out of Cindy Sheehan's rear end and get your act together and realize how pathetic your party is when you can't beat someone like Bush). 

American politics has to be near the bottom it's ever been.  You have the Republicans in full corruption croney-loving mode.  And the Democrats are taking pride in their new status of being the party of victims and losers (as if that's a good thing). 

We need a viable third-party.


Comments (Page 5)
on Nov 08, 2005
They hate so much stuff that it's hard to know what Democrats could be right about.

Another of my favorite ways people 'frame' arguments to avoid real debate.

Any time a majority is in power, they have a record to defend from challengers. The most common tactic of a challenger is not to persuade others their agenda is better, as they don't have the authority or control the majority does, so the only effective manner they have is to first attack the record of the majority in power.

The most crafty defensive manuever to counter this is to simply not engage the challenger's accusations and, instead, smear them in the public's eyes by saying they simply 'hate' and have nothing 'positive' to say - assuring the public they needn't bother listening to outside perspective.

Of course a challenger has nothing positive to say about the status quo or they wouldn't be trying to change it, that would defeat their purpose.

WaKe UP People!

on Nov 08, 2005
My guess though is that Bush's 'base', religious conservatives, military hawks and 'neo-conservatives' is not large enough to have secured his 2004 victory


Your guess is quite correct, Chak - the numbers of such individuals, accurately labeled, is indeed smaller than is widely trumpeted (however, as far as the left is concerned, anyone who voted for Bush falls into at least one of those categories).

and that he owes as much to 9/11 for his re-election as Margaret Thatcher owed to the Falklands invasion for her re-election in 1983.


I think you are only partially right here - the Falklands dustup was over & done rather quickly and was a success accompli when she ran for re-election. 9/11 triggered an ongoing, wider commitment to actively confronting the terrorist threat and creating circumstances hostile to its success that was far from achieved when Bush stood for re-election, and remains so.

I'm not as ready as Drag to dismiss his whole presidency on the basis of the Meiers nomination. And the fifth year slump is hardly a new thing for presidents - I think it is as much a phenomenon of the press as it is a result of hubris or any other perceived sin on the part of Bush.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 09, 2005

Trust just like you are coming around on his lack of concern and ineptness,
you will eventually come to accept that high crimes have been comitted.

I am not even going to bother listing them.

That is because you are bereft of facts, and have yet to post a single one.  Just an anon troll that does not know how to debate, just throw temper tantrums.

on Nov 09, 2005
NO AMOUNT OF FACTS I post will convince any of you.

Just like no one could convince most of you before now that your emporer
was naked ... its a realization you will come to on your own.

Telling a drug addict that something is wrong and he needs to change his
lifestyle is a waste of time. He would have to hit bottom to come to that
realization.

In due time.
on Nov 09, 2005

NO AMOUNT OF FACTS I post will convince any of you.

Well, you could at least start posting relevant ones.  But your response here just tells me, that like Col Klink, you have none, and so you petulantly throw up your hands and stalk away denigrating your opponent in the process.  The simple fact that you have posted is that you do not know how to debate, just hate.

on Nov 09, 2005

NO AMOUNT OF FACTS I post will convince any of you.

Just like no one could convince most of you before now that your emporer
was naked ... its a realization you will come to on your own.

Telling a drug addict that something is wrong and he needs to change his
lifestyle is a waste of time. He would have to hit bottom to come to that
realization.

In due time.


Major problem here is.....YOU DON'T POST ANY FACTS! Just rumors and opinions.
on Nov 11, 2005
If their people don't care enough about freedom and keeping themselves from becoming a terrorist state, then there's nothing we can do about that. {/quote]

The funny thing about that comment is that I think Powell was trying to tell him that. People who live i those types of states just do'n't change. it takes generations for them to become educated and understand what freedom is.

This is not nor was it ever just a 2-3 year engagement. People want the Iraqies to be peace loving, freedom loving voting citizens because 'it just makes sense'.

GI see Germany was mentioned... do you know that Germany STILL is feeling the effects of WWII on its current generation?

I think Powell was trying to tell him this from a perspective of being a eneral AND from being Black. Just because the law changes, doesn't mean people will. You have to go in knowing it will take time. Bush went in with a small force to win a war instead of keeping the peace.

So i think your position on the Iraqies is wrong. You don't blame the drunk for driving when the sober person who has all his facalties has the keys and give it to the drunk. Iraqie people don't know what freedom is but they are all of a sudden going to rid themselves of terrorism and radicals? lol I thought that was the job we took on?
on Nov 11, 2005
Major problem here is.....YOU DON'T POST ANY FACTS! Just rumors and opinions.


When it comes to politics, I trust fact as little as I trust opinion. It always astounds me how much people think they know. When I talk about politics, I try to keep it in the realm of philosophy, because then at least what I say is true even if it is strictly relevant. You can't say that of a statistic.

Dan
Meta
Views
» 5476
Comments
» 68
Category
Sponsored Links