Not party but the person...

cat's meow · #1 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007, 08:47 PM

So several of you AWE members accuse me and a few others of getting wrapped around the axel with "George Bush bashing." I do not like that we have a good number problems that come from him, his presidential appointees, and his poor decisions---that is my take on this, and it is on his head and the Executive Branch/this administration.

This is the person and not the party folks.

Can you far righties finally admit this guy is just bad and there were several different choices within your own Republican party that were just flat out better if not pretty damn good?

In the past I have given several better alternatives (as well as others of you on AWE that are moderate/slightly right/or left of center) knowing the Republican Party had better people to lead us through the problems we have now.

rdnor · #2 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So several of you AWE members accuse me and a few others of getting wrapped around the axel with "George Bush bashing." I do not like that we have a good number problems that come from him, his presidential appointees, and his poor decisions---that is my take on this, and it is on his head and the Executive Branch/this administration.

This is the person and not the party folks.

Can you far righties finally admit this guy is just bad and there were several different choices within your own Republican party that were just flat out better if not pretty damn good?

In the past I have given several better alternatives (as well as others of you on AWE that are moderate/slightly right/or left of center) knowing the Republican Party had better people to lead us through the problems we have now.

THOMPSON 08 !

rob · #3 (**permalink**) 06-30-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So several of you AWE members accuse me and a few others of getting wrapped around the axel with "George Bush bashing." I do not like that we have a good number problems that come from him, his presidential appointees, and his poor decisions---that is my take on this, and it is on his head and the Executive Branch/this administration.

This is the person and not the party folks.

Can you far righties finally admit this guy is just bad and there were several different choices within your own Republican party that were just flat out better if not pretty damn good?

In the past I have given several better alternatives (as well as others of you on AWE that are moderate/slightly right/or left of center) knowing the Republican Party had better people to lead us through the problems we have now.

Cat, as far as the Bush bashing it does get old at least to me. Yes he has made some bad decisions in regards to apppointments and in regards to the war in Iraq. The fact is that Bush isn't a true Conservative, he spends like a felon or at least like a Democrat. I hope that the next Republican nominee is at least fiscaly conservative.

cat's meow · #4 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

Cat, as far as the Bush bashing it does get old at least to me. Yes he has made some bad decisions in regards to apppointments and in regards to the war in Iraq. The fact is that Bush isn't a true Conservative, he spends like a felon or at least like a Democrat. I hope that the next Republican nominee is at least fiscaly conservative.

OK, an honest point of debate here.

...first...Clinton bashing gets pretty old too, but you and I could probably go round and round with that.

So what is the definition of a true conservative Rob?

Is it to protect the country after 9/11 and deal with the ensuing problems in the foreign policy?

Is it to keep control of government spending?

Is it to make sure citizenship to this country is held in high esteem and not given out like candy on Halloween night?

I guess I have a real hard time how someone can actually defend Bush when in many ways even Bill Clinton was more conservative with balancing the budget and reforming welfare (two political anvils for conservatives and Clinton was the one of the past four presidents that REALLY did do this; the three CONSERVATIVES did not do this---BJs or no BJs).

I will leave the other party out of it now...I only use Republicans...

I think if you really honest to God take the past two Republican presidents who conservatives really do basically like (Reagan or Bush I) then try to answer this question:

Would either of these guys reacted to 9/11 by launching the first pre-emptive military strike in the history of the United States on a leader and country that had highly questionable ties (if any) to the original 9/11 problem itself?

And anyone who wants to jump on this please look at page 66-68 of the government report on 9/11...that is the report itself and no leftie web blog. We debated that earlier and I posted it on another thread.

rob · #5 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

OK, an honest point of debate here.

...first...Clinton bashing gets pretty old too, but you and I could probably go round and round with that.

So what is the definition of a true conservative Rob?

IMHO a true cosnervative beleives that the Constitution says what it says and their is no wiggle room for interpation. The goverment keeps the country say by maintaining a standing military and enurses that intra state transportation is working.

Is it to protect the country after 9/11 and deal with the ensuing problems in the foreign policy?

Is it to keep control of government spending?

Is it to make sure citizenship to this country is held in high esteem and not given out like candy on Halloween night?

Goverment as a whole has cheapend citizenship in this country.

I guess I have a real hard time how someone can actually defend Bush when in many ways even Bill Clinton was more conservative with balancing the budget and reforming welfare (two political anvils for conservatives and Clinton was the one of the past four presidents that REALLY did do this; the three CONSERVATIVES did not do this---BJs or no BJs).

Clinton cut programs and borrowed money based on future taxs to balance the budget.

I will leave the other party out of it now...I only use Republicans...

I think if you really honest to God take the past two Republican presidents who conservatives really do basically like (Reagan or Bush I) then try to answer this question:

Would either of these guys reacted to 9/11 by launching the first pre-emptive military strike in the history of the United States on a leader and country that had highly questionable ties (if any) to the original 9/11 problem itself?

And anyone who wants to jump on this please look at page 66-68 of the government report on 9/11...that is the report itself and no leftie web blog. We debated that earlier and I posted it on another thread.

IMHO neither Reagan or Bush Sr. would have commited our troops to the attack on Iraq without having a plan to secure the country. If you remember that during Desert Storm Schwartzkaff (sp) wanted to continue into Iraq and was very vocal about it. Bush Sr. said no and I beleive that was because the American people don't have the will to support a long battle. Bush Sr. remembered how supportive the country was to Viet Nam and by the way it was a Democrat that commited the troops there.

cat's meow · #6 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

IMHO neither Reagan or Bush Sr. would have commited our troops to the attack on Iraq without having a plan to secure the country. If you remember that during Desert Storm Schwartzkaff (sp) wanted to continue into Iraq and was very vocal about it. Bush Sr. said no and I beleive that was because the American people don't have the will to support a long battle. Bush Sr. remembered how supportive the country was to Viet Nam and by the way it was a Democrat that commited the troops there.

Bush Sr. had made a deal with the Saudis and all agreed to the outcome Rob, I think the will of the people has little to do with the results of the first Gulf War.

fenianforever1689 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So several of you AWE members accuse me and a few others of getting wrapped around the axel with "George Bush bashing." I do not like that we have a good number problems that come from him, his presidential appointees, and his poor decisions---that is my take on this, and it is on his head and the Executive Branch/this administration.

This is the person and not the party folks.

I don't know...I distinctly remember you criticizing both.

Who cares if you like the party or the person of the party you consider opposition?

bluedog · #8 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

OK, an honest point of debate here.

...first...Clinton bashing gets pretty old too, but you and I could probably go round and round with that.

So what is the definition of a true conservative Rob?

Is it to protect the country after 9/11 and deal with the ensuing problems in the foreign policy?

Is it to keep control of government spending?

Is it to make sure citizenship to this country is held in high esteem and not given out like candy on Halloween night?

I guess I have a real hard time how someone can actually defend Bush when in many ways even Bill Clinton was more conservative with balancing the budget and reforming welfare (two political anvils for conservatives and Clinton was the one of the past four presidents that REALLY did do this; the three CONSERVATIVES did not do this---BJs or no BJs).

I will leave the other party out of it now...I only use Republicans...

I think if you really honest to God take the past two Republican presidents who conservatives really do basically like (Reagan or Bush I) then try to answer this question:

Would either of these guys reacted to 9/11 by launching the first pre-emptive military strike in the history of the United States on a leader and country that had highly questionable ties (if any) to the original 9/11 problem itself?

And anyone who wants to jump on this please look at page 66-68 of the government report on 9/11...that is the report itself and no leftie web blog. We debated that earlier and I posted it on another thread.

Page 66 thru 68....pointing to government reports to defend their own inaction? Why does it not surprise you....that politicians...are quick to point out...."US...HELL NO....WE ARE NOT TO BLAME"....what else did you expect them to espouse?...Yes it was our fault...now fire us? Please. BD

bluedog · #9 (**permalink**) 07-01-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Page 66 thru 68....pointing to government reports to defend their own inaction? Why does it not surprise you....that politicians...are quick to point out...."US...HELL NO....WE ARE NOT TO BLAME"....what else did you expect them to espouse?...Yes it was our fault...now fire us? Please. BD

Now if it indeed it was a true independent committee.....from the private sector only....made up of lay persons....just as we have to go through...if accused....any liar..cheat...thief...off the street would have been sufficient to be considered as their peers....yes...a jury of their peers....perhaps some "REAL TRUTH" could have in fact been determined. BD

justme · #10 (**permalink**) 07-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So several of you AWE members accuse me and a few others of getting wrapped around the axel with "George Bush bashing." I do not like that we have a good number problems that come from him, his presidential appointees, and his poor decisions---that is my take on this, and it is on his head and the Executive Branch/this administration.

This is the person and not the party folks.

Can you far righties finally admit this guy is just bad and there were several different choices within your own Republican party that were just flat out better if not pretty damn good?

In the past I have given several better alternatives (as well as others of you on AWE that are moderate/slightly right/or left of center) knowing the Republican Party had better people to lead us through the problems we have now.

Not being a "far rightie", I can't answer for them. But I do get tired of the "Bush is bad" rhetoric because it seems so simplistic to me.
To be honest, it doesn't really bother me when it comes from those that don't seem to have any agenda other than to demean the man and the party. If you're honest, you will have to admit there are some of those here.
Just as I will admit there are those that refuse to admit the man has made any mistakes.
It does bother me when seemingly intelligent people use the blame game while ignoring the 60 years (and beyond) of history that has contributed to some of todays problems. Problems no doubt made worse by the invasion of Iraq. But problems that have been festering for years.
Bush has made some terrible appointments. He's also made some good ones that are attacked for no reason other than their party affiliation. Roberts and Bolton are two that come to mind.
Roberts was imminently qualified for his appointment by most accounts. It was even grudgingly admitted that Bolton had done a good job.
I won't play the "what if" game. There are probably always better alternatives and it goes for both parties. If the dems had provided better alternatives, the whole game might be a moot point.