Is BUSH really a failure?

[Cryozombie]

A point I'd like to make:

President Bush was selected/elected as president twice.
Please note the title: President.

He is not King.

There are 200 theoretically educated individuals in the Senate, and 500+ in the House who have the power to overturn many of these decisions.

They do not.

They however do pass laws and policy that continue to erode our way of life, often without reading it first.

Bush may in fact be a bad president, but the blame for the state of our nation is not solely his, and it is not fair to place it all on him. There are others equally if not more to blame.

I keep saying that and no one listens.

 

[Phoenix44]

mrhnau, I fail to see why you found the need to "refute" every point I made. For the most part, I wasn't even discussing my opinion. I was simply discussing the way Bush has accomplished exactly what he said he was going to do, with only a couple of exceptions. From that standpoint, he has been extremely successful in accomplishing his aim.

If you want my opinion, yes, I do disagree with his agenda, and in the manner he has set out to accomplish it, and yes, in my opinion, he is the worst president we have ever had. But that wasn't the issue of this thread.

Now as for this statement:

The majority of people who elected Bush seem to have different views than you do

That may or may not be correct, because remember that the majority of the people who actually voted for Bush in 2004 did so because of one issue: they believed he was stronger on security. That doesn't mean they agreed with his fiscal, environmental, or social agenda. The people who DIDN'T vote for him probably disagree with his overall agenda. Plus, at this point, most Americans don't think he's doing a very good job anyway.

That you and I have differing opinions of Bush and his agenda is obvious, but as for whether he has been SUCCESSFUL, yes, IMO he has been successful at advancing HIS agenda.

 

[Makalakumu]

There are 200 theoretically educated individuals in the Senate, and 500+ in the House who have the power to overturn many of these decisions.

I would like to point out that the Republican party controls both legislative bodies and that people like Tom Delay have been amazingly successful at bullying those in his party to get things done. Mr. Delay has had a tight grasp on the purse strings of the RNC and those that would like to dip in their hands must do thy bidding.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe these so called leaders should actually grow a pair and lead?

I think the Romans had it right....if your senator wasn't doing his job, you sent him your sword.

 

[Makalakumu]

Maybe these so called leaders should actually grow a pair and lead?

I think the Romans had it right....if your senator wasn't doing his job, you sent him your sword.

I think they are leading, Bob. In fact, I think that everything that is happening, is happening according to plan. One of the biggest problems is that people aren't paying attention. 50% of this country doesn't vote at all. People are disconnected from politics, they don't understand the real impact it can have on their lives. I have to hand it everyone who comes into the Study and participates in discussion. You, at least, have an opinion on the issues...and you may just be a dying breed. I think, in 100 years, our political apathy will be noted in capital letters in some history books.

 

[sgtmac_46]

He is one of the most successful Presidents ever.

He has engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the working poor and middle class to the rich in history. He has successfully shrunk the middle class, raised deficits and gutted working government programs to a degree unprecedented in our nation's past. He has gotten more people into hunger faster than anyone since Hoover. He has gotten religion more firmly entrenched in government than anyone else in the last 100 years. He has done more to advance the cause of Islamic terrorism and diminish our stature abroad than anyone else. Even Lyin' Be Johnson couldn't make us quite the pariahs that the Shrub has.

He's finally gotten rid of the last of those pesky civil liberties and broken through conceptual barriers like international law, detention without trial and torture.

He's a success. And I'd be darned proud to call him the President of Zimbabwe or Tajikistan. Why, if he were drowning I'd even pitch in and throw him an anvil.

It's funny, being president, at least half the country will ALWAYS say the above about you. I remember thinking several of the above during the Clinton administration.

Granted, Clinton didn't make Islamic terrorists mad (He hugged them and has his picture taken with them), but he did his part for attacking civil liberties. Instead of killing Islamic terrorists, like he should have, Clinton's Justice Department was shooting women holding babies (To find an alleged sawed off shotgun) and burning up large numbers of men, women and children to find "illegal guns" (That were never found).

Unfortunately, while al-Qaeda was plotting against our country, Clinton, Reno and Co. thought the American gun owner was the enemy. Thank you Bill...maybe if you had been dealing with the problem, this guy everyone here calls "Shrub" would've only been a one termer.

The above is just an example of how the opinion "He's the worst president in history" is pretty subjective. If it becomes a choice between a president that supports turning law abiding citizens in to criminals and one who hunts down terrorists in (what many whine to be) a too aggressive manner, i'll vote for the later.

 

[mrhnau]

mrhnau, I fail to see why you found the need to "refute" every point I made. For the most part, I wasn't even discussing my opinion. I was simply discussing the way Bush has accomplished exactly what he said he was going to do, with only a couple of exceptions. From that standpoint, he has been extremely successful in accomplishing his aim.

You bring up a list of "successes" that you seem to have a beef against. You mentioned specifics, I responded to specifics. If you don't care to have specifics addressed, thats fine. Don't bring them up. Ratteling off a list of what you perceive to be failures sure seemed like an invitation to me LOL

That may or may not be correct, because remember that the majority of the people who actually voted for Bush in 2004 did so because of one issue: they believed he was stronger on security. That doesn't mean they agreed with his fiscal, environmental, or social agenda. The people who DIDN'T vote for him probably disagree with his overall agenda. Plus, at this point, most Americans don't think he's doing a very good job anyway.

That you and I have differing opinions of Bush and his agenda is obvious, but as for whether he has been SUCCESSFUL, yes, IMO he has been successful at advancing HIS agenda.

I would imagine that people voting for Bush voted for him for more than one reason. Security may have been an important factor, but hardly the only one. Sure was not the only one for me. Would it have turned the tide if the Democrats supported someone strong in defense? Perhaps. The intellegent choice would have been Leiberman, but that would never have happened... He is too far right for the Democrats. If the Dems wanted Bush out, they should have rallied behind him though. He would have won I bet. With regard to his other policies, I'd have to look at statistics from the election. I know alot of people who like his fiscal, environmental and social agendas. Broad statements of "the populace probably disagreeing" with what he has done is not too meaningful to me...

Advancing HIS agenda is advancing what he and his advisors think is best for the country. You disagree. Thats fine. We have the freedom to disagree. Currently Bush is president. If we get a Democrat next time, he will probably try to use his power to enforce what he sees as best for the country. I'll probably disagree. That will be fine too... If you feel so strongly about Bush and the Reps, I advise taking some action and helping them Dems get someone you like elected. I know thats what I'll be doing, but on the other side of course ;-) Honestly, I'd enjoy having a legitimate 3rd party candidate... Perot would have been a good candidate back in '92 was it? The year he dropped out? I don't favor alot of the Reps. policies lately to be honest... Too bad there is not a legitimate contendor around I could throw my hat in the ring with Maybe I should run

MrH

 

[Marginal]

I keep saying that and no one listens.

I'd be more impressed if Bush vetoed some of that pork. Yup. All squar in the legislature's lap. Bush remains unaccountable...

*Yawn*

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'd be more impressed if Bush vetoed some of that pork. Yup. All squar in the legislature's lap. Bush remains unaccountable...

*Yawn*

Bush is too interested in trying to appease the Dems for that. We needed a Reagan to fly them the finger and start vetoing spending proposals and budgets. A true fiscal conservative would be a good change. No one every mistook Bush for a fiscal conservative. The poor guy never understood that making friends with the other party in Washington DC isn't the same as making friends in Austin. They won't love you no matter what in DC....So flip them the bird and get on with business.

As for the reasons I voted for Bush...and how he's done

Foreign policy/Defense.....Mostly successful
Limiting Government.....Dismal failure
Controlling the Budget.......Mostly failure
Gun rights.......Somewhat successful, though gave a little too
much lip service to the dying of the so-called
'assault weapons ban'. But, Bush wants to be a "cross-
parties appeaser" way too much
Making leftists crazy mad......RESOUNDING SUCCESS!!!!! Way to go GW

Of course, Bush not vetoing spending, isn't the same as Congress sending that crap to him to begin with.

 

[Kane]

I personally supported Bush and the Iraq war but right now Bush is turning out to be a useless president. He is doing absolutely nothing positive which makes you want to repeal the election no more than 8 years law. Why? Because I assume Bush would have wanted to run again for president, know this he wouldn't just lazy around in his last term. Seriously what is he doing right now? Trying to appease China? Why doesn't he work on any domestic policies in our country? Perhaps a solution to the Euthanasia laws, Stem Cell Research, and most importantly the ever growing illegal immigration problem needs to be looked at more. And perhaps he can look how to stop the evil immanent domain! Although he can’t make any laws or enforce them he could still talk to congress about various laws that should be made and put more pro-private property!

 

[Kane]

But yea I searched failure on google and the first page was on the president.

 

[Kane]

If you notice the second article after Bush is about [SIZE=-1]Michael Moore's official website. I'm not sure whether that is because Moore supports the first article or whether Moore is considered a failure too (in documentries I guess).
[/SIZE]

 

[sgtmac_46]

I personally supported Bush and the Iraq war but right now Bush is turning out to be a useless president. He is doing absolutely nothing positive which makes you want to repeal the election no more than 8 years law. Why? Because I assume Bush would have wanted to run again for president, know this he wouldn't just lazy around in his last term. Seriously what is he doing right now? Trying to appease China? Why doesn't he work on any domestic policies in our country? Perhaps a solution to the Euthanasia laws, Stem Cell Research, and most importantly the ever growing illegal immigration problem needs to be looked at more. And perhaps he can look how to stop the evil immanent domain! Although he can’t make any laws or enforce them he could still talk to congress about various laws that should be made and put more pro-private property!

I would say, with the current political environment, Bush isn't in too much of a position to drive any agenda, good, bad or indifferent. That's politics.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I keep saying that and no one listens.

I'm listening. Actually I'm listening and saying the same thing. :idunno:

(Regarding post on Congressional responsibility, or rather lack of it.)

 

[Phoenix44]

Ratteling off a list of what you perceive to be failures sure seemed like an invitation to me LOL

Guess you didn't really read my post, or get my point. I perceived that list to be the success of the Bush Administration in achieving its goals--not its failures. It wasn't intended as a joke, either ("LOL")

Bin Ladin's plot to take down the WTC was successful, too. I didn't approve of that either.

 

[Marginal]

Bush is too interested in trying to appease the Dems for that.

Wasn't aware that the bridge to nowhere was being built by a Dem.

We needed a Reagan to fly them the finger and start vetoing spending proposals and budgets.

Bush flat out doesn't care about responsible spending.

Foreign policy/Defense.....Mostly successful

Heh.

Of course, Bush not vetoing spending, isn't the same as Congress sending that crap to him to begin with.

Congress always sends that garbage forward.

 

[heretic888]

As I stated before, President Bush has never come across a spending bill that he didn't like. In Washington or in Texas. He has not vetoed a single one (although he threatened to veto *gasp* more funding for stem cell research).

Of course, insinuating that President Reagan was in any way a fiscal conservative is, in my opinion, a funny notion.

Personally, I can't wait until someone a bit more economically responsible comes into office. Here's to 2008.

Laterz.

 

[Cryozombie]

I'd be more impressed if Bush vetoed some of that pork. Yup. All squar in the legislature's lap. Bush remains unaccountable...

*Yawn*

Id be more impressed with this argument if the Liberals would acknowlage it once in a while instead of screaming "BUSH! BUSH! LOOK AT MY BUSH!" and put that sort of thing in context with the WHOLE picture. But yep. Bush remails SOLEY accountable.

*Yawn*

 

[Marginal]

Id be more impressed with this argument if the Liberals would acknowlage it once in a while instead of screaming "BUSH! BUSH! LOOK AT MY BUSH!" and put that sort of thing in context with the WHOLE picture. But yep. Bush remails SOLEY accountable.

*Yawn*

Depends on who's yelling, "look at my bush!"

 

[Phoenix44]

Liberals? What liberals? The Repubs own the legislature and the executive. The liberals have had no power whatsoever in the past 5 years.