OR: Bush is not one of you
Published on September 24, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
Another day brings still another set of reports from across the political spectrum, including FOX news this morning on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. More deaths (American servicemen numbering now into the thousands, the Iraqi death toll reported to be over 30,000) and reports of beheadings and hostages taken. A Canadian Report last night (CBC) said that less than 15% of Iraq is under control of either the Americans or the Iraqi interim government and that fighting was too widespread to report even half of the incidents occuring on a day to day basis. Republican senators this week remarked that the situation in Iraq is not as portrayed by the White House and Iyad Allawi in his visit on Thursday used almost the same exact language in his speech as the President signifying to many that the same speechwriter wrote it.

The United States itself is in the grips of a falling stock market, rising inflation and a lower dollar abroad. Unemployment and downgraded employment (workers who used to have good jobs with good benefits now with lower paid jobs with no benefits) means over 5,000,000 workers have lost or been downgraded in the last 4 years, the first time this has happened since Herbert Hoover. Healthcare is becoming a financial disaster as the United States, which spends 1 out of every 7 dollars on it but still cannot find a way to cover between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 people each year. The governmental deficit, now at 7 Trillion dollars will rise to $10 trillion in the next 4 years meaning that 1 out of every 3 tax dollars collected will go to paying it.

Does this sound like a White House of Republicans? Recently, Joe Scarborough (a right-leaning talk show host and former congressman from Florida) wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he talked about "admiring" Bill Clinton for making the tough choices in 1993 to try and balance the budget. He then talks about the spending by the current administration which is "something for everyone" politics designed to get Bush reelected without regards to the cost to the future. He cannot understand why the White House wants to extend tax cuts in a time of war and continue spending at almost an unparalleled pace.

Pete Peterson, Commerce Secretary under Nixon has written a book called Running on Empty in which he talks about the emergency in the deficit budgeting crisis that threatens to overwhelm the american economy. While being critical of both parties, he too takes aim at the current administration's almost endless deep pockets when it comes to giving away the government's money.

What we seem to have is a White House that is trying to do "nation-building" in Iraq and Afghanistan at no apparent advantage to the U.S. disregarding what Republican foreign policy always says is a no-win situation. The situation worsens every day and at a cost of $5 to $10 billion PER MONTH with no end in sight according the recently released CIA report that yesterday the President said was "just a guess" and he described as good, bad, or better (the report said civil war at worst or a "tenuous peace" at best).

What we seem to have is a White House with no fiscal responsibility and no priority to get any responsibility. A White House that disregards all reports that don't fit it's rosey picture that the U.S. and Iraq are "getting better and safer" all the time.

Now, I know that democrats reject President Bush as a leader because he is right wing and doesn't share their priorities and values. I respect that we live in a great country that encourages every person to live as they want within the law.

But, how do you Republicans look on a day to day basis and see what is going on and say "He's our man"? Can't you see how this administration lied to YOU? Can't you see how it was not so much the democrats who were duped into thinking that what we are now doing in Iraq is not a messy mess getting messier, but rather the Republicans? Can't you see how it was you who continue to support your own downfall by allowing this insanity in the budget, the war, the lack of honesty in how the Bush administration works?

Bush is not one of you.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 24, 2004
Democrats don't have much leverage to talk about deficits unless they are willing to cut "health and welfare" programs. The reasons Clinton balanced the budget were that we downsized our defense budget and there was a tech bubble in the economy.

Is this a good time to slash our defense budget? Is it really viable to balance the budget on a mix of defense cuts and tax increases? Realistically, we aren't going to get a handle on the budget unless we curb popular programs that pay for the living expenses of health care expenses of individuals.
on Sep 24, 2004
drmiler:

Once again, this article is not about Mr. Kerry. I understand why conservatives dislike Mr. Kerry and giving Draginol a link he probably has seen many times is not productive.

The question is why Republicans support Bush in light of what other Republicans are saying. Got an answer to that?
on Sep 24, 2004
Madine:

This isn't about the Democrats. Do you think Bush WILL get a handle on a budget after doing so much to increase the deficit and with Iran and Korea on the horizon. The CIA report would indicate the earliest we could leave Iraq is 2007 or 2008. How much do you think that will add to the deficit?

In light of this (as noted by not me, but your fellow Republicans) how can you say Bush is "one of us"?
on Sep 24, 2004
The question is why Republicans support Bush in light of what other Republicans are saying. Got an answer to that?


Perhaps, republicans tend to make up their own mind instead of following the 'pack', unlike the lemming-like swarm toward Kerry by the democrats back in the primaries when they abandoned Dean. It wasn't about whether Kerry was a good candidate. It was about whether he could beat Bush. And since that was the pack mentality (anybody but Bush, and Kerry seemed a likely body ), Dean was quickly forgotten.
on Sep 24, 2004
pictatorus:

You say that "republicans make up their own mind." I appreciate that the people who use JU are some of the best thinkers around. BUT, in light of the article and so many of their fellow Republicans making such obviously pointed arguments about how bad these issues are getting, isn't it prudent to listen to those whom have always been the leadership in the party?

Isn't the pack mentality you sight the ABK crowd, as well as the ABB crowd?
on Sep 24, 2004
Isn't the pack mentality you sight the ABK crowd, as well as the ABB crowd?


No doubt, there's some pack mentality on both sides. Probably a better term is 'go along with the crowd, so I don't have to really think about it'. And it's always good to listen and think before making a decision as important as electing a president.

There is though, I believe, a significant difference in quantity(and lack of true thought about the candidate) in the 'anybody but Bush' crowd vs. the 'I'm for Bush' crowd. As for a 'anybody but Kerry' crowd, I'm not sure if it exists. If it does, it's apparently so few, it doesn't show up on anyone's (media) radar screen.
on Sep 24, 2004
Tell me what you see in Bush that says he DESERVES your vote.


CrispE

Maybe I should have said "Republicans do not agree with Bush some of the time". But for me, Bush is not as evil as people make him to be. Yes, I myself do not agree with some of his policies, (i.e. some environment, abortion, school vouchers for religious schools, deficits). But in my opinion on the larger issues (i.e. health care, the war on terror, morals, judge appointments, international Policies, ect...) Bush out strips Kerry by many miles.

As for Deserves??? Maybe not much, but as I said before on this forum, if Leiberman, McCain, Ford, or many of the other Moderates were on a ticket I would have voted for them in a heart beat over Bush. Maybe he deserves it because I can trust him to do as he says, even if I don't agree with him.

Also being a soldier, Kerry's Anti War moves, just to grab a political career, after he left Vietnam had me despising him before he even stated that he would run.

But in my opinion the ABK crowds (like me) are willing to at least voice their discontent for Bush and know that they can work with the man. But the ABB are more of a pack mentality and will not even listen to the faults of Kerry. Though I think you do CrispE and you have an open mind. Also if any of the Democrat crowd does say anything against Kerry, then they get jumped on and called traitors, senile and many other things by the DNC. Driving the non ABB Democrats over to the Bush side for this election.
Examples on request (The list is to long to post here).

I just want to see who the DNC staff will sacrifice on the alter, if they lose this election. My guess is they will continue to curse those Democrats who sided with the Republicans, Nader, and there own core party members that failed them (ABB crowd) for not doing their part.

That's My Two Cents
on Sep 24, 2004
Lee1776:

Well, that was well put and I appreciate your thoughts. There are ABB and ABK groups who are not listening to any arguments. For me as a stock trader it would be better for me if Bush won because the stock market sees Bush as a known quantity. However, I see the democrats as a better choice on healthcare, education and foreign policy.

It isn't so much to me about morals. Both men will do the best job they can and in accordance with American principles. Both men have some inconsistencies. If, on the conservative side, you are not bothered by Bush's comments in the Carla Fae Tucker execution then you should look again at those.

I continue to consider the candidates from the platforms they put forth this summer. Neither is perfect, but it is better to judge a candidate from the platform then what they "might" do in a given situation that might not occur. The crisis in Iraq is real and so is the looming crisis in social security and healthcare.

Those should be strongly considered before enterring the voting booth.
on Sep 24, 2004
pictoratus:

This race is extremely divisive in many parts of the country. If you look at an electoral map it is northeast, Illinois and far west versus the south and midwest in terms of the candidates' votes. In some states the candidate leads by as much as 30%. That is a sign of the "Anybody But" vote.

The middle is the voter who like me would more naturally gain more personally from one candidate or the other but for everyone's good (the unemployed, the poor, the healthcare-less, the minorities) would vote against their own interests.

What interests me is that as the campaigns have entered their 4th actual week since the Republican convention that many, many Republicans are starting to see Bush as someone outside of the Republican party. He is, to them, an extremist on a crusade to bring his vision of America to a world that rejects him and his vision.
on Sep 24, 2004

Reply #17 By: CrispE - 9/24/2004 4:08:29 PM
drmiler:

Once again, this article is not about Mr. Kerry. I understand why conservatives dislike Mr. Kerry and giving Draginol a link he probably has seen many times is not productive.

The question is why Republicans support Bush in light of what other Republicans are saying. Got an answer to that?


As a matter of fact I have an answer but it's my own opinion. Just because they're a Republican DOES NOT make them right! And on top of ALL that I DO NOT consider GW a *traitor* to his country. Best of all he AIN"T Kerry!
on Sep 24, 2004

Effectively we have two choices for President.

The question is does Kerry deserve our votes more so than Bush.  And I would say the answer is definitely no.

Bush getting rid of Saddam and taking out the Taliban alone give him a pretty strong advantage over someone who has said outright that Saddam would be in power today if he had been in charge.

In addition, Bush's private health accounts (IRA type accounts but for healthcare) are something I very much like in concept and I also like seeing my tax burden lowered.

on Sep 24, 2004
drmiler:

Ok, just for the record, I think JU (and probably every sentient being on the planet) knows you do not like nor will you vote for Mr. Kerry. I'm sure that will make him very sad....not. But that does not excuse Mr. Bush from failed policies in Iraq, poor budgetary planning during his Presidency nor his inability to own up to his own mistakes. This is a man who can't say "I'm sorry, I was wrong" about Iraq, WMD's or the "alleged alliance" between the terrorists on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. All of these things he should admit as mistakes and change course in Iraq to save lives, both American and Iraqi as well as recognize that U.S. democracy is not in the cards for Iraq's future.

No one is calling Mr. Bush a traitor. But there are many other negatives that aptly apply and many of them are said by Republicans.
on Sep 24, 2004
Draginol:

I think the Republicans who criticize Mr. Bush have more in mind than the election. If Mr. Bush wins, I think they would like him to change course on Iraq and try to reevaluate economic policies that have put us on the brink of disaster. Can you see their point that without such change the country is in trouble?

I have not seen the proposal for private health accounts and until I do I will reserve judgment.
on Sep 26, 2004
Well, that is what amazes me about the situation. FOX, which is no friend of Kerry and is often accused of being biased towards Bush has reporters in Iraq saying that our policy there is wrong and is that by the end of the year there will be over 100,000 insurgents besides the Iraqis. This is usually not reported by those friendly to Bush. Yet, there it was, live on my screen.



huh....well, I guess we can add a couple more people to the unemployment list

Kirstie
2 Pages1 2