This is my first directly political post on this board, and I don't know how familiar the other participants here are with each other, but I know you don't know my background, so I'll provide a summation before I dig in.
I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in a government that provides only those services that could not be better provided by private industry, that answers for every penny that it spends, and continually looks for more efficient ways to spend those pennies.
I am a social liberal. I believe very firmly in the idea that the Constitution outlines the rights of the Federal Government, and the State Constitutions do the same there, and that ALL other rights are reserved to The People, whether those rights are specifically spelled out anywhere or not.
As far as government selection and ethics go, I believe we should change to a system where members of the House are selected by lottery (provided those chosen are eligible by the standards provided for in the Constitution and the state they are from) every two years, and Senators are elected from stellar performers from the House and limited to two terms. I believe that people who are sworn in as public officials are UNDER OATH at any time they are acting in an official capacity, and should be treated as such in the law.
I campaigned for Reagan in '84, and regard him as one of our better presidents - I didn't agree with all of his 'causes, but when he was in the White House, I was still able to believe that for the most part, the ideals of our nation were being pursued.
I campaigned for Perot in '92. I would still love to see an independent with good ideas get into office. Not this election - too much that needs a unified government right now - but maybe in 2016.
I wanted Bill Clinton to resign. I could have cared less about the BJ, but he lied to us, and he lied under oath. I could have respected a firm "it is none of your business", but not that. Aside from that, though, I thought he was a tolerably passing president.
I voted for Gore (mostly happily), Kerry (through gritted teeth), and Obama. I like President Bush as a man - think he'd be alright to hang out with - but I have never believed he was qualified to be POTUS. I really tend to think the couple of indisputably good things that have been done by his administration have been
his doing - like the AIDS efforts in Africa - and most of the rest has been pushed by his handlers, like Cheney. The people who got Bush into the office had
an inappropriate agenda that they didn't even bother to hide, if you knew
where to look. I think they believed that that agenda would ultimately be good for America, but they were willing to kill the village to save it, gutting things that
make America America like civil liberties and our reputation in the world, and they allowed the possibilities for their corporate friends to make money to guide their hands, too. And it is uncomfortable to have to think - even if I mostly don't believe it - that some of them may have been involved in allowing or even aiding in 9/11 as part of the pursuit of their goals. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also believe that dismissing conspiracy theorists out of hand is just as crackpot as some of them can be. Weigh the evidence and assign probabilities - that is my tendency.
I'm not an Obamabot, although I am
cautiously optimistic. I prefer to think that no one is corrupt and that everyone honors the Constitution, and has the best intentions, until it is proven otherwise. Everyone starts at 100%. So far, Obama is doing well. He's not at 100% with me - more like 97%. I'm a little concerned about some of his cabinet selections. I'm not at the point of thinking Obama is corrupt, but I'm a little worried about what some of this says about his selection processes, and thus his management processes in general.
I think that's good enough to begin with. Now I'll address some comments I've seen in this thread.
Overall, I'm not a fan of Bush but I am curious: don't you think he deserves some credit for preventing any more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for the last seven years?
It is very difficult to prove a negative. It is unclear whether the law enforcement efforts that have stopped other terrorist objectives since 9/11 would have happened without any of the things the Bush Administration has done. I don't know. Neither do you.
Remember, your opinions are nothing new, and will mean nothing fifty years from now, where they will not even be a footnote in an obscure book.
I, for one, intend to be around in 50 years. My opinions will still mean something to me. Your premise is flawed.
Could you tell me which right of yours has been taken away? Name the right. Tell me where you denied it.
The response to this is not as easy as you make it seem. It is true that I have not personally experienced an incident where I felt like my rights were any more limited than they were before 2001. However, Bush has appointed Justices inclined to eventually tell my gay friends that they can't live in peace as equal human beings to their fellow citizens, and to tell my daughter that her body is not her own. Also, while not an outright denial of rights, their administration has done things that have encouraged a threatening environment for adherents of non-traditional religions. That
does include me directly.
World War II wasn't "our fight" either. I guess we should have just let the Nazi's take out the rest of Europe unchallenged, hmm?
I will not question our decision to go to war in Europe at this late date - especially since the moral imperative of stopping genocide far outweighed more pragmatic considerations. But I would posit that had Nazi Germany conquered Europe, the weight of controlling their conquests would have eventually rendered most of their more extreme ideology obviously futile.
This idea is one reason that, during some of the earlier parts of the Iraq War, I advocated turning non-Kurdistan Iraq over to Iran. The burden on our resources would have been transferred to them with it, making them easier to negotiate or otherwise deal with, in turn.
To blame the President for the recession is silly. Were you out there lauding him for the prosperity over his first seven years?
The Bush Administration is not entirely to blame, that is certain. But: They and the Republican controlled Congress put through the biggest portion of the deregulation that contributed to the mortgage crisis and certain other aspects of the current economy. They failed to do certain "station-keeping" functions, like raising the minimum wage to at least keep up with inflation. And their diplomatic policies have discouraged trade in several different ways.
And some of us (most of our servicepeople included) believe spreading democracy is indeed a noble cause.
Spreading democracy to those who want it, and encouraging people to want it through peaceful means, are indeed noble causes. Preemptive invasion for self-defense reasons that TPTB already knew were based on flawed intelligence, to pursue an agenda to reshape a country based on your own specifications of how it should be, is not. And no, we don't get to
pick our cause
afterward. Cause and effect does not work that way. The one we actually had then is the truth, however much we may wish otherwise.
The Civil War never had to be fought. It was never inevitable. The politicians at the time could have avoided it.
Not to mention the technological advances that would have made slavery no longer economically feasible within the next 20 - 40 years. But it probably is better that we had the war and at least some people wanted the slaves freed on principles. Imagine how pissed black Americans would be if they knew they had only been freed because the money was right!
Well, Bush acted, and what did the Frenchies do? Called for Bush's head because he acted. But again, I give you, what if Hussein had the weapons and intead nuked Paris?
Hussein would not have nuked Paris. He had illegal deals with the French and the Germans. Which is one reason why they objected to us going in a lot louder than other countries. I don't think Hussein would have attacked anyone - he liked living, and knew the potential repercussions after Desert Storm. But if he had, it would have been Jerusalem or Tel Aviv - he'd have made himself a hero to extremist Muslims and, probably, a martyr shortly after.
Congress controls the budget, not the President.
The President has a great deal of input - moreso when his party controls Congress. I feel sure you know this, too. It isn't becoming when people pretend not to know things when those things contradict their position.
And yet the Congress supported him by almost 95%
It is nothing to brag about that most of our Congress failed well before the USA PATRIOT Act, and has continued to fail, to read legislation that they vote on. But it is all-too-frequently true.
The blame for that sits squarely on the "leadership" of the City of New Orleans
FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, if you aren't acquainted. Perhaps some research into the mandate of that agency would prove enlightening? Bush appointed a guy whose previous experience was running horse shows to lead it. The leadership in Louisiana did screw the pooch, but they were far from alone - it was pretty much a clusterfuck on all levels. However, universal failure is not excuse for any given individual.
Just because Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden during his terms, doesn't obsolve Bush of responsibility during his. That's like saying "I forgot to pay the electric bill because you forgot to last month."
Exactly.
Hmmm.... lets see, Privacy, Warrantless wiretapping, TORTURE!
For the sake of accuracy, using torture on foreign nationals is not actually a civil rights issue. Foreign nationals are not assured any civil rights, when in foreign countries, under our Constitution, and it would be inappropriate and arrogant for us to assume otherwise.
It is, however, an atrocity, and a violation of international treaties.
Torture, wire tapping and due process? not americans, not even soldiers of an actual enemy state, but terrorists
Terrorist is just a label put on the smaller side in assymetrical warfare. These terrorists are international criminals, and are entitled to the due process of international law, if they live to be taken into custody.
falsifying intelligence: a lot of that intelligence was gathered by other nations and they believed it too.
Not so much.
I really don't fault nor give much credit to Presidents in regards to the economy, their tools simply take a long time to do any good.
But not long at all to do bad. It is easier to destroy than to create.
environmental damage? where? cutting brush at his ranch in crawford?
Negligence, in not doing more sooner about global climate change. BUT - he did set up larger preserves than any other president in history, and despite a lot of talk, nothing has happened to ANWR on his watch. I'll give Bush a passing grade, here.
congress was praying before sessions long before
Bush came along.
Again, this is nothing to brag about. But you're right - that one is not Bush's fault.
The vast majority of people are not anti-gay, but pro-traditional family. I spend a lot of time in those circles and rarely do I hear anything that could honestly be considered "hate speech".
I know the same sort of people, and I like a lot of 'em. Doesn't change the fact that they are ignorant and pig-headed on this issue, and think that a mandate from God given to them through their pastor means that they have a RIGHT to tell other people who aren't hurting anyone how to live. I'm not bothered in the slightest to tell them they are wrong, either - not that that does any good, usually. Though - every once in a while one jumps the fence. Gives me hope.
I'll tell you the thing that pissed me off most with President Bush. On the morning of 9/11 - the nation was freaking out, and scared. Our president was told, and he sat reading a book to children for another several minutes, then got on a plane and went into hiding. Cheney was in hiding. If our president had been Carter, or Reagan, or Bush Sr., or Clinton, Barack Obama, or even John McCain, I fully believe they'd have been on Air Force One quickly, using the studio onboard to address the American people, to assure us that action was being taken, and that we'd be alright. Instead, that speech had to be given by ... Rudi Giuliani. The mayor of New York City, who, regardless of what anyone thinks of his sometimes politically mercenary attitude toward 9/11 since then, certainly had more than enough on his plate that day without also needing to do the President's job.
The same partisan press that gave Obama a pass and put him in the White House.
