Why do you love George Bush?

I notice lots of posts addressed to "bush haters", asking why people don't like George Bush. Loads of them in fact. (it's almost as if the search faclity never existed!)

Anyway, this time I'd like to turn the tables. It's time for the Bush supporters on this site to do a bit of the work for a change.

This is a question for the Bush lovers out there.

Could you please explain to me why George Bush is such a great president. Tell me about some of his successful policies, at home and abroad. tell me how he as made America a better place.

No broad meaningless statements like "making america safer". I want details. Facts. Actual policies and actual results, that actually affect America in a positive way.

Oh And no Kerry/liberal bashing. This is about Bush, and any positive things he has achieved in his career, or his presidency.

Fire away.



[edit on 28/8/04 by muppet]

Why does someone who supports this president need to be categorized as a "Bush lover"? Beginning a topic with a generalization like that doesn't do much to stimulate discussion.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why does someone who supports this president need to be categorized as a "Bush lover"? Beginning a topic with a generalization like that doesn't do much to stimulate discussion.

Well spotted.

I used the term because many of those who support Bush on this forum are constantly referring to "bush haters", so I thought I'd flip it around. The title was to get your attention, and make a point. Certainly questions to "bush haters" elicit lots of detailed replies.

The post itself asks some very clear questions. I'm hoping that will stimulate some useful responses. I'm genuinely interested to know what it is that makes someone support him.

Maybe you could start the ball rolling?

[edit on 28/8/04 by muppet]

Good post muppet,

I'm sitting here waiting for the replies to roll in

Sanc'.

OK. First off, I don't care what he did before he became president, just as I don't care what Kerry did. So I won't be comparing their military atrocities or drug or alcohol habits or anything that happened pre-2000.

Bush is not a great president. He is an average president, with average abilities. Whether he had any true gift for implementing good domestic policy, we'll never know. He has been sidetracked with 9/11 and then Iraq.

He is overzealous but very sincere when it comes to protecting America. It will not happen on his watch. If it does there will be immediate and very severe consequences.

He has brought back a level of confidence to Wall Street after 9/11, and this has resulted in low interest rates, low inflation, and positive job growth.

He is interested in alternate forms of energy to the point of funding it to the tune of $18 billion. Also, I support drilling in Alaska, as I support windmills on Cape Cod. The Kennedys, especially Bobby Jr. talk a good game, but will not allow windmills to be built in the waters off Cape Cod. It's a NIMBY thing with them.

He realizes that Vicente Fox will do nothing to stop illegals from crossing into the US, so, instead of succumbing to the extremists on both sides of the political fence and building a wall, he has proposed a guest-worker program. It's a start.

He can be a homophobic bible thumper, I don't care. I don't understand how people can take anyones religion other that their own seriously. The fact that muslim and Jewish public displays of their faith during the holidays are tolerated while Christian displays are banned shows that GWB does not push his weight around when it comes to religion. There are those on this forum that mock and criticize GWB's proclamations of faith as the workings of a demented mind. Yet these same people will support and cheer a Sistani, an Al Sadr, a Bin Laden, as men of deep faith that should be held up for admiration. To me, GWB's faith is a component of his character, and it holds him steadfast in his decisions. He reflects and then decides, and does not waver. It is his anchor.

He does not kiss up to weak men for the sake of political correctness. Weak men like Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan. His opponent would give America away in order to look good to the very same people who would double-cross him and stab him in the back when the opportunity arose.

He has walked a very fine line these past two years, protecting our civil liberties while doing as much as he can to bust terrorists in this country. Yet people criticize the Homeland Security Act as if he alone authored and supported it. People don't want the beach volleyball game to end, they don't even want to be interrupted with warnings of an impending tidal wave. This I don't understand. Not one here can say that they have been, or know anyone who, has been affected bythe HSA. All they can do is play the role of Damocles.

He has donated American resources to Sudan to help with the AIDS epidemic there and elsewhere in Africa.

John Kerry was my Senator for about ten years. The fact that I will never again vote for him in any capacity is all I will say about that.

cheers jsobecky

That's certainly one of the better thought out posts in support of Bush I've seen on here, and does fill in some of blanks for me.

As you know I strongly oppose him, and would argue some of your points(surprise!), but if you don't mind I'll let that stand for now and see what others add.

I'm looking to learn something on this thread rather than argue, so thanks again for taking the trouble to respond in detail

Seriously, I'd reply, but it's been done to death. I've been debating this sooo much with people at work, school, and here that I actually get a slite headache when I think about it. I'll just read what other people post, and stay out of this one. You know I'm good for it, muppet

Originally posted by jsobecky
OK. First off, I don't care what he did before he became president, just as I don't care what Kerry did. So I won't be comparing their military atrocities or drug or alcohol habits or anything that happened pre-2000.

Bush is not a great president. He is an average president, with average abilities. Whether he had any true gift for implementing good domestic policy, we'll never know. He has been sidetracked with 9/11 and then Iraq.

He is overzealous but very sincere when it comes to protecting America. It will not happen on his watch. If it does there will be immediate and very severe consequences.

He has brought back a level of confidence to Wall Street after 9/11, and this has resulted in low interest rates, low inflation, and positive job growth.

He is interested in alternate forms of energy to the point of funding it to the tune of $18 billion. Also, I support drilling in Alaska, as I support windmills on Cape Cod. The Kennedys, especially Bobby Jr. talk a good game, but will not allow windmills to be built in the waters off Cape Cod. It's a NIMBY thing with them.

He realizes that Vicente Fox will do nothing to stop illegals from crossing into the US, so, instead of succumbing to the extremists on both sides of the political fence and building a wall, he has proposed a guest-worker program. It's a start.

He can be a homophobic bible thumper, I don't care. I don't understand how people can take anyones religion other that their own seriously. The fact that muslim and Jewish public displays of their faith during the holidays are tolerated while Christian displays are banned shows that GWB does not push his weight around when it comes to religion. There are those on this forum that mock and criticize GWB's proclamations of faith as the workings of a demented mind. Yet these same people will support and cheer a Sistani, an Al Sadr, a Bin Laden, as men of deep faith that should be held up for admiration. To me, GWB's faith is a component of his character, and it holds him steadfast in his decisions. He reflects and then decides, and does not waver. It is his anchor.

He does not kiss up to weak men for the sake of political correctness. Weak men like Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan. His opponent would give America away in order to look good to the very same people who would double-cross him and stab him in the back when the opportunity arose.

He has walked a very fine line these past two years, protecting our civil liberties while doing as much as he can to bust terrorists in this country. Yet people criticize the Homeland Security Act as if he alone authored and supported it. People don't want the beach volleyball game to end, they don't even want to be interrupted with warnings of an impending tidal wave. This I don't understand. Not one here can say that they have been, or know anyone who, has been affected bythe HSA. All they can do is play the role of Damocles.

He has donated American resources to Sudan to help with the AIDS epidemic there and elsewhere in Africa.

John Kerry was my Senator for about ten years. The fact that I will never again vote for him in any capacity is all I will say about that.

Thanks, jsobecky. It's good to see another person standing up for Bush other than me, for once! You seem to know a little more about his public policies than I do, maybe I can learn a little from you while I'm at it. I've studied alot on his war efforts, and a few other things, but you seem to be a little more well-versed in alot of other issues.

Bush beefs up our military strenght intead of cutting like kerry , terrorist fear him thats why we havent seen any terrorist attacks on u.s. soil. Bush deals with terrorism and doesnt ignore and accept defeat like clinton and kerry.

So if you guys dont support bush and you support kerry you are supporting a weak u.s. military and weak security.

I know he is a bad president but i would rather have him to keep the military strong and make it get stronger then to have a leader like kerry who will reduce our military down to squat. Those of you who dont care about our military getting cut and thinking we still have the strongest military in the world after those big time cuts are @!@#$@#!@$$!% !!!!!!!!!

Bush is an imperfect man, and certainly an imperfect president; even an imperfect conservative. But I support him as the best of the realistic options.

1. America Must Go It Alone:

9-11 changed things world-wide, but on a different scale for the US than for other nations. Bush is frankly unconcerned with world opinion. And his stance serves the US's interests for now. France, Germany, Russia, even UK have their own agendas which is fine. Many of them would benefit if America lost power and prestige; so their interests can no longer coincide with ours. Not that we are enemies, but that we cannot count on "world opinion" to patrol our ports and harbors. The US will have to go it alone for a while. Bystander nations will see us a cruel brutes, especially since they are not targeted the way we are. Kerry and Democrats in general are far more worried about public opinion in Paris than in Topeka.

2. Bush is Laissez-Faire

Bush has not interfered with the economy. Many liberals would like to "fix" the economy and "create jobs" by redistributing wealth. I believe that doing so would screw up the economy way worse than simply letting the market cycle take its course. Personally I don't blame Bush for recession, any more than I praise Clinton for a stock market bubble on his watch.

3. Bush is not over-exposed.

I am conservative; I didn't vote for Clinton--I was originally neutral about him as president. But I grew to despise the way clinton was always on TV. On talk shows, on MTV, practically everywhere but McDonald's adds. Bush was popular as Texas governor for the same reason so many "middle americans" like him now: Bush is like a good cop--he's only there when you need him. You don't have to listen to his weekly speeches, you don't see him talking about his underwear.

4. He gave me 300 bucks back.

In my most cynical mood, I have to say "hell, at least he gave me a tax cut." Was it pandering? Sure it was. I just wish the rest of govt. would try a bit more pandering. After all, it isn't that Bush gave me government money. He gave me MY money. 300 bucks sure is heck more than I can expect from the likes of Kerry.

5. He doesn't want to force my state to recognize gay marriage.

I know, you all think I'm out to lunch. I wont debate the issue itself here. But as a mainstream guy, I feel like it's really sleazy for the pro-gay crowd to try to force something through by 'judicial legislation' that so many Americans are against. Most ATS'ers have no idea how badly the democratic party is being hurt by that one. I live in a Democrat county, but you ought to hear the Democrat farmers down at the Diner trying to "explain away" the democratic embrace of all things queer. When people are embarrased about their own political party, they change. As much as you hate me, I'm still talking the truth even if you don't want to hear it.

6. he doesn't lie to minimize his unpopular opinions.

Yucca Mt. in Nevada is an example. His beliefs about Gay marriage is another. Now Kerry can pose with all the duck hunters he wants, but I'll never trust that he takes the 2nd amendment seriously. Kerry is always talking out of both sides of his mouth, and I don't really trust that he's committed to anything he claims he is. I think that if he did win, a lot of liberals would be upset by how often Kerry would sell out his principles in order to get his way.

7. He really wants to help the common man

He may be an idiot, but I really believe him when he says he wants to see every american prosper. I see Kerry as really gunning for his special interests and support groups. But even they will be abandoned if it serves the purpose of furthering Kerry. I'm sure every liberal could turn this around and say the same of Bush. But you didn't ask them, you asked me.


I have no doubt that y'all think I'm an ignernt dufus. But I'm one of millions. And we vote.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

1. America Must Go It Alone:

2. Bush is Laissez-Faire

3. Bush is not over-exposed.

4. He gave me 300 bucks back.

5. He doesn't want to force my state to recognize gay marriage.

6. he doesn't lie to minimize his unpopular opinions.

7. He really wants to help the common man

These are all valid points for the vote, but I submit to you that you can find these same 7 qualities in a true man rather than another of the same protected, rich-served, hand picked, kid gloved politician.

Badnarik is the one you want.

Some of your points are very valid. Some are IMO totally incorrect.

1. I think America should try very hard and will find great rewards in working with allies, that said, America should be willing to go it alone IF THERE IS JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE. [BTW Our intelligence is a basket case. FBI translators celebrated 911. We didn't spot 911 coming. CIA told GWBush there were WMDs in Iraq, there were NONE] I am not convinced that GW Bush wouldn't have found an excuse to invade Iraq even if it had been shown that there were almost certainly no WMDs there.

2. I am not into creating a lot of huge government programs for people, but I am also NOT in favor of creating a lot of government programs and regulations that incestuously help corporations at the expense of the average American. The prescription drug bill, as an example, was ABSOLUTELY NOT written to help Americans on Medicaid or Medicare, it was written to close down the FREE-MARKET purchasing of drugs from Canada and REQUIRE that the US government pay FULL RETAIL without any ability to negotiate group purchase rates. That IS NOT LAISSEZ-FAIRE. It is manipulating the market in favor of corporations and against American citizens.


3. This is a matter of opinion, but I think a president who genuinely likes being president, as Clinton appeared to, is really upbeat for people. [granted it can get obnoxious, but that is a very small price to pay] If I didn't know better I would think GW Bush was afraid or ashamed to be president. How confidence building is that, a president who skulks around and hides, sort of like Nixon?
[as a personal aside I think the personality, attitude, enthusiasm of the president has a VERY large effect on the economy. What makes people go out and work lots of overtime, get a second job? Dreams and hope. Teach people to imagine a better future and it is almost like magic.]

4.I can't objectively argue with 300 bucks. [I could argue fiscal responsibility though]

5. You are most certainly correct on this issue. I however am gay. You don't know what it means to people such as myself who have cowered in the shadows or been assasinated like Harvey Milk, when they stand up.

6. Bush doesn't pander much [well not too much]. He takes an opinion that locks in his right wing base and sticks with it. He takes stands that favor his hyper rich buddies in corporate America and sticks with them. It is true Kerry does tend to pander. Partly for votes, partly because HE wants to try to be all things to all people. Kerry should try to intelligently reign this in.

7. You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on this one. He panders to the common right wing person for votes, he ONLY cares about his rich corporate friends. Expatriot corporations are allowed to avoid taxes and yet still allowed to lobby the US congress [isn't there a law against that?]. ALL of the legislation he supports is about corporate welfare, favors and special regulations for them. NONE of his regulations are about fairness or ethical behavior.

PS. Bush should get a special Oscar for his portrayal of a 'down-to-earth' less-than-literate country guy.
.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Bush is an imperfect man, and certainly an imperfect president; even an imperfect conservative. But I support him as the best of the realistic options.

1. America Must Go It Alone:

Thats not a wise thing to do. America is as good as any other country, the people of America are as decent as any other. Humanity needs to stick together no matter.

2. Bush is Laissez-Faire

Neither Bush nor Clinton actually had much to do with the economy. the manipulation of that is in the hands of people like Greenspan and organisations such the Federal Reserve

3. Bush is not over-exposed.

True. When he appears its usually because he has something important to say.

4. He gave me 300 bucks back.

Irrelevant to me

5. He doesn't want to force my state to recognize gay marriage.

Fair enough. Its up to the State to decide whether or not to recognise gay marriage.

6. he doesn't lie to minimize his unpopular opinions.

He says what his speech-writers tell him to say. I don't consider him a liar - I just wish he would say what he believes rather than just rattling off what he is told.

7. He really wants to help the common man

He may well do so. The problem is that the Republican party is not the party of the common man. It is the party of the rich and if GWB really wanted to help every American, he would change the policies in order to reflect that.

Pisky, please allow me to point out a couple things in regard to your responses to strangecrafts response to this thread (please allow me a moment, that long sentence left me dizzy and in need of a cigarette).

Now then. In regard to America going it alone, that is not a choice for us to make, that is a decision that was made by our so-called allies, the ones that are still around because of our backing in their time of need. We must preserve our nation since nobody else will. As far as your comment that humanity needs to stick together, while that is a warm and fuzzy thought, it has never happened and never will. However, let's run with your thought, so please, figure a way to convince our "allies" to give us a hand, and in the process give themselves a hand. The enemies who wish to destroy us will eventually turn on them, you know.

You are partially correct in that the president can do only limited things for the economy. The government cannot "create any jobs, at least none that are productive. The only thing the government can do is create more government positions, and that is only a drain on the tax payer. What the president can do, however, is cut taxes, putting the money back in the hands of those who rightfully earned it. That is not only the moral thing to do, it is also good for the economy. You say the 300 dollar rebate was irrelevant to you. Why is that?

No state can recognize homosexual marriage, the fact that this is even an issue demonstrates the dire straits in which we find our society. This goes against our national morals and ethics by which this nation was created. The recognition of one state and the allowance of marriage licenses to homosexuals would obviously create turmoil throughout the nation as the militant wouldthen spread throughout the nation, trying to force other states to recognize what was allowed in another state. I do not give Bush credit for this, one way or another, as this should not even be an issue.

Last, then next to the last.
The notion that the Republican party is the rich man's party and the Democrats are for the little man is the biggest lie to circulate the nation (if you discount the ones about not inhaling, not having sex with that woman, and read his lips, no new taxes). The democratic candidate you have now is running on the admission that he will raise taxes. That is incredible, and just plain stupid. the Democratic party is famous for its expensive, wealth redistributing social experiments, and this is not any good for the "little man". The Democrats we've had in the Oval Office after Kennedy have proven to be military bozos, or worse, loathers of the military, and that is just plain bad for everyone concerned - little or not. What the Democratic party does do is make alot of noise about how they love the people and want to do everything for the people, which is not a good thing at all. Do it yourself, expect little from the government and at the same time, expect the government to take little from you. Above all, demand the government stay out of your way. That is not the Democratic way, its way is big, expensive, intrusive government. Which brings me back to the topic of the hour - Bush.

I am not a Bush-lover, the reason that I am not a Bush-lover is that he is so much of a politician that he'll make decisions one would expect from a democrat in order to take away democrat's griping points. Bush has become a democrat in the process. That is one of the reasons the frothing at the mouth Bush loathers hate him even more, they are hard pressed to attack him without attacking some of their own positions. That is why you'll find their attacks limited to his protection of America (An easy attack as we all know that all good liberals believe our military should never be in defense of our nation but used only under U.N. direction) and his tax cuts (You know the old liberal motto, "What's yours is mine and what's mine is none of your darned business!").

TC,

I have alot to say about your post but unfortunately i just dont have the time...

What i will say is...

I love how the USA is playing the victim still... your 'allies' were with you in Afghanistan when the war on terror was a war on terror... when you decided to go into Iraq, they saw that you were trying to milk the war on terror for all it was worth. They lnew Iraq had no terror links or WMD's. They saw that the USA was trying to string the world along, and was using the sympathy that had generated after 9/11 for a non-terror related war... There is a difference in helping your allies when in need, and helping you allies gain more oil profit and get rid of a countries ruler just because he disagrees with some of the things you say/do... If i had been rance or Gemany i would have told Bush to shove his war where it deserves to be and get the # back to the Americas where the USA belongs, and stop interfering in other countries affairs.

Interesting how either your hatred for us or your ignoring of the facts still control you, but I do have the time to respond.

Considering that the entire world knew Hussein was a holder of chemical and biological weapons, and was pursuing nuclear weapons, I can't see how you missed this fact. What you should be asking is where are the weapons and equipment now. That goes against your agenda, though.

The fact that Hussein was in collusion with terrorist organizations and that his people met with the people who'd later destroy a few planes, buildings and many lives now means nothing to you, nor does the fact that he allowed terrorists to hide in his country and also had planes in the desert for training (or maybe you think the airliners were there for some secret market cornering of the lucrative international airline stewardess jobs?).

You also seem to forget that there were more pressing reasons our "allies" didn't help us, considering they were making a fortune under the table with Hussein. Maybe you forgot but I haven't. Merely because you coose to see Hussein as not being on the War On Terror tour doesn't mean it isn't. I also find it interesting that in your vulgarity (the censor doesn't conceal the words when one uses the reply button) you state that the U.S. should get back where it belongs, which in your mind, is on the continental U.S. minding its own geographical jurisdiction business, while you and yours pursues its interests, and we should only come out when you and yours tell us you need our military or money. Forget you. How's that for a response to your request; I even conveyed in lowbrow wording so that you wouldn't miss the meaning.

AMEN TC! I was going to tell Asian X he had conveniantly forgotten those things again, but it would be like the 10th time Ive told him...i guess some people only hear/see what they want and ignore the rest.

As Ive been accused of being Bush's lapdog by members, yet ive only called them out on their phony rhetoric instead of trying to defend BUsh, i may as well stick my neck out and say why id vote for Bush.

#1 As our top elected official, he's looking out for USA first! Even tho this is not popular abroad, he understands the job he's there to do,and that is protect American interests before others.

#2 After 9-11, our strong responce millitarily both in Afganistan AND Iraq sends a clear signal that we Americans are NOT affraid to take casualties, that we MEAN what we say when we talk about being or harboring terrorists. That the days of getting away with pissing on the USA are OVER.
Im glad both allies and enimies are "affraid" of the USA exerting its power..THEY SHOULD BE....we have been the good guys for a long time, we could be ALOT more agressive, imperial, and generally dictatorial if youd like..The USA has shown tremendous restraint and generosity thru the years....but there are limits to that hospitallity, especially when its being abused.

#3 Bush is not going to allow the UN to rule here. The UN is a country club that the USA essentially co-owns and pays the MOST for. The UN works for us not the other way around. We dont need the UN permission to do anything, and in fact, the UN better start to do its job better or else it's obsolesance is assured.

There are things im not wild about Bush for, but right now, Ill take him over a tax and spend, pull out of the conflict, elder, wealthy, flip flopper.
At least with Bush, you know when he says something...it means what he said.

I'm a currency trader. The treasury's policy on Bush's watch has been to let the dollar slip against other currencies.

This has been a brilliant move. Asian states have been BUYING dollars for the last 18 months, trying to keep their currencies cheap relative to the Buck. Basically, they have been funding the value of the dollar, so Americans don't have to. I think the SE nations involved are making a horrible mistake for their economies, but its their choice. America cannot force them either way.

The Treasury department during the Clinton years was dominated by keynesians from Goldmann-sachs. Their attack on the mexican peso in 1993 is an example of the irresponsible use of the US economy itself as a weapon. Such moves always come back and bite the aggressor in the butt.

If Treasury tried to shore up the dollar, it would have quadrupled the deficit and in the end transfered wealth out of country. Big govt steering of the currency helped start this recession in 1999/2000.

Bush has listened to someone who knows better than to mess with the free market in $. (Probably Cheney.) That's what I mean by laissez-faire.

1) He's not afraid to stand against the tide. As can be seen by not only his decision to go into Iraq against the wishes of our so called allies, but also by his environmental policies.
The fact is the environmental lobby under Clinton was allowed far too much power, and I for one think that the environmental laws need to be more fair. Bush has repeatedly pushed for drilling in alaska which would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, he has made t easier for lumberjacks to make a living (and before any of you treehuggers start crying the logging industry has for many years now adopted a policy of tree farming, I.E. planting several new trees for every one they cut down, after all it is in thier best interests to keep thier business sustainable)

2) He reduced taxes across the board, the minimum tax brackett is now 10 as opposed to 15 percent and the maximum is 25 as opoosed to 39.6

3) The no child left behind act ensures that schools that don't teach don't get paid.

4) The missile defense system

5) the moon to mars initive (the funding is being held up by congress not the white house)

6) He doesn't care if the europeans get pissed off as long as America is safe

7) He is the only candidate calling for the end of 527's which kerry is unwilling to do.

8) Increased pay to our soldiers, increased benefits, he didn't vote against funding for our boys in Iraq

Cheers for the good responses! This has given me some insight into real reasons some people will be voting for Bush, and what aspects or policies people see as the most important. Far, far more useful than simply reading the candidate's manifestos, which I find have been so extensively spun to be meaningless, on both sides. (Not just a US problem, it tends to be the same over here too!)

While no-one has convinced be personally that Bush is the right man for the job, I have learned a lot from this thread, and for that I thank you!