George W. Bush - now and then...

[°Leprechaun]

*if you couldn't vote in 2000 and 2004 but knew at the time how you
would have voted chose this option. (for whatever reason, including being a citizen/resident of an other nation)

D for me.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and don't regret it.  I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and don't regret it.  I chose option C, but C and D are both accurate for me.

[°Leprechaun]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and don't regret it.  I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and don't regret it.  I chose option C, but C and D are both accurate for me.

Fair enough. Would you say that your opinion of him is generally negative or positive?

[MODU]

Option C. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and don't regret it.  I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and don't regret it.  I chose option C, but C and D are both accurate for me.

Fair enough. Would you say that your opinion of him is generally negative or positive?

I'm leaning ever so slightly to the negative, mainly because of the Iraq War and lack of focus on immigration among other things.  The thing that brings him back to just slightly negative as opposed to downright negative is his personality.  I really like his personality and wish we could have his personality in the White House for generations to come if we could just change his policies.

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being very negative and 10 being very positive and 5 being neutral, I'm giving him a high 3 to a low 4.

[opebo]

Other: Didn't vote, don't regret it. Pointless gesture.

[Tender Branson]

D, but couldn´t vote as I´m from Austria.

PS: Bush´s down to 35% approval today according to Rasmussen. Normally Rasmussen shows him up by 10% against all other polls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

I didn't vote, couldn't have, would not have voted for Bush if I could even if the only alternative had been Peroutka, and do not regret that fact at all.

[MaC]

for sake of the question: D

However, I supported Badnarik more than I voted against Bush.

[AkSaber]

Option C. 

Same for me.

[Boris]

Couldn't vote, but I would have voted for Gore in 2000 and against Bush in 2004.

[tik 🪀✨]

A

I couldn't vote in 2000, but if I could have I would have voted for Bush. 2004 was the first year I could vote, and I voted against him.

[StateBoiler]

Voted for Buchanan in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004.

Didn't vote for him in 2000 cause he struck me as folksy and it seemed the only reason people liked him was he was a former President's son and they were told by the RNC establishment to vote for him. Plus, I really liked McCain. (I was not voting for a Democrat in 2000.)

Didn't vote for him in 2004 cause I thought he'd done a terrible job as President. (Didn't vote for Kerry cause I knew he was incapable of doing any better.)

[The Dowager Mod]

I voted for him for governor once and against him twice for pres and regret the first one.

[nini2287]

B if I were 18 then.

I did then and still today would have voted for Gore in 2000.
I supported Kerry in 2004 but regret that.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

I have plenty of regrets about voting for Bush, but he did come through on two fine Supreme Court Justices.  Beyond that, he has seemingly been wrong on almost every important issue of the times such as immigration, trade, the deficit, and foreign policy. 

[The Duke]

I voted for Bush, and as much as I hate the guy at this point, I cannot honestly say that Kerry or Gore would have done better.  In fact, I'm quite sure they would have done worse.  So I can't really say I regret my vote so much as I regret my options.

[Wakie]

I voted for Bush, and as much as I hate the guy at this point, I cannot honestly say that Kerry or Gore would have done better.  In fact, I'm quite sure they would have done worse.  So I can't really say I regret my vote so much as I regret my options.

Do you honestly think Kerry or Gore would have prematurely announced their support for a failed coup in Venezuela (which, if you go back, was the beginning of our problems with Chavez)?

Do you think Al Gore would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

Do you think Kerry or Gore would have allowed Congress to do whatever without challenging it with a veto or 2?

FEMA under Bill Clinton was hailed as a great success.  You would have to believe that Gore or Kerry would have recruited veterans from that team who would have handled Katrina A LOT better.

John Kerry said during the campaign that he wanted to grow the military and Bush poo-poo'd it.  Now Bush wants to grow the military.


Now I'm sure that the Supreme Court nominees would be different and you wouldn't like that but that is us have fundamental differences on politics.

But tell me what exactly you think Gore or Kerry would have done worse than Bush.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Couldn't vote in either election - but I would've voted Bush and wouldn't have regretted it.

[The Duke]

Do you honestly think Kerry or Gore would have prematurely announced their support for a failed coup in Venezuela (which, if you go back, was the beginning of our problems with Chavez)?

The coup was not the beginnning of our problems with Chavez.  After all, if we had no problems with Chavez, why would anyone support the coup?  Obviously there were problems with Chavez before the coup, or there would not have been a coup at all!

I think Chavez is a cheap demagogue and a wannabe dictator who has steadily eroded basic liberties in Venezuela.  I oppose him and I want a President that does as well, and I'd rather have a President who does the right dthing poorly than does the wrong thing well.

Do you think Al Gore would have supported the invasion of Iraq?

No, and since I supported the invasion I see no reason to think this makes Gore better.

Do you think Kerry or Gore would have allowed Congress to do whatever without challenging it with a veto or 2?

Actually, I think Congress would be even more inclined to run amok.  With a Gore or a Kerry who actively encourages their spendthrift ways, of course the budget would be in worse shape.  Never trust a Democrat to run a budget unless the Democrat's name is Bill Clinton.

FEMA under Bill Clinton was hailed as a great success.  You would have to believe that Gore or Kerry would have recruited veterans from that team who would have handled Katrina A LOT better.

I think this is a bit of fantasy.  There were two reasons Katrina was such a disaster:

1) A hurricane hit a city that was 20 feet below sea level.
2) First repsonders abandoned their posts.

FEMA can't stop either of those things.  Mike Brown is a dope, but even a managerial genius would have wilted under the circumstances.  Bush's FEMA did just fine handling three hurricanes hitting Florida in one season in 2004.  Managerial competence is not the issue, scale of the disaster is the issue and anyone who thinks Katrina would have turnd out differently if only a Democrat had been President is holding a belief based totally on faith.

Blaming Bush for Katrina is like blaming Doc Rivers for the Celtics poor win loss record.  Doc Rivers may be a crummy coach, but that isn't the reason the Celtics are losing.

John Kerry said during the campaign that he wanted to grow the military and Bush poo-poo'd it.  Now Bush wants to grow the military.

His words on the campaign trail mean nothing to me when they are contradicted by a 20 year voting history in the Senate.

Now I'm sure that the Supreme Court nominees would be different and you wouldn't like that but that is us have fundamental differences on politics.

It is not an irrelevant difference, though.  In fact, its a very important difference.

But tell me what exactly you think Gore or Kerry would have done worse than Bush.

I think taxes would be higher.  Gore campaigned against Bush's tax cuts and Kerry campaigned on repealing them.

I think the budget would be more bloated, and I think the rabid spending from the new Democratic Congress ($21 billion in earmarks on just one bill!) is proof enough that Democrats are no longer the party of Clinton and Rubin on bedget issues.  Just look at Rx drugs.  Bush's bill is bad enough, but the Democrats proposed alternative would have cost $300 billion more by their own estimates.

We'd see a resurgence of trade protectionism.  Kerry's rhetoric on trade was borderline racist.  He completed his conversion from free trader to protectionist by voting against CAFTA.  His rabid opposition to closer trade ties with India would have harmed our budding realtionship with this important country.  Our economy and diplomacy would be weakened by a President woho doesn't want to engage the world econmically and who is totally in the pocket of labor unions.

Afghanistan would be in worse shape.  Kerry talked about wiping out the opium crop, which is pretty short sighted.  Wipe out the opium and you wipe out the income of Afghan farmers, and unless you can replace that income with something you're going to find farmers suddenly more sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  High opium production is a small price to pay for peace in the hills outside Kandahar.

Things in Iraq would also be worse.  Kerry was not a strong leader, and could not have resisted pressure from his party to withdraw from Iraq.  We'd have retreated by now and Muqtada al-Sadr would already be the Supreme Leader of Iranian Manchuko.

And the courts.  But we already mentioned that.

[Hash]

George Bush reminds me of my opinion of my english teacher, first I like him, and now I wish I could kill his whole family and double screw him.

[nclib]

Option D. In fact, Bush has been an even worse President than I had feared in 2000.

[Wakie]

Do you honestly think Kerry or Gore would have prematurely announced their support for a failed coup in Venezuela (which, if you go back, was the beginning of our problems with Chavez)?

The coup was not the beginnning of our problems with Chavez.  After all, if we had no problems with Chavez, why would anyone support the coup?  Obviously there were problems with Chavez before the coup, or there would not have been a coup at all!

I think Chavez is a cheap demagogue and a wannabe dictator who has steadily eroded basic liberties in Venezuela.  I oppose him and I want a President that does as well, and I'd rather have a President who does the right dthing poorly than does the wrong thing well.

Chavez is a dictator.  But he didn't start causing problems for the US UNTIL the failed coup.  The reason for the failed coup was an attempt to export democracy.  And it failed.  And now we've got a major oil producing nation that hates our guts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, and since I supported the invasion I see no reason to think this makes Gore better.[/quote]

Well I think you are totally nuts if you support the Iraq invasion but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I think Congress would be even more inclined to run amok.  With a Gore or a Kerry who actively encourages their spendthrift ways, of course the budget would be in worse shape.  Never trust a Democrat to run a budget unless the Democrat's name is Bill Clinton.[/quote]

Umm ... Gore was Clinton's VP so I suspect he would have followed Clinton's budgetary success.  But the key point here is that Kerry/Gore would have actually veto'd some of the Congressional pork bills (if for no other reason that to spite their Republican adversaries).  Bush, on the other hand, has provided no leadership when it comes to Congress.  He has literally let them do anything they want without challenging them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is a bit of fantasy.  There were two reasons Katrina was such a disaster:

1) A hurricane hit a city that was 20 feet below sea level.
2) First repsonders abandoned their posts.

FEMA can't stop either of those things.  Mike Brown is a dope, but even a managerial genius would have wilted under the circumstances.  Bush's FEMA did just fine handling three hurricanes hitting Florida in one season in 2004.  Managerial competence is not the issue, scale of the disaster is the issue and anyone who thinks Katrina would have turnd out differently if only a Democrat had been President is holding a belief based totally on faith.

Blaming Bush for Katrina is like blaming Doc Rivers for the Celtics poor win loss record.  Doc Rivers may be a crummy coach, but that isn't the reason the Celtics are losing.
[/quote]

I call BS on this one.  Katrina was a terrible storm.  But the real disaster came in the wake of the storm when the dams broke and relief didn't come.

Relief didn't come for several reasons.

1. There was political grandstanding between Democrats and Republicans (local and national officials).  A Gore/Kerry White House eliminates that garbage.

2. There was poor management of resources by FEMA.  The veterans of Clinton FEMA would have done better I believe.  Part of this was also because Bush was on vacation when it happened.  And the day after he was at a V-J Day celebration.  Everyone knew that storm was coming.  When a major American city is evacuated most Presidents would make it a top priority to monitor the situation.

3. National Guardsmen, who typically help locals to respond, were in short supply due to overcommittment in Iraq.  A Gore admin wouldn't have been in Iraq.  A Kerry admin would have grown the military.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His words on the campaign trail mean nothing to me when they are contradicted by a 20 year voting history in the Senate.[/quote]

Oh I see, so we're going to disregard a very public plan because it doesn't help your argument.  That's ridiculous man.  I'll conceed that Dems are known for cutting back on spending on advanced military technology.  But the whole point behind Kerry arguing was that we're overcommitted militarily around the world and that the only way to ease the demand on our troops is to add more of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not an irrelevant difference, though.  In fact, its a very important difference.[/quote]

True.  And I tend to believe that if Gore/Kerry were in office Sandra Day O'Connor wouldn't have retired (I thought she was a great Justice).  And I think Gore/Kerry would have nominated a more rational Justice than Roberts but hey, I know you like him so we're never going to agree on that one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think taxes would be higher.  Gore campaigned against Bush's tax cuts and Kerry campaigned on repealing them.[/quote]

Yeah, they would be.  But then again the budget deficit wouldn't be so high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree.  The only time we've had a reasonable budget is when we had a Dem White House and a Republican Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, so here's the part were I can say "oh that is just red meat thrown to win votes".  But because I argued on a previous point that we'll just have to believe the public plans from campaigns I go with this one.  Yeah, this trade protectionism would be bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Truth be told, there's no way to wipe out the opium crop in Afghanistan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Umm ... no.  Bush is not a strong leader.  He's just a stubborn fool who refuses input from others.  Kerry would probably be in the process of pulling us out of Iraq.  But we would have wider committment from international forces.

The only plan for Iraq that I've actually heard which I like is Biden's.  But that is a debate for another thread.

[??????????]

C and I'd vote for him if he could run in 08.

[The Duke]

Do you honestly think Kerry or Gore would have prematurely announced their support for a failed coup in Venezuela (which, if you go back, was the beginning of our problems with Chavez)?

The coup was not the beginning of our problems with Chavez.  After all, if we had no problems with Chavez, why would anyone support the coup?  Obviously there were problems with Chavez before the coup, or there would not have been a coup at all!

I think Chavez is a cheap demagogue and a wannabe dictator who has steadily eroded basic liberties in Venezuela.  I oppose him and I want a President that does as well, and I'd rather have a President who does the right thing poorly than does the wrong thing well.

Chavez is a dictator.  But he didn't start causing problems for the US UNTIL the failed coup.  The reason for the failed coup was an attempt to export democracy.  And it failed.  And now we've got a major oil producing nation that hates our guts.

I don't think Chavez is causing us that much in the way of problems.  He is basically a demagogue who trashes the US for domestic consumption, but at the end of the day his power base is built on selling oil to the Americans and using the profits to bribe voters to support him with large and totally unsustainable welfare benefits.  So he sells us the oil.

This is something that doesn't get mentioned enough when talking about Venezuela: Chavez may not like us, but he is completely dependent on us and I see no reason to think he's going to stop doing the only thing we need him to do which is sell us oil, failed coup plot or not.

Do you think Kerry or Gore would have allowed Congress to do whatever without challenging it with a veto or 2?

Actually, I think Congress would be even more inclined to run amok.  With a Gore or a Kerry who actively encourages their spendthrift ways, of course the budget would be in worse shape.  Never trust a Democrat to run a budget unless the Democrat's name is Bill Clinton.

Umm ... Gore was Clinton's VP so I suspect he would have followed Clinton's budgetary success.  But the key point here is that Kerry/Gore would have actually veto'd some of the Congressional pork bills (if for no other reason that to spite their Republican adversaries).  Bush, on the other hand, has provided no leadership when it comes to Congress.  He has literally let them do anything they want without challenging them.

Bush's father was Reagan's VP, but obviously didn't follow Reagan's tax policies.  Gore wasn't going to follow Clinton's budget policies just because he had once been Clinton's VP.  His record in Congress was one of a tax hiking, big spending populist and his campaign platform was built around a series of massive government spending projects.  He'd have spent a lot of money if elected.

Given the fact that the Democratic Congress has shown themselves even more inclined to pork barrel spending than their Republican predecessors, I don't know how you can, with a straight face, continue to say that if John Kerry or Al Gore had won there would be less pork.

FEMA under Bill Clinton was hailed as a great success.  You would have to believe that Gore or Kerry would have recruited veterans from that team who would have handled Katrina A LOT better.

I think this is a bit of fantasy.  There were two reasons Katrina was such a disaster:

1) A hurricane hit a city that was 20 feet below sea level.
2) First responders abandoned their posts.

FEMA can't stop either of those things.  Mike Brown is a dope, but even a managerial genius would have wilted under the circumstances.  Bush's FEMA did just fine handling three hurricanes hitting Florida in one season in 2004.  Managerial competence is not the issue, scale of the disaster is the issue and anyone who thinks Katrina would have turned out differently if only a Democrat had been President is holding a belief based totally on faith.

Blaming Bush for Katrina is like blaming Doc Rivers for the Celtics poor win loss record.  Doc Rivers may be a crummy coach, but that isn't the reason the Celtics are losing.

I call BS on this one.  Katrina was a terrible storm.  But the real disaster came in the wake of the storm when the dams broke and relief didn't come.

Relief didn't come for several reasons.

1. There was political grandstanding between Democrats and Republicans (local and national officials).  A Gore/Kerry White House eliminates that garbage.

2. There was poor management of resources by FEMA.  The veterans of Clinton FEMA would have done better I believe.  Part of this was also because Bush was on vacation when it happened.  And the day after he was at a V-J Day celebration.  Everyone knew that storm was coming.  When a major American city is evacuated most Presidents would make it a top priority to monitor the situation.

3. National Guardsmen, who typically help locals to respond, were in short supply due to overcommittment in Iraq.  A Gore admin wouldn't have been in Iraq.  A Kerry admin would have grown the military.

You're right that Bush was at a V-J Day celebration, and had he been on TV warning people he would have been seen much differently.  In fact, I think this was his key mistake in the storm.  Had he been on TV and at the White House, he'd have looked fine, but he was at a barbecue, so he looked bad.  But to me, this is a perception issue, not a substantive one.  If Bush had been on TV telling everyone to get out of New Orleans, would anything have turned out differently?  I don't think so, and I don't think anyone who wasn't persuaded by the Mayor and Governor to leave was not going to be persuaded by the President.

I've already said I don't believe for a second that a Kerry administration would have grown the military.

Only a small portion of the Louisiana National Guard was Iraq.

Governor Blanco did not, in my view, refuse to Federalize the Guard for partisan regions as much as regional ones.  Southern Governors are typically slower to Federalize the Guard than Governors from other regions.  This is true regardless of party.  And even if the Governor of Louisiana did refuse to Federalize the Guard because of her party, is that really an argument against Bush or an argument against Blanco?  I think its an argument against Blanco and an argument that Bush was less responsible for what happened than you think he is.

Most people who work for FEMA are career civil servants without a loyalty to any administration, and these civil servants remained essentially the same people who staffed FEMA under Clinton.

Bush's FEMA was just fine at handling hurricanes in Florida.  They didn't get the "incompetent" label until Katrina.  The reason they looked incompetent after Katrina is because Katrina was such a massive catastrophe that it could not have ended well no matter who was President.

Here's the thing, and there's really no way around it: If Bush's people were so incompetent, why is it that there was no sign of incompetence at FEMA until Katrina?  There were plenty of disasters that could have exposed incompetence before Katrina, but no such thing happened.  Why did everything work fine for over four years until Katrina if these guys were incompetent at disaster management all along?

John Kerry said during the campaign that he wanted to grow the military and Bush poo-poo'd it.  Now Bush wants to grow the military.

His words on the campaign trail mean nothing to me when they are contradicted by a 20 year voting history in the Senate.

Oh I see, so we're going to disregard a very public plan because it doesn't help your argument.  That's ridiculous man.  I'll conceed that Dems are known for cutting back on spending on advanced military technology.  But the whole point behind Kerry arguing was that we're overcommitted militarily around the world and that the only way to ease the demand on our troops is to add more of them.

I disregard what I believe to be a blatant lie whose only purpose is to make a candidate who is weak on defense nominated by a party that is weak on defense and who is running in the middle of a war look like he is not weak on defense.

Don't watch what they say, watch what they do.

If Kerry had a long record of being a Sam Nunn on defense issues, he'd be credible when proposing a larger military.  But he does not have Sam Nunn's record, and I have to believe he was making a promise he had no intention of keeping.

And for the record, Bush is wrong not to enlarge the military after 9/11.

The computer is telling me my response is too long, so part II is in the next post.