George W. Bush - now and then...

[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.

[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.

[Wakie]

Chavez
He's happily driving up the price of oil by withholding sales to the US and selling to India and China.  He's far from dependent on us.


Gore/Bush Taxes & Budgets
Well, conservatives on here are fond of pointing out that HW Bush was pushed into breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.  The simple truth is that Reagan took the top tax bracket down from 70% to 33%.  There really isn't that much more to amend the income tax system.

I don't know how you can honestly believe that a Democratic President and Republican Congress would cooperate to spend more than a single party government (especially one where the President NEVER veto'd a single bill).  If you honestly believe that you are either stubbornly partisan OR totally mad.


Katrina
When the White House finally dumped Michael Brown is when things turned around.  If the President hadn't been vacationing that would have happened sooner.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the size of the military.  Personally I think you are being stubbornly partisan in refusing to believe that Kerry would have done it.

Regardless of whether the lack of cooperation between federal and state officials was Bush's fault or Blanco's fault ... it happened.  And it probably wouldn't have happened if Kerry were in office OR if a Republican had been Gov of LA.  It is what it is.

The difference between administrations effects on FEMA is at the top.  It is in leadership and coordination between officials.


Kerry Growing the Military
Again, I think you are being blatantly obstinent.  So you don't believe Kerry would have enlarged the military.  So what do you think he would have done regarding Iraq?  His stated policy was not to pull out but rather to share the committment with international forces.  It is no skin off his nose to grow the military now that he is Commander-in-Chief.

If you actually go back throw the votes, Kerry voted against new weapons systems but he never votes against enlarging the military.


Tax Policy's Impact On Deficits
In order to have a significant impact on the economy with tax policy you have to make a dramatic cut that has broad impact (such as moving the top tax bracket down almost 40%).  Bush's slight raise didn't cause the recession.  The recession came from the long-term deficits raising interest rates.  The greatest economic minds of our time, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, George Akerlof, etc all agree that long-term deficits are bad.


Afghan Opium Crop Destruction
You argue that Kerry wouldn't grow military but you do think he would try to destroy the opium crop.  Ok, there simply is no way America can actually destroy the entire opium crop.  Even if we wanted to do that we'd have to get the agreement of the Afghan government and they would argue against it.


Wider Committment of Other Nations in Iraq
The reason why Kerry would be able to get wider international support is because he wanted to open up the rebuilding contracts to international firms.  If there is no economic reason to support a project, why would you expect foreign powers to put their troops behind it?

[Wakie]

Lets look at it this way.  When you don't control Congress it is very easy to say that you are the party of smaller government.  But over the last 12 years the Republicans have, despite their pledges to the contrary, grown government.  Nonmilitary, nonhomeland security discretionary spending grew by record levels under the Bush administration.  Much faster than under Clinton.

Both parties are the party of bigger government.