Another Question for Liberals (This one is about Bush)

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardner:
I do not think Bush has the degree of self-awareness it takes for me to consider him a horrible person. Many consider him as a cold and calculated actor who adopts a personna in order to capitalize on the anti-intellectual sentiment in much of this country, but if this is so, I say give him the Oscar. When a person asks him a question and he scrunches up his face trying to remember what he is supposed to say and then delivers his line in such ponderous and akward fashion right before puffing out his chest in that bandy and vaguely thuggish little way of his that says "Look -- I did it!" he seems more like a child to me than the leader of this country. My reaction to him is almost visceral in that he reminds me entirely too much of some of the boys I would just as soon forget from the fifth grade.

Of course, that's just my reaction to his style.

I would say from the standpont of liberality, he is a disaster, but instead of focussing on foreign policy as so many are apt to do, I find his oligarchic economic policy to be the chief concern. I see the POTUS as responsible for ensuring that niggling little provision in the preamble in regards to "promoting the general welfare", and IMO, that means doing that which benefits the most people and in the fairest way possible. I do not really want a return to the days of the robber barons, myself, and if I ask myself the question "what do the terms "liberal" and "conservative" really mean?", my answer usually falls along the lines of what the heck it is that conservatives wish to conserve? What they wish to conserve is the social order and especially its institutions, and I see Bush policy as wrenching us back in time many decades in that regard. He grew up priveleged -- VERY priveleged, and in his role as POTUS, he has sought to undue many of the advances achieved over the last 70 years in terms of slicing up that economic piece of pie and providing for the general welfare that at one time led us to the sort of prosperity where we really could call ourselves a middle class society. Those days are no more, and even though I don't consider him an evil man for placing the needs of his immediate social class above the needs of his country, I do hold him responsible.

Very well said.

I like the part about "what do conservatives want to conserve". Even though I am a liberal, lets not let my group off the hook. To be fair, could ask your "conservative" question to the liberal group as to what we think were "liberalizing" (in a sense). That's not the exact words I want to use. I hope you get my point. There's got to be some roads the left is going down a little too far on, or maybe on roads we shouldn't even be on. What are they?

 

[Gardener]

Very well said.

I like the part about "what do conservatives want to conserve". Even though I am a liberal, lets not let my group off the hook. To be fair, could ask your "conservative" question to the liberal group as to what we think were "liberalizing" (in a sense). That's not the exact words I want to use. I hope you get my point. There's got to be some roads the left is going down a little too far on, or maybe on roads we shouldn't even be on. What are they?

Thanks, Billo.

I guess my way of looking at it, is that if conservatism can lead to the conservation of institutions that are chauvenistic in some way -- sexist, racist, classist, religiously exclusionary etc., then they are preserving that which goes against some pretty important values I hold dear. Liberality, by contrast, can fail in being TOO ready to toss out institutions, if there is little regards to values. THe baby is tossed out with the bathwater so to speak.

I consider the whole postmodern/ moral relativist nature of so much leftist rhetorec today is an abrogation of liberal values in that it actually does away with values rather than doing away intitutions so as to pursue values. Liberality has always been built upon morality -- a morality different than conservative morality, perhaps, but morality nevertheless -- but I see the increasing degree with which leftists adopt contradictory positions and then fall back upon the easy rationalizations offered through their flippant claim that a sense of right and wrong is an artificial construct as being indicative of a person on that road you mentioned.

I like to keep in mind the diference between a liberal and a leftist, myself, and the difference to me that a liberal is a liberal because they support liberal values, while leftists base their attitudes on doctrine. I can think of no better case in point than the way we perceive the middle east. How do we view the Mullahs? How do we view human rights in Arab and Islamic countries in regards to women or Gay people? The road far too many people on the left take is to fail to address the systematic human rights abuses inherent in these societies and to adopt one position when it comes to this country or western europe, but act as an apologist when it happens in the Arab world.

An enemy of one's enemy is not their friend, and the degree of aplogia for Islamist totalitarianism among the left is indicative of people who have lost sight of values.

Who knows, but whether I might now be considered a conservative, for what I wish to conserve is liberal values. The irony does not escape me.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

What is the point of this poll?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Wait a minute, he united the muslim world for the first time in a thousand years!

Even that's not 100%.There is what many would call Civil War in Iraq between the Shia and Sunnis Muslims.

 

[Caine]

Even that's not 100%.There is what many would call Civil War in Iraq between the Shia and Sunnis Muslims.

You'd never get a die hard conservative to agree with you on that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardner:
Thanks, Billo.

I guess my way of looking at it, is that if conservatism can lead to the conservation of institutions that are chauvenistic in some way -- sexist, racist, classist, religiously exclusionary etc., then they are preserving that which goes against some pretty important values I hold dear. Liberality, by contrast, can fail in being TOO ready to toss out institutions, if there is little regards to values. THe baby is tossed out with the bathwater so to speak.

I consider the whole postmodern/ moral relativist nature of so much leftist rhetorec today is an abrogation of liberal values in that it actually does away with values rather than doing away intitutions so as to pursue values. Liberality has always been built upon morality -- a morality different than conservative morality, perhaps, but morality nevertheless -- but I see the increasing degree with which leftists adopt contradictory positions and then fall back upon the easy rationalizations offered through their flippant claim that a sense of right and wrong is an artificial construct as being indicative of a person on that road you mentioned.

I like to keep in mind the diference between a liberal and a leftist, myself, and the difference to me that a liberal is a liberal because they support liberal values, while leftists base their attitudes on doctrine. I can think of no better case in point than the way we perceive the middle east. How do we view the Mullahs? How do we view human rights in Arab and Islamic countries in regards to women or Gay people? The road far too many people on the left take is to fail to address the systematic human rights abuses inherent in these societies and to adopt one position when it comes to this country or western europe, but act as an apologist when it happens in the Arab world.

An enemy of one's enemy is not their friend, and the degree of aplogia for Islamist totalitarianism among the left is indicative of people who have lost sight of values.

Who knows, but whether I might now be considered a conservative, for what I wish to conserve is liberal values. The irony does not escape me.

That was pretty good. I do agree one must be consistant with their views. Hypocrisy has no place anywhere. Whereas I am against this entire invasion of Iraq, I do agree with conservatives that they [Iraq] had an oppressive regime that needed to go. But the way we went about it, flying in the face of world opinion without the backing of the UNSC, is against my moral principles. And it is also against the principles of real Americans.

A wrong, is a wrong. No matter who commits it, it is still a wrong. I'm not going to condone liberals when they want to do away with certain institutions due to some cause. That doesn't help anyone. Working with the other side by keeping the lines of communication open, I think, is the way to go. Differences need to be aired, then settled. Or at the very least, find some common ground worth building on.

Good post, Gardner.

 

[fingerdance]

Garner, I would like to prefice by letting you know that I enjoy reading your threads. I find what I have read so far as insightful and considerate.

Garner: "I do not think Bush has the degree of self-awareness it takes for me to consider him a horrible person."...and..."if conservatism can lead to the conservation of institutions that are chauvenistic in some way -- sexist, racist, classist, religiously exclusionary etc., then they are preserving that which goes against some pretty important values I hold dear."

Garner perception of Shrub as more or less imbecile could also reasonably be percieved as designed, as conducive to an agenda if that agenda were not pro-American national interest. Shrub is fourth generation of the ilk that consider themselves above the rest. Three prior generations of the Bush clan, Samuel Prescott Bush, (dominate of munitions and small weapons in World War I), Prescott Sheldon Bush, (War seizures controversy, financier to war time municians WWII, wartime slave labor exploitation, Silesian-American Corporation, retracted claims to war heroics, etc. etc. ad nauseum), George Hebert Walker Bush, (business ventures with the Carlyle Group, a private equity funding war munitions, close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia)... are on record having subscribed to an elitist doctrine where members are given code names, call themselves "Knights," and simultaneously call everyone else in the world at large "barbarians". Set their clocks intentionally five minutes ahead of the rest of the world, to give an ongoing sense that their space is a totally separate world--and a world just a bit ahead of the curve of the rest of the "barbarians" outside.

This man is the fudiciary of American individual autonomy which is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. His family's wealth for 3 generations is funded by globalism and war profiteering. George senior is overtly the poster child for the "New World Order". The "Bush" historical agenda is that of service to the global elite, war profiteering and globalism. Shrub's policies have manifest in actions and processes that contribute consistently to each.

When a fudiciary's conduct is in conflict with fudiciary responsibilities that fudiciary is in violation. When that is the American president it is criminality at its most severe.

 

[Goobieman]

Lets see...
Comments by liberals re: Bush:
-Shrub is fourth generation of the ilk that consider themselves above the rest.
-I do not think Bush has the degree of self-awareness it takes for me to consider him a horrible person.
-He is the co-source of all evil in the modern world. He shares the source of all evil with Castro, Osama, Hamas, Putin, Al-Zarqawi, and others.
-Bush is a moron, he's incompetent and he's an idiot.
-You can't blame someone stupid for doing stupid things, he doesn't know any better.
-My image of Bush is as a nice puppy dog...and he looks for American people to Poop on.

Comments by conservatives re: Clinton:-He seems like a decent guy. I'd probably get along with him alright, if we stayed away from politics.
-he is a despicable person
-the morals of an alley cat...But, that being said, I do think he was one of our better presidents.
-Bill Clinton is a very intelligent man but he is a man of flawed moral character
-I believe Clinton, although he crossed a few moral lines, he was a fantastic president
-He was an intelligent but weak man who let himself be brought down for a quick thrill and then broke the law trying to cover it up
-As a taxpayer, I disliked Clinton, as a fellow poonhound, I loved him, as a married man, I was disgusted,

Conclusion:
It would seem that judging by this poll and its counterpart for conservatives, that while conservatives, at least on this board, can reasonably hold a person accountable for his mistakes and yet appreciate, at least to some degree, what he was able to accomplish - whereas liberals have little more than extreme ad hominen attacks.

Apparently, one side almost universally recognizes that reasonable and decent people can disagree on a variety of issues. A significant number on the other side does not seem to be able to do so.

 

[Kandahar]

Conclusion:
It would seem that judging by this poll and its counterpart for conservatives, that while conservatives, at least on this board, can reasonably hold a person accountable for his mistakes and yet appreciate, at least to some degree, what he was able to accomplish - whereas liberals have little more than extreme ad hominen attacks.

Apparently, one side almost universally recognizes that reasonable and decent people can disagree on a variety of issues. A significant number on the other side does not seem to be able to do so.

If you limit it to those two individuals, your conclusion would be correct. However the sharp distinction this draws with the polls asking about liberalism/conservatism in general makes me think that there's something else in play here.

Why is it that liberals seem to just consider conservatives to be mistaken but hate Bush, while conservatives seem to hate liberals as a whole but not Clinton specifically? The obvious conclusion is that the contempt most liberals feel for Bush has little to do with his political ideology. I know that that isn't one of the primary reasons I hate him. I hate him because he's a demagogue, he's an incompetent executive, he's simple-minded, and he's a liar. The fact that he's a populist Republican is wayyyyy down on the list.

 

[fingerdance]

If you limit it to those two individuals, your conclusion would be correct.

The assumption that I am a liberal is in question. Only because the definition of the terms liberal and conservative have more or less reversed over the past few decades. I consider myself a constitutional purist or one who would have the Constitution conserved. I also would like to see the federal government reduced to and focused on its original mandates, common defense & interstate commerce, void of its present prostrate attempts at social engineering and resource pandering. So "If you limit it to those two individuals, your conclusion would be..." WRONG.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Goobieman,

Damn you beat me to the punch!

Conclusion:
It would seem that judging by this poll and its counterpart for conservatives, that while conservatives, at least on this board, can reasonably hold a person accountable for his mistakes and yet appreciate, at least to some degree, what he was able to accomplish - whereas liberals have little more than extreme ad hominen attacks.

Apparently, one side almost universally recognizes that reasonable and decent people can disagree on a variety of issues. A significant number on the other side does not seem to be able to do so.

Nice post!

Kandahar,

Why is it that liberals seem to just consider conservatives to be mistaken but hate Bush, while conservatives seem to hate liberals as a whole but not Clinton specifically? The obvious conclusion is that the contempt most liberals feel for Bush has little to do with his political ideology. I know that that isn't one of the primary reasons I hate him. I hate him because he's a demagogue, he's an incompetent executive, he's simple-minded, and he's a liar. The fact that he's a populist Republican is wayyyyy down on the list.

I suppose that's a start. Could you tell me why you think this way?

 

[Goobieman]

If you limit it to those two individuals, your conclusion would be correct.

Given those two are all the farther the polls go...

Why is it that liberals seem to just consider conservatives to be mistaken but hate Bush, while conservatives seem to hate liberals as a whole but not Clinton specifically? The obvious conclusion is that the contempt most liberals feel for Bush has little to do with his political ideology.

Its pretty apparant from the comments here that their hate - and it IS actual hate that they have - for Bush is very personal.
Why it is so personal for them? Beats me. I hate to even guess.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Its pretty apparant from the commesnt here that their hate for Bush is very personal.
Why it is so personal for them? Beats me. I hate to even guess.

"Personal!" Is this a joke? I don't even know George Bush the "person". All I have to go on is George Bush the President. The only facts I have to evaluate, and from which to draw conclusions from, are is (on the job) actions in office.

"Personal"............give me a break!

 

[Billo_Really]

George Bush is a corporate bitch, doing what he is told like a good little whore!

 

[Kandahar]

I suppose that's a start. Could you tell me why you think this way?

Its pretty apparant from the comments here that their hate - and it IS actual hate that they have - for Bush is very personal.
Why it is so personal for them? Beats me. I hate to even guess.

It's certainly not "personal," in that I would feel differently if some other individual made the same decisions while in the White House. But nor is it ideological...at least not primarily.

My problems with Bush are, in rough order of offensiveness:

1. Lying to start a major war that will impact the world long after he leaves office.

2. Not standing his ground...except when it's a mistake to do so. He capitulated to the left on social security, education, and prescription drugs, but held his ground on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and not allowing Rumsfeld to resign. In every one of those cases, he did exactly the opposite of what he should have done.

3. The sleazy, petty way he runs his administration. Leaking the name of a CIA operative in retaliation for criticism by her husband, undermining a top general in retaliation for the suggestion that we'd need more troops, etc.

4. The way he has expanded nearly every aspect of the federal government...while being the most incompetent administrator since Herbert Hoover.

5. His simple-minded beliefs that leave no room for nuance. Bush believes "democracies are peaceful" without qualification...therefore our foreign policy is to make more democracies by whatever means necessary. Bush believes "tax cuts are good" without qualification...therefore our monstrous deficits are brushed aside.

Of course, I have some very serious policy differences with Bush as well. But these are the things that offend me the most.

 

[fingerdance]

It's certainly not "personal," in that I would feel differently if some other individual made the same decisions while in the White House. But nor is it ideological...at least not primarily.

5. His simple-minded beliefs that leave no room for nuance. Bush believes "democracies are peaceful" without qualification...therefore our foreign policy is to make more democracies by whatever means necessary.

I take issue with above statement and it is more than just semantics. I suggest that Bush doesn't believe that "democracies are peaceful", the Bush power machine has demonstrated that the American people can be sold that "democracies are peaceful". That the US proletariat will support and even take pride in perpetuating the expansion of democratic republics in the world as an alternative to tyranny. When the American people buy it who profits?

The Bush family's greatest benefactor are the Saudis. Their financial history is in war profiteering. Their partners in war profiteering are Saudis. Saddam Hussein threatened both Saudi power and wealth. This threat was overt before the Saudi power base. The House of Saud had to respond because without the specter of absolute power before their people they would fall from power from within. With their fall the transfer of wealth will leave the status quo sucking hind teat.

The problem... how to get the American people motivated to exact Saudi revenge?

One possibility...

If one desires to get someone riled up but does not want to suffer repercussions, turn off the lights, slap them up beside the head, let them see you turn on the lights and tell them it was a common enemy that just charged out of the room and that enemy is on its way to hurt their family. Time is of the essence so they don't have time to think and they had better believe and respond or the innocent will suffer.

That scenario doesn't strike me as the product of a simpleton and yet that is exactly what has happened whether it be predictable reliable or coincidence.

Do I dislike Bush? Yes
Am I a liberal? No
Is it personnel? I don't know, should it be personal when your country's progeny are being scarred and slaughtered for an insincere cause? When the ideas the make a nation proud are being prostituted for the personal gain of a few? I don't know. Is it reasonable to take that personal?

Don't get me wrong, I believe we needed to go to war but we hit the wrong target and by doing so we are in for a protracted, resource exhausting, economy destroying, isolation perpetuating, future destroying campaign.

Yeah I don't like Bush at all. I consider him an arrogant talking head of a gang of disingenuous, greedy, advantage seeking, morally bankrupt, focused hypocrites that would pimp out their own mothers for little more personal comfort.

 

[Hoot]

Yeah I don't like Bush at all. I consider him an arrogant talking head of a gang of disingenuous, greedy, advantage seeking, morally bankrupt, focused hypocrites that would pimp out their own mothers for little more personal comfort.

Yeah, but how do you really feel about Bush?

Just kidding around...since that was your 5th post, allow me to say welcome to the forums.

 

[Alastor]

I think he's a pretty terrible human being, for tons of reasons.

I think he's easily the worst President of my lifetime as well.

Two different failures of titanic proportion when it comes to me... And both achieved by the same person.

At least he goes balls out.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
while conservatives, at least on this board, can reasonably hold a person accountable for his mistakes

Don't be saying this before I've had a chance to pull up my pant legs. Hold a person accountable for their mistakes? 55,000 people have died because of faulty intelligence and special interest, I don't see you holding the responsible people accountable for these actions.