The some are wrong. No political leader is perfect nor do I support someone in lockstep regardless of what they do. I voted for GWB twice, contributed monetarily to his campaigns, and worked as a volunteer. On balance, I am very happy with Bush's performance, especially on the big issue of national security and the WOT.
His positions on SS reform, tax reduction, and PBA may pan out to be good, but non-implemented intentions.
Bush has not been afraid to tackle the hard issues, like SS reform, the so-called "third rail" of American politics. The dialogue has begun in earnest. The status quo is not an option. I just hope that Bush or the next President doesn't arrive at the same kind of solution that Reagan accepted in 1983. Bush has already reduced the tax rates, now we have to make them permanent. If you mean by PBA, partial birth abortions, then Bush has started down the right road signing a bill in 2003 baning them, but there are legal obstacles to overcome.
With respect to "Kyoto," President Bush is advancing a modified version of that - good modifications, IMO, in the form of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
Bush was right on Kyoto and now the UK and the rest of Europe are coming to that conclusion based on data demonstrating the ecomonic affects on their countries. Leaving India and China out of such an agreement was nonsense and so is the global warming assumption that man can control the climate cycles. The Asia-Pacific Partnership is more political than anything else. The GOP must come up with something to show that it has an alternative to Kyoto. The 2006 elections are coming up. A number of Reps feel vulnerable on the environment, which is why Anwar was recently pulled from the budget bill.
The political spectrum defies simple definition. I see President Bush as a big government guy. But he is compassionate.
Disagree. There are substantive and key issues that define one's standing on the political spectrum. I don't see Bush as a big government guy, but rather, a victim of circumstances.
9/11 prompted a huge surge in spending. Initially, Bush was against the formation of DHS and bringing tens of thousands of airport screeners on to the federal payroll. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan prompted major spending overseas as well as building up our defenses at home as part of the WOT. There were also rebuilding costs associated with 9/11.
Bush already had plans to rebuild the US military, which had declined under Clinton and the peace dividend. He also made education and prescription drugs priorities, mainly to take those issues away from the Dems. Those were mistakes in my view, but he was reelected.
The impact of Katrina and Rita will be will us for years to come. It will cost a lot of money. Bush cannot control events like hurricanes. Katrina was the worst natural disaster ever to hit this country. Only "big government" can deal with disasters of this scale.
Bush also had to deal with a recession when he took office, which prompted tax cuts and reduced revenues initially increasing the deficit. That has been turned around.
Are you in favor of CAFTA?
Yes
The notion to form a DHS predates 9/11 by years. I don't know Bush's position vis-a-vis the combining of departments. That is, he may have agreed with management structure changes in general, but objected only to federalizing of airport security employees. Whatever objections President Bush had at the time seem to have evaporated with time and experience.
Anyway, I don't see President Bush as a strong advocate for reducing the size of the federal government. Victim of circumstances or not, the record of spending and advocating federal programs speaks for itself.