Replies

Thank you, Pukin Dog, for saying exactly what needed to be said. Yes, we should criticize shortcomings in our leaders, and you are right that there are responsible ways of doing this, such as throwing out duds in the primaries. I suppose there are some people out there who genuinely believe the Democratic Party's platform on immigration, Iraq, judicial activism, and a host of other issues are a better alternative. Reasonable people do change their minds. However, I have a very hard time that most of the people on this forum bashing Bush for not supporting every point of the conservative agenda actually have changed their values in the course of half a presidential term. By pledging their votes to a party that stands for the exact opposite of their values, they are essentially doing nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum. Yet, they criticize Bush and his party for abandoning their principles. If that isn't a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black...

Kudos also for compiling your list of our president's MANY accomplishments. It certainly refutes the notion that Bush has done absolutely nothing while in office.

Yes, everyone is getting tired of hearing about terrorism and national security as a justification for policies they disagree with. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that we are at WAR. That doesn't mean we should foreclose all criticism of bad policy. However, our MAIN GOAL needs to be national security.

It is indisputable that there have been no further acts of terror on his watch that compare with September 11. Does anyone really think September 11 was intended as a grand finale? Of course not, it intended as a harbinger of atrocities to come. Al Queda most certainly plans further acts of bloodshed.

One fact is undeniable: the Democrats still have NO coherent national security plan. Just last week I read an article quoting Senator Feingold (my own senator). The character of his remarks were that the Dems needed a game plan in this arena if they wanted to make electoral strides. NEED a plan? Why don't they HAVE one already. September 11 occurred almost FIVE YEARS ago. I understand that as a minority party, they might fairly expect that where their plan diverged from that of the Republicans, they would not be able to implement it. But is that an excuse for waiting nearly FIVE YEARS to THINK about the most important issue on the national agenda? Do we really want them to take both houses because Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and then just sort of "wing it" in coming up with something once they're there? Because that is exactly where this country is headed.

Not everyone agrees with Bush's national security policies. (I have a separate post on why the allegations of a phone database do NOT violate civil liberties on another thread - I think the thread name starts out "Second Phone Company..." or the like; exposing another MISREPRESENTATION by Bush's critics - but I won't repeat it here in the interests of staying on point. I invite you to check it out). However, I highly doubt that Al Queda has voluntarily waited almost FIVE YEARS after beginning an attack for another "skirmish." Although, I doubt given the nature of our enemy that any administration could promise to avert every catastrophic attack, the fact that no new violence has occurred is most likely because under President Bush's watch, attempts thus far have been THWARTED.

During my third year of law school, I had to fly for job interviews. My flight date was September 12, 2002. You can imagine how well I slept the night before. But a strange thing happened. Nothing happened. Someone was doing his job to protect our country.

I am not a party zealot. I've voted for Dems before. I'll probably vote for other Dems in my lifetime, depending on whether they choose to focus on issues other than institutionalizing moral bankruptcy and debauchery. The first two times I voted for president, I chose Clinton and Gore. But I changed my mind in 2004 because President Bush EARNED my admiration and respect. I feel safer with him in the Oval Office than with anyone else.

Followers don't take unpopular stands, particularly when their party commands obedience (e.g., "do everything we want, or we'll vote for other people who most certainly won't"). They constantly monitor public opinion polls and leave all the controversial issues and hard decisions for better men. I don't want a yes man in the Oval Office. I want a leader, and whether you like what Bush is doing or not, he's sticking his neck out.

I think a lot of Republicans spewing Bush-hating rhetoric are angry at him for not being a party goon. They thought since he occasionally says cute, unsophisticated, and (to be perfectly honest) occasionally unstatesmanlike words like "misunderestimated" and "Decider" that he was some kind of man-child puppet they could push around. Instead they got a man with Truman's decisiveness who does what HE thinks is best for the country.

Bush does not want to represent just the Republican Party. He wants to represent all of America. Pukin Dog is absolutely right. The idea that by reaching across party lines on a few issues he is nothing but a people pleaser is ridiculous. His position on many others has not even flinched since his election (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment). For people to imply that he deserves NO respect for what he's done for our country is a great disservice to a greater man.