Not in the mood for a big battle here but I was curious as to the "hero" status of George W on this board and if most of you still have him up on your highest pedestal. Be truthful if you are going to take the time to respond.
I've been a Republican for 26 years now and I've never heard another Republican refer to George W. Bush as a "hero." I'm not sure where you got that. It doesn't even sound like the way Republicans talk. We don't just pull PT-109s out of our arse like that other party... He was always better than the Democrats and usually the most conservative choice that I could find, even though I realized that he wasn't a true conservative. He was just the best available alternative. That's why I voted for him and its why I would vote for him again, although I continue to seek someone further to the right... ..........JO'Co
As Jim said, he was never a "hero" to me. What he was to me was the best of the two alternatives I was given to choose from, by far. I think he is an average guy who had an incredible set of circumstances thrown at him almost instantly and had virtually no time to work into his job. I think he is principled and steadfast, to a fault. Unlike his predecessor who treated his 8 years like one long frat party and whom you never knew from one minute to the next exactly what he stood for, Bush has never waivered from his positions for an instant. That places him in stark contrast to the "if it feels good do it" tenor that Bill Clinton established. I've always thought that is why the liberal Hollywood crowd and those like them hate Bush so much... he's given them one less place to party. I would rate him as an average president on policy but given the unique circumstances he's served in, there was no one better for the job at the time.
Hero? <t>Not at all.<br/> <br/> I will give this to W.<br/> <br/> He dealt with a very unique and terrible situation in a manner that I still believe was the best choice for the US.<br/> <br/> I believe he is too soft at times. I don't believe he is a real political conservative as the others have stated. I do give W kudos for the handling of 9-11.<br/> <br/> Its been a long time since the disparity between the economic and employment figures varied so much from what was being reported in the media. I do believe when all is said and done, "W" will be considered a 'good' President but not a great one.<br/> <br/> In his term, he:<br/> <br/> -Inherited an economy that was on the downside of a boom<br/> -Faced attacks on US mainland soil and the threat of possible catostrophic attacks in the future.<br/> -The worst Hurricane to hit the US in 100 years.<br/> -Oh yes, and he did this all without the cooperation of the other party who absolutely REFUSED to cooperate throughout his terms.<br/> <br/> Either way, he was a whole helluva lot better choice than Gore or Kerry</t>
I think that one of the things that W was able to do as a governor was to work with the opposition party, and he thought that it would happen as President. I think that our legislature is absolutely beyond hope regarding working together (both parties, not just the Dems). If our County Commissioners and City Council acted like our partisan Senators and Congressmen, there would be no hope for our city or county.
I will give Bush high marks for his resolve and rapid response to 9-11 by the swift and aggressive steps taken to get Al-Queda in Afghanistan. However, was this more reactive when Bush and Rice could have more proactive.....re: Clark, etc... He inherited a stock market that had already begun to implode and it did continue but then he presided over it's recovery to where it had been before essentially...which is a good thing but I don't know how skillful that was or was it natural to recover from those depths. Then there was Iraq and the sharp criticisms from so many former insiders of Bush and his inner circle of policy makers ( which seemed to get smaller with defections). I haven't been aware of anyone who came out of that circle saying they were happy with the policy in Iraq and the results of that policy. By most accounts from all sources it has been a costly disaster. It is the number one thing that cost Republicans control of Congress. Now Bush wants 100 billion more for the toilet that has become Iraq. Democracy planting in the Middle East has proven to be a farming endeavor using infertile soil.
It's all about oil. Our dependency on foreign sources for energy will always dictate our involvement in military actions overseas. It is as simple as that. Oil is the one commodity that we need from others. We refuse to harvest our own resources or to commit to alternative types of energy. Our own environmentlists, in league with the limousine liberals, have stymied most attempts to drill. Iraq, first and foremeost, gave us another foothold in thel rich yet volatile area of the world. It hasn't worked out... yet. When we are no longer dependent on foreign sources for energy then we can pursue a more isolationist position in the world.