It's the economy stupid!

It's the war stupid!

The war is a problem. But watching the tracking polls, the anti-war sentiment has been softening as a genuine and lasting success in Iraq more and more appears to be a possibility.

We will see in November, won't we.

Yes. Usually the matter is pretty well settled by this time but it came right down to the wire in the last election and is likely to be the same in this one.

My heartfelt wish is that people would set aside their partisan prejudices and honestly look at the issues. List them. And understanding that a president can only lead, he can't actually DO anything about issues, decide which one holds the preferred convictions and let that determine the vote. Sadly too many focus on one thing and not the sum total of what must concern a president.

Foxfyre,

You need to understand that many people are very upset with Bush, not because of "partisan prejudices", but because we feel like he is very, very wrong on some important issues.

I am furious with Bush for several reasons...

- The war in Iraq.
- His conduct in the war on terrorism.
- His tax policy.

Now these are issues that we can (and do) debate. But here I want you to understand that to me and to many of us, his views are disasterous for the country I want to live in.

When I say I am "furious", this is not a partisan issue. I am furious because Bush opposes the very things that I love about my country. Bushes actions and rhetoric go against the core of my beliefs.

The strong visceral anger you note against Bush is not partisan. It is real and it is based on real issues.

When you try explaining away this anger against Bush as "partisan prejudices" you miss the whole point.

Many Americans believe that Bush is leading America in a very wrong direction that is costing lives, billions of dollars and the very honor of the United States. Americans who believe this will understandably oppose Bush on principle.

Of course you will disagree with this viewpoint. You should understand where we are coming from. Your plea is somewhat out of place in this context.

Well said, ebrown_p

She defines partisanship, it is difficult for her to acknowledge these things.

Just as she will not acknowledge that pinning the job loss on 9/11 is a theory and not a fact.

But the very reason's you site for being upset with him, make others more aligned with him.

- The war in Iraq.
- His conduct in the war on terrorism.
- His tax policy.

These things have defined his presidency and are most likely the things that will win or lose his re-election.

Indeed, but I think his point was that not everyone has some blind partisan hatred for Bush. Foxfyre tends to write off anyone who criticizes Bush that way.

It's a straw man tactic, use the liberal's idiots (caricatures) to write off the less partisan's objections.

ebrown says those are issues that people can disagree on, but the point was that it is not mere partisanship.

If the economy is as good as it was when before Bush took office then you are right we no longer can use that against him.

I agree with e brown on all the reasons to not vote for George Bush.

I understand why foxfrye and others think that the left are just being partisan because our guy is not in office. Though that over simplifies it.

It is because the left was mostly silent for so long after 9/11. Now it is as though a dam has burst and the town is flooded with pent up resentment and real anger over the way our country is heading. I think our leaders are more angry at themselves for allowing it all to happen without hardly a peep in protest until after the fact. And we are angry at our democratic leaders for being such sheep and not listening to us. And we are not going to allow that to happen again. That is why we are protesting this reagan circus so much, we are afraid that in all the hoopla the democratic leaders will start beding over again for the republicans in order to appear gracious and non partisan like they did before dean. (at least that is what I think)

Craven do you charge a fee for your psychoanalysis?

I think the rest of you need to understand that what you are angry about is often what others appreciate most about GWB. The article I used to start this thread indicates that GWB's tax policy far from being disastrous is beginning to produce excellent results. Do you dispute that? Fine. Let's see the numbers. I don't mind researching it.

As far as Iraq goes, there are at least 50+ % of Americans who approved that operation. The quarrel is whether it was competently carried out, and as progress is made, the questions about that are slowly becoming fewer.

Do you think those of us who LIKE lower taxes and who think it PROPER to oppose terrorism and that Iraq was as good a place as any to fight it should just roll over and play dead because some of you don't like these things?

How about we debate the issues instead of attacking the president? If that makes me partisan, then I'm proud to have the label. And yes, I do think it is mean-spirited when the posts are geared to jab at the president or whomever rather than discuss the issues and how it can be done better.

I agree!

Foxfyre that wasn't psychoanalysis, please see the definition of the word.




I'd love to. Now I must warn you that I have specific criticisms of your arguments. Based on prior experience I think you will avoid them and label them an "attack" or something. I hope not. But here's the disclaimer: my opinion of your post is largely negative. Ok, so get ready, I don't agree but it's nothing personal ok?

Here goes:

Many of us debate the issues all the time, but here you are writing it all off as partisanship yet again.

But if intellectual integrity interests you then by all means, let's not call Bush names and let's examine your post. Now please remember, I hold a negative (as opposed to positive) opinion of it. But I still think you are neat.

---------------



1) Foxfyre starts by referencing a straw man*. Railing against the partisan rants she forwards her partisan arguments and dismisses the arguments of others (remember, theirs are partisan, mean-spirited, scurilous (sp), ignorant sneers).

While it's true that there are many mindless rants against Bush with little to no basis in reality they are not the sum of the criticism against Bush. Referencing them enables dismissal of intellectually sound arguments and thoughtful constructs simply on the basis of referencing the more shrill objections to Bush's policies.

Lesson 1: Whether or not Bush critics have within them shrill mindless ideologues does not serve as legitimate basis for dismissal of their more sane counterparts.

Thankfully this is just an implication here, and not an outright argument, so in other words let's ignore the straw men, they are drooling mindless ideologues anyway and plus, they smell funny.

* "straw man" is a common debate fallacy. In it's pure form it is nearly identical to the implications of this post. A straw man takes a cartoonish effigy of a position and knocks it down, essentially picking on a weaker relative of an argument to avoid the stronger arguments.

2) Next Foxfyre labels the criticism of his tax cuts, the current topic, as "scurilous" (sp), basically equating it with her first straw man through implication.

Now there are a lot of well-researched non-partisan individuals who take issue with the cuts, but Foxfyre simply dismisses them by first equating them with vulgarity.

Lesson 2: She has arrived at her point and pre-loaded it. The criticism of Bush's tax policy is "scurilous". She does nothing to support her position, but just calls the oposite position a name. Now many thoughtful people have forwarded pensive arguments on this that are hardly vulgar, but let's continue.

Next she'll simply make a false claim.

3) Foxfyre then makes the false claim that those who criticize those irresponsible tax cuts do not take 9/11 into account.

This is a falsehood. In fact people have addressed this specifically with her. I can provide citations allong with links to Foxfyre's own posts acknowledging them.

See, whether or not 9/11 is responsible and to what degree are arguable points among economists and are hardly the facts Foxfyre invariably tries to portray them as.

Foxfyre has loaded the debate, starting with conclusions stated as self-evident facts when they are a matter of legitimate contention. Heck, this is a very ambiguous area of economics and I ahve many doubts about my position, many other economists will admit that their position on this involves a good deal of guesswork and it would be helpful to discussion if Foxfyre opens up this issue and does not pre-load it as a self-evident fact.


Lesson 3: We have identified a false claim. It is simply not true that those who criticize Bush's tax cuts and reference the job loss during his tenure ignore 9/11. Many simply do not agree with Foxfyre as to 9/11's effect on the economy.

Now that we have identified a false claim we must wait for defense or retraction, or if we are unlucky avoidance.

Hint to Foxfyre: Personally, I recommend just removing the word "always" and making it more defensible if you plan to cling to this one. With the "always" you have inserted a logical operator into your argument that makes its falsehood plain on its face. Without it you are still dismissing the economic criticism from those who do take 9/11 into careful account but at least the statement is not such a blatant lie.

See, people disagree on whether or not 9/11 caused the economic turmoil that Foxfyre holds it to have caused. But in the tactic I lament above she dismisses these differences and portrays her opinion as fact and tries to write off other positions as "ignoring" it.

"Ignore" seems to be a prefferable, if misleading, alternative to "dispute". They don't "dispute" her claim, hell they "ignore" it and "always" do so.

This is false, people have addressed it in discussions with her this very week.

So if we are to calmly address the issue, perhaps Foxfyre can make her case in regard to 9/11's effect and its scope. Assuming her position is correct will make this a short discussion and if it is indeed correct substantiation is not a tall task.

Foxy,

You are asking "How about we debate the issues instead of attacking the president?"

You are missing the point. The issue *is* the president. In my opinion Bush is a pompous idealogical fool who supports the rich and is damaging the country. I am very angry at what he is doing and fear that Americans will be paying dearly for his actions for many years to come.

How can I express this opinion in a way that you wouldn't consider "mean-spirited"?

As far as the point you made about the issues...

It is doubtful to me that the tax policy is responsible for the recovery (incidently I do not blame the recession on Bush-- these things come and go in spite of who is the president). I am angry at the tax cuts for the record deficits I feel are irresponsible and the underfunded programs I feel are important (i.e. homeland security and education).

Nearly 50% of us opposed the war in Iraq from the start. Incompetence is only part of the quarrel (and the reason for the falling support). Many Americans who supported the war feel lied to about terrorism and WMDs.

But the issue is the president. A large number of Americans literally hate him. You are seeing a very strong anger against the current president that is unique to this administration.

This hatred is valid and it is a big part of the current election.

Isn't hate a valid emotion to have for a man whose actions and policies are profoudly damaging the country you love?

You may not agree. But you should be able to understand. If, God willing, Bush loses in November you will know why.

Allow me to field this one Eric.

It would be like this:

"Bush is an upstanding citizen who is incessantly attacked by mean-spirited, mudslinging and ignorant people who sneer and criticize and make scurrilous and vulgar claims to defame him."

That's how you do it, I think she will not find that mean-spirited but you might want to add an obscene gesture toward liberals just in case.

Or, you could try "I don't like Bush's policy towards X because of Y. I also find that Bush has done Z."

See, no need for any insults at all. Instead a debate can then be made over X, Y and Z.

In other words do not post like Foxfyre does (my post was constructed from her words in this thread).

And Craven as usual puts his own spin on it and completely ignores any prevous explanation I've given and assumes what simply isn't so.

Partisanship: Wanting the party you oppose to
appear in the worst possible light to justify
your opinion; wanting your guy or party
to be in power more than you care whether
things get done right; wanting to be sure
the other party or person gets no credit for
anything good. (My definition.)

In fairness partisanship can also include the
belief that your party/person shares your
values and is committed to policy and proce-
dures that you approve and, on that basis,
you will support it against the opposing
party's agenda.

And ebrown, if you want to say you think the president is a fool and and ass, it is a free country. You are entitled to your opinion. If you have a need to say it by all means do. But don't object if I see that as less than constructive and, with no better ideas of your own to offer, is mean spirited and contentuous.

There is a world of difference between saying that you believe it was foolish and ill advised to invade Iraq because________________ and just interjecting that the president is a complete idiot.

There is a difference between saying you think the president intentionally lied/misled/misrepresented whatever to the American people and here's why_______________ and in saying that the president is a liar.

One way of saying it lays the groundwork for a healthy debate/discussion/difference of opinion. The other way of saying it I see as just contentuous and mean and is intended to leave no room for rebuttal. That, in my opinion, is what makes the mean spirited way partisan.

Okay stepping off the soapbox. I only got on it because you asked. (Bet you'll think twice before doing that again. )

And Craven, nothing in my opening remarks in this thread in anyway dismissed any form of rational criticism of the president. There was nothing in it that was in any way untrue.
.