You can spin it however you like, McG, but your answers are not sufficient in many cases.
Let us go point by point:
Economics. I know 9/11 happened. We all know it happened. But the market had recovered from that within 9-10 months afterwards, so we should have seen a steady growth from that point on, right? Wrong.
And our massive, gigantic debt that we are racking up. I realize the war on terror is partially responsible. But so is cutting taxes during a time of increased spending by the gov't.
As for jobs, over a million jobs lost, and the ones that have been replaced are not, on average, the same quality as the ones which have been lost. Wages and salaries are down despite the fact that productivity is up.
Not a great attitude by your leader on this one, either - he lists working at McDonald's as a 'manufacturing job.'
Even if the president does spend 0 dollars, when he proposes a bill to a congress that is controlled by his party, and it gets passed, he is responsible for directing the way the money is being spent, as he in many ways directs his party. Period.
Iraq. You say we had a swift victory there, and in Afghanistan. But that's the same thing as the pres giving a press conference on an aircraft carrier and saying 'Mission accomplished.' By which I mean, patently false.
I say this because we have not yet achieved victory in Iraq. There is no lasting peace there, and all the signs are pointing to a takeover by Sistani and the formation of an Iran-style holy state under him.
Afghanistan is slowly reverting back to the Taliban, and while we did a good job there, is it a complete victory if the Taliban just resufaces, because we ran off to fight in Iraq instead of cleaning up the messes we made there? I don't think so.
The admin's policies in both Afghanistan and Iraq are short-sighted and incomplete, and it's American soldiers who are paying the price for this.
Perhaps a 'fast' victory is not as important as a complete one? I hate to tell you, but there are a lot of republicans who are angry at the manner in which the Iraq war was prosecuted as well - the 'quagmire' was not made up by the left, as you claim.
War on Terror. The war on terror is going great? How the hell can you say that? Last year was terrible! Huge terrorist activities in Europe, and how about Iraq? The war on terror doesn't just mean defending ourselves in America, it means stopping terror worldwide.
We have a huge problem with our borders right now, as many have pointed out. We have huge problems with our emergency response services right now, who are really untrained and unequipped to respond to terror attacks at a local level. Why? Becuase the huge amount of spending by the Bush admin left an equally huge shortfall in Federal funds normally granted to the states. I know we got screwed here in Texas.
How can you say you are fighting a war on terror, when you cannot adequately defend your land? The office of Homeland Security is considered by many in Washington to be a 'mess,' and noone wants to get transferred in to work there - there are no clear goals, no definable authority, and shaky budgeting.
We have made little progress in stopping AQ from attacking. The Madrid bombings are a good example of this. Reports say that AQ has gotten tons of new recruits since the Iraq war started. We're winning, what exactly? We haven't been attacked in 3 years, and that means we're winning? I think it means we're just keeping our head above water while we dick around in a foriegn country.
Healthcare. Bush's medicare reforms won't go into effect until 2006, and many cash-strapped states are screaming for change on that one. I know you don't want national health care, but there are some of us who actually care whether other people are healthy or not, regardless of our own situation.
Not to mention the fact that there seems to be a big disparity between the projections of the Bush team and the real numbers on how many people will actually be helped by his health plan - hmm, that sounds familiar. For more, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21929-2004Aug21.html
Enviromental. Bush has perhaps one of the worst records on the environment in Presidential history.
The Bush plan allows for greater emissions of Mercury, Co2, Nitrous Oxide, and sulfur Dioxide than previously allowed under the (unenforced) Clean Air act. It also allows for greater trading of emissions 'credits,' which will clean up some areas of the country and make others much worse. Bush's plan exempts power plants from being held accountable to the current Clean Air act, and also removes the accountability for power plants to upgrade and clean their services themselves.
Water is no better. The Bush administration wants to change the definition of "waters of the United States" so that many small streams, wetlands and ponds are excluded. They would no longer be covered by any sort of federal protection whatsoever. Naturally, while this is bad for the inhabitants of said water, it's great for a lot of businesses.
Cities are a problem, too. The Bush administration has proposed cutting the fund which loans money to states to pay for projects like sewage plants and the prevention of sanitary sewer overflows by how much? 500 Million dollars. That's a 37% cut. And we're talking about the systems that keep raw sewage out of rivers, here. The Bush admin has actively worked to block regulations that would force companies to
inform people when it happens, let alone clean it up!
Bush's environmental record is terrible! You can try to spin it however you want, but the numbers don't lie.
Alternative Energy. Rolling your eyes when I bring this up is the same as admitting defeat, because there's really nothing positive that you can say about Bush on this one, is there?
ALL of Bush's plans for renewable energy focus around providing massive subsidies for oil and coal production and smaller subsidies for these same companies to produce alternative energies. This, coupled with the Clean Skies act, is such a bone thrown to the energy industry, it's not even funny. The GAO was even going to sue Bush to find out just how much influence the energy companies had on his policy; too bad they filed their brief on september 9th, 01.
Foriegn Policy. The war in Iraq, and our defiance of the wishes of the U.N., has alienated the U.S. in many ways from Europe, which is traditionally one of our greatest allies. Europe and the U.S. share many common bonds, both in culture, languages, and economic bonds as well. Foriegn opinion of the U.S. is dropping steadily in face of the Iraq war. Whereas these people, our cultural neighbors, should be our strongest allies against the (popularly held) threat of Muslim terrorism, they are not allies any longer, thanks to our heavy-handed approach to the U.N. and war.
Bush himself has said, 'you're either with us or against us.' Well, there are a whole lot of our former allies who aren't with us on this one. According to our leader, they are against us. This is a dramitic shift in American foreign policies.
Division of America. You blame the Democrats for this. But it wasn't the democrats who set up an atmosphere where dissent=disloyalty, that was the republicans. It's not Democrats who require you to sign a loyalty oath to hear their candidates - anyone can come to hear them, not just party supporters.
Blame it on whoever you want, the fact remains that in comparison to the last 20 years, America is bitterly divided. It began with the election in 2000 and hasn't gotten any better since. And, you want to know what else doesn't help unite Americans? Bush's stance on
Civil Rights. Bush is the first president since Prohibition to attempt to use the power of our government's sacred documents to limit the rights of our populace. His anti-gay stance has alienated roughly 10% of the population, and the patriot act allows people to be held without charge for an indefinate period of time. That doesn't sound like the America I was tought to believe in. It sounds more like the Gestapo.
Oh, and here's one I forgot:
Science. The Bush ban on stem cell research is terrible. We've already had this discussion, so I won't go into the details other than to remind you that the vast majority of scientists who have published pieces about the ban have condmned it, and I know from personal expirience just how much it is holding the U.S. research back.
But, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The Bush admin regularly calls for reports on certain issues from scientists, and then changes the numbers before giving the results to the press. Many of our most promising scientists here in America are very concerned about the way things are going:
"The actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of scientists working for and advising America's world-class governmental research institutions and agencies," UCS said. "Not only does the public expect and deserve government to provide it with accurate information, the government has a responsibility to ensure that policy decisions are not based on intentionally or knowingly flawed science. To do so carries serious implications for the health, safety, and environment of all Americans."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/
The facts bear me out on every case I have listed here. I realize that you like Bush; that's great, we get it. But the numbers don't lie, especially re: scientific fudging and loyalty oaths.
Cycloptichorn
p.s. rolling your eyes in lieu of responding is lame.
