The Democrats Gloat Thread

Terrorism wasnt even an issue in 2000, was it?

I don't think it was a campaign issue ... but maybe c.i. knows something we don't.


I'm also waiting to hear about all those who thought Bush would "ensure our safety from ... natural disasters."

From The Pew Research Center:

Bush's biggest personal asset is his strong leadership image. By roughly two-to-one (58%-30%) voters say the phrase "strong leader" describes Bush rather than Kerry, and that view remained steady through the polling period. Moreover, Bush's supporters cite his leadership abilities as a basis of their vote far more often than did President Clinton's supporters during his reelection campaign in 1996, or former President Bush's backers four years earlier.

Also, you prolly don't remember, but Bush's constant message was "to protect Americans." To protect Americans means to be responsible for terrorist and natural disasters to all Americans.

I am pretty certain that terrorism was an issue in the presidential debates, as was Iraq. As to natural disasters, I remember Jim Lehrer asking both candidates what makes them especially qualified for the job. In response, Bush talked about some catastrophic forest fires he had to deal with as governor of Texas, and how situations like this really test your mettle as a leader. I don't know how much people bought into this, nor how much it mattered to them. But governor Bush clearly thought it would matter enough to provide an argument for electing him.

Caveat: all of this is from memory, which has proven leaky from time to time. Do you want me to look it up?

That was 2004 though ... you were talking about Bush and Gore.

Not necessary, Thomas, because I don't think it quite makes c.i.'s point.

It was a damn fine try though. :wink:

Whether it was Gore or Kerry, the president has the responsibility to protect all Americans:

nimh, What I find more interesting is the fact that the people supporting Bush said they preferred him over Gore because Bush was a strong leader that will ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters.

Fact: When those planes hit the twin towers, Bush was reading to children when a secret service agent told him about the attack. He sat there for seven more minutes reading to the children.

Fact: Bush and his administration was slow to react to the Katrina disaster. He even admitted his mistake, and "accepted responsibility" for his failure.

Q: He's a strong leader? When, Why, and Where?

war on terrorism


The war on terrorism or war on terror (abbreviated in U.S. policy circles as GWOT for Global War on Terror) is an effort by the governments of the United States and its principal allies to destroy groups deemed to be "terrorist" (primarily radical Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda) and to ensure that what the U.S. administration terms "rogue states" no longer support terrorist activities. The war on terror became a central U.S. policy following the September 11, 2001 attacks but other incidents have been cited as contributing factors; for example, the World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, suicide bombings in Israel and the Lockerbie bombing. Critics maintain that the war on terrorism has been used as an excuse to curtail personal freedom, to restrict access to government information and to provide a pretext for pursuing domestic and international objectives unrelated to terrorism.

I think thats the assertion Tico is asking about. That people said they preferred Bush over Gore because he was a strong leader who would ensure their safety from terrorism and natural disasters. Did people say that, when they were doubting between Bush and Gore, back in 2000?

I think thats what he's asking. Posting a quote about how the war on terrorism became a central policy after September 2001 is - I mean - how does that come in?

It seems to follow quite logically, to me at least, that a "strong leader" who claimed he will protect the American People includes both terrorism and natural disasters. Above and beyond his rhetoric, it also follows that a president's responsibility is to "protect the American People" whether it's from terrorism or natural disasters. Bush has claimed often during his speeches that he will do "everything to protect the American people," or something to that effect.

On many a2k discussion boards, many (if not most) neocons have said they trust Bush to protect us better than Kerry. My mention of Gore and the 2000 election was a mistake on my part.

But nobody can negate the fact that Bush has used his rhetoric about "protecting the American People" often.

A. Many republicans preferred Bush's supposed strong leadership qualities as comfirmed by polls during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

B. Bush has continually used rhetoric to assure Americans he will protect us.

C. Many on a2k have supported Bush for his strong leadership qualities.

It seems from my research that the "war on terrorism" was subsequent to 9-11, and I could not locate anything about "terrorism" being mentioned during the 2000 campaign by Bush.

It seems my observations are reflective of Bush's performance after 2000, and what I deem to be a president's responsibility against terrorism and natural disasters. I would expect any president, whether democrat or republican, to be competent enough to carry out their responsibility.

I think you may be negating, c.i., the numbers of folks who simply felt Bush was better than the alternatives presented. Do I trust Bush to do a better job of protecting America than Kerry would have? Absolutely. That is but one of many reasons for choosing Bush over Kerry.

At the risk of everyone jumping down my throat, I remember a lot of radio talk show guests and a lot of folks on the old Abuzz remarking about "How lucky we were that Gore wasn't President". I don't know if I could find any of those sources again but I remember thinking, does the American Public think that only Bush would have thought of hitting Afganistan. Then of course later I thought, Only Bush would have thought of Iran. Now....it doesn't matter if it was the right thing or the wrong thing, we are there and we must insist that the Government provides our fighting forces with the equipment, training, medical care and the finest intelligence possible.

Most Americans Say Iraq War Was Wrong

For any who say they trust Bush to do a better job of keeping us safe,...

No ****, President Sherlock

Nimh - I'm quite sure you could find similar polls showing that a majority think the economy here in the U.S. is doing poorly. The problem? Very few are looking at

THE BIG PICTURE

Michael Barone

September 26, 2005

It's often hard to keep the big picture in focus. Television news tends to center on bombs going off in Iraq and has mostly ignored several million people voting in Afghanistan. We see footage of angry Palestinians, but not much about the ongoing progress toward democracy in Egypt. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in turn have dominated the news and have made it difficult to get a sense of what is happening in the world.

 A world spinning out of control: That is what the old-line broadcast networks seem to be showing us. But I see other patterns. George W. Bush has consistently asserted that one reason for removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was to advance freedom and democracy in the Middle East. In spite of the improvised explosive devices, that seems to be happening. Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was as inspiring an example of people power as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Libya has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction. Egypt, by far the largest Arab nation, had its first contested election this month, and, as the Washington Post's David Ignatius writes from Cairo, "the power of the reform movement in the Arab world today ... is potent because it's coming from the Arab societies themselves and not just from democracy enthusiasts in Washington." Which is evidence that Bush was right: Muslims and Arabs, like people everywhere, want liberty and self-rule. Afghanistan has just voted, and Iraq is about to vote a second time this year. Violence continues, but the more important story is that democracy and freedom are advancing.

 True, the news is not positive everywhere. Iran seems determined not to give up its nuclear weapons programs, and the efforts of the British, French and Germans have not stopped them. The good news is that the British, French and Germans appear to recognize this. North Korea also, despite initialing a draft agreement, seems bent on building more nukes. The bright side is that China, the one country with leverage over Kim Jong Il, seems more inclined to use it.
The problem here is evil regimes against which we have no real military options. The best hope for a solution is peaceful regime change, of the kind endorsed by Michael Ledeen on the right and Peter Ackerman on the left.

 Polls show that most Americans think the economy is in dreadful shape, even though almost all the numbers are good: Inflation and unemployment are low, and growth is robust despite the exogenous shocks of Sept. 11, Enron and Katrina. After a generation of almost constant low-inflation economic growth, perhaps we Americans are only satisfied when we have bubble growth, as in the late 1990s, and are unimpressed when the American economy proves once again to be amazingly resilient. This is all the more astonishing when you consider that we are going through a time of increased competition and change, as China and India, with 37 percent of the world's population, are transforming their economies from Third World to First World. Such a large proportion of mankind moving rapidly upward: This has never happened before and will never happen again.

 Couple this with the facts that Japan seems to be growing again, after 15 years of deflation, that East Asia and Eastern Europe continue to grow robustly, and that major Latin countries like Mexico and Brazil are growing as well, and the economic picture around the world looks pretty good, despite sclerotic non-growth in western Europe and continued poverty in Africa.

 But even if things are going well, isn't America hated around the world? By the elites and chattering classes of many countries, yes, and by much of the American elite and chattering class as well. But we are not competing in a popularity contest. In a unipolar world, the single superpower will always arouse envy and dislike. The relevant question is if we can live safely in the world; the French may dislike us, but we can live comfortably with France. The recent Pew Trust polls showing diminishing support for Islamist terrorism in Muslim countries indicate things are moving in the right direction. The increasing interweaving of China into the international economy suggests China may not be a military threat. A world spinning out of control? No, it is more like a world moving, with some backward steps, in the direction we want.

Yes. The people are just wrong. Its not that there's anything wrong with the message; it's just that they must not have understood it yet! Let us explain it once again...

Glad to see you adopting the attitude that's lost the liberals so many elections.

Soon you'll be proclaiming to be glad you're outside the mainstream, because the mainstream is misguided and indoctrinated anyway!

JW, It's very evident you know nothing of macroeconomics. This president's spending and deficits is not good for our economy. All you are able to do is search for any article that supports your position, but ignore all the otehrs that tell a different story about our economy. Here's the first hint: our grandchildren will be paying on Bush's spending and debt.