Can Republicans defend Bush without talking about Clinton?

Question

I'm curious. Tell me why Bush's ineffective Presidency is acceptable to you... without saying the words "Bill Clinton" or any form thereof.

I challenge you.

joevette - I disagree with you, but thank you for answering the question.

Answer 1

Economy is doing great. No attacks since 9/11 on our soil but some have been stopped. More home owners now than there has been in years. Unemployment is relatively low. He has stood behind what he says even when it is not popular (that is the sign of a man who is not a coward and acts upon a beliefs system and not on a need to be popular). There are issues I think he has dropped the ball on (immigration and borders) and I believe he is stubborn but he does listen and will change his strategy if it is proven to be less effective than the options.

Almost forgot but Bush has pushed further than any other president for less dependence on foreign oil. His energy plan pushes for alternative and renewable fuels and it sets higher MPG ratings than previous policies.

Answer 2

i replace into antagonistic to Bush's spending and wars, besides the undeniable fact that it replace into surprisingly small until congress became democrat and tacked on beef to all spending charges. that's while it incredibly have been given uncontrolled. Even then, Bush deficits have been mole hills mutually as Obama's are mountains. Bush's clever justification replace into that it replace into warfare time for our risk-free practices, maximum individuals reject that concept, that's why he had such low score from definitely everyone, even his own party.

Answer 3

I'll meet that challenge. I voted for Bush to fight terrorism and win the war in Iraq. So far he is standing up to both and shows no signs of backing down. he's doing what I voted for him to do so that is why I support him. NOw if he would have backed down on these very important issues, he probably would have lost my support. Now answer this. Can Democrats tell me how the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq wouldn't be cold hearted to the Iraqi people? I mean, we started the mess over there. Is it really right to leave without cleaning up our mess and let the Iraqis deal with it? Answer me that. My e-mail is open for your thoughts.

Answer 4

I like to show the **** on both sides.

I'll throw two benifits of Bush at you.

Terrist Attacks in the US or her embassies...zero

Gross Domestic product increase on average 1.9% over the last six years without the tax increase. This allowed the Dow to jump above 12000.


There be two for ya.


Edit -

Your going to disagree with ANYTHING that supports him because you want him to fail. Problem is, the facts support mine and joevette's information. Where are yours?

Answer 5

Very easy. President Bush has done the job he was elected to do. He stands by his word. He is not worried about approval ratings - just doing his job. President Bush has done an outstanding job, along with our military, to secure our freedom & safety.

Answer 6

I think you make a valid point. In much the same way, I wonder if the Democrats can defend the actions of the current congress without saying that the Republican Congress did it when they were in power.

In both cases, it reminds me of little kids, trying to divert attention from themselves, by pointing the finger at someone else.

Answer 7

Clinton is a great deflector when people are faced with all of Bush's shortcomings.

The guy who said "no attacks since 9/11, I feel safe." is a perfect example.

By that yardstick, we weren't attacked after the 1993 WTC bombing for eight years. So by that token is Bush two years away from being as good as Clinton?


Q-burt:

Nice reply!!!
For #1: refer to above,
For #2: research what the GDP annual increase was during the Clinton years. Your doesn' t look so good now does it?

EDIT:

For my friend Q-burt... gotta love those facts:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-227.html

how does 3.2% GDP growth compared to W.'s 1.9% grab you?

Answer 8

I do not feel it necessary to defend Bush. Nor do I find it necessary to talk about Clinton.

I disagree that Mr. Bush's presidency can be accurately characterized as "ineffective."

Why, however, should it matter to you? Are you that defensive of Clinton that you cannot answer the tough questions?

Answer 9

To be Ineffective is to try then fail... Mr Bush never tried and incapable of morally leading US. Mr Bush derives his morality form Pat Robertson and clique making him an absolute charlatan.

I believe Bush crowned by Repukes knowing well he is a "Yes Sir" kinda a guy, using him as a tool to pursue agendas of a total foreign nature to our country, namely a rogue WAR (Iraq) for a rogue entity (Zionist Israel).

Answer 10

How often do we see democrats defending Clinton without bringing up Bush?