Few days ago at the debate pretty much every single Republican hopeful bashed Bush. Bashed his policies. Bashed his handling of the war. Said he ran as a conservative, but conducted business like a liberal.
So which is it Repubs? Has Bush done a poor job?
Or were they all lying?
2007-06-07 03:15:56 · 18 answers · asked by Josh 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yep, he's been pretty much a disaster. I figured that out a year into his first term. Most of my Republican brethren didn't catch on until the immigration law last week.
That's why you saw such venom this debate. They just figured it out and they feel betrayed. Watch over the next few months as they start rethinking all the other things they've gone along with despite their reservations. We'll rethink No Child Left Behind, the drug plan fiasco, the wild spending and earmark support, even the war. It will be a time of great soul-searching in the Republican party, and in the conservative movement in particular. This should be an interesting primary. Anything could happen.
I'm just saying, don't count your Giulianis before they hatch.
2007-06-07 03:20:55 · answer #1 · answered by skip742 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Read most of these answers and no one reall has a clue. This president has done many things that are very good for this country and he has done some things that are not so good, but the one thing he is really got a very bad stance on is immigration.
All candidates, both republican and democrat have their opinions about the war and how to to conduct it, but Bush's economic policies have pulled us out of a recession we were entering in Clinton's last years and his prompt actions after 9-11 have strengthened our position throughout the rest of the world.
But giving the liberal democrats a new voter base is totally wrong and the republican candidates know it.
2007-06-07 03:34:30 · answer #2 · answered by Michael H 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
in case you are able to desire to no longer arise with a greater unqualified candidate as Sarah Palin, than you haven't any longer have been given a clue what makes one qualified Matt. Sarah Palin has character, integrity and governing journey, shes knowledgeable and has confirmed sparkling fulfillment in government with the aid of working funds surpluses for 2 years in her abode state of Alaska, Obama is a Harvard grad and cant even say that, nor does Obama have almost the administrative journey this female does. in case you think of this female isn't qualified, i'm keen to guess you're watching shallow externals that have honestly no longer something in besides to do with what makes one a high quality chief. If a pacesetter would not have character and integrity, an Ivy league training is thoroughly ineffective. in case you're taking a corrupt guy or female and supply them an training, all you have once you're with the aid of is a individual able to accomplish their corruption in a greater effective way. we live in an afternoon and age the place human beings worship titles, wisdom and coaching from fancy faculties, this is what you have better than confirmed in this submit is precisely the form of individual you're. God bless.
2016-10-07 01:18:06 · answer #3 · answered by durrell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zzzzzzzz, huh, did I hear something?!
Oh, Bush.
Bush did not declare war. No president can, the pres can only send troops. Congress declares and funds wars. Generals command troops, not presidents. No armor for the troops? Talk to congress.
Bush wants more money for the war, why are dems against throwing money at that? Oh, to pay for welfare crack heads I guess.
I-Fought-In-Vietnam- Kerry...all he did was flip flop, at least the Republicans were consistent.
As far as "approving" of Bush's leadership, I'm not happy to say the least. These last two years to me have been a waste, especially this immigration reform bill. I have lost my faith in him just like I did with Clinton (yes, I was a liberal Democrat Clinton supporter at one time). Dems, Republicans...they both have their garbage in office and in this country.
2007-06-07 03:35:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
He has run the war with too tight rules of engagement, but that is the only way this country is allowed to conduct a war. It is unlikely the US will ever win another war. The US does police actions since the Korean War. At best with a police action one gets a stalemate. Another word for stalemate maybe a civil war & they aren't CIVIL by any streck of the imagination.
2007-06-07 03:24:48 · answer #5 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
If the candidates say they support Bush, then they will definitely lose votes and a Democrat would be guaranteed the Presidency.
2007-06-07 03:24:46 · answer #6 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush did what he thought was best. Can anyone claim anymore? Bush happens to be human *gasp*. He can't solve all our problems. The last really effective politician was Reagan. After that they all suck.
2007-06-07 03:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by KJLONG 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If you use more than 1 brain cell you will realize how simple the answer is. Politicians lie - liberal loon to extreme right wingers - period.
In order to try an recover votes from the left wing loons a candidate will lie, cheat and steal to make themselves more appealing to the masses. The exact same principle can be applied to left wing nut cases trying to win over votes from the right.
2007-06-07 03:27:51 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
His handling of the war and his position on immigration suck. Most will agree on those issues.
2007-06-07 03:22:34 · answer #9 · answered by Cherie 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think everyone can agree their hindsight is 20/20. Democrat or Republican...if you could do it over again, you'd do things differently.
2007-06-07 03:21:31 · answer #10 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋