President Bush is always out to hurt the nation according to Liberals?

Question

As far as I'm concerned, he's done the best he could for the country. I definitely can't see how this President is as bad as liberals make him out to be. They always seem to take everything he does and put a negative spin on it. I guess they have to resort to that because they are so frustrated with the Democrat controlled Congress (which has an 11% approval rating) that has accomplished nothing.

Answer 1

I think a lot of people fail to look at the fact that this president has been faced with a lot of situations not dealt with in the past (i.e. 9/11), and given the hand that he has been dealt, I think he has done the best he can.

Lets also not forget that we have a system of checks and balances, and he is not going it alone in D.C.

Answer 2

Well, its generally the curse of the incumbent president to be looked upon as unsuccessful until they're out of office (I like to call it "the good old times approach"). The effect a president makes can't really be seen until years after his presidency, because the economic and social policy he created won't produce results overnight generally. Another main thing is the media, not just the liberal media, but comedy, we've got so many politically satire shows, which mock the president, regardless of his political affiliation (Clinton got ripped on a lot on SNL back when he was president), and since there are increased viewer ships for these shows, especially in the younger audience, it has more of an affect. If you hear Mr. X is stupid or a chimp everyday, you're bound to be more inclined to thing of Mr. X negatively.

And, for those that will say that the hundreds of thousands who have died while Bush was in president need to remember that human nature results in deaths. Look at such massacres as those that occurred in Rwanda and Somalia during Clinton's presidency, would you fault him for those deaths (after all, one could take the stance that he stood by and let millions of people die, yet he chose inaction)? Also, the Republicans haven't held a majority in Congress for 20 years, until Newt led the Republicans to victory in the 1994 elections, the Democrats controlled the House for almost 40 years, along with controlling the senate on and off over the past 50 years.

Answer 3

Bush is bad, just as the Democrats are.

Actually, if you look at American History, the left has usually been pro-war and the right has usually been anti-war. In 1898, the "Progressives" such as William Jennings Bryan supported the Spanish-American War, whereas Grover Cleveland (a libertarian) and Benjamin Harrison (a conservative) were major figures in the Anti-Imperialism league. Later, during WWI, Democrat Woodrow Wilson interfered despite the opposition of the vast majority of Americans (causing the rise of Hitler and Mussolini). Eugene Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party, led the anti-war movement and was sent to jail. However, it was Warren Harding, a Republican who returned the country to peace (and released Debs from jail). In WWII, the Communist Party was pro-war and was claiming that Communism is "20th Century Americanism." Of course, that war was caused in large part by FDR's sanctions against the Japanese and he almost certainly had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and just refused to stop it (because he wanted to go to war). However, the only significant opposition was from the America First Committee, which consisted of the most radical Republicans of the time. In Korea, the Democrats started the war and a Republican (Eisenhower, though he stole the nomination that year from Sen. Robert Taft) In Vietnam, both parties were split and the left only went entirely anti-war when Nixon was elected to end the war and did just the opposite. Both parties supported the 1st Iraq War, though some on the right, such as Russell Kirk and Pat Buchanan were against the war. Bill Clinton was a warmonger who funded al-Qaida to attack Christians in Bosnia (and then lied about how the Christians were supposedly committing genocide against the Muslims) and the Republicans were the ones who opposed it (ironically, including John McCain). Back in 2004, John Kerry attacked Bush as having been soft in the Iraq War and the Democrats only ended up opposing the war because Kerry lost. However, there have been many on the right (including Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine and the libertarians) who have been against the Iraq War even though a Republican is president.

The problem with Bush is that he isn't liberal enough for the liberals, which is why they oppose him. Bush is trying to sell our sovereignty to a North American Union (which would be the first step toward a UN takeover of the world). He doubled the size of the Department of Education and passed the biggest new entitlement program since LBJ's poorly named "Great Society" (Medicare Part D). He started the War that the Democrats wanted and they decided to attack him for having done so. Actually, the Neo-Cons that advise Bush on foreign policy are not Conservatives, but are actually far-left Trotskyites who hold Leo Strauss and Machiavelli in high esteem.

Now, we have the likes of Rudy Giuliani, a crossdresser, and Mitt Romney, who passed Socialized Medicine running for the nomination of the Republican Party. They are joined by long-time RINO John McCain and the Rockefeller Republican Fred Thompson (who admits to having lobbied for Planned Parenthood and got his start with Howard Baker, Nelson Rockefeller's right-hand man).

The liberals are way wrong on the Republicans, but that doesn't mean that Bush or the "Frontrunners" are people worthy of being defended (except in cases such as when Bush vetoed SCHIP).

Answer 4

When things don't go right people are quick to blame other people, obviously we would blame Bush.

I can see the views from both sides. But as far as i'm concerned Bush is going with the preemptive strike option rather than waiting until we get attacked and then striking back. That's ok in my book. Clinton sat back and ignored growing terrorism throughout the world. Look at September 11. Bush will be pinned with a negative tag but in reality i don't think he did so bad.

Answer 5

To Herb: What failed policies? Can you mention one.. I am not saying they all had the best results but do you know what policies have failed?

Regardless of what any one says, all politician do not want to harm the American people. They just have different ideas how things should be run. How would you like it at you job you had someone tell you how to run your business. No one would like that at all. There is always a better way of doing things after the fact, and it is easy to criticize someones job. Until your know what exactly they do or walk a mile in their shoes then you might have a right to criticize

Answer 6

Well I suppose you could say he is doing the best he can do but that is a really rotten excuse. Its not just Libs that are taking a good look at him the GOP is also. From his bungling of Katrina to the one sided reports he gave the American public about the reasons he needed to go into Iraq. It is really beyond me why folks such as yourself have not seen the elitist additude that this president has about the common guy you know the regular guy that fights this war and who pays taxes. There are book after book written about him and his incompendent leadership, granted im sure some are onesided but the ones I have read have laid open his nature and his total disregaurd for the bulk of the American public. Im not a lib or a consertive I vote for the man that can do the job and he my friend was a big mistake and I for one am happy did not vote for him.
As far as a democratic congress goes I will agree that some of them are not going after him hard enough. The speaker has made her feelings known and im with her on it.
I think its time for hold outs such as yourself to take a strong look at exactly what he has done. Not pretty

Answer 7

President Bush has real character, he has done what he thinks is right, and never paid attention to the polls. He takes his primary responsibility as president, to protect this country, very seriously. I think history will judge him to be one of our best presidents, after 9/11 he was the right man at the right time for the job.

Answer 8

And bushs approval rating is 10 much more important than the congress that we put in to stop the war and bring our soldiers home, but to be fair the republican congress had 20 years to f*** it up so how can we expect the new congress to fix it all in 11 months? After all the damage the republicans have done will take a hundred years to undo and some of the damage is so bad it will never be fixed! Finally there is no bringing back the hundreds of thousands of human beings that have been murdered because of bushs and the republican congress! When you think about it, this congress looks great!

Answer 9

The Worst President in History?

One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

By SEAN WILENTZPosted Apr 21, 2006 12:34 PM



Flashback: Bush in '99 -- We Warned You!

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

Answer 10

its called politics, and you know it has gotten bad when a Republican does the same sort of things Democrats have been doing for years and gets crucified by liberals for it.