RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : 2004 Presidential Race Prediction

Thursday
August 12, 2004

2004 Presidential Race Prediction by James Kilbourne

George W. Bush is going to win. The American people will see to that. And remember that Reagan’s greatest accomplishments came during his second term. If Bush gets hit by a bus tomorrow, he will go down as a great President. But his second term may remind us of Reagan’s famous line during the 1984 election: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (37 messages)

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:34am

I dare say that most of the Libertarian and Objectivist opponents of George W Bush now in favour of Kerry probably thought that Bush was a brilliant President pre-Iraq war. Post Iraq-war they suddenly think that he is full of fundamental flaws - and probably even resent the tax cuts he has made.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 7:42am

is george bush a horrible horrible president that the left makes him out to be?

no.

is he some sort of grand president that will go down in history?

not so either.

fact is, he seems more or less like a very mediocre man and president, who will only be remembered for being in power when 9-11 happened. he hasn't done all that terribly much to shrink the govt, and in some scary instances expanded it (patriot act, anyone?) and, while I don't have a problem with a war on terrorism, lets face it: he invaded the wrong country. whether or not iraq has al qaeda connections, it certainly would make more sense to go after nations which do far more for that organization, such as iran or saudi arabia. no, bush isnt an incredibly great president: he's a middle of the road president.

also, I am really, really disturbed by this sort of cult of personality which has developed around bush #2. this sort of he's-either-the-best-president-ever or he's-satan-incarnate mentality. he's just a man, and a very middle of the road (if a little nutty) one at that. the other day, I came across a teenage girl, who asserted, in all seriousness, that george W bush is a better president than lincoln. ummmm, no.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 11:58am

Regarding Bush's mediocrity, I like the quote from the John Lewis article in Capitalism Magazine:

This is all a consequence of Mr. Bush's "faith-based" thinking, which goes much farther than his overt religious beliefs. He has "faith in markets," "faith in the American people," "faith that people want freedom." He holds such ideas as religious absolutes, not rational conclusions. He often shoots out a strong statement from his subconscious ("you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists "), and then watches it dissolve in the face of arguments he cannot answer. The statement becomes an empty utterance, compromised in words and actions, precisely because it was held on faith rather than as a rational, defensible conviction.

Larry
(Edited by Larry Balint on 8/12, 1:12pm)

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 2:39pm

I dare say that most of the Libertarian and Objectivist opponents of George W Bush now in favour of Kerry probably thought that Bush was a brilliant President pre-Iraq war.

You really think that? What would make people think that Bush was a brilliant man? I don't follow everything, so I could have missed many things or quickly forgotten. But he always seemed like the guy that couldn't tie his shoes without laughing to me. I've talked to a few people who have met him, and they say "you know, he's a guy you could go have a beer with..." I don't want a president I could go have a beer with. Also, I get more scared each time they have a press conference with anyone in that office and they say how they pray at each of their meetings and hope the lord is on their side and will help them do the right thing...

I could see obj/lib picking the lesser of two evils, or respecting some of his decisions, but how can you think he is brilliant?

-Elizabeth

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:51pm

Please every time someone admires someone, don't trot out the old "cult" line. I understand that we Objectivist are a bit sensitive to this, but it is time to move on. As to Bush's record, It is filled with vision and courage, if those words still have meaning. I believe redefining the basic defense structure with Russia from mutually-assured destruction to one of strategic defense is visionary and courageous. I believe that coming up within days of 9/11 with a policy that redefines our response to terrorism from one of criminal to one of a state of war was visionary and courageous, and set us up for an effective response that is still effective 3 years later. I believe ending a quarter century dance with Arafat and calling him by his proper name - terrorist- was visionary and courageous. I believe that declaring America's support for a Palestinian state was visionary and courageous. I believe that proposing any change towards a privatization of Social Security and medical care is visionary and courageous.
Would I spend less if I were President? Yes. I would also be for unlimited stem-cell research, pro-abortion (actually, I have a few suggestions for retroactive abortions, but, never mind), pro gay marriage... well, lots of things would be different if I ran things. But more vision and courage? That would be a truly great achievement.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 6:12pm

To Robert Bisno - in reading my response, my "cult" line didn't really come out quite as cute as I meant it. I appreciate your comments, but I do feel it is important to say that I believe George Bush is a greater President than Lincoln. This may be because I haven't spent the time with Lincoln that I should have, but it seems that Lincoln was certainly more intrusive to individual rights with his suspension of the writ of habeus corpus than Bush was with the Patriot Act (which does require a court order for its intrusions, as I understand it). The Civil War makes me sick. It could well be that it was unavoidable, but there must have been a better war to win it. With less than a tenth of the current population, America lost 500,000. In Iraq, we have lost 1,000.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 6:32pm

"You aint seen nothin' yet"

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of.

How about a draft for purposes other than national defense?

How about further curtailing free speech through liberal use of it's Media Gestapo, the FCC?

How about an expansion of the USA Patriot Act and TIA network?

How about the immediate any to any scientific research that Bible thumpers find distasteful?

We evidently agree that Reagan was a great President. I agree with what Bush did with respect to foreign policy. But I do not understand how ~ANYONE~ can unreservedly support him with his domestic track record. Choosing him as a lesser of two evils is world apart from heralding him as 'great' or even in the same breath as Ronald Reagan. No greater curtailing of American freedom has occurred since we interred Japanese Americans during WWII.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 6:36pm

Elizabeth, why would you not want a President that you could sit down and have a beer with? Even if you both drink a bottle of Dom, it is the approachability and the being in touch with the lives that most of his constituents live as represented by 'sitting down and having a beer' that will allow people to trust the guy or gal that will be making important decsions on their behalf. If that run-on sentence makes any sense...

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:31pm

"The war in Iraq has been a masterful victory for America. It has been a difficult time, and I expect it will remain difficult for a long time. But what is the alternative? Our message to the dictator of Iraq -- that we will not back away from his threats -- may have to be our message to Iran. Or Syria. Or North Korea. But because the message was delivered so successfully to Saddam, the chance are great that we can avoid a more gruesome confrontation later. And who can deny that our continuing aggressive stand against terrorists on foreign soil is the reason that the United States has been spared another 9/11? It is this, much more than homeland security, that has so far kept the enemy at bay."

So long as we have 130k+ troops in Iraq -- Iran, North Korea et al. have little to fear of an American invasion.

Also, what proof exists that because we invaded Iraq we've prevented another 9/11? Is there any evidence that all the al qaeda types are now in Iraq? Most news accounts show most of the resistence to American occupation is homegrown with a couple hundred, at most, foreign terrorists operating in Iraq at any one time. It appears to me that our close cooperation with Pakistan, France, Germany, Spain, UK, etc. has helped us round up many more terrorist suspects than the War in Iraq has.

How Iraq is at all a victory for the US or the Iraqi people is beyond me -- more Iraqis are dying violent deaths per months than under Saddam -- Bush's main arguments for war have been proven false -- no WMD's -- no Al Queda connection -- a protracted war with both Sunni and Shite insurgents who have no love for Saddam -- rampant corruption, abuse, etc.

Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 8:02pm

James,

To me, Bush's failure to identify the enemy as Islamists, instead calling for a War on Terrorism (which is a strategy, not an opponent) was a serious mistake. To the public, we are fighting phantoms that have no ethnic/racial identity, because such profiling is forbidden, even for security purposes. Most outrageous, however, is that, instead of seeking retribution against Islamists in Iran or Saudi Arabia, he attacks secular Iraq. What kind of misdirection is that?

But your statement that "I believe that proposing any change towards a privatization of Social Security and medical care is visionary and courageous" seems most out of touch with reality. True, he promised Social Security privatization in his campaign. Did we get it? No. What we got instead was a massive expansion of Medicare with the Prescription Drug Program.

Instead of "visionary and courageous", I'd suggest he was "misguided and outrageous."

Larry

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:06am

Elizabeth,

"What would make people think that Bush was a brilliant man?"

I reply,

For one thing he opted out of the Kyoto Agreement. Nearly all other countries in the world are still running around feeling hurt and offended that Bush did not toe the official line. He basically told them that the scientific evidence was not there to justify the Kyoto protocol. That really got the rest of the world into a tailspin. Oh no, you can't say that!!!! Naughty, naughty, you have to play fair!!! At the time I attended a Libertarian Alliance UK meeting and everyone was applauding Bush for it. To see how naughty it is, even amongst politically motivated scientists, to question that Global Warming is not caused by green house gases read this link from the New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996270

He has also shown a disregard for the UN and other international bodies.

Also he went ahead with his two promised tax cuts. When he made his first tax cuts critics were also running around telling everyone that now the Economy and Budget is going to go downhill. No, no you can't do that...naughty, naughty...it goes against traditional Keynesian thinking!!!! Still he went ahead with the cuts, claiming that that tax cuts were the best way to stimulate the economy. And it has.

So what was wrong with his record? Why would not Lib/ Objectivists praise tax cuts and not giving into greenie propaganda – both of which would have cost the economy billions to sustain?

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:12am

"He basically told them that the scientific evidence was not there to justify the Kyoto protocol."

george bush, a man who believes in faith over reason and wishes to suspend reason whenever reason offends faith (eg: stem cells) has no business, none whatsoever, talking about the scientific evidence for or against anything. the idea that a man who rejects the primacy of science's epistemology is going to tell me what is scientific is laughable. with an epistemology such as this, it is entirely random chance that he should pick the right side on any given issue

Friday, August 13, 2004 - 2:46pm

Hi Scott! My problem is when people all say that as their impression of Bush, so it scares me. I guess I don't want the guy next door to me running for president. I prefer the guy who has a better grasp on foreign politics, on history, knows economic theory, has experience, etc. running the country. Not to say it's not possible to be brilliant and be a man's man, but it doesn't happen too often, and I don't see Bush as the guy who's pulled it off.

Marcus, I don't think the good that Bush has done has been because of sound judgement and principals, versus issues he happened to maybe be right on. I agree with Larry's point on the wrong he's done, that he blows the kudos he'd get for cutting taxes by expanding medicare. I think Bush has very different motives so I am not so impressed when some of his results happen to be shared with objectivist ideas.

With that said, I find since each party does damage, you figure out what's most important to you. Do you value personal or financial freedom? I could never support a president who wants to ban abortion, gay marriage and take away privacy, and gets his inspiration for war from god. It frightens me. So for someone who gives me tax cuts but takes away my freedom, I say he can keep the money!

-Elizabeth

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 2:37am

Some illiterate semi-wrote:

"george bush, a man who believes in faith over reason and wishes to suspend reason whenever reason offends faith (eg: stem cells) has no business, none whatsoever, talking about the scientific evidence for or against anything."

To which I say - no ignoramus who doesn't know when to use capital letters has any business talking about anything in any civilised circle. I would expect such an ignoramus to be a Saddamite, but I would expect such a Saddamite at least to make the effort to appear to be literate.

Linz

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 3:28am

I'm not sure if I'm the only contributor here from Australia. Because of our commitment to Iraq and the recent Free Trade Agreement, US policies have loomed large in the national "debate" (if you can call what goes on in our appalling media "debate"). And, for what it's worth, I support what Bush has done about post 9/11 and Iraq, as I agree with John Howards' support for the US.
I dont know about anywhere else, but I'm pretty sure that, although like us you may be forced by law to register your name and address as a voter, not one of you is forced to vote. Yes, that's right. It's is against the law not to vote here. Well, actually, it is against the law not to turn up to a booth and get your name crossed off, but it IS against the law to tell the people - most of whom have been conned into believing they have to cast a vote - that fact.
Indeed, under the arch Socialist Keating, one man actually spent time in jail for doing exactly this, although because of puplic outcry and Amnesty he got released after a few days. So, what is my point? I don't understand why anyone calling themselves "Objectivist" who doesn't have to vote talking about choosing "between the lesser of two evils".
If, like James Kilbourne, you apparantly believe a particular person/party is a good thing, a value, then fine. But to say "they are both a disvalue, but I have to choose one", when in fact you live somewhere where it is the easiest thing in the world to refuse both - I don't understand.
And I don't accept. Although I'll be facing a definate fine at the very least, I will be standing outside a polling booth telling people they don't have to vote for either party, when neither has individual liberty and property rights anywhere in their philosophy or political plans.
Do you think all the characters who vanished into Galts Gulch were prepared to accept "the lesser of two evils"? Well, neither am I.
Cass

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:52am

To which I say - no ignoramus who doesn't know when to use capital letters has any business talking about anything in any civilised circle.

I agree. I also say no otherwise civilized person should post while under the influence either! Let's keep this forum clean.

Just kidding there, but what's wrong with the statement that Bush would prefer his faith over scientific advacement, i.e. the case of stem-cell research? Did I miss something related to other posts of Robert, or of this one for that matter? Do fill me in!

-Elizabeth

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:06am

LINZ:

"To which I say - no ignoramus who doesn't know when to use capital letters has any business talking about anything in any civilised circle. I would expect such an ignoramus to be a Saddamite, but I would expect such a Saddamite at least to make the effort to appear to be literate."

OK:

FIRST OFF:

CAPITAL LETTERS ARE A LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCT OF MINIMAL PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE. EPISTEMOLOGY, CONTRARIWISE, IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF WHAT DOES AND DOESNT COUNT AS KNOWLEDGE. THE QUESTION OF FAITH VERSUS REASON IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SOMEONE USES CAPITALS OR NOT IS A MINOR INCONVENIENCE AT BEST. FOR YOU TO EQUATE THE TWO AT ALL SHOWS NOTHING SHORT OF A MORALLY OBSCENE DROPPING OF CONTEXT.

Also: I have never said nothing about the Iraq war, so please do not go around making "Saddamite" accusations. And if you do wish to make such, at least link me to a clear and precise definition of your term.

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:53pm

Hahaha...Linz the Lush strikes again! I'm envisioning a giant, wobbly "L" carved into the shirt of Mr. Bisno.

Robert, if Linz turns out not to have been sloshed, give him hell I say!

And...I'm off again! Bye!

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 4:11am

Linz the Lush was *not* lushed. Linz the Lush despises slobs who can't even make the effort to use caps when required by any civilised yardstick. Such boorish philistines have no place in a repository of civilised values such as SOLO. Joe is looking over my shoulder & can verify that I was not/am not lushed!

Linz

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:53am

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying Linz that you were lushed when you wrote that (although now I must always wonder...) I just thought it funny that people not capitalizing properly bothers you so much! I hadn't even noticed that when I read the post. But I am not so civilized in my writing!

-E