Why are you asking them questions like this>  if they're anti-Bush, meaning they don't like him, of course they're not going to come up with positive things about him! 

Did you think before you posted this article?  Or did you fail to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard?

Why are you asking them questions like this> if they're anti-Bush, meaning they don't like him, of course they're not going to come up with positive things about him! Did you think before you posted this article? Or did you fail to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard?

Quit beating on him for this Karen...I have seen "exactly" the same kind of posts and or replies from MM, drguy, myself and others here on JU. Yet I have "never" seen you say things like this to the others.

Quit beating on him for this Karen...I have seen "exactly" the same kind of posts and or replies from MM, drguy, myself and others here on JU. Yet I have "never" seen you say things like this to the others.

Excuse me? Who the heck are you to tell me to quit beating on anybody? And, fyi, this isn't 'beating'. He asked a question on another blog, and I responded here and there. Oh, and I have spoken to "OTHER" people like this as well.

Dharma, Dr.M, come on guys, don't fight... there's no use.

Elindel,In a debate, it is not the responsibility of the debater to prove their opponent's position. That's the responsibility of their OPPONENT.As a Libertarian, I have stated PLENTY of occasions where Bush acted correctly. Unfortunately, most of the times he has acted correctly, he has backpedaled once he has come under fire from the liberals.EXAMPLE: In the wake of the tsunami, he offered $35 million in aid. As soon as this amount was deemed "stingy", he increased it tenfold. This is in defiance of the fiscal conservatism that he and the GOP have long professed to hold dear to their beliefs.

-This really wasn't intended to be a "debate".

But, I do realize that you have. I was specifically leaning towards, kingbee, dabe, etc... (Don't know if they are grounded or not)

I don't get why the questions, as worded, are directed to those who are anti-bush.

1. I can't name three instances of Bush acting correctly. I supported his decision to go to war in Afghanistan. I also agreed with the Steel tariff. Steel is too important to national security to allow it to fall victim to free trade. His utter contempt towards securing the border and those who demand it, his ignorant belief that the Middle East can be fixed with a touch of democracy, his support for affirmative action, his cronyism and support for incompetents, his wild spending are just a few of the reasons he is a chump.

2. I don't recall much of his 2000 platform, other than his call for compassionate conservatism, which angered me beyond belief. That, to me, is code for "liberal reform." Since then I've hardly been proven wrong on that account.

3. There's nothing truly positive, given his Office. If he was a college friend, he'd be alright, but he's not.


Now if you asked the opposite questions, you'll get a mixture of responses ranging from sensible, reality-based reasons, all the way to irrational, knee-jerk, hateful responses.

1. Going into Afghanistan.

2. The No Child Left Behind program is wonderful...that is the program itself. However, the lack of federal funds to support it is unfortunate.

3. The appointment of John Roberts.

I could name a lot of smaller things I've agreed with as well. Unfortunately, there are many more major issues that I do not agree with decisions/actions he and his administration has taken.

I think this is a 'good challenge' in a way. Although I disagree with the basic premise that all those that oppose Bush are motivated simply by hatred I still think its a useful question to ask. (Frankly I think the idea that "there is no such thing as a rational, logical, intelligent anti bush person. IMO its all about hate", is the product of an immature mind).

My own political position is based on the idea that no one side has a monopoly of truth. The most sophisticated political thinkers here are not the ones who always side with one side or the other; seeing what good there might be in the 'opposing' side's ideas is a mark of a certain degree of intellectual and moral sophistication.

My own definition of a political moderate (and I am militantly moderate ) is someone who looks at both sides, sees that the question is complex, sees the areas where one side is right, and those where the other side is right, but finally has to plump for one option or the other, choosing what we consider to be the bad rather than the worse. Sometimes it seems as if only a minority here are that sophisticated.

In the folder I keep for possible future JU articles is an idea that I might yet write on. The idea is to take a politician that I loathe and try to write an essay in defence of that person's ideas, trying as hard as I can to enter into their worldview. I don't consider this merely an intellectual exercise, but a serious challenge to my own complacency and a useful enlargement of my human empathy.

I have to apologise for not answering the question directly. I don't know enough about US politics to come up with the required three things, so kudos to latour for answering the question as asked.