So with the State of the Union
 

last night, I have been thinking about Bush and the standing of his presidency. I know that many on this board are his supporters and former voters. My question is, how do you feel about him now, and the direction of his presidency?

If you had the chance (and he were the only choice of the Republican party) would you still vote for him?

I voted for Bush twice and the reason was because I felt he was the better choice between Gore and Kerry.

Bush has done more to destroy the GOP that Reagan left in place moreso than I thought possible. The only thing now that I support is his stance on national defense. I think we need to keep taking the fight to terrorists on their ground so it stays away from US soil.

The economy isn't as bad as some would want us to think (unemployment is low, growth is good) but it is overshadowed by Iraq and those on the left that hate Bush more than they care about the country. They would rather see Bush fail than defeat the terrorists, but I digress.

As voting for him again, if it was either Bush against Gore or Kerry, yes, I'd vote for him again. Neither of those two have ever convinced me that they would have been better than Bush.

Detroit, I can't tell you whether I would vote for him now, as it always comes down to what the alternative is.

But, honestly, I wouldn't even have voted for him in 2004 if he'd been running against someone else.

I feel that he reneiged on all of his promises/platforms from the 2000 campaign, or at least the ones I cared about. I suppose he can use the excuse that 9/11 changed everything; but that excuse gets kind of old.

I think that the way that he acceded to the presidency, combined with Iraq, combined with his complete and utter inability to relate his thoughts in any coherent manner, will together leave him with a rather pathetic standing in history.

On the other hand, I suppose he does have two years to redeem himself.

People that say that they would vote for Bush over any Dem is sort of like Indy's "keep Crowton" argument. He argues that there wasn't anyone qualified to replace him.

But look--we got an unheralded Bronco that has done very well.

It's impossible to say what a Kerry presidency would have been.

But sometimes you gotta give the ball to a new coach, because you know your current coach sucks.

And that's what we're seeing in the recent elections. Not that the dems have a cogent plan. The idea is that you give someone else a shot because to continue along the present course is certain failure.

The Repubican Revolution is over, in that GOP has lost credibility. The long-lastin effect is that they have dragged the left rightward.

I agree the Reagan Republican Revolution is over and needs revamping, but disagree that the Dems have anything to add but increased tax burdens, more involvement in health care, and increased environmental regulations, decreasing available oil resources.

Both parties have failed and neither has any new ideas. Our body politic is dead, but nobody knows it.

I wonder what percentage of voters will strip their 2008 ballot down into two elements:

(1) The republican following Bush, vs.
(2) The Non-Bush party

And vote for the Dems based solely on that.

I am the lone "somewhat satisfied" vote for the Prez. I voted in this category for three reasons.
First is Iraq. While there have been obvious frustrations with the Iraq situation, I tend to take the long view. Reform in the Middle East is a difficult task and near impossible. There have been a lot of good things to come out of the situation, chief among them is the fact that it has kep Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations busy over there instead of plotting over here. He hasn't been perfect on this issue, but 20/20 hindsight has been the main lens the critics have looked through on this issue. The Dems have been completely unhelpful and have done nothing to establish that their initial support of the war was born out of anything but political expediency.

Second is judges. I think Alito and Roberts will be good for the long-term direction of the federal judiciary. He hasn't been as aggressive about getting his circuit and lower court nominees pushed through, but this has largely been the fault of the Senate Republicans.

Third is the economy. Despite the fact that we've been at war throughout all but nine months of his presidency, the economy is humming along quite nicely. I'm not naive enough to think that a President is solely responsible for the health of an economy, but policies do matter and he's been strong on this issue.

There are areas of dissapointment. Some that immediately come to mind are immigration, federal spending, and the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina. He hasn't been perfect, but he's had a lot of help from both parties in not achieving that goal. My biggest concern about the remaining two years is that the Dem majority will freeze government for the purpose of forcing the executive to change hands.

Sure, it's impossible to say what a Kerry presidency would have been. But it is possible to say what type of career Kerry has had in the Senate. It's less than impressive. Few Senators can stay in the Senate for over twenty years and not have a single defining accomplishment.

Being President is like being President of the church. It can cause a man to metamorphasize (if this isn't a word, it should be) into something else.

Dude. Why didn't you tell me this before the 04 election? Here I was thinking that we should vote based on proposed policies, political records, and likely use of executive appointment authority. Silly me. I had no idea he'd morph.