What are some good things Bush has done while in office?

1. Beat Gore Many will argue that one with you! 2. Beat Kerry Shouldn't have happened regardless, but the opportunity never should have come up. 3. Will Leave White House in '09 He shouldn't have ever been there in the first place. Annie

You must be a card carrying, bleeding heart, liberal member of the ACLU. LOL, ha ha ha!!!! You partisan people make me laugh. Blind faith is so dangerous. Like a bunch of sheep who follow someone just because his party annointed him the leader. Why can't the public vote for a qualified candidate, instead of supporting someone just because he's a democrat or a republican? Like I mentiioned in the above comments, all 3 politicians are below par. Let's face it, the election of 2000 (Gore v Bush) was a choice of the lesser of two evils, if not the lesser of the boring bunch! Same is true in 2004 (Bush v Kerry), that was a choice between who would mess things up less!

Hello Kdhartford, Good point! I forgot about the 15 billion dollar Africa Aid package.

good for you..this is the first positive statement i head all night..i just bought a house in Negros and I hope to get a good return when the time for me to sell my property..i think it will do better then the house i have in Monroe, Michigan..i went to college in Angola, Indiana and my daughter lives in the Center of Indiana. It is a good state..not far from me..hope you make a ton of money ..who is going to be the next President of the Phipinnes.."?"

Hello LadyLuna, Meticulous as ever I see. I'll try to respond, but I think you know the arguments, even if you don't agree with them, so I'm not inclined to elaborate extensively. Clearly the deficit is having a big impact on the economy, and the Clinton administration generated surplus. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have effectively turned the wealth of the country over to the super rich. The dollar is sinking and propped up by foreign investors, and at the mercy of the Saudis and others. Whatever other economic factors are at work, Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are a major factor, IHO (and to think they'd have us believe this is good for the economy). Civil liberties, I feel I need hardly elaborate on. Phone tapping, arbitrary arrests, Guantanamo, and others. All very clear and invidious. Congress didn't authorize the Iraq invasion. They voted to transfer power to Bush to decide if and when to invade. Unconstitutional. The failure to get UN backing also deplorable. Bin Laden non-capture, OK, that's just a lack of achievement, and I agree, their should be limits to US power on foreign soil; not that this has stopped the administration elsewhere, so seems not much of an excuse. Katrina, the disaster I can't blame on Bush, although the insensitivity and incompetence of the response I sure can. Kyoto protocol - US is the largest single emitter of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. We need to step up to the plate. John Bolton - no class appointment to the UN. John Ashcroft - see Civil Liberties. Plame Affair - backtracking of dealing with the administration as source of exposure of Valerie Plame, and cover-up to protect Cheney/Rove. Selling sovereignty - see economy and weakness of the dollar. Anyway, this just skims the surface. I also object to supreme court appointments, No Child Left Behind, attempt to privatize social security, and almost everything else that's been done with in the name of conservative ideology. I've seen public schools closed, money taken from community programs, people working all hours to make ends meet. It's just a bad situation all round. And the comparison with the boom under Clinton can't be ignored.

Good morning Bravenewworld, Thank you for taking the time to offer some elaboration of your first submission. I understand that you may not have wished to invest a chunk of your time re-hashing the same old arguments. However, I asked for specifics because it is only by doing the research that one begins to see for themselves how the substance of your arguments, particularly the economic arguments are flawed. For example: the deficit as a stand-alone issue is not a burden to the economy. It is only when the deficit exemplifies unrestrained, continued deficit spending, on top of an enormous cumulative debt level that the dollar begins to deflate. I have alluded to a number of Bush disappointments, and outright failures. The unrestrained deficit spending definitely falls under the failure category. Bush should have vetoed every single Congressional budget proposal that contained any pork – period! Also with regard to the economy: The Clinton surplus that you keep referencing was an accounting fraud! I brought up Worldcom, Enron, the dot.com’s, and the U.S. General Accounting Office examples as a reminder for you, and the other readers of this thread, of the creative accounting methodology fiasco that robbed countless Americans of their retirement funds, and demonstrated that even the government bean counters were all complicit in ‘cooking the books’. One can engineer fictitious net surpluses for only so long. Eventually the true figures will come to light. And, when they do no doubt it’s gonná sting! The numbers don’t lie! The Clinton recession started to clearly rear it’s ugly head during the second half of 1999. Go back and check the employment figures, the numbers of new jobs created, the G.D.P., the capitol investment figures, and the stock indices for the 1998-1999 period. Remember, it was in the ’99 3rd, & 4th , quarters, leading into the 1st three quarters of the year 2000 that millions of Americans lost sizeable chunks of their investments. I personally know some who lost over half of their net worth because of the accounting frauds that led to the dot.com burst. Continuing with the economy, no doubt the trillions worth of foreign owned bonds & tangible assets is of monumental concern! Again, I’ll saddle Bush with the responsibility for not firmly and consistently vetoing Congressional spending proposals. I’ll also blame Bush for continuing to support Congressional Foreign Aid dollars being sent to virtually every corner of the globe. Though, it is Congress who bears the ultimate responsibility for the budgets that they pen & present. If assigning blame is of benefit for you, then I suggest you take a close look at certain high ranking California Senators, who personally (and familialy) profited to the tune of millions, from unethical siphoning of Veterans spending projects! Was she impeached? No! Did she have to repay the funds? No! Her only punishment was having to resign from the Veteran sub-committee. She still collects a taxpayer salary and accumulates taxpayer Federal retirment benefits. Now that's scandalous! I wasn’t being argumentative when I requested specific corroboration for your claims. And, I wasn’t trying to lure you into having to write a lengthy post. Though, that would probably be a nice bonus for our thread host, Cynddvs. I was sincerely hoping that you would research your response so that you would see, for yourself, that the numbers do not lie. There is a paper trail, the truth is out there, and it doesn’t take that much effort to unravel it. Though, that’s not going to happen as long as we’re relying on talking points from the media, the DNC or the GOP. Americans need to start thinking for themselves!

Good morning LadyLuna, You may have some statistics on your side. But one can be selective in one's research. Clearly tax cuts for the wealthy and spending billions on a war was a recipe for economic disaster. I just don't believe Bush has shown any fiscal discipline. The Clinton presidency clearly saw an economic expansion. He showed you can have compassionate government that gives assistence to those that need it, and run a tight ship economically. I'd so much rather see tax payers dollars being spent on people that need it. That means health care insurance, public schools, community programs, and yes, foriegn aid. When people say its a crime that the wealthiest nation has so many citizens without health coverage and living in poverty, it basically points to the wealth being in the hands of too few. The conservative ideology of the Bush administration just flies in the face of practical help for those that need it most. And as the wealthiest nation, we do too little compared to other developed nations in giving aid to rest of the world and in solving global problems. It's just a moral issue all round, versus an ideological one that basically translates to 'I'm all right jack, keep your hand off my stack'. Anyway, I recommend we give Hillary a chance to see whether she can repeat the success of the previous Clinton administration. She's astute enough to apply the right practical solutions to the problems that would be the legacy of failure from the Bush administration.