Bush supporters and hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Aug 24, 2010.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    As per Kavika in another thread, I'm starting this one. I don't expect any answers, but thought I'd try anyway.

    Why is it that Bush supporters only care about certain issues when Obama is president, but didn't say anything when Bush was president and did the exact same things, if not worse?

    Why is it that Bush supporters can never admit that they made a mistake voting for the guy and that he did a lot of really terrible things? I know you're out there, Bush's approval rating was dismal his last term.

    So what's with the hypocrisy?
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    Lee I'm afraid without any specific examples this will just be discounted as a broad brush "bush bashin" thread.

    The thing with hypocrites is you have to point it out in concrete terms otherwise its "spinning the truth."
     
  3. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #3
    Your question is based on a false premise... that conservatives 'only care about certain issues when Obama is president, but didn't say anything when Bush was president and did the exact same things, if not worse?'

    The fact that you're unaware of the criticisms due to the media you consume, the crowd you hang out with, the news you get, etc. doesn't mean it didn't exist. In fact it did. However, you are right that a major majority of conservatives are harder on Obama than they were on Bush.

    As I stated in a different thread, back in MAY:

     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Where were the tea parties when Bush was racking up the defecit with two wars and where were the tea parties when Bush signed the bank bailouts into law?
     
  5. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    If you stopped reading where you stopped quoting, I can see why you'd have that question. If on the other hand, you read my entire post (including the quoted section) you'd have your answer already. C'mon people, reading skills! :eek:
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    This is also what I want to know. There was no TEA Party for the entire 8 years. Conservatives voted for Bush in droves.

    I have never heard one conservative, especially on these boards, admit that he or she was wrong to vote for Bush.
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Someone will have to quote this for Lee:

    I understand the concern that the movement suddenly appeared. While I disagree that this is in fact the truth as I've personally been involved in these types of movements for quite some time, and was part of organizations/groups criticizing Bush as well, I understand the sentiment... and it's true that it's much stronger and more vocal than ever before. There are several reasons for this.

    1. The spending and debt are increasing faster and stronger than ever before.
    2. The 'lesser of two evils syndrome'. For many in this movement, small government, lower spending, etc. are not just slogans... they are deeply held core principles. While they felt frustration, fear, disappointment, etc. during Bush's term, they were more fearful than excess criticism of Bush would have led to a far worse alternative being voted into office. They were afraid that if they went after him too much on NCLB, that we would have had Kerry instead of Bush in 2004. They were afraid that if they went after him too much on prescription drugs and border security that they would have had an even larger liberal takeover of the congress in 2006. While I personally have given up on supporting the lesser of two evils, I think it's certainly a valid argument, and certainly a big explanation of the relatively quietness of this group during the past 8 years. Still though, it's intellectually dishonest and/or ignorant to say that there weren't people upset with Bush's spending and growth of government.
    3. They view Obama to be an extremist who's going to change things faster and more aggressively than ever before. This is evidenced by his record-crushing deficits, takeover of healthcare, bailout of banks/business, cap&trade, etc. They see him as supporting unconstitutional policies, which is true in my opinion as well. They don't just disagree with him like they did with Bush, they straight-up fear him. And unfortunately, I think that fear is justified.

    I would also point out that the timing of the movement does not necessarily invalidate their points. Even if all the criticisms are true, and you consider my points above are irrelevant, being hypocritical does not destroy the argument. Only lessens their credibility in the eyes of some.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    You have some serious delusions of grandeur if you really think this whole thing is about you.
     
  9. advres Guest

    advres

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    Ughh both parties do this and will continue into the future. This isn't like it is something new.
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    I am honestly glad you started this thread. I hope people on "all sides" will post. First, let me say why I am glad you started this thread, and then I'll do my best say where I fall in all this.

    I am glad you brought it up because anyone can see that Bush is injected with lightening speed into almost every thread in this forum these days. This gets old for several reasons, but two come to mind. First, every time Bush is injected it is with the undercurrent that the other poster is a hypocrite and/or that the "group" he/she seems to be speaking from is a hypocrite of a group. I once started a thread regarding whether an allegation of hypocrisy was an ad hominem attack. As I recall, roughly half the people said yes, half said no. (I'll try and find the link.) Either way, it absolutely destroys - and this is my second point - any significant discussion of the issue at hand on its own terms.

    As to Lee's thread here, I know I am guilty of hypocrisy. Going back a bit, I believe the first time I actually voted (I was pathetically lazy and justified my laziness by saying "my vote doesn't count" and "I don't like either candidate" and all the other BS someone says to justify not voting) was for Dole. I had no justification for that other than it seemed to be what all my conservative law school friends that I hung with at the time were doing.

    I believe the next time I voted it was for Libertarian candidate Harry Brown against Gore/Bush. (I may have to edit this later if I am mixing these guys up.) I went through a strong libertarian phase from Economics I my freshman year through my late-20s. When Bush II ran a second time, I honestly don't remember if I voted for Bush or whether I voted at all. But to put it simply, I was glad Bush won.

    So, on to some of Bush's policies. I usually care more about economic policy, and then foreign policy, and then domestic social policy. It was not until recent years that opened my eyes to how insane military spending had become. It took me a long time to realize that Haliburton (sp?) and all those folks really were milking the US as much as all of the social programs I had (and still often do) hated. That was an uncomfortable realization - that Republicans/"conservatives" were doing exactly what I saw (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) Democrats/"progressives" doing - wasting insane amounts of taxpayer money.

    On to 9/11 and Iraq. I am guilty of believing every-single-word Bush and Co. fed us about the importance of going into Iraq and Afghanistan. I wasn't on this forum back then, but I would have been one of those *******s saying, "If you are against the war, you are against America." I now see how immature, wrong, etc. that position was.

    Can I take that back. Nope.

    Regarding domestic social policy - abortion and gay rights come to mind - I've never verbalized much of an opinion on either because - honestly - I've never had much of an opinion on either. Just as I know little about the murders in the Congo - doesn't mean it's not important; I'm just not educated in that arena. So, how is this relevant? I honestly don't remember the history of abortion, gay rights, etc. under prior presidents. Over recent years I've contemporaneously started leaning towards equal rights for gays allthewhile leaning against the idea of state-ordained marriage at all. (Perhaps that's why I'm divorced. Who knows. ;) )

    So, I'll probably be editing this post, but I want to hit submit before I have to run some errands. To conclude, I know I am hypocritical to an extent when it comes to my prior support of the wars (the costs of them) and my current attacks on Obama's administration's debt spending. Likewise, I am hypocritical in that I used to be very hawkish and am now hopeful we will get our ass out of every country possible, regardless of whether we are fighting a war there or have just been hanging out there since WWII. As for domestic social issues, I honestly never had much of an opinion I am more and more pro-gay rights, more and more anti-state-controlled marriage for anyone, more and more pro-abortion rights, more and more anti-affirmative action, and more and more pro-reparations (but that'll have to wait for a rainy day discussion); does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. Do I give a *****. Nope.

    So, that's all the time I have at the moment.

    I hope others will post here.

    I hope also that this thread can serve as a substitute for Bush-ifying every thread.

    Thanks, Lee.

    EDIT: One last thing since it also comes up in almost all threads and deals with hypocrisy. I have generally been a supporter of the concept of the tea party movement. Does that mean I align myself with the extreme idiots in that crowd, no. Does it mean I feel even the slightest need to defend the tea party, absolutely not. Does it me I like the idea of an anti-large government effort, yes. Does it mean that the concept of the tea party hasn't been hijacked by "both sides," of course not.

    EDIT II: One other last thing. I initially sat on the sidelines when Bush started the ball rolling on bailouts when the economy started collapsing. However, while Bush was still in office, I grew very uncomfortable with where the bailouts were headed. Should I have spoken out? Yes. Did I? I don't think so, but I really can't remember. I am now adamantly against any bailouts. I am probably hypocritical in this regard in that when it first came out of Bush's mouth, I was quiet on the subject. But I make no apologies for "bashing" (for lack of a better word) Obama for any current or future bailouts.
     
  11. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Thank you- honestly! This is what a lot of us need to hear more of. We never got any honesty out of the conservative side regarding Bush's absolute failures. That is what a lot of us need to hear- that you guys realize what he did to this country and won't be fooled again by someone like him.

    It's nice to hear. (And yes, I have always been against bailouts too.)
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    I would not expect people to post about the hypocrisy because this thread is nothing more than a bait thread. It is rather low. I would say both sides are hypocrists. They bitch and moaned about debt spending no matter who is in power. Now Obama is in power the dems are in full support of it. When GOP was in power it was the other way around.

    Either way I call this thread a pure bait thread. These forums have turn pretty harsh to anyone of a more conservitive point of view and their will be flaming on any of them who post.
     
  13. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Not at all. This was in response to a request from Kavika that I start this thread. He gave a great answer, with tons of good explanation.

    This is only a bait thread if people want it to be.
     
  14. supercaliber macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #14
    Completely agree and thanks for helping me realize I can't spell bait.
     
  15. Ttownbeast, Aug 24, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2012
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I'm not really sure how you can say this when Obama is to the right of every other successful nation on the planet (and also rules one of the least successful ones these days on a number of measures).
     
  17. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #17
    I would normally agree with you, and anyone else here who thinks this is a bait thread, or just a Bush-bashing thread. But it's not. For months - hell, maybe over a year - I periodically implore someone to start this exact thread. Why? Because the alternative is what we are doing now - turn every single thread into a you-liked-Bush-probably-so-you-are-a-hypocrite. I've let my anger be known time and again at injecting Bush into every single thread.

    So, Lee took me up on my suggestion. In return, I laid out some of the ways I am guilty of this hypocrisy. (There are probably more.)

    Why? (And this is why this thread could be so important.) Because if we hit The Bush Hypocrisy issue head-on here, perhaps we can finally bury the Bush Hypocrisy allegations that permeate every-single-thread. We can simply, politely, point people to this thread if they want to get down and dirty on this issue.
     
  18. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Since when has Rollins been considered conservative? Ever watch his show?
     
  19. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #19
    Thanks a lot for posting that, kavika.

    I agree that the Bush thing does come up a lot, but from my own perspective, I hope you can understand how frustrating it is to spend years presenting what you think are entirely reasonable criticisms of a frankly awful President, and to be simply dismissed as a liberal Bush-bashing traitor who hates America, then to have the same horde years later offer all the same criticisms you did and not only pretend that's what they thought all along, but that they dissented out of principle, while you were still just a liberal traitor, no matter how right you were.

    Sometimes it seems like the ridiculous cult of personality that was built around Bush has been completely flushed down the memory hole. It's nice to know someone remembers. I was always skeptical of the Orwellian idea that skillful application of propaganda and revisionism could cause people to forget their own prior opinions completely, but I feel the last couple of years have been evidence for how naive I was about that.
     
  20. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    Nicely put. I think you hit the nail on the head.
     
  21. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #21
    It's easy to say, because American Presidents aren't compared against the democratic-socialist, socialist, communist, marxist, and other assorted leaders of the rest of the world... they're compared against past Presidents of the United States. This is because America was founded to be different than the rest of the world... a political experiment which promised maximum liberty and minimum government.

    When compare Obama against these ideals and against past Presidents, you quickly realize that Obama is easily the most liberal/socialist president in American history, who has done more and passed more laws along with his Dem congress to denigrate the limited government constitution and the liberties of its citizenry than anyone since FDR.
     
  22. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #22
    So FDR is then the most liberal President? :confused:
     
  23. Ttownbeast, Aug 24, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2012
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Other than as nonsense rhetoric no serious country in the world exists in isolation anymore, so its absolutely fair to compare the US to other countries.

    And if we definitely should ignore buzzwords and focus on results - which are far more important than whether someone is labelled a communist or not.

    America was founded to be better than the rest of the world. Something it achieved from the early 20th century (if not earlier) to at least 1980.

    I think we can safely say that in 1790 that America was by far the worlds greatest democracy. The only countries that were remotely close were Venice and the UK - the former was highly decayed and the latter had ridiculous rotten boroughs, and both largely only let the rich vote.

    That's not true anymore.
     
  25. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #25
    I see your point. That must be/have been frustrating. That is part of my hope for this thread - to hash out both sides of the Bush-years-hypocrisy debate. It is worth discussing in depth, just as it is worth moving on and debating current topics on their own terms as appropriate (e.g. nary a mention of Bush when it serves for unnecessary conflation).

    But I don't underestimate the frustration you express.
     

Share This Page