Defending Bush on social issues

I'm sure nobody will be surprised by this, but I'm actually defending George W. Bush on his social agenda.

I came across this column in The Eagle-Tribune of Massachusetts. I agree 100 percent with the writer. I think that Iraq, but more importantly just the fact that Bush is a Republican and most people on this board and well registered Democrats in general put the blinders of hate on. Let's give the man some credit. As you read the column, you'll realize a lot of his accomplishments are what Democrats want to do, and because of that, his own party is on his case. People complain and cry for more to be done, and when he does it, he still gets shit from both sides.


Published: 01/10/2007 in The Eagle-Tribune

Bush gets little credit for actions

Jay Ambrose
Eagle-Tribune

Whether it's helping get the homeless into homes, fighting malaria and other diseases in Africa, or spending on U.S. poverty programs, President Bush is breaking records - and getting no credit for it.
You might say he's a stealth humanitarian, someone whose heartlessness is constantly preached while his accomplishments are persistently ignored.

But then you stumble on the Bush ambition regarding chronic homelessness. He wants to end it, and the consequences of administration efforts to date are amazing - significant percentage drops in such cities as San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami, Dallas, Denver and Portland, Ore.

The basic idea of the program being endlessly advocated by a Bush appointee, Philip Mangano, is for cities to combine federal, local and charitable funds to put the chronically homeless into their own apartments and assist them with social services, instead of dealing with them piecemeal so they too often end up in jails, hospitals and other facilities. As various news accounts explain, you save money this way, but here's the real gold: You save lives.

Despite some critics - and they certainly exist - the evidence to date seems to be that these homeless Americans are conquering their addictions and other problems to an extent not previously experienced in those communities that have adopted this strategy and are implementing it through vigorously implemented 10-year plans.

Now, jump across the ocean to Africa, where Bush has increased developmental and humanitarian aid to $4 billion a year from the $1.4 billion allocated in 2001, and done it the right way. The wrong way is to hand money to dictators who then use it to buttress their oppressive powers. Bush has said through his Millennium Challenge Account program that you get aid if you govern justly, invest in your citizens and allow economic freedom.

Where he particularly wins me over is in sending help to fight AIDS and malaria. In the case of this last dread disease that afflicts close to 400 million Africans a year and kills as many as 2 million - mainly children - it has taken something more than patty cake to face down the environmentalist fanatics opposed to the indoor spraying of DDT.

But this Oval Office occupant isn't caring for large numbers of the poor at home, you maybe say. If you do, you are wrong. Anti-poverty spending from 2001 to 2005 increased by 39 percent - well above inflation - so that the anti-poverty portion of the federal budget is now at a record high.

My point here is not that this man Bush is a hero on all issues or without political sin. My view is that he has many faults, some of them important, but that he is nowhere close to what leftist writers and his Democratic opponents portray him as being: a figure of demonic purposes and the compassion of a rock.


Jay Ambrose is the former Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com.

 

This is the second piece I've read today giving Bush credit for what's been done combating AIDS in Africa. Perhaps it's a coincidence, perhaps this is the latest spin effort from the White House. That's fine. I have no problem giving credit for improving the situation there. I have no doubt the man would prefer things be better in a number of ways. I don't think he's evil (that'd be Cheney) but I do think he has not been intellectually curious about problems and as a result has been completely ineffective as a leader. Unfortunately, Bush's accomplishments are a teaspoon worth, and his failures are the entire teapot.

 

Well as most people believe, as I'm sure you do, his pot runneth over. I happen to believe despite his flaws - which every human has - he is a good person who doesn't deserve to be demonized the way he constantly is. Especially when anyone in this world would agree with the views offered up by the rulers of Iran and Venezuala.

 

I agree, Rufino. If Bush had concentrated on domestic issues, he would have far more accomplishments than dissapointments. I think it's hard for many Americans to see those accomplishments after this debacle that is Iraq. I'm a liberal. I've made no secret on this board that I don't like Bush, but I might dislike him a lot less if he had concentrated on domestic issues and the economy. I'm not sure that would have been possible for him after 9/11 though.

 

I'm just curious why he hasn't trumpeted these 'triumphs'...Lord knows he could use the positive press. I don't think it's because he's humble...

 

Spup -
I would disagree just a bit on your suggestion about his choices after 9/11.

He could have very well addressed the war on terror AND the domestic agenda at the same time...that's his job.

But in his effort to keep Americans scared and the power with his party, he CHOSE to ride the war on terror and neglect the domestic agenda, IMO.

 

His laughable record re condoms pretty much neutralizes any added loot he's thrown at the Africa/AIDS
situ . . .

 

Oh, I didn't mean to make it sound like it was impossible after 9/11. I'm just not sure he's enough of a multitasking president to be able to do that.

It's been awhile, but I do remember how supportive most were about entering Afghanistan because we believed the people who had done this were supported by Taliban. I also remember working at a television station when we had the initial strikes on Iraq. There were only 10 minute windows for local news and it seemed like everything else just dissapearred from the radar. I'm not defending the man for what's become of his presidency. As I said, I hate the man.

 

Well he did try and push for Social Security changes. Changes that I believe are a better system for youngin's like me. Unfortunately nobody really wanted to listen or have a real debate about the issue and well my generation will be screwed in the long run.

 

RSC, Bush's "ideas" on Social Security is flawed and poor. This isn't about not having a debate, it is about properly addressing it. Privatization is not always the answer, especially when it comes to giving money away.

FACT.

 

This is what I mean. It's not even about whether you think the idea is flawed or I think it is good.

This is about the fact that someone in the friggin government tried to open the debate and create dialogue about what we can do. His is just one option, one opinion. Where are the others? I guess in the Dems mind this issue is their "STAY THE COURSE"

 

The trouble is there can be no compromise with this administration. The "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric carries over to everything they do. It's impossible to seriously address some of these issues when there is no willingness to even look for a middle ground. When the president's father was in office, things were nowhere near this polarized because he ran things like a grownup.