Red State Views

[sgeeeee]

Some of you may be wondering what's motivating the 29% or so of the population that still approves of this President's performance. Here are some quotes from supporters in one of the reddest of red states.

As President's Poll Numbers Fall, Many in Utah Stand by the Man http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/washington/04believers.html?th&emc=th

PROVO, Utah — Here in what may be the reddest city in the reddest of states, where Democrats sometimes gather like lost souls at the one Starbucks, most people are standing by President Bush.
… "When I watch him, I see a man with his heart in the right place," said Delia Randall, a 22-year-old mother from Provo, the hub of a county that gave Senator John Kerry just 11 percent of the presidential vote in 2004. "I like George Bush because he is God fearing, and that's how a lot of people in this area feel."
… "I'm against the war in Iraq — and what happened with Hurricane Katrina, well, it was a failure by everybody," said Ron Craft, a sales manager in Provo who said he was a devout Mormon and a strong conservative who considered himself independent politically. "I tend to judge a person by their character. And President Bush reminds me of President Reagan. He's a man of principle."
. . . Mr. Craft said he was distrustful of news media portrayals of Mr. Bush because "they concentrate too much on the negative and certain small things."
. . . "He's strong, and he doesn't waver," said Jaren Olsen, 18, a freshman at Brigham Young, the nation's largest religiously affiliated private university, who is from Albany. "I like that he is for the family, that marriage should only be between a man and woman. And the war, we need to finish what we started."
. . . "I'm not sure of anything he's done, but I like that he's religious — that's really important," Ms. Pulsipher said.
. . . "This is a community committed to faith, family and freedom, and that translates to consistent popularity for George Bush," said Mayor Lewis K. Billings of Provo.
. . . "People here like so much of what George Bush has done," Mr. Billings said. "I think he's got support on almost everything — except immigration."
. . . "I like his honesty," said Allison Wilkey, a mother of three.
. . . "There is this puritanical strain when it comes to thrift here, and one of the dominant themes is to get out of debt," said Joseph A. Cannon, the chairman of the State Republican Party. "So people wonder why we, the Republicans, control every branch of government and yet we can't stay out of debt."
. . . "We don't talk politics because everyone is so one-sided," said Sarah Rueckert, a mother of three and a Mormon who just moved back to Utah after 10 years of living in places like Chicago, Portland and San Francisco. "They're all pro-Bush."

 

[Cut-Throat]

Sounds like they are looking for someone to lead the morman church intead of the U.S.A.

 

[farmerEd]

"I'm not sure of anything he's done, but I like that he's religious — that's really important," Ms. Pulsipher said.

There's my favorite...shows off the real deep thinkers you find amongst the 29% that still find a reason to support this moron.

 

[AltaRed]

"I'm not sure of anything he's done, but I like that he's religious — that's really important," Ms. Pulsipher said.

There's my favorite...shows off the real deep thinkers you find amongst the 29% that still find a reason to support this moron.

From my perspective, many of Bush's supporters are becoming closer to cult followers... and that is even more scary.

 

[bosco]

"I like his honesty" is my personal favourite.

from size of fish he catches to WMDs and many things inbetween, the man is a bald-faced liar. Interesting to consider the level of gullibility involved in his supporters.

I can understand (but not agree) with people that realize he is a liar and support him anyway as the lesser of two evils. But all the God-fearing, honest stuff. That's REALLY scary.

 

[setab]

Well,

Did he look a national camera straight on and say clearly, "I did not have sex with that woman." Let's just have a little balance here. I would have preferred "It's none of your damn business" to a bold faced lie. The parentheses assume those in the middle are stupid just because they don't agree with them. That's enlightened.

setab

 

[Caroline]

Did he look a national camera straight on and say clearly, "I did not have sex with that woman."  Let's just have a little balance here.  I would have preferred "It's none of your damn business" to a bold faced lie. 

I remember seeing Clinton interviewed before he was elected the first time.  Reporter asked:  "Have you cheated on your wife?"  Clinton's response (delivered with a laugh):  "Well, if I HAD, I wouldn't tell YOU!"

I L'dMAO. 

He should have stuck with that answer all the way through.

 

[sgeeeee]

Well, 

Did he look a national camera straight on and say clearly, "I did not have sex with that woman."  Let's just have a little balance here.  I would have preferred "It's none of your damn business" to a bold faced lie.  The parentheses assume those in the middle are stupid just because they don't agree with them.  That's enlightened.

setab

See . . . this is the kind of response I don't get.  The posted article simply goes to a region of the country that is a political stronghold for a currently very unpopular President and asks people why they like him.  I didn't post the whole article -- just the direct quotes -- but I don't recall anything in the article that made value judgements either.  So some of the posters on this board have posted what they thought of those quotes and they were less than impressed with them.  I could understand if someone agreed with the quotes and defended them.  I could understand if someone said I still agree with this President for other reasons.  The people in the article don't reflect my views but I still like him.  But I don't understand the attack on Clinton.  What does that have to do with anything?  Bill Clinton is no longer in public office and does not have any authority over the current administration.  Not a single word in the article defends or supports Bill Clinton.  Although I don't understand it, I have come to expect it.  It is a well-used manuever from the Karl Rove playbook:  "If the administration is caught screwing-up, attack Bill or Hillary."  It is an interesting strategy.  Why would anyone find this argument appealing?  

 

[AltaRed]

Agreed this thread has nothing to do with any president that preceded Bush. That was a cheap shot and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[bosco]

Did he look a national camera straight on and say clearly, "I did not have sex with that woman." Let's just have a little balance here. I would have preferred "It's none of your damn business" to a bold faced lie. The parentheses assume those in the middle are stupid just because they don't agree with them. That's enlightened.

As I recall, one of the big thrusts of Bush's campaign was all this "integrity" that he had. Integrity is a state of being that is the opposite of lying. Bush is pretty much the opposite of integrity. What's more honest--flat out avoiding the draft or using daddy's strings to allow you to essentially go AWOL without repercussions?

Both Bush and Clinton are liars. Clinton was a competent president. Bush is not. Clinton didn't try to make honesty the centerpiece of his platform.

 

[setab]

Well, 

Did he look a national camera straight on and say clearly, "I did not have sex with that woman."  Let's just have a little balance here.  I would have preferred "It's none of your damn business" to a bold faced lie.  The parentheses assume those in the middle are stupid just because they don't agree with them.  That's enlightened.

setab

See . . . this is the kind of response I don't get.  The posted article simply goes to a region of the country that is a political stronghold for a currently very unpopular President and asks people why they like him.  I didn't post the whole article -- just the direct quotes -- but I don't recall anything in the article that made value judgements either.  So some of the posters on this board have posted what they thought of those quotes and they were less than impressed with them.  I could understand if someone agreed with the quotes and defended them.  I could understand if someone said I still agree with this President for other reasons.  The people in the article don't reflect my views but I still like him.  But I don't understand the attack on Clinton.  What does that have to do with anything?  Bill Clinton is no longer in public office and does not have any authority over the current administration.  Not a single word in the article defends or supports Bill Clinton.  Although I don't understand it, I have come to expect it.  It is a well-used manuever from the Karl Rove playbook:  "If the administration is caught screwing-up, attack Bill or Hillary."  It is an interesting strategy.  Why would anyone find this argument appealing?  

So you can stereotype "red state" people, call them "deep thinkers" and make fun of their opinions and suggest that anyone that feels that way is a "moron," but those aren't "cheap shots, they are thoughtful comments.  Frankly, that's the kind of response I don't get.  The comment about Clinton is factual.  He did what I said.  You drew the conclusions about what it meant.  I offer it to balance the blatantly ad homin attacks on people in "the red states."  Disagree with President Bush or anyone else for that matter all you want, but don't think those who feel differently are all stupid just because they don't agree with you.  If it was not your intent to give that impression or encourage that kind of a response, then I misread the post and I apologize.

setab

 

[Non sequitur]

Disagree with President Bush or anyone else for that matter all you want, but don't think those who feel differently are all stupid just because they don't agree with you. 

setab



Actually, they are stupid because they blindly follow on the basis of faith.

 

[eridanus]

The comment about Clinton is factual. He did what I said. You drew the conclusions about what it meant.

setab

Clinton is no longer the standing President and hasn't been for 6 years. Get over it.

 

[saluki9]

Agreed this thread has nothing to do with any president that preceded Bush. That was a cheap shot and irrelevant to the discussion.

Ok, but cheap shots are ok against president Bush?

I see how it works now :

 

[brewer12345]

Ok, but cheap shots are ok against president Bush?

I see how it works now   :

We're just making up for 8 years of cheap shots at Clinton when he was president plus 6 years' worth after he retired.

 

[saluki9]

Ok, but cheap shots are ok against president Bush?

I see how it works now :

We're just making up for 8 years of cheap shots at Clinton when he was president plus 6 years' worth after he retired.

You have to love the Left! Remember, when Clinton was in office it "wasn't fair" to criticize a sitting president. Now that he's out of office we can't criticize him because he's not the sitting president.

All I can say is wow.

 

[laurence]

Nobody said it wasn't fair to criticize him, I usually hear the crybaby complaints from the other side in the form of, "How dare you criticize the President when troops are in harm's way!"

Clinton is old news, the fact that he is continually dragged out to counterpoint Bush's shortcomings is pathetic. All President's should be criticized for poor actions while in office, regardless of party.

 

[shiny]

Even though it is blatantly obvious that I am biased here's one more opinion...

I judge the compentency of politicians by how they answer unrehearsed questions. Clinton is so smart about so many things that he can answer in an impressive way (also see Barak Obama, John McCain and even Trent Lott for goodness sakes). Bush seems like a deer caught in the headlights.

Unfortunately a lot of "red staters" (my dad included, so I'm an authority ) feel that if they admit anything is wrong with Bush they are giving in to the "left" when I just see it as being realistic. I try not to demonize Bush in mixed company, but they have no qualms about bashing my beliefs. I thinks its the Fox News koolaid.

 

[Cool Dood]

Is there a separate thread for people who think that both Bush and Clinton are morons without much integrity, and they're not worth defending?

I mean, come on, they are politicians!

 

[brewer12345]

Is there a separate thread for people who think that both Bush and Clinton are morons without much integrity, and they're not worth defending?

I mean, come on, they are politicians!

Hmmm, I find it hard to think of Clinton as a moron. Duplicitous, overly slick and with policies that didn't appeal to everyone, but not dumb.

Bush, by comparison, seems to be in the category of "he's moron, but dammit, he's OUR moron!" :

 

[Cool Dood]

Is there a separate thread for people who think that both Bush and Clinton are morons without much integrity, and they're not worth defending?

I mean, come on, they are politicians!

Hmmm, I find it hard to think of Clinton as a moron. Duplicitous, overly slick and with policies that didn't appeal to everyone, but not dumb.

Oh right... Sorry, I forgot, he's only a moron when compared to a Super Genius like me. The rest of you, you'll have to figure out your own thing.....

Bush, by comparison, seems to be in the category of "he's moron, but dammit, he's OUR moron!" :

I dunno, they're all politicians... sure, Clinton's smarter than Bush, but they're still both vile.

 

[brewer12345]

I dunno, they're all politicians... sure, Clinton's smarter than Bush, but they're still both vile.

No argument from me, there. The thing I disliked the most about Clinton was the executive branch power grab once he was in office. Pretty much every President has done the same thing, but it doesn't get any less repugnant with repetition.

 

[razztazz]

You have to love the Left! Remember, when Clinton was in office it "wasn't fair" to criticize a sitting president.

Some brand new history.

 

[MJ]

We're just making up for 8 years of cheap shots at Clinton when he was president.

And that was while he was doing a great job and didn't get too many people killed to boot.

so let's see,

Clinton = did a great job, great economy, lied about a private matter that got no one killed except millions of sperms. Yeh I know, all those wasted 1/2 lives.
Bush = doing terrible job, poor economy, lied (or was irresponsibly misinformed) about a national matter (WMD) that has got and continues to get, many people killed.

Yeh i'd take Bush everytime but then again, I have been known to be suicidal too.

 

[brewer12345]

Hmm, I guess I find it hard to credit any particular president for an economy. They don't actually have that much control, IMO. I think all we can expect is reasonable reactions to recessions and inflation (got the former under Bush - the correct reaction) and not to leave the public till stuffed with too many IOUs. On the economic side, I think the deficit and debt are the biggest black marks on Bush thus far.