Where is the line?

This is a question for the pro-Bush crowd. I asked Jim this question in another thread, but I thought it would be worth broadening the question and asking the general audience.

The following is a list of events that have occured during the Bush presidency:

*The massive budget surpluses of the Clinon era have disappeared
*We are facing record deficits (in raw dollars) on a yearly basis
*The president has no plan to balance the budget (or have the budget balanced after he leaves office)
*He will be the first president since Hoover to have a net loss in jobs
*Health care costs have soared
*The Bill of Rights has been undermined
*Osama bin Laden has not been found
*The reconstruction of Afganistan has been slow and half-hearted
*His primary education acomplishment has been badly underfunded
*The president has waged a war on the environment
*He has lost the support of many of our long time allies
*World opinion of the US has plummeted
*We are facing massive trade deficits
*He has fired or removed scientists whose research disagrees with administration policy
*Gas prices have soared even after the VP put together an energy policy focusing on fossil fuels
*The country, administration, and president have been embarassed by the failure to find WMD's in Iraq
*The country, administration, and president have been embarassed by the tenuous link between Iraq and al Qaeda
*Intelligence was ignored leading up to 9/11
*We have not been "welcomed as liberators"
*The reconstruction of Iraq has come to a halt as peace cannot be reached
*The president's "coalition" has been crumbling in the face of Terrorism in Iraq
*By all accounts the situation in Iraq is getting worse
*The source of three quarters of the people and funding involved in 9/11 (Saudi Arabia) has not been mentioned diplamatically or otherwise by the administration
*Our credibility as 'benign peacekeepers' has been shattered
*al Qaeda remains a strong force (stronger even than before?)

By my count, 17-19 of these items are undisputed fact and the other 6-8 are widely held opinion (both sides of the aisle). The anti-Bush crowd will present arguements that each of these events has been the direct result of the policies of this administration. On the other hand, the president's supporters argue that the president has been 'unlucky' and these events have arisen due to circumstances beyond his control. A quick glance at the above list reveals that this has been a very unlucky president. The question of this thread is: What more has to go wrong before the president loses your vote? At what point does the list cease to be luck, and become an indication of the effectiveness of the administration?

I get the impression that the massive support of the president stems from the fact that he is a likable guy from the 'correct' political party. Because of this, his policies are defended endlessly. However, there is a growing list of mishaps. When does this list become an indictment of Bush's lack of foresight in his "It sounded like a good idea at the time" policies?

Or, does he have your vote unconditionally (well, short of building concentration camps for the extermination of left-handed people ).

Mike, Chris, thanks for answering. Some thoughts of mine:

Mike, you said that "none of the points you have raised have yet caused me to switch to Kerry". This is reasonable. None of these points, when placed in the context of the last four years is terribly upsetting (at least to someone with a conservative leaning.) As Chris pointed out, many of these things were beyond the president's control. Others, can simply be attributed to bad luck. But, when you look at the president's record as a whole, it just doesn't seem like much has gone right. The invasion of Afghanistan is a good example. The overthrow of the Taliban was a good move that was praised from both sides of the aisle (including by me). However, three years later Afghanistan is creeping toward anarchy and OBL and his gang are still on the loose. What went wrong? Similarly, the No Child Left Behind act was also widely praised, but its effect is limited by poor funding. I can't think of anything the administration has done that has been a resounding success (there probably is something, but I'll admit my thinking is tainted.) On the other hand, there have been a lot of things that have sounded like good ideas that have either turned very bad (Iraq), or have been a lukewarm success (economy).

At this point there are enough data points to notice a trend. Far more has gone wrong for this president than has gone right. Too much, I would argue, to be blamed on bad luck. (warning, rant approaching) I believe the underlying theme here lies within the administration. They have made a habit of doing what they want, when they want to do it; a luxury available to them because the republicans have controlled both houses. The problem is that they have spent insufficient time doing cost/benefit/risk analysis. They have acted on their gut instincts without the detailed examination required for matters as complicated as the economy, foreign affairs, or even terrorism. So, when something fails to go according to plan, they are stuck. This administration has no 'plan B'. It is plainly obvious that there was no contingency plan if we were not "welcomed as liberators". It is doubtful they ever considered what to do if tax cuts failed to revive the economy.

Things rarely go exactly according to plan. This is normal, and the administration should not be faulted for this fact of life. However, the leaders of this great country need to anticipate what might go wrong and prepare accordingly. The alternative is the list of failures and partial successes that have marked the last four years.

>>>>On the other hand, the president's supporters argue that the president has been 'unlucky' and these events have arisen due to circumstances beyond his control.<<<<

It has often been observed that we make our own luck. To the extent this is true, I suggest that GWB has created his own bad luck, or at the very least allowed himself to be shepherded to it by his handlers... and that "very least" comment is being exceedingly generous on my part.

In any case, all my sympathies are with the country whose welfare was entrusted to him. Now the critical question has to do with how well the country has been paying attention the past few years; what are our loyalties really about, country or government? This will be determined in about 6 weeks.