61% of historians rate bush presidency as worst

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pjdude1219, Apr 18, 2008.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    ? my point is perfectly clear? and i know how to construct an argument but by your polls are bad and wrong with nothing to prove polls are bad and evil and useless. The basis for your whole point is based of a statement with no support. You sound exactly like what you are a raving fanatic not willing to give up beliefs that aren't grounded in reality. When your willing to make a point that is logical and has evidence given than i will take you seriously. You have spent most of your time insulting people which isn't making an argument? your 28 yet you argue like someone half your age.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    McCain is the most like Reagan of the three - not only in his genial press relations and glamorous second wife, or his vague grasp of things like economics and law and political history coupled with firm, longtime support from various lobbyfolk whose understanding is more particular, or his age and frequent "senior moments",

    but in the kinds of people and interests he will bring into the White House.

    He's not competent, and he's vulnerable to being used by those who are. Haven't we seen enough of that, with Reagan and now W ?

    And how do roads make the list of "defense" goods, while public health does not ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I know the rationale, I just don't think it adds up from a citizen's POV.

    In the theoretical, "what is a government for" sense.
     
  9. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Now I remember why I don't post in Politics.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Reagan

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I dont even think he was capable of dressing himself in the morning. He was just a STOOGE.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    cause you don't what the hell your talking about?
     
  12. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    I have to agree, even Nixon had some high points, this was just bad.
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    It's interesting. I just finished Robert Gates' book, and in it, he says Nixon was the most liberal of all the presidents he worked with (LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush).

    This assessment is somewhat born out by his public actions, as he did things other so-called conservatives could never dream of: Arms reductions with the Soviets, opening China, removing the country from the Gold Standard, etc. One wonders what a Nixonian presidency starting in 1961 would have looked like...

    And had Nixon not been completely paranoid, had he not "made his bones" in the personal politics of the 1950s when Dirty Tricks was the name of the game, he might very well have been a "great" president, or at least, "greater" than he is remembered today.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Repo Man, you and I are just going to have to diagree. The job of the executive is to effectively manage subordinates. Carter did not manage the Pentagon very well, and W has not done it well either.

    As the famous quote goes, "the buck stops here". And if you cannot stand the heat, then you should not be in the kitchen.
     
  15. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    My take on Bush II is that he ignored the best advice the Pentagon could give.

    A few minutes ago, Abizaid was asked if Gen. Eric Shinseki -- who famously told Congress before the war in Iraq that the military would need "several hundred thousand" troops to secure that nation after major combat operations, only to be slapped down by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- was correct.

    "Gen. Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution -- U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution -- should have been available immediately after major combat operations," Abizaid said.

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/abizaid_dont_im.html

    Both the size of the invasion force, the preparations for an occupation presence, the absence of orders to stop looting, the disbanding of the Iraqi army-- This string of things that have contributed to disorder in postwar Iraq were all specifically prepared for, allowed for, warned about by most of the apparatus of the U.S. government, though somehow not finally connected with the actual plans to go to war. Why?

    The answer to what went wrong should occupy scholars for a long time. I think it involves partly the personality of the secretary of defense, with his sort of "live for the moment" existentialism, partly an attitude prevailing in the administration that over the decades. These particular people had grown accustomed to thinking that they were likely to be right, and their critics were likely to be wrong.

    [Also], probably the personality of this president-- The evidence seems to be that he was never really exposed to the first level, top-level arguments about what the troop level should be and what the real risks might be. So his personality, and the people supporting him did not really expose him to the decisions he should have had a chance to make.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html

    Rather than listening to the experts in the Pentagon, the civilians in the Bush administration dictated how things were going to work. This was a severe error.

    Agree to disagree on Carter and Eagle Claw? I suppose so. After reviewing this and every other online write up I could find, I still cannot fault Carter for the failure. IMO, it was the best that could be done on short notice, and with the military and equipment that we had at the time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2008
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    if my memory served me correctly most of the important enviermentlyy laws got passed under nixon other than watergate he was a pretty good president
     
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    They themselves would endorse, what the fuck does that mean? Did you note this:
    Every survey I've ever seen of the political affiliation of profs in the US comes out 98% Leftwing.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    yes but what i have read it is because conservative as a group tend not to go in for whatever reasons. also it depends on how you define left wing
     
  19. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Actually, what it says is:

    So, of a very select group of institutions, 57% identify as democrat. That means 43% identify as something else. I wonder what? Though there are precious few parties that would ever view Bush favorably.

    As for te general population, it is about 50/50 because the general population is pretty easy to force into two parties, and is fairly ignorant of other political parties. Both republicans and democrats have to do all sorts of contortions to appease their varied constituents.
     
  20. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    I'm not sure Reagan did - some dude told him it was part of his movie comeback - and the guys following him round with cameras all the time completed the illusion
     
  21. Fabio4all Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    I don't particuraly like Bush, but your logic makes sense when you say some people said he wasn't a good president, therefore you're wrong in thinking he's a good president. So what if some people don't like him? That doesn't mean people are wrong in liking president Bush.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I am not a fan of W or his father. W is, in my opinion, basically an incompetent and totally lacking in skills, especially executive skills. But he did do one thing that is worthy of praise, in my opinion, and that is the appointment of Ben S. Bernanke to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke has been very innovative and creative in dealing with the recent financial crisis. He is much more reactive than Greenspan ever was, and he has a much better grasp of the economic situation than Greenspan ever had. I am not sure how Bernanke came to the position, maybe it was just shear luck. But it was the one good move I think this administration has made.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yeah, I laughed at that. So?

    What it means is that historians, as a group, tend to know what "left" and "liberal" and so forth mean, and you obviously have been listening to righty rant media, which is clueless in the matter.

    There is no "party of the left" in US national politics. For example, as I have been smilied at before for pointing out to you, the Clintons (along with most of the Dem leadership) were and are to the Right of Nixon on a Left/Right scale. Historians know that kind of stuff.

    There are a lot of reasons intelligent,informed people not beholden to corporate or political interests would be reluctant to identify themselves as Republican these past few decades, that have nothing to do with "left" or "liberal" political stances.
     

Share This Page