Are we talking about the same Reagan? Are you old enough to have been around and politically active in the 80’s? I was, and I’ve gotta tell you that Reagan was vilified about as much as Bush is today. He was ‘Ronnie Raygun’, the senile old fool who wanted to start WWIII, throw the homeless into the street, destroy the poor, and who was a stupid actor who starred with chimpanzees in ‘B’ movies.
The only difference then was that there was no internet for the partisans to congregate and work each other into even more of a lather. But if you hung around any college campus, you’d get an earful. There were marches on Washington by advocates for the homeless, the poor, the AARP. Frankie Goes to Hollywood had a video out called ‘Two Tribes’ which was extremely popular, and showed Reagan and Gorbachev as evil men fighting in a boxing ring. There were pro-Sandinista marches on every college, and hundreds of thousands marched against the cruise missile, the Pershing missile, SDI, you name it. Reagan was hated by the left. They just don’t like to talk about that any more because history has shown them to be pretty much wrong on all counts.
As for Bush ‘worship’, I pretty much agree with John Corrado. I detest a lot of Bush’s policies. His position on stem cells, his domestic spending, his infusion of religion where it doesn’t belong, and his cronyism. Don’t like it one bit. But if I were American and he could run for a third term, I’d probably vote for him again. Because for all his faults, the Democrats are worse. As long as the Democratic party keeps allying itself with organizations like MoveOn, ANSWER, and other fringe left groups, I can’t support them. And since there are already dozens of people on this board willing to declare Bush the personification of evil for the way he brushes his teeth, I feel no compulsion to join the chorus even when I think he’s really wrong.
It’s too bad, really. If the Democrats would step up and present a credible alternative, they could gain a lot. Instead, they keep marginalizing themselves, which is what allows people like Bush to maintain control of the country.
We have the same problem in Canada, in reverse. Our ruling Liberals are corrupt, lacking in principles, and are basically an oligarchy holding power for its own sake. But our main opposition is feckless and inept, and as a result our government continues to slide into banana-republicism.
Are you seriously stating that liberals of the '80’s didn’t attack Reagan as a senile cowboy who was happily leading the country into World War III? That people weren’t portraying the Reagan administration as immoral, criminal, and evil in their hearts? If you don’t believe that, go review the Bork hearings.
Are you seriously suggesting that Reagan wasn’t a senile cowboy who was happily leading the country into World War III? That people weren’t portraying the Reagan administration as immoral, criminal, and evil in their hearts?
Senile: Alzheimer’s known, his increasing disengagement during his second term was too.
Cowboy: “America is riding tall in the saddle again”.
War-happy: Only if you think SDI, even if successful, would have prompted a pre-emptive attack ON the US.
Immoral: Cf. Nicaragua for one thing, manipulating the Iran hostage release for another.
Criminal: His administration led the league in criminal indictments
Evil: Follows from the above by any reasonable definition.
Facts is facts. Wishing them away, as you’re doing, makes the OP’s point.
I was at college in the '80s too and the last two posters are absolutely right. As if AIDS, then pretty untreatable, wasn’t enough to scare us (our sex education was pretty much “Use a condom or YOU WILL DIE. SLOWLY.”), my friends and I were seriously debating whether or not the world would see the 21st century come in at all. Ronnie was going to blow it all up. The signs were all around us, people!!
It seems silly now but believe me, after the more laid-back 70s it was quite a jolt. However, it did make me take more of a long view. You can’t look back at your own young political fears and hopes without a lot of embarrassment and when I see roughly the same attitudes and slogans applied to Bush, I just can’t get too worked up about it. I’ve never voted for the guy either but I know plenty of people of intelligence and goodwill who did.
I’m by no means a Bush supporter across the baord. I’ve always said his position on the death penalty was horrific. I don’t like the systematic failures in intel gathering that led us into Iraq (although I stop short of saying he lied left and right). He’s in general an abysmal public speaker. I strongly oppose his support of a “federal marriage amendment” on the grounds that marriage should properly be a state matter, and even if it should be a matter of federal law, it’s wrong to forbid same-sex unions as a matter of law, period. His approach to the immigration nightmare has been tepid at best. His foreign policy has been generally ineffective, esepcially when measured against his most recent predecessors.
So, here I am, willing to criticize Bush, whom I support, and willing to compliment Clinton, whom I wanted out of office as soon as possible after it became clear he lied under oath. Why is it that the OP thinks I don’t exist?
I assure you, I am old enough to have been politically active when Reagan was governor.
Reagan wasn’t vilified by members of Congress anywhere near the level that Clinton was. Sure, there are always ordinary wingnuts that spew all sorts of personal attacks about politicians. But even in the 80’s, Reagans political opponents liked him personally, and often said his greatest asset was his charisma and ability to communicate. Contrast that to the hateful things aimed at the Clintons from the floor of Congress, as well as the whisper campaigns organized by official GOP operatives. No, by comparison, Reagan had it easy.
IOW, you do know the facts about Reagan. Partisanism consists, in part, of ignoring facts when they make your guy look bad. Thanks for the demonstration.
Unfortunately, the Enquirer BUSH’S BOOZE CRISIS is a collection of quotes from undisclosed sources. But here’s where you can find it, warts and all:
With the New York Times reporter still in jail for refusing to disclose her sources, what’ll happen to Jennifer Luce and Don Gentile, authors of the Bush exposè when the Administration gets on their tails.
That’s not why he was impeached. He was impeached because he committed a felony while holding the office.
I recall posting several times that Bush has dropped the ball on more than one thing. Most notably is his failure to close the borders and run the illegals out. And the federal response in New Orleans should have been handled better. Bush signed orders prior to Katrina’s landfall that greased the skids for federal involvement well in advance, and that was good. But that braying jackass that is the Louisiana governor held off on asking for federal help until it was too late, and then the actual implementation of the help choked bigtime.
However, it seems we learned from our mistakes with Rita. Mainly because the governor of Texas is not as big a fool as the governor of Louisiana and asked for help immediately, and we apparently learned from Katrina how NOT to do it. So far, the federal response for Rita has been very good.
Bush also needs to spearhead the movement to revise our taxes; do away with the income tax and implement the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org).
And I personally think that as long as he’s been given the name, he ought to play the game and take all of Iraq’s oil production for at least a year to help pay for liberating them. He should also tell OPEC to quit waging economic warfare against us; as long as oil prices remain higher than (say) $45 a barrel, the member nations get absolutely no foreign aid from us.
What talking points? There are no talking points that I know of. If there are, I didn’t get a copy, and I’d sure like to read what these supposed talking points are.
Yes, there are people on BOTH sides of the aisle who will parrot anything they hear. But they are fools and we all know that.
Was that before or after the whole Right-Wing-Talk-Radio-Caused-McVeigh-To-Bomb-The-Murrah-Building nonsense? The mudslinging all sort of blurs together…
I have to agree with Fear Itself on this one. I remember the 1980s and how much partisanship there was back then. It existed, but it was nothing like what Gingrich came up with. And you got the feeling that even though Reagan (and Bush) had no intention of doing anything you wanted them to, your opinion at least mattered, and the opposition would at least hear you out. By the early 1990s, some said that the Republicans had slipped into obscurity, and there were all kinds of pontification about what the imminent death of the Republican Party meant for this country (not unlike the same discussion we heard about the Democratic Party some ten years later.)
By 1992, even the Christian conservatives had abandoned the Republican Party, staying home in droves, contributing to Bush’s spectacular loss that year. Ralph Reed took credit for this, and as to losing the conservative Christian vote, I’d say he deserves it. But after that, the dyspeptic Gingrich revolution of 1994 brought on a kind of contentiousness not seen in American politics for a while. A very different Republican Party pulled off something similar during the 1918 midterms, and I can think of at least one contentious Whig Congress. (Inevitably, someone’s going to accuse me of partisanship, so I’ll head this off right now and say that I’m sure the Democrats did it at least once, but I can’t recall exactly when it happened. Happy?)
1994’s vicious fervor isn’t unheard of, but it was certainly nastier than any partisan upheavals we’ve seen for a long time. And we’re still mired in the partisanship of that revolution, and we still will be even when the Republicans fall from power. Some might say that we’d need some kind of crisis to make us all feel like we need to work together—like a popular war, for example. The Iraq War is as popular as Vietnam, so that one’s not going to do it, and the ersatz “War on Terror” isn’t exactly inspiring anyone, either. (Sure, no one likes terrorists—so what? Whether you feel this was a nationwide threat, there wasn’t a national feeling of urgency about it. Maybe if there had been continual terrorist attacks there would have been a more bipartisan cohesion, but apart from those who wanted to see their president in a better light (i.e., the Republican faithful,) the September 11 attacks were used to shore up Bush’s base, and that’s about it. Maybe I’ve gone a long way to explain why Bush didn’t have a true crisis for people to rally around, but I think it’s worth pointing out.)
1994 was also the year that Karl Rove burst onto the scene, picking up where Lee Atwater left off. I remember being able to politely disagree with Republicans back when the first Bush was in office, but after the Republican Revolution, polite discourse seemed to fly right out the door.
There hasn’t been a president in my lifetime whom I can say I liked (though I’ve got some kind words for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.) I’ve always been tepid toward Bill Clinton, but throughout the 1990s, I was constantly met with Republican frothing at the mouth whenever I’d open my mouth, whether I was critical of Clinton or not. It seems like political discourse is going to be this way for the foreseeable future. I have to say it’s a significant improvement of the way things were from late 2001 to 2004, when the media were either too cowed or too lazy to speak out against those in power.
As to Bush’s legacy: I predict that future students of history will ascribe as much importanct to September 11 as those today do to the explosion of the Maine: it was important, but in the final accounting, other things were more important. They’ll still be talking about the Iraq War, and I predict that it won’t reflect well on Bush. I wouldn’t expect much introspection on these topics yet, though; the current administration’s identity is too much tied up in them. History sometimes thrusts crises into the hands of leaders, but September 11 is one that Bush clung to, and the Iraq War is one that they picked up and wielded themselves.
I heard someone on the September 25 edition of The McLaughlin Group assert that the 2008 election will have a very different dynamic than the 2004 or 2000 elections. Maybe. But I have a hunch we’re going to see a lot of the same kind of rigid partisanship and hollow mudslinging that we saw in the last two. This might not be the case if we wind up getting candidates who are more involved in the job of running for president than George W. Bush was, if we wind up getting candidates who are more interested in doing the job of president than George W. Bush was. And we might, too. If the Republicans put up Hagel or McCain and the Democrats put up Biden or Richardson or Warner or Clinton, I’d be up for a good contest. There are other interesting candidates either party could put up who’d be a credit to national discourse; those are just a few examples. Please do not take this as an endorsement of any candidate; this Democrat is still undecided. (That’d be for another thread, and I’ve probably done enough hijacking, anyway.)
In answer to the question of the OP, no I do not feel Bush handled all three of the so called “defining moments” of his Presidency flawlessly. However when it comes to the response to the 9/11 attacks, and the war in Iraq, the general direction of his decisions has been to my liking. I don’t hold President’s to a ridiculous standard…I do hold them to a higher standard than other men. But I don’t expect every President to be perfect.
Where would I rank Bush as a president? Well me personally I think the best President the United States ever had was Theodore Roosevelt. He’s a “10 out of 10” for me. He was a man of unparalleled genius, a man of personal bravery (fought in the front lines of a war, won the medal of honor posthumously), and integrity. He was able to see foreign affairs as what they were, a competition between states and he was always striving to make sure that the United States got the upper hand in any and all dealings it had with other states. He won the Nobel Peace prize. Roosevelt was the first President to take a firm and decisive stand against large corporate interests, however he was not anti-corporation, he sought a relationship between corporations and the common man that was more fair. Roosevelt saw the light of the progressive movement and was able to implement some of its best ideas without radicalizing society or polarizing people, while at the same time he always remained a grounded conservative at heart.
Now the worst President was probably U.S. Grant, he ranks in as a 1 out of 10. He was inept, his entire administration was corrupt, he was an alcoholic, and aside from his abilities as a military leader he was not a man of great intellect or ability. Basically he was a man who never should have been President and its a damn shame that he ever was, he’s probably one of the few historical figures who’s place in history is actually diminished because of his Presidency.
With that being my spectrum I’d rank Bush as a high 6 or maybe a 7.
I like a lot of Bush’s “general” ideas. I like how he believes we need to deal with threats pre-emptively, I like the “Bush Doctrine.” I like his changes to the capital gains tax. I’m generally in favor of his judicial appointments. I’m not in favor of school vouchers which is an issue that really hasn’t come up in awhile. I am in favor of his social security reforms.
I feel he has made many mistakes. I feel that he was too hardline in his relations with other states. Ultimately I think to get things done that needed to be done we had to alienate certain other states. But I think Bush could have gone about things in a more conciliatory manner that wouldn’t have hurt our political capital on the world scene quite so much.
I think Bush is a man of average intelligence or slightly above average intelligence. I don’t think he’s “stupid” or “retarded” as I’ve heard him called. I think he’s a mediocre public speaker who is prone to embarassing gaffes from time to time.
I think he is deeply a part of the “corporate” world but I’ve seen little real evidence that the man is corrupt or that he’s “owned” by the corporations. I think some people approach conspiracy theory level with some of their anti-Bush feelings.
Anyways, I don’t support everything Bush does. I like a lot of the things Bush has done, I like a lot of his general policies and actions, however I can certainly point out flaws I’ve found in the implementation.
Anyways, sometimes I actually take the “Bush” position in a debate where I don’t even agree with Bush on the issue, or where I have no real opinion on the issue. Mainly because I often feel the anti-Bush side of the argument is being intellectually dishonest and I have a “need” to call them on it. And plus I’ve always liked playing devil’s advocate just to make sure people don’t spout things off without having anyone oppose them.
Some conservatives here have argued that they cannot express their opinion of Bush because liberals here also express negative opinions of Bush - in fact they express too much in the way of negative opinions.
It is sad to hear people admit they lack the courage to express their opinions because of the opinions of others. It is truly sad that it is acceptable to some to acknowledge such personal cowardice rather than express an opinion because it aligns with opponents of Bush.
This is why Bush will maintain the full-throated support of about 30% of the people, and why America will continue to struggle if we do not change the party in power. People of conscience are in short supply on the right, and there are not enough to step up and hold their leaders accountable for mistakes, lies and incompetence. The present Republican party places self-interest well above the interest of the country (Party Before Country Republicans).
I should add my general feelings on Bill Clinton. I think in general Bill Clinton was a sub par President. I think a lot of his legislative achievements have had little to no effect on the United States, I consider him on many levels to be a “do nothing” President. I agree with him getting involved in the Balkans. I disagree with the way in which Republicans had a witch hunt to try and impeach him. However I do think Clinton was a deeply corrupt man, both politically and personally. I think Clinton was an above average public speaker and a very intelligent man. I think he was a very good politician. But as far as being a national leader I consider him the Calvin Coolidge of the 1990s. He did little of importance, said little of consequence, and is ultimately going to end up in the dust bin of history. The Lewinsky scandal is the only reason Clinton will even stand out 50 years from now. One hundred years from now he’ll be nothing more than the answer to a trivia question. One hundred years from now George Bush will have his own chapter in virtually every high school history text dealing with the 20th/21st century.
I don’t see any un-nuanced hatred for Clinton in this thread on a par with the usual “Bush is the anti-Christ” stuff. I yield to no one in my detestation of the former Prevaricator-in-Chief, and I could come up with something to praise him for.
None of the Bush-haters can bring themselves to do the same for Bush or Reagan.
I think a lot of this comes from something that operates on both sides of the aisle. Someone who is a mindless knee-jerker is all the more ready to believe that the same is true about anyone who disagrees.
I don’t believe there are that many mindless, knee jerk conservatives on the SDMB. Certainly there are in the real world, probably in the same proportion as those of the opposite persuasion. But they tend to get hounded off the SDMB. Mindless knee-jerk liberals, on the other hand, aren’t generally subject to the same treatment, and thus are more likely to stick around.
Not characterizing anyone in particular, mind you, at least not in GD, as “mindless”. But, on the one hand, we have Sam Stone or Bricker with a fairly balanced assessment of the pros and cons of our current President. On the other, we have a whole bunch of “everything Bush has done is bad”.
Maybe that looks like unquestioning toeing of the party line to you. It does to me.
It was sort of popular for a little while.