What has FDR done for us lately?
The term “unqualified disaster” means there is not one good, neutral or evenly mildly bad thing that can be said about it. It means that all analyses find it to be not just bad, but a “disaster”. Does youre research substantiate that characterization?
Yeah, I don’t know much about NCLB, but I do know a thing or two about the economy. When the same poster calls Bush’s economic policies an “unqualified disaster”, why should I accept that characterization about any other issue? It’s clearly and demostrably false.
I meant that John Buchanan’s electorate had a lower rate of literacy and education than that of Bush, which would likely have an effect on his ability to, if nothing else, reason and communicate with them, making the job of leadership much more challenging.
It would be ridiculous to dispute that mid-19th c. American literacy and education rates were anywhere near to today’s statistics of 97% for both males and females (according to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html).
John… I mean no disrespect, but this is getting weird.
So will you retract your claim that criticizing Bush about the nation’s educational policy is a “throw-away snipe”?
Ad hominem fallacy, John. If someone said that Bush eats babies for breakfast, and then said that the sky was blue, would that mean that the sky wasn’t blue?
NCLB is bad, and it can be laid largely at Bush’s feet, among others. It seems that you’ve backed yourself into a rhetorical corner here… all I’m asking is that you do some reading and either admit that slamming bush for his role in NCLB is not a throw-away snipe, or gainsay me based on evidence. I’ve provided you with, probably, the single best cite for research done on NCLB. If you won’t accept someone else’s claim due to an ad hominem fallacy, will you at least look at mine?
I don’t think that’s beyond the pale, is it?
Helen Thomas should be commended for making that statement. Presidential incompetence needs to be proven false, not quashed via press selection in the media room, or dodged by the press secretary.
I love how the Bush Admin. likes to say “history will show…”. How about now? History will show that you left office due to term limits. So what? They never seem to say “history will show that George W Bush was the president with the best…”
The only thing better than the above, is how Bush supporters reply to the “Worst president ever at…” comments. They come up with one or two, sometimes zero, instances of another president being a bit worse. Are they proud of their president for being third or second to worst?!?
I have no cites yet, but I’d like to know: Which pres had the highest number of people voting against them? The highest percentage? The largest number of protesters, following an election? Largest percentage? What’s the lowest approval rating ever?
Oh yeah, what are the “talking points” that Bush supporters use to make him look like less of a jackass? I mean the ones that purport Bush having done a good job.
Nope.
There’s a lotta distance between “criticizing” something and claiming it’s an “unqualified disaster”. I don’t know why you insist on conflating those two positions. But if you must, then why don’t you lay out the argument that NCLB is an “unqualified disaster”.
John, you are doing battle with a strawman. The original quote to which you responded was:
To which you responded:
So, you are the one who is attempting to conflate two postions. You are the one who refuses to retract your statement that the federal government plays no significant role in education, period. You are the one who refuses to retract this patently false claim even when provided with cites, all on the basis that someone else in the thread used the phrase “unqualified disaster.”
Will you please play straight now?
No strawman. **Digital **was asking me about my response to Stranger, and I was explaining that response. The throw-away line was:
I didn’t mean to imply that **Digital **posted a throw-away line. He was, after all, asking a question, not making a statement.
Well, would you accept the position that NCLB is a qualified disaster and that the responsibility for this program lies with the CinC and therefore, the federal government does play a significant role in setting educational policies?
Just asking, is all.
Ditto.
The point I was taking issue with was your claims that (bolding, underlining, and resizing mine)
And:
So…
Doesn’t really address the problem. You claimed that blaming Bush for problems with education was a throw-away snipe. Regardless of who claimed what or what language they used, do you admit that blaming Bush for (certain NCLB induced) problems with education is certainly not baseless sniping, but reasoned criticism?
Regardless of whether it was an unqualified disaster, a qualified disaster, a minor annoyance, a wonderful picnic, or an orgasmic feast of wonderfulness, do you retract your statements that Bush has no significant impact on education in this country and admit that blaming Bush for problems with education is not, necessarily, a throw-away snipe?
After all this wrestling, I’ve given up on discussing whether or not NCLB is good or not. Can you at least admit that your original statements were not accurate and that Bush does, indeed, play a significant role in education in the United States?
John Mace, I just want to respond to your assertion that the economy is doing well, and that you don’t attribute much economic success or failure to the president.
First, I’d point out that the unemployment rate varies greatly from administration to administration, and trends consistently during administrations.
Second, I’d like to talk to you again in ten years, when the standing debt, together with mass baby boomer retirement, causes one of the greatest economic disasters of the country’s history, with greatly increased taxes, fewer services, and high inflation.
When you ask the first question, do you mean “which president that won election” had the highest number of people voting against them, and the highest percentage?
If that’s the case, in raw numbers, George W. Bush had the highest number of people voting against him in 2004. (He also had the highest number of people voting for him). The president who had the highest percentage of people voting against him was Abrahan Lincoln, who got elected in 1860 with just 39.82% of the popular vote. That means 60.18% voted for somebody else. (If you’re counting presidents who lost reelection, the big loser would have been Hoover in 1932, who won 39.65% of the electoral vote.)
There aren’t any reliable statistics I can find regarding election protesters…if I wanted to be cute, I’d give that win to Lincoln too, because a third of the country seceded as a result of his victory. Election protesting isn’t really an American tradition.
The president with the lowest approval rating would have to be Richard Nixon, who, when he resigned, had an approval rating of only 24%.
I’m sorry. It turns out the president with the lowest approval rating was actually Harry Truman, who at one point, had a 23% approval rating, lower than Nixon’s.
Considereing the margin of error (plus/minus 3 or thereabouts) let’s just call it a dead heat between Harry and Tricky Dick.
Especially when those circles are frequented by those who didn’t vote for him.
When we speak of “the economy”, we generally mean growth in GDP. By that measure, we’re doing pretty well-- 3.5% in 2005 and 4.2% in 2004. How much of that is due to Bush’s economic policies and how much better would it be if someone else were president? I defy anyone to answer that with any confidence.
But one of the problems with attributing the performance of the economy to any particular president is the unknown factor of how long it takes for certain policies to actually affect the economy. At a minimum, we should offset our analysis by 1-2 years after the beginning of new president’s tenure (ie, the “Bush economy” doesn’t start until 2002 or 2003, and will last thru 2009 or 2010). But that’s just one minor detail.
Really? Go ahead and point it out (ie, let’s see some actual cites). And keep in mind the offset factor I spoke about above, plus the fact that correlation does not equal causation. Also, please demostrate that all other significant factors (who runs Congress, for example) are not the cause.
Well, if that’s true then the economy will be in the shitter in 10 years, not now. And I still doubt you’l be able to prove that policies adopted during Bush’s term were the cause. Are you seriouslly going to blame the baby boom retirement on Bush? Why not blame it on his predecessor or his successor?
Electorate != Populace. That was more true then than now (and in a way that skews toward concentration of the literate section of the latter into the former).