@Aspenglow, you have done a masterful job of outlining just why I’m impressed with Biden’s first term.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of Biden. So I’m having a hard time seeing where you feel he’s worse than George W. Bush.
Unless you’re a Trumpist, you’d have a hard time pointing to many bad things Biden has done (and a hard time pointing to many good things he’s done). That was not the case with Bush; he did plenty of horrible things. And these were things he chose to do not things that things he was pushed into.
He allowed Cheney to set up a secret government that functioned outside of constitutional limits. And I believe this was Bush’s plan. Cheney wasn’t sneaking around behind Bush’s back. I believe that Bush fully approved of what Cheney was doing but let Cheney be the front man in order to protect his own image.
Bush bungled the response to 9/11. (He may have bungled the antecedents but I don’t know enough to make that call.)
Bush got us into an unnecessary war with Iraq. He lied to do it. And then he bungled the war. He used the war as a means of funneling money to his cronies.
He introduced unconstitutional acts like indefinite detention and torture into our legal system.
He took office with a strong economy and wrecked it.
He bungled the response to a major natural disaster.
He was also on the wrong side on issues like climate change, gay civil rights, and voter suppression. But arguably those are issues where he was just moving with the Republican flow rather than steering events.
And the first wartime president to rally the American people with tax cuts and encouragement to consume more. No sacrifices asked of anybody not in uniform.
Nixon was also one of the leading figures in the anti-communist movement that had prevented previous presidents from recognizing China.
Nixon got America out of Vietnam in 1973 on the same terms that could have been reached in 1968. But he had denounced those terms in 1968.
Nixon did establish the EPA. But he did it for his own political advantage. Environmentalism had become a popular cause and Nixon wanted to associate himself with it.
Thank you. You are all most kind. I’m glad I was able to capture your thinking, and I’m gratified to learn I’m not the only one who feels good about our President. May he enjoy a full second term.
No, trump was/is a very successful con artist. Look how much he has conned his MAGAs of. like “Stop the Steal” (and personally enrich me).
As president, then I think it is a tie.
Yep. Well put.
Really? He was indeed a zealous anti-communist, but it’s doubtful he had that much influence over Kennedy and Johnson. He had little political power during the Sixties.
No argument here, but the fact remains that he did establish the organization.
Virtually everything Nixon did was calculated to make him look good. And some of those things were good for the country as well.
Kennedy and Johnson both said that they based foreign policy decisions on avoiding being accused of being “soft on communism”.
< golf clap >
No argument on this point, but again, I question whether Nixon had any direct influence over their decision-making.
Regardless of motives or timing, my original points regarding Nixon still stand. I never liked the sumbitch, but some positives occurred during his presidency.
I too am pretty content with the job the President is doing. He’s a steady hand who is doing what he can to right a badly bent country. Of course I’d like to see more progress in several areas, but he doesn’t have a magic wand. Nor do I, sadly.
And anyone making fun of him for tripping over that (badly placed) sandbag is just an asshole. We should give him credit for the fact that he had just spent quite a long time shaking the hand of a large number of graduates and giving a speech.
Sorry, Mango Mussolini is the one with no morals and no principles, he is all transactional, all he wants is what is good for him, and how he can get his hands on more and more and more.
I would not mind it broken down into 2 or perhaps 3 - a ceremonial person who goes out and does the speeches, announcements and handshaking sort of stuff, one that deals with internal matters and one that deals with foreign matters, and maybe one that specifically deals with military matters. Sort of expanding cabinet roles into a ruling tribunal. That way we can get a charismatic person for the Face, and someone with financial and legal ability doing internal, and someone with military and foreign policy experience doing military/external. Some sort of rational split.
exactly.
Ben Bova wrote a book with this premise many years ago. A man figured that no one person could know enough to be President, so he cloned his son, and raised the group to become the perfect President. Each one had a specialty, and made the decisions for that area. Of course, society being what it is, they had to pretend to actually be just one guy, playing all sorts of games to ensure only one was ever seen in public at any one time.
Ben Bova had a great idea =)
I liked the story where they pick the one man who really doesn’t want the job to be president =)
If I could think of some plausibly functional way to make wanting the office of POTUS be an automatic disqualification for it, I’d be agitating for it.
That may sound good in practical terms, but I don’t think it would work. Imagine the British prime minister comes for an official visit, and instead of meeting with the person who actually runs the government, they get fobbed off to some ceremonial figurehead whose highest responsibility is picking the menu for state dinners.
The presidency is a big job. That’s why the president has a whole branch of government he can delegate things to
Why would they do that?
Interesting that when it’s pointed out to Americans that other countries do X differently, they more often than not say, “that could never work” regardless of the fact that it works just fine in these other countries.
Health care, I’m looking at you!
American Exceptionalism.
Good things can work well, except in America…
England has the royal family to do all the pomp and ceremony, and a prime minister to actually run things. It’s been done that way for so long that it works. No visiting leader is going to feel slighted that they only got to meet the King.
If the U.S. instituted a new position to handle the ceremonial aspects of the presidency, as @aruvqan proposed, it wouldn’t have those centuries of history to give it credibility. Anyone being hosted by this new figurehead may feel they’re not being taken seriously enough to meet with the ‘real’ president. Any speeches given by the ceremonial president won’t have much credibility if he doesn’t have the power to back them up.