This is a serious question and in spite of the thread’s title I’d like to hear from others and not just Republicans. I hope this will not become just another Bush Bash; I am truly confused about this issue.
n the last two weeks, I have been told by two people that George W. Bush will be ranked by historians as one of the five greatest Presidents of the USA. Both of these people referred to Bush as being a great man, a true Christian, and a genuine humanitarian. I have heard very similar things from people who I genuinely like, respect, and, in some cases, admire. Even so, I simply do not understand how anyone can even defend Bush, let alone admire him. Their views are so contrary to my own that I’m beginning to wonder: if they are right, how could I be so wrong? If I am right, how can they be so wrong? I will admit up front that I currently believe these people supported Bush originally and simply cannot bring themselves to admit they were mistaken. Is that the case or does Bush have greatness that I cannot see or admit to myself?
Everyone has an opinion no matter what we may think of it. Occasionally you run into some that you just cannot fathom (making no comment on which of you has the right of it).
That said there is no way Bush will go down as one of the best Presidents. You do not even need to look to liberals. Many conservatives are rather displeased with him for a number of reasons.
Maybe with the benefit of history (hindsight being 20/20 and all that) we’ll learn that Bush saved the US from annihilation at the hands of extremists. Not something I’d put my money on but who knows? Lincoln was actually rather unpopular while he was President.
I’m sure on this board, you’ll find people who believe the Carter Administration was a great success & the Reagan Administration a dismal failure. Political inclination covers a
multitude of sins AND a multitude of virtues.
I voted for him twice. Time will eventually tame my anger, but I’d have trouble putting him in my top thirty in retrospect. He sounded good campaigning (taxes, immigration and all), and despite the miserable failure in Iraq I believe he still acted with sound strength after one of the largest attacks on America, and that was reassuring. But I can only forgive so many bad decisions.
I’m almost as disappointed with John Kerry, who I thought would serve to be a strong Democratic candidate in 04’. But just failed IMHO to give me any good reason to vote for him.
Instant ETA: I should make it more clear, that before Kerry got the nomination I was looking forward to voting for him. It wasn’t that Bush persuaded me to vote for him, it was Kerry who got my head shaking and I eventually opted for the incumbent.
I doubt you will be able to come to understand this based on what you read on the SDMB. There are a number of Dopers for whom “Bush sux” is a complete summary of their political thought.
Well, Jimmy Carter, still to this day teaches Sunday School and his humanitarian work is undeniable. So two out of the three requirements are not in dispute about Carter and of course becoming President endows some greatness on a person.
Do those people even like him?
The people you refer to as as insincere about Christianity and humanitarism as the the current President is about them.
Maybe you will take my opinion as more objective than average.
I think Carter is a great human and the second worst President in my life. A general failure as the leader of the US.
When I was 18 I voted for Reagan, I thought he did a great job a President in his first 6 years despite some serious problems. I even stand nearly alone on this board in thinking he won the cold war.
All that said, Bush is the Worst President in my lifetime and I think the worst President since James Buchanan.
His administration is corrupt, it has started an unlawful war with trumped up information. It has constantly changed its story. As bad as Bush is, an this is bad. Cheney is just pure evil. Actually Rove might also qualify for this.
So here is a Republican that is ashamed of Bush/Cheney and almost all they have done.
History judges greatness. If someone tells you any current person or thing is the greatest one evah! you can pretty confidently ignore them, because how would they know?
The people I mentioned are saying that history will vindicate Bush and their opinions of him. Personally, I doubt it. But if anyone will take the time to logically defend Bush, I might be persuaded otherwise. Up to now, no one has.
But they don’t know; that’s my point. And if they won’t take the time to logically defend him and they’re the ones saying it, why should you pay any attention to what they say? It’s their assertion, not yours and not ours. Have you asked them why they think that? Were you persuaded by what they said?
Am I the only one disheartened that being a ‘true Christian’ is on the list of why he’s a great President? Last I checked, being a great President was based on your actions and their effect on the country, not by how often you go to church. Then again, this is America and it is considered by many countries to be a religious based country, for lack of better words.
We’re not talking about post-Presidency work, but how they acted as President. Carter oversaw double digit inflation, double digit home mortgage interest rates, no meaningful effort whatsoever to rescue the Iran hostages and gas rationing. He did broker the peace deal between Egypt and Israel, so I will give him props for that. And Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful thing.
I think this is a perfect example of the thinking by the people mentioned in the OP. Not a single mention of any reason to think highly of the current President, just a reflexive bash onthe other side.
Republicans, much more so than Democrats, see politics like a football game. It doesn’t matter how bad your team is, the opponent is worse. There is no better example of this than George W. Bush. I can’t think of a single thing to credit his Presidency with. Those that think he has combatted terrorism are ignoring the facts and base their support on a hypothetical conclusion 30 years in the future. No facts, just hope.
For the record, I think Jimmy Carter was a terrible President and Ronald Reagan one of the best.
Not true. The situation in Iran was so chaotic at the time that no one knew who really had the authority to release the hostages. Carter opened what channels he could to negotiate for their release, and sent in a military rescue force. Reagan consistently side-stepped the issue during the campaign.
And don’t forget that the hostages were released. The hostage-takers delayed that until inauguration day as one last “fuck you” to Carter. What, you thought Reagan managed to broker the whole deal in the first hours of his presidency?
I’ve said this before, but Bush was on the right side of the Dubai Port World kafuffle. Ultimately he fucked it up, of course, and it went south primarily because it was his administration’s “fear the overseas darkies!” foreign policy that turned around and bit him in the ass, but the fact remains that on DPW he was right and the complainers were wrong.