Curtis, who is the first president that you can remember details about from memory?
I don’t think I remember anything about Roosevelt and only a few details about Truman. I didn’t get interested in politics until Eisenhower and Stevenson ran against each other for the first time.
Watergate was bad because we could see a sitting President’s shabbiness unfolding a little bit at a time before our eyes. But it was nothing compared to the senseless war in Iraq. Everytime I heard Bush or Cheney mention 9/11 and the War in Iraq in the same breath, I knew they were continuing to try to brainwash the country into associating the two.
As for Buchanan, he wasn’t corrupt. He made bad choices – especially in hindsight. I don’t know how he could have kept the Southern states from doing what they were determined to do. He at least denied them the right, but they did it anyway. Be was a lousy leader.
Harding and the Teapot Dome Scandal was about oil money and the bribery of elected or appointed officials in the Harding Administration. I don’t think it even compares with the part that Halliburton Oil played in the war in Iraq. No, Harding doesn’t compare from what I have read. Corruption had a newer smell back then.
I won’t address Andrew Jackson as President. I’ve lived in Nashville for forty-six years and have not been to the Hermitage, his property and residence.
I think that George W. Bush had the worst presidency ever.
Bush had two major disasters on his watch: the occupation of Iraq (not the invasion), and the financial crisis. In both cases he had the opportunity to do the right thing and he didn’t.
Had America gone in, removed Saddam, and then left, America’s foreign reputation would have been vastly better. I’ll note that Obama seems to be doing a good job repairing the damage. Now, I understand why Bush felt occupation was necessary, and respect him for it, but, bluntly, he’s wrong. Rebuilding Iraq as a democratic nation was a noble idea, but Iraq is an artificial country in the first place, for which you can blame the British, and should have been allowed to fragment. It would have split much more peacefully on its own. It’s disappointing that the lessons of Yugoslavia have not been learned.
Bush was in charge for 7 years before the financial crisis really hit, so he had plenty of time to fix what was wrong. Never has the proverb, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure’, been so telling. They could have put in rules and regulations and allowed the credit bubble to gradually unwind, but they didn’t. So it went pop. I’m not sure the bank bailout was the right way to do things once the bubble popped: I’d rather they had supported the mortgagees directly. Something along the lines of, “As long as you keep paying what you were paying, the government will guarantee the extra interest.” But more stringent and nuanced, obviously. That would have turned bad debts into good debts and again allowed the bubble to unwind. But that’s with the benefit of hindsight. Bush had many chances here and he blew it.
I don’t think that Bush can be entirely blamed for the massive deficit spending, what with all the pork laid on top by senators and congressmen, but he did have a large part to play, and the buck stopped with him, and he let it ride.
Just wanted to point out, that the pork everyone complains about (and remember, it is only pork if it is in someone else’s district or state) amount to a minute fraction of the federal budget. If all “pork” was removed, it would have almost no affect at all. There is a pretty good breakdown of the budget here at 538.com. Medicare, Social Security, and Defense are where the vast majority of the money is spent.
As a homeowner (though not one who has been in trouble… yet) I would have liked to see that happen too, but the problem is that it’s (a) unfair to people who didn’t buy more house than they could afford, and (b) effectively an attempt to prop up the roof of the bubble.
The collapse of house prices was a necessary market correction, though a brutal one. I’m not sure there was a fair way to soften the blow.
Anyway, the bank bailout was absolutely necessary regardless of the mortgage crisis. Without it, lenders would not have been offering the short-term loans most small businesses require to meet their payroll and supply requirements. We’d have had 30% unemployment instead of 15%.
That was my contention when the Paulson bailout was mentioned. The very guys whose reckless gambling with the bank customers money, the guys who caused the mess, were being put in charge of fixing it. My reaction was, "anybody but them’. The damage caused by foreclosures was devastating and will continue to be . If we made the mortgages manageable and kept them paying their debts, then the banks, the economy and the neiighborhoods could have been salvaged. It could have slowed down the home depreciation. But we gave it to Goldman, who did not even say thanks.
The most valuable thing I learned was this: Before Bush I used to think that basically we were all in this together, all in the same boat. Now I know it’s not true.
Obstruction of Justice charge:
Guilty 50 (ALL Republicans)
Not Guilty 50 (5 Republicans, 45 Democrats)
Whether you’re a Republican who believes that all Democrats lied to protect a man guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” or a Democrat who believed that it was insane anybody could consider lying about an extramarital affair “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, this should have said to anybody and everybody “we’re not in the same boat” and it occurred when Bush was still governor of Texas.
By ethnic cleansing do you mean those killed or refugees?
George W. Bush.
He could have for instance reinforced the garrisons at the Southern forts, closed down the armouries where Southerners were seizing arms from, and arrested defecting army officers like Robert E. Lee.
That’s a bit extreme don’t you think?
If Buchanan made bad choices than so didn’t Bush either? He made mistakes regarding startegy in Iraq, handling of Katrina, and so on but much of that is with hindsight.
It’s not just hindsight. There were plenty of people at the time saying what was going on. Bush chose to ignore these people.
That was probably Bush’s biggest failing. He intentionally put himself into a bubble. He surrounded himself by loyal yes-men who would all agree with each other and agree with him. Bush’s decisions were easy to make because he only heard one option being offered.
But that makes for bad decisions. A good leader needs to be able to hear a bunch of widely divergent views, ask hard questions, process the information, consider his options, and then make a choice as to what the best decision is. Bush failed at that.
Curtis, it seems like you are well established here, but explain to me what you like about GWB. I’m not saying everything the guy did was terrible, but I have a hard time thinking of things he did well.
I want to be clear, I didn’t vote for Obama, I voted for W. round 1, Kerry round 2, and voted independent this past election (the three presidential races I was eligible to vote for).
It’s very easy to try and defend/downplay criticisms (especially when people do tend to go over the top complaining about Dubya). I’m just trying to see some support for what you’re saying.
@ Zoe, Out of sheer curiosity, what is your big beef with Jackson?