Perhaps he’s being home schooled…
Anecdotally, I recall people on the street in Ohio being interviewed and saying that while they thought Bush was ruining the economy they would vote for him anyway because he’d keep them safer. So Bush scared them into it.
Yes, that’s simplistic - there’s also the swiftboating of Kerry and Kerry’s inability to deal with the shitflinging of a presidential campaign in a remote competent way that decided it. But fearmongering and promising to “get the bad guys” are guaranteed to get the electorate to vote Republican (consider this, about the 2002 midterm election).
The public knew his policies and abilities; they were just too scared to actually vote for their own interests.
Not hindsight. When Bush let New Orleans go to hell, the people were immediately up in arms. The news people on the ground were horrified at what was occurring while Bush was dithering. His failure was obvious and his “good job Brownie”, comment resulted in a huge reaction.
The guitar picture didn’t help either, nor did the later photo of him gazing out the window of Airforce One at a disaster which seemed a million miles away.
Jackson also was a bit harsh on the Indians in the Creek War and the First Seminole War, before he was POTUS. Not extraordinarily for his time, however.
I hope that by this point in the thread, Curtis, you understand that your question has been answered: Yes, W was that bad. Write your term paper that way.
Well, there were no-men around, like Richard Clarke, Colin Powell and Scott McClellan. Unfortunately, they shut up or were shut up until it was too late.
Perhaps Cheney and/or Rove manipulated Bush’s other advisors, but ultimately the blame has to fall on The Decider.
Just keep in mind that he wasn’t quite the worst.
I’m reminded of this little gem from Bloom County.
The same thing with Buchanan also-undoubtedly many recognized the threat of the South and called for strong action. And in one area at least the Republicans tried to strengthen the regulations on loans to homeowners which failed due to the Democrats and caused the housing meltdown.
Why I Don’t Think George W. Bush was a total disaster:
-He launched the Surge Strategy which stablized Iraq in defiance of Congress and popular opinion which proved correct.
-He tried to launch an immigration reform plan that was defeated by his own party.
-He created the Department of Homeland Security and strengthned the National Security structure.
-He took tremendous action to minimize the recession when it broke out such as bailing out the banks.
-As mentioned above Republicans tried to lessen the liberal loan terms for buying houses which caused the meltdown.
-Added two conservative justices to the Supreme Court replacing a conservative and a moderate paving the way to repeal Roe V. Wade
As for President Jackson he as mentioned by others launched the Trail of Tears and also broke the Bank of the United States.
Precisely when can I expect to receive my first victory dividend from the federal government? A stabilized egregious error in judgement remains an egregious error in judgement, and no war of conquest can be said to be a victory unless there’s some benefit accrued to the conqueror which outweighs the costs. No such benefit has come to us from our conquest of Iraq. All we seem to have achieved as a nation is huge war debts and the scorn of the rest of the world.
Does that count as victory in your eyes?
It seems like a disaster to me.
We shouldn’t be there at all ( morally OR self-interestedly ), so that doesn’t help. At best, even buying what you say about it that’s like praising a man for his good judgement when he manages to put a tourniquet on the stump of his own arm which he just chopped off on purpose.
I see no reason to think that he made the US safer in any way, or that he had any intention of doing so. The Bush Administration was far more interested in spying on the Democrats and ACLU than defending against threats to the nation as a whole.
In other words he was a woman hater; like Republicans typically are. That’s a strike against him, not for him.
Let’s say we had followed what the Democrats had advocated and withdrawn from Iraq. Iraq would have collapsed and it’s Shia areas become Iranian puppets while it’s Sunni areas become dominated by Al-Qaeda. Plus America is utterly traumatized (like Vietnam).
Many terrorist networks were beheaded under the Bush administration-terrorist plots like the attempted airline bombings back in '06 or '07.
Your mileage may vary. 
Well, Democrats probably wouldn’t have gone in in the first place.
Iraq was not the breeding ground nor safe haven for Al-Qaeda. Doesn’t matter how many times this meme is repeated, but it simply isn’t true that al-Qaeda leveraged Iraq in any meaningful way. And by extension Iraq was neither directly nor indirectly responsible for 9-11.
Hillary Clinton and a whole lot of other Democrats voted for the Iraq War in the beginning.
You realize, I hope, that if the Roe v. Wade decision ever is reversed, it will be the worst electoral disaster for the GOP since, well, since George W. Bush.
But if Al Gore had been POTUS after 9-11, invading Iraq would not even have been open for discussion.
Do you remember an episode of Jimmy Newton (From Nickelodeon) where he saves the city from an alien invasion? He was going to get a trophy by the Mayor when the bad girl points out that it was Jimmy with his invention that caused the invasion in the first place. The mayor breaks the trophy, and gives the top part to the girl and the butt part to Jimmy.
Now, regarding Bush, he does not even deserve the butt trophy even. He still did not finish cleaning up the mess he started, hundreds of thousands are dead, and on top of that he funded all the war on credit.
So he failed, that is an example of not a disaster?
Not 100% sure if adding another agency actually has made the sharing of information easier.
After telling us for years everything was ok. Yet at the same time the Iraq war was going, the warnings were already there regarding the weapons of mass financial destruction.
Talk was cheap, that effort was pathetic and insufficient, just putting a tenth of the effort to get us into war in Iraq would had made a difference.
And this is also an example of success? Repealing Roe V Wade now is just a return to the state laws that abuse the rights of women and even doctors, and nowadays IIRC there are laws in the state books ready to go into action if Roe V Wade is repealed. And those laws are usually so draconian that are not used now because Roe V Wade overrules them, for the time being.
Democrats wouldn’t have gone there at all; nor would most of the Republicans for that matter. Iraq will likely collapse as soon as we leave anyway, however long it takes. Al Qaeda ( to the little extent it is ) is there because WE are there; we leave, they leave ( or die at the hands of the Iraqis ). As for America being traumatized; it SHOULD be. Both from a moral standpoint, and because that might keep us from doing something so stupid again for a while.
Bush made terrorism stronger, not weaker. Iraq, alone, has been a huge aid to terrorism; a justification, a training ground and a creator of new recruits all in one. Bush repeatedly ruined intelligence efforts to score political points; the Plame affair being just the most famous incident. Once he had his way and Iraq was conquered, he had to be forced to go after Bin Laden by Congress; he never had any actual interest in stopping terrorism. I’m sure he would have loved another big attack in the US, so he could have waved the bloody shirt.
Or almost anyone else. The neo-cons had been pushing for the conquest of Iraq since Reagan. Every successive President told them no. Bush, alone, was stupid enough to go for it.