Couldn’t agree more. So frustrating.
Without looking to start a fight/debate, just curious: Are you frustrated with the fact that Obama has done much the opposite of what he promised, and even used a spending freeze plan/model that McCain suggested during the presidential debates?
I only ask because I’m equally frustrated with this administration continuing the war machine while acting like they are against it.
Funny, Curtis is always so up in arms about abortion, yet killing thousands of innocents just because they MIGHT be terrorists isn’t such a huge deal. Even though there are women and children there as well. Why is one okay, and not the other?
What do they say – one death is a tragedy, a thousand(?) is a statistic?
Aren’t personal attacks against the rules?
I don’t agree with Curtis, but how about some intelligent discourse instead of repeating canned talking points I’ve already heard infinite times.
So… If a president actually believes in something… even if there are multiple sources of evidence that point against it… As long as he ignores the facts, and just… believes…
Then he can pretty much do whatever he likes, and he’s golden.
Is this pretty much it for you?
How is pointing out hypocrisy a personal attack?
I’ve read a lot of biographies of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis over the past couple of years and I’m convinced (and this is not an original view) that had the Union had Davis as president and the Confederacy had Lincoln the war would have gone the other way, and much of it’s because of the personalities of the two men. Davis was a man of strong beliefs that he defended steadfastly and in the face of all adversity and against all evidence to the contrary. Lincoln was a pragmatist- he did not wave with every little breeze- he could stand his ground with the best of them when he was convinced he was in the right- but when he was convinced he was right, it was for excellent reasons, and when confronted with evidence he was wrong, he rethought his position. Davis had many prejudices- snobbery (socioeconomically especially- total nouveau riche) being one of the worst- and could not take criticism or offense- any disagreement was a personal affront; he kept in power some of the worst generals in American history (most notably Bragg and Polk) rather than replace them with men he didn’t alike and who disagreed with his policies. Lincoln appointed some of his political enemies into key positions of power and couldn’t care less how well educated at West Point or well connected in family or what politics a general followed- if he didn’t work, get rid of him and if he did work, who cares if he’s a drunk or a womanizer or juggles kittens for the fun of it- this is a frigging war, not a barn dance. (This is of course oversimplified- both men had impressive hits and misses- but this isn’t a thread about Lincoln and Davis so I’m being concise.)
I detested Bush for much the same reason I’d have detested Davis. Steadfastness and unwavering loyalty to ones principles sounds like a virtue but it isn’t- it depends 100% on whether those principles suck dingoes, and obviously NOBODY thinks the principles they stand for do. Bush was absolutely convinced he was doing the right thing on all fronts- Iraq, the economy, Guantanamo, the Federal judges he appointed, etc.- and no amount of overwhelming evidence would convince him otherwise. He only put his cronies in power- ideologues and sycophants and automatons who towed the party line regardless of their personal incompetence or lack of qualification (the hundreds of lawyers did he employ who came from Falwell/Robertson/Bob Jones/other holyroller universities is staggering, and his nomination of Harriet Miers- whose sole qualification was in exemplary ass kissing- even made conservative Republicans say “WTF?”
Add to this his encyclopedic ignorance- he bragged about his anti-intellectualism- was not only an international embarrassment but horrifying: neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld nor many other appointees directly involved with Iraq policy could answer the difference between Sunni and Shi’ites for example, and this while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: for perspective, that would be like fighting wars in Ireland and Spain and not being able to explain the basic differences between Catholics and Protestants! Meanwhile his adherence to the principals of a Bible I seriously doubt he ever read and if he did he didn’t understand and I can guarantee you never studied the history or in-depth analyses of- was something I initially thought was just pandering to his base but then realized with horror “Sweet Jesus he means it!” While his religion is his right- the same as with Obama or Romney or Reid or Frank or anybody else- using it to be base social policy on when it comes to abstinence/sex-education, gay marriage and other gay issues and other social matters- this was less policy making than proselytization and imposing religious prejudice on a nation built on the ideals of freedom of religion and equal representation.
I don’t know and don’t care what the man is like in private- if he’s a nice guy or an A-hole- I don’t know him and don’t anticipate ever knowing him- but it’s not personal dislike that makes me passionately dislike him. I think that ranking all 44 presidents on any type of objective list is impossible- we’re not the same nation we were in WW2 or during Reconstruction or during the Civil War or before the westward expansion, etc., but imo he’s the worst in a generation at very least- Carter would be the first rest area you’d hit going backwards that would be a good debate- and I think on most criteria he’d be on the short list for worst on most given issues.
I’m frustrated as well, but the Republicans descended into to “death panels,” Tea Baggers, filibusters on everything and not even pretending to consider bipartisan discussions. I see him facing that sort of opposition and having to rethink his strategies.
IMO, he should not have attempted to overhaul health care, but on my main issues, getting out of Iraq and the economy, I’m giving him a pass thus far. The US president from 2009-2012 was going to have a really shitty time, and his job is one of trying to mitigate total disaster while trying to urge us towards a better place. I think he didn’t deserve a Nobel Prize, but I’m okay with his not quitting smoking yet. I dunno – I’m a mess of contradictions. However, I’m not currently ashamed to be an American, which is kind of my litmus test. I don’t know how often this is associated with liberals, but I consider myself very patriotic. I want us to be great, I expect us to be great, and I see Obama trying to fight the good fight. He’s taking blows, and he keeps trying, so I respect him and support him.
But he has pissed me off on a few occasions.
I try to ignore manufactured media hype - it usually is there to divide people and distract from more important issues.
The TEA Party is frustrating to me because it was a grass roots, non-party affiliated movement designed around the bailouts and the idea of taxation without representation. It was a movement for less government and more liberty. However, the Republicans hijacked it and do what the 2 mainstream parties do best - ruin everything.
The “death panels” is a bit of an alarmist term, but I think it’s a real concern when a government who is only worried about the bottom line is deciding if you really need that extra procedure.
My bigger issue is that everything one side complains about, they do to the other side. Only it’s ok when they do it. When Bush bullied legislation through, it was a travesty, but when it’s happened under Obama’s watch, it’s ignored.
If Bush bought up GM, he would be accused of trying to take over the auto industry (rightfully so), but Obama does it and it’s ignored. They took the globalist agenda, put a politically correct face on it, and now everyone accepts it (or is at least way less pissed off about it).
I hope I’m not sounding like I’m trying to fight, just talking because you seem like a level-headed individual that wants a real conversation.
Like I said, Bush was awful, but I don’t see him being any better or worse than His predecessor or our current president. They all deliver us the “company line,” do whatever the hell they want, and blame someone/something else when it turns out to be awful.
More like Fox News sponsored it. And taxation without representation? It is more like because my buddies are right wing yahoos I refuse to believe that the majority of America, as evidenced by the results of the 2008 election, disagree with me. It must be Acorn, I can’t possibly be in the minority!
No, the death panels Palin was discussing was simply an attempt to pay for an end of life discussion with your doctor, which would usually be held decades before you were terminally ill. Conservative scream about death panels from one side of their mouth and from the other yell about health care costing too much because it would keep terminally ill seniors alive. Plus it seems to escape them that we have UHC for seniors already with nary a death panel in sight - and other countries with UHC don’t have them either. Death panels are a lie by the right, and that’s the name of that tune.
Where were you in December 2008? Bush bailed out GM and Chrysler remember? And the most of the complaints came from the right. And good for him - it took 8 years, but at the very end he dumped the right wing economic loons and listened to some people with some sense.
I hope it doesn’t seem that I’m piling on you, but in GD we do care about the facts.
Well, the increased aid to Africa to fight AIDS was a nice touch and so was that marine sanctuary off Hawaii.
Curtis, go rent W. I didn’t like it because I didn’t want to relive the Bush administration after finally having gotten through it, but it’s not a bad movie. (It’s not a particularly good movie either.)
Excellent point. (And excellent post, Sampiro. )
I find it funny that Bush’s critics say, “Yeah, definitely a top contender, probably the champ, for Worst Prez Evah” while his defenders are reduced to saying, "OK, maybe he was the Worst, but 1) prove it, 2) define “worst”, 3) Carter Sux too and my favorite 4) Too soon to judge–wait until I’m dead to resume this conversation, please.
As to 4), I’ve already noted this argument (somewhere on the SD) as Rush Limbaugh’s favorite trope: when backed into a corner with near-solid evidence against him, Rush will trot out the old “Too soon to judge” argument, a totally subjective dismissal of the legitimacy of the entire discussion, a classic well-poisoning argument if ever there was one.
This is also a favorite in sports arguments, btw: your favorite team has made a horrible decision, to trade a Hall of Famer for a flame-out, say, but it’s your favorite team and you have no evidence to show they did a good thing and tons of evidence to show they did a bad thing, so you simply argue that it’s Too Soon To Judge: some HoFers are later revealed to be cheaters and gamblers, and how do you know that this guy is going to be one of those, while some players seem like flameouts but develop later on to become late-blooming superstars. After about a decade, when even this argument won’t fly anymore, you can then use “Who cares about that old shit anymore? Get a friggen life” argument, and never lose a bit of face.
There are a ton of people who rue the day that they didn’t vote for Gore instead of doing nothing. They had your attitude and Bush proved that actually that there’s “bad” and there is “worse.”
Look, I fully agree that two candidates may both be a crap sandwich. But with one you get some garnish, maybe even nice bread, and a side of fries to make it more palatable. With the other you get a crappy crap sandwich.
I recall Bush apologists during and after the war insisting that there must be secret evidence that Bush had seen for WMDs, that we shouldn’t judge him because we didn’t have the information he had. Well, it turned out that the people who thought he was lying about WMD were right; there wasn’t any secret evidence, and no WMDs. I see no reason to think anything else he did has a secret justification, either. And for many of his transgressions, like the torture, no justification would be good enough.
When I read some of the posts in this thread, I wonder if we’re living in parallel universes here in America! One thing is for sure: we’re not reading the same books and magazines.
Posts in this thread assert that it’s premature to rank George W. Bush among Presidents, and then contradict themselves by saying he ranks above James Buchanan.
I think they’re wrong on both counts. George W. Bush is the worst President ever, and while it certainly may be premature to assess him with much exactitude, you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear, so Bush’s overall rank isn’t subject to change: an objective assessment of Bush would have to improve enormously just for George W. Bush to be only slightly worse than Buchanan.
I will mention just a few facts about Bush and his Presidency; then ask posters to judge whether the facts are valid, and whether similar accusations could be rationally leveled against other Presidents.
Complete Lack of Intellectual Curiosity
Price of Loyalty is a particularly illuminating book. (Have those who defend Bush read it?). Paul O’Neill served as high-ranking economics adviser to both Presidents Ford and Bush; the contrast he makes is startling. Ford has a reputation as intellectual lightweight but O’Neill recalls that Ford took his responsibilities seriously, enabled genuine debate and exhibited much intellectual curiosity. With Bush, O’Neill learned to make his presentations very brief and at the lowest possible level, yet Bush never asked a single serious question. White House policy conferences were dominated by Karl Rove.
Lack of Compassion
The Governorship of Texas is a figurehead position in which one of the few responsibilities is to review requests for clemency from condemned prisoners. One of his aides publicly described such a “review.” Bush didn’t read the condemned woman’s letter; barely listened to its summary; and spent most of the 15-minute review period indulging in vulgar sarcasm. He may have been convinced of the woman’s guilt and appropriateness of capital punishment, but I think most of us would have approached that duty with more sobriety.
Prevarication
Among dozens of well-known examples, I’ll mention just one of the silliest. In September 2001, Bush said “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” Exactly six months later, he said “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
Trillion-dollar War Foolishness
There is no doubt that the initial phases of Iraq’s reconstruction were handled very badly. There are several books that explain that what looked like incompetence was often deliberate: The Iraq reconstruction was pursued by right-wing ideologues more interested in American opportunities than Iraqis’ welfare. For example, the wide-scale looting after Saddam’s fall was encouraged to speed up “creative destruction.” With Iraqi unemployment near 70%, jobs were given to foreigners, and foreign corporations were given 40-year untaxed leases. It’s true that Bush may have been largely unaware of this agenda: that’s because he was largely unaware, period. (In fact that suggests a good nickname for our worst President: “the President who wasn’t there.”)
As to the “badness” of James Buchanan, I’d ask two questions: (1) is it not true that Buchanan’s motives were honorable, however poor his decisions? (Since this is GD, I think I’m allowed to mention that many thinking Americans strongly doubt that Cheney’s motives were honorable. And doubt that Bush’s intellectual level is adequate to make discussion of his motives relevant.) (2) Was there really a solution short of war to the U.S.A free/slave division?
The Corps built the levees they were funded to build and had the technology to build at that time. The levee system was incapable of withstanding a hurricane the size of Katrina. It wasn’t built for that kind of a storm, which is an extremely rare occurrence. The storm surge that resulted was the largest wall of water to ever hit North America. Think about that.
Also not helpful: New Orleans, already below sea level, is sinking faster than most people recognize, the result of which meant that the levees were at much lower levels relative to sea level than they were designed to be.
The Corps had some responsibility, sure. I’d lay blame more on the federal response time to such an immense disaster than anything else, though.
Southern Louisiana is a crappy place to locate a large city, especially in “hurricane alley”.
That estimate is now years out of date. And I’m surprised this is all the defense you’re offering.
Bush comes in with a balanced budget, and a surplus. he came in with no wars. He left 8 years later with enormous debt, 2 wars going on while he had more planned. But after 1 year you equate Obama with him? It is absurd. Obama has plans for dealing with the debt. Bush said ‘deficits don’t matter’. How much different could they be to satisfy you?
Yes he was that bad. An embarrassment to one of the greatness nations on earth.
The moron son of an oil baron with a grudge, who lied to the American people and led them into a land war in Asia, over oil. Deregulated Wall Street till the world economy teetered on the brink of collapse. Drove the American economy into the ground. Sanctioned torture and rolled back habeus corpus.
That he was offered no book deal, on leaving office, or high profile speaking tour, and that the next republican candidate, running for the office, asked him not to campaign for him, says it all for me.
I agree with this post from 2005:
Will Bush go down as one of the top five Presidents of the last 100 years?
Hon, I don’t even think he’d make the list of the top 100 Presidents of the last 5 years.
What the hell? You reject a Lancet report that isn’t linked to or read in favor of a made up number? What does the Lancet report say? Despite their screw up with the autism/vaccine problem and their late coming to the table with correction, they are better than the number your source pulled out of his/her ass. The cost in lives, trauma and dollars of the Iraq debacle has yet to be tallied up. But any student of history will be able to accurately predict that it was too much.
Madison hatred? It would have been nice if the author of our constitution could have kept us out of that war, but he sure as hell didn’t start it, Napoleon Bonaparte did by giving the British a reason to enslave American seamen.