Yeah, but Nixon never dragged us into a war, rotten as he was. We have 2000 dead Americans in Iraq and Bush bears total responsibility for every last one of them – and undoubtedly more to come. There was NEVER any desire on the part of the American public in general to invade Iraq prior to the Administration pushing for it. 911 happened, we invade Afghanistan, depose Taliban, send Al-Qaeda running, end of story. Not – thanks to Bush.
Also, Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election. He never was properly elected. He’s more like a puppet president placed in office by a foreign power (Texas).
Dubya is a LOT worse than Nixon, for those reasons.
I know, I did rate Bush Jr the worst. All you said and more. He is dismantling environmental protections and removing more civil liberties and re-Christianizing the Government to a level never seen in my life.
He consistently embarrasses us in public. He’s combines the worst aspects of a good ole’ boy and a Drunken Frat brat.
No, what’s interesting is that you’re backpedaling all the way from this:
to merely “a better light”, without remembering that your own posts stay up for all to see.
To return you to your own assertion, how big a miracle will be required to radically change Bush’s reputation?
Not across the board, of course, your attempted insinuation notwithstanding, but you do need to show more awareness than this that Reagan’s foreign policy had a serious, destructive, antidemocratic, anti-American-ideals effect on countries other than the USSR.
Can you explain exatly how Reagan’s economic policies are “evil”? And what adjective do you use to describe Stalin’s and Mao’s economic policies, which resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of their fellow countrymen? Also, don’t confuse the deaths due to poor economic polices (eg, the forced collectivization of farming and the resultant manufactured famines) with the deaths due to political purges. Both were horrible, but there are differences.
No ‘backpedaling’ at all old boy. Your definition must be remarkably different than my own of that term.
Just a turn of phrase Elvis. Are you a sea laywer by any chance? Here: I can see circumstances that would make Bush out to be either the hero or the dog happening in the next 20 years. Things like Iraq coming together and becoming a strong and stable democracy in the ME would have many historians painting him in a much better light than he’s seen today. A series of vicious attacks on the US or Europe by fundamentalist religous types from the ME after Bush leaves office might have historians playing means justifies the ends type games and lauding Bush for his decisive leadership…or his heroic staying the course in the face of mounting opposition. And economic boom attributed to Bush’s tax cuts or his decisive leadership (again, as interpereted in the future) might also show him to be the hero.
But the same token all those factors may go the other way in which case Bush would be what some in this thread predict…the most generally hated president not just in the OP’s timeframe but of all the presidents.
So, yeah…I can see it going either way at this point. Or, most likely, Bush will just be ranked middle of the pack (well, perhaps lower) when all the partisan hysteria over him ends. As I said in my first post its WAY to early to see how history is going to judge any of these men…though I suppose Nixon’s rep is maturing enough to make draw some conclusions.
Um…right. I think I have a pretty good grasp of how Reagan is seen overseas, especially in Central and South America. Thanks though. However, only the most rabid even there would rank Reagan in the top two of historical monsters of the past century. You do realize that folks from Central and South America can read history, right? Yeah, they got books and everything there too…and even running water!
As I said though, don’t let reality cloud your vision of a perfectly good rant.
“Radical change” = “a better light”, okay. :rolleyes:
Got any other unconventional definitions of other terms you’re using, to save us all the trouble?
Don’t forget the pony.
As for Central America, do you have anything to back up your suggestion that Reagan isn’t widely hated there? Some actual facts to back up your snark, that is?
I’d say that ‘a better light’ IS a ‘Radical change’ for Bush looking at his plumetting poll numbers lately. As I said, it was just a turn of phrase. If you like, go ahead and insert ‘Radical change’ back where ever I wrote ‘a better light’ if you like…I stand by what I said. It COULD happen, and I CAN envision things (unlikely though I believe them to be today) that could make it so. This seems kind of nit picky to you…you usually aren’t this petty.
Hey, I never said how likely I thought any of that was…only that I coud envision things that would ‘Radically change’ Bush’s public image by future historians.
lol, you first…got any evidence that Reagan is generally thought of in the top 2 of the 20th centuries historical monsters in that region? If so trot it out.
Because you really seem to be picking nits right and left, let me clarify (you will probably see this as another backpeddle )…I never said Reagan is not widely hated in Central and South America. I doubt that he is as hated as you seem to think, but I acknowledge there is a certain level of animosity towards him and the US’s actions during his administration. What I’m disputing is that those in that region rank him only a small step down from Hitler and before numerous OTHER monsterous heads of state in the 20th century…even some of the heads of state FROM Central and South America.
So, you got any “actual facts to back up your snark”.
The only certain thing is that Bush Jr. will be hated beyond rationality by the Usual Suspects on the SDMB. Until the next Republican enters the White House.
Nixon is more or less the front runner for Most Generally Hated President. Clinton is probably second. Reagan is not particularly close, having been elected by a substantial margin and re-elected by an even wider one. Although Reagan was hated with a comparable passion by a small minority of the extreme Left. Bush Jr. is also not close to Clinton, since Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote, something Clinton was never able to bring off. Nobody really hated Carter; he was just incompetent - more contempt than hatred. Even Ford came a hairsbreadth from beating him, until the Poland remark fiasco. Bush Sr. failed to capitalize on his success in the first Gulf war and really achieve anything. I have always thought that he should have introduced a budget that made serious cuts in spending immediately after the end of the Gulf war. But that wasn’t his style, and so Clinton got to grab the credit for the economy. Clinton was good at that, at least.
Just so I’m clear on this, Bush the First was really responsible for eight years of a good economy. Clinton spent his eight years in office undercutting what Bush the First had done. Bush the First set things up so well that it took that long for Clinton to undo it. He finally figured out how to ruin things just after Bush the Second took office. Is that about it?
It’s a fact that Bush did won a majority of the popular vote once ('04) while Clinton never did so. Clinton did, of course, win a plurality both times, but never a majority. Saying that Clinton never won the popular vote isn’t really correct since a plurality still wins as long as everyone else has fewer votes. Not to mention the fact that the Perot candidacies in '92 and’96 were unusual occurances. Not unprecedented, but unusual. Since Clinton got 49.2% of the popular vote in '96, it’s inconceivable that he would not have won the popular vote if Perot hadn’t run.
Your totally altering the context of the thread. This thread is about comparing US presidents to each other. Not comparing various US presidents to Stalin and Mao. My idea of a good US economic policy would be something like LBJ’s, but further to the left. Tax the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor.
Well, you were the one who brought it up in the first place, then further went off on your tangent with the whole economics thing. People are just responding to that and trying to figure out how anyone could even mention Reagan with folks like Stalin, Hitler and Mao (to name but a few of the 20th centuries REAL monsters)…even if we include economics in the mix.
Thats fine and you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that…and its good to know your world view to put it in context of your choices for who you think is best and worst of the presidents. It also gives a clue as to how you could possibly rank Reagan with Hitler and above folks like Stalin and Mao.
***I ***am? Have you forgotten your post on page 1? Here it is:
You claimed that only Hitler was worse than Reagan. That certainly means Stalin was better than Reagan. Yeah, we all saw your brief explanation about that, but you still haven’t explained how Reagan’s economic policies are “evil”. To a socialist or communist, the difference between Reagan’s and Clinton’s economic policies would be trivial.
I’ll assume Reagan if he were on that chart would be close to Thatcher. Overall I’d be close to where Ghandi is on that graph. By measuring the total distance between points, I’m actually less far away from Hitler than I am Thatcher (Reagan). I consider capitalism inherently evil. It should be little surprise to you that I would consider the economic policies of Reagan evil.
First of all, that graph is nothing more than an opinion, not objective fact. Secondly, there is no way of knowing where those individuals would fall on the graph-- none of them took the test. Thirdly, even if that is an accurate analysis, measuring distance from your own data point is not a good indication of “evilness”, per se. Every American president has been a solid supporter of capitalism. If Reagan is “evil” because of his support of Capitalism, then so are all of the Presidents.
If you want to asset that Capitalism = evil, fine. Let’s not hijack this thread into a discussion of that subject. But, if you are going to call Reagan the 2nd most evil person in the 20th century, you have to back that up with a LOT more than an association of Reagan with capitalism.
This is GD, afterall. Let’s see your argument that Reagan is the 2nd most evil person in the 20th century. Keep in mind that you also have the option of retracting that claim and admitting that you made a mistake. Nothing wrong with that.
But at least some US presidents were left of center economically. If I consider economics to be the most relevant measure of “evilness”, then Reagan being so far to the right will make him the most evil.
However, I must apologize for what was an inappropriate hijack of this thread by me. The OP asked for the most generally hated US president. And not which president individually do you think is the most evil.
I got my ideas from history, mostly. Bush Jr., like Clinton in 1992 and 1996, got less than half the popular vote. Bush Jr., unlike Clinton, got more than half the popular vote in 2004. I.e., Clinton was never popular enough to get most of the popular vote. Bush Jr. is. Thus, by that measure, Bush is less generally hated than Clinton. See John Mace’s post for further clarification if you need it.
No, and you arent very close.
I am not sure how you got what you seem to think from my post, so it is difficult to clear up. Insofar as an American President is responsible for the economy, the boom of the 80s was Reagan’s doing, America voted Bush Sr. in to try to keep things going, then there was a brief recession that lasted until shortly before the election and Clinton got elected (thanks in part to the Perot spoiler). Then the economy recovered its upward trend, and Clinton took credit for it. The Republicans took over Congress later and actually balanced the budget.
Bad logic. Just because someone didn’t vote for a certain president doesn’t mean they hate him. They just may be indifferent, or mildly dislike the guy. Personally, my best guess is Reagan is the most hated AND most loved president of the specified era.
As I said, it was just a turn of phrase. If you like, go ahead and insert ‘Radical change’ back where ever I wrote ‘a better light’ if you like…I stand by what I said. It COULD happen, and I CAN envision things (unlikely though I believe them to be today) that could make it so. This seems kind of nit picky to you…you usually aren’t this petty.
Hey, I never said how likely I thought any of that was…only that I coud envision things that would ‘Radically change’ Bush’s public image by future historians.