I would like to see those who are so hard on GW, give us some examples of thier criticism of Billy when he screwed up.
I`m saying that if your going to come down so hard on someone because of principles and are willing to give Clinton a pass then you are hypocritical.
If your bashing him because he is not of your party or your political persuasion or he doesn`t stand up to your moral expectations then I fully understand that. At least be fair, or try to be, or consider it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Giselle *
**Clinton did so many good things during his time in office – negotiating peace with other countries, sending goodwill advocates to nations we had poor relations with, things like that.
[quote]
**
Yeah, he did such a great job negotiating peace in Israel, right?
And with North Korea, too!
Well according to my english dictionary, this indicates that God knows their names, not that he gave them their names.
We all know Bush is sub-literate, but we expect better reading comprehension from the posters at SDMB. [sub]think of it, Bush is not qualified to post here! [/sub] 
This is disintegrating into pure stupidity. If you call your children by name, that doesn’t preclude your having given them names.
But this is an interesting study into the mentality of the Bush-bashers. Misdirection, false accusations, and innuendo, but no real arguments.
Here’s another translation of the same psalm:
147:4 *He counteth the number of the stars; He giveth them all their names. *
K?
I agree. This is a pointless niggle that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
Oh, come on – you want to argue that Bush-bashers have a monopoly on that?
<cough>Limbaugh</cough>
I’ve seen lots of real arguments posted; as with most political debates, they tend to get ignored in favor of nitpicking and cheap shots. Which, admittedly, can be fun, but are not much in the way of useful debate.
So: what’s the consensus as to worst president: Johnson? Grant? Harding? Fillmore?
Harrison. Lazy bastard died a month after being inagurated.
Brutus:
On the other hand, that could also be an argument for him as the best. Surely his “term” (such as it was) didn’t have much negative impact on the country.
Seriously, I’d say Grant.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Whether or not Enron would have happened without Bush is something again we will be debating for generations. What is clear is he could have taken steps to make sure it never happened again. And to my knowledge, which is supported by links above, Bush papered over the mess just well enough to ensure that it doesn’t happen again in his term. He could have fixed the problem, but that would have required visionary reform. There was mandate for reform and he didn’t run with it. Just like he squandered our mandate after 9/11.
I fancy myself a moderate with some left-leaning tendencies. I will freely admit that Democrats sell out their principles and pursue unwise courses of action. Politicians’ views, for the most part, are dependent on what is most popular and what their advisors tell them. This is universal – the anti-religious Shinui party won big in Israeli elections 2 weeks ago and within a day agreed to join a coalition government with religious parties.
What makes Bush so bad is the guys he looks out for are the rich, the conservative Christian, and big business. I am none of these things; perhaps if I was my opinions would be different. The opinions that I hold dear, which I believe for the most part are moderate views – fair taxation, fiscal responsibility in government, sensible environmental protection, human rights in this country and around the world, reproductive rights and addressing the HIV epidemic in developing countries, separation of church and state (just to name a few), – are all undermined by Bush.
And for those of you complaining about being against the nature of the DNC – big government Democrats are a thing of the 1980s. Bush II has only added to expand government with his “compassionate conservatism” while reducing taxes, leading of course to deficits. I suppose it is hard to put an exact number on the size of government, but it seems to me that the Democrats, with their balanced budgets and Social Security bailout messages, are the new responsible party in Washington.
One more debate point. How does Bush aim to address the African HIV epidemic, as he promised in the State of the Union, if he has consistently opposed groups teaching sex education in the developing world? Are we going to spend tens of billions on abstinence programs?
IANAPresidential historian, I started this thread because I thought it was remarkable that Helen Thomas would finger Shrub as the the very worst ever. Obviously that was a little hyperbolic on her part. I think that GWB is pretty lousy but worst ever may be a little much.
As to that question, I think there are basically two categories of bad president, incompetent and corrupt. Incompetence is bad, and can open the door for corruption by others in the administration (Grant) but that doesn’t mean that an inept prez can’t get points for having good character (Carter).
Outright corruption (Nixon) is worse because it is willful and malicious. Ironically, though, a corrupt president can still be effective and competent at running the country (I’m tempted to cite Clinton here, but his “corruption” was personal rather than official. I think I’ll cite Nixon again, because he did, on occasion, show real vision and intelligence as a president, he was just hamstrung by his own paranoia. I think LBJ also did some very important things for civil rights even though he was severely ethically challenged on many other levels).
Then there are presidents who are both inept and corrupt. Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding all fit this characterization. A lot of historians seem to put Harding way down there because he hits the trifecta of being incompetent, officially corrupt and personally sleazy. So I guess that my vote for worst ever goes to Harding.
GWB is probably in the bottom twenty at this point, and dropping. I would put him in the incompetent category more than the corrupt, but I think that his administration, as a whole, is trending towards a gross abuse of power. If he invades Iraq, he goes to the bottom ten.
Yes. That’s where I am at. In the way you speak of above, and in this:
It may be that Bush has accepted the possibility that the war on Iraq will have many more American casualties this time. American civilian casualties, on American soil, mind you. It’s not that he hasn’t been warned. And it’s not that it seems too far-fetched (anymore) either. But AFAIK, he has not honestly laid this possibility in front of the American people.
There have been situations before that have justified jeapordizing civilian lives. Speaking only for myself, I have yet to see that Iraq is one of them. Unless the rest of the country does see that Iraq is worth the lives of non-soldiers today, I think that Bush is failing in his duty to protect his people.
And if he is choosing to ignore any danger to the homeland, I think that’s worse.
/rant done.
Errr…no.
Clinton lied about it. Publicly, deliberately, repeatedly. He lied to his wife about it, he lied to his cabinet about it, he lied to the public about it.
Along with practically everything else he ever did.
He sold pardons.
His staff trashed the White House upon leaving.
He lied about his draft record.
He ruined the head of the White House travel office so that his cronies could collect the spoils of his election.
He bombed Iraq to try to avoid impeachment.
He hired people to go thru the political files of his opponents.
He lied about a middle class tax cut.
He turned the Lincoln Bedroom into a motel room for his political contributors.
And yet -
Helen Thomas thinks he did a better job as President than Bush.
I wonder if she was this blinkered when she was young?
Regards,
Shodan
Continuing this hijack, a friend just wrote to me complaining that this article from the Onion from two years ago isn’t funny anymore, given its increasing proximity to reality.
Creepy.
Nice one Shodan. Using the same citations you gave I’d like to compare that list of Clinton’s eight years with Bush’s two years:
He protected executives who bilked the American people for billions.
His staff lied and exaggerated about Clinton’s staff trashing the White House upon leaving.
He went AWOL from military service during time of war.
He had oil executives design American energy policy so his cronies could collect the spoils of his election.
He hyped a potential war with Iraq to swing the mid-term elections over to his party.
He hired lawyers to delay a recount in the Florida election.
He lied about a middle class tax cut. And can’t lie about catering to the wealthiest Americans.
He turned the entire executive branch into a revolving door job market for his political contributors.
And don’t even think I’ve forgotten my earlier post. I’m just waiting for the news to break so I can release it. This President is extracting the worst sort of political revenge a modern American President can–and his people think it’s funny.
The worst President of the 20th Century was either Warren Harding or Jimmy Carter. I would give Carter an edge however. This is another post.
When Democrats villify Republicans, they usually speak of Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, or Herbert Hoover. FDR blamed them for the depression.
Mr. Harding was simply a small town newspaper editor from Marion, Ohio. He was pushed into politics by his shrew of a wife. He became Senator of Ohio and was nominated President in 1920 on the basis of his looks (this was 30 years before the advent of TV and 40 years before JFK).
He didn’t know twit about being President and even admitted so to insiders. He allowed other people in his cabinet to run things for him. Unfortunately, many were crooks, such as Albert Fall, who was Secretary of the Interior. Harding knew beforehand that he was going to have a political falling down, but luckily for him, he died in 1923 while on vacation to the western USA.
Coolidge, Harding’s VP became Pres. in 1923. Coolidge was formally Lt. Gov and Governor of Massechuttes. He was as honest and upright as Harding was stupid and gullible. Coolidge knew how to run government. He kept government small, and no wars and conflicts occured during his tenure. He was elected in 1924 and could of been re elected in 1928 if he desired too. Even in 1932, the Republicans tried to get him to run.
Hoover was a very intellegent, competant administrator. He was an engineer from Oregon. He graduated from Stanford University. He and his wife lived in China for a period of time where he learned the Chinese language. He held several cabinet positions during the Harding/Coolidge years.
When the shit hit on the fan in October 1929, Hoover felt that government should not step in fully, he felt the economy would correct its self in time. It did not. The Depression was a worldwide depression, not merely an American depression. But he was the man at the top, and he was blamed none the less. Hoover was also a fairly dry individual, which added to his unlikablity from the public. Another incident called the “Bonus Army” (which i wont get into) also villified him by the public.
Harding was a shitty leader, Coolidge was a good leader but unheralded, and Hoover was in the wrong time of history.
So, that smiling socialist bastard FDR got elected…
Plusgood duckspeak.
I definitely agree that Harding was the worst.
I mean, getting a guy to club another figure skater in the knee, just so she’d be the U.S.'s star of the 1994 Winter Olympics, that’s just wrong!