We don't have to wait; that's the reason polls are taken regularly by the polling organizations on the performance of the president and congress. It's called "current polls."
You are free to ignore all the polls being run on Bush and wait until his term is over. Most of us are guessing his rating will be one of the lowest in US history even after his term is over; that's called prognostication; a guess.
Live with it.
A sample:
Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Cleveland Plaine Dealer
History Profs Rate Bush a Disaster
by Tom Brazaitis
President George W. Bush's campaign for a second term got a big break last week from the nation's historians. Responding to a national survey by George Mason University's History News Network, 81 percent of the 415 historians who expressed a view of the Bush presidency so far classified it as a failure and 12 percent see it as the worst presidency in American history.
Now, let's look at what Bush has accomplished since May of 2004. ummmm.... Iraq? New Orleans? Stock market? Increase in the number of Americans uninsured for health care? ummmm...... Yeah, let's wait three more years.
cicerone imposter wrote:A sample:
Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Cleveland Plaine Dealer
History Profs Rate Bush a Disaster
by Tom Brazaitis
President George W. Bush's campaign for a second term got a big break last week from the nation's historians. Responding to a national survey by George Mason University's History News Network, 81 percent of the 415 historians who expressed a view of the Bush presidency so far classified it as a failure and 12 percent see it as the worst presidency in American history.
You should tell commondreams that "Plain," as in "
Cleveland Plain Dealer," has no letter "e."
And what a shocker it is to learn that the country's liberal college history professors ("pointy-headed liberals") don't approve of the Bush administration.
cicerone imposter wrote:Now, let's look at what Bush has accomplished since May of 2004. ummmm.... Iraq? New Orleans? Stock market? Increase in the number of Americans uninsured for health care? ummmm...... Yeah, let's wait three more years.
He was reelected. That's an accomplishment of which many presidents cannot boast.
That he was "reelected" doesn't seem to bode well with those that voted for him. His disapproval rating is over 55 percent. Some people learn too late; some people never learn.
He wasn't elected or Re-elected. That's the only way he could do it. Surround himself with lies and corruption.The Bush administration is a manifestation of lies and corruption. That coupled with our own ignorance and apathy gives you what we have today.
tico said
Quote:And what a shocker it is to learn that the country's liberal college history professors ("pointy-headed liberals") don't approve of the Bush administration.
What a shocker you'd pull out that thought-terminating cliche to "think" with. Let's talk about how lawyers and used car salesmen consistently rank in peoples' notions of honesty, trustworthiness and integrity, shall we?
Isn't every Paterfamilias unpopular with his daughters when he seeks to husband the family wealth for their children and later descendents?
What about the paterfsus, who takes what he can for his cronies and self and doesn't have a clue about the future.
cicerone imposter wrote:We don't have to wait; that's the reason polls are taken regularly by the polling organizations on the performance of the president and congress. It's called "current polls."
You are free to ignore all the polls being run on Bush and wait until his term is over. Most of us are guessing his rating will be one of the lowest in US history even after his term is over; that's called prognostication; a guess.
Live with it.
So current polls are an accurate reading of how historians will ultimately view a president? Imposter, you are more full of it than I even originally thought.
okie, Where did you learn to read? I didn't say that historians will ultimately view a president based on current polls. Are you just dumb or dense?
Go back and read what you said. You said we don't have to wait, that we have polls on which we can guess what history will eventually record.
I simply agreed with mysteryman that current polls and opinion means little.
It is my personal opinion that Bush's presidency will be judged on how the war on terror plays out, whether Islamic terrorism grows or subsides, and how much success we ultimately have against it. It will depend upon whether there are more 911ish events or worse and who proves to be responsible for them. It will depend upon what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan 5 or 10 years from now, or 25 years from now. It will depend upon whether history will prove Bush to be very perceptive and very correctly principled concerning the threat of terrorism, or will he be perceived to be the stupid bumpkin that some of you think he is now. We have no way to predict how history plays out at this point.
We don't have to wait "as individuals" - you knumbskull.
You sure like to call people names. Hopefully you realize you are not in grade school anymore. By the way, you might wish to check your spelling of numbskull.
cicerone imposter wrote:We don't have to wait "as individuals" - you knumbskull.
"
Numbskull" has only one "k".
If you're going to insult your fellow posters, is it too much to ask that you do so with correct spelling?
Ticomaya, Go walk on a short "pear."
Actually, a number of our left-wing posters seem to have taken on a harder, more intolerant edge of late. When unable to argue the facts and the law, jump, shout and accuse the world of injustices. This may be a good omen for the upcoming elections. If they have nothing left in their quiver but barbs and conspiracy theories, I don't suppose they will attract many voters ... the only poll that counts ... even when we lose.
I hope that the conservative brethern will take a less abrasive approach. Courtesy, patience, and forebearance are much more effective and persuasive than closeminded insults.
Ashman, I'm not a "left wing" member, so what's your point, exactly? I've said many times the democrats don't have a voice or much chance in the next elections. Don't go half cocked about what my positions are on politics or religion; you'll just make a fool of yourself. If you don't like my calling a spade a spade, that's your tough luck. You want gentle words? You ain't gonna find it from me! I'm too old for that BS.
If referring to certain Democrats as "Marxists" (as you did in an earlier post) is an example of being temperate, Asherman, I will need to revise my notion of what the word means...
