The Worst President in History?

That article anticipates a level of self-examination of which Bush Jr. is clearly incapable.

A President resigned to defeat





With his approval rating at a dismal 33% and the chattering classes debating whether he is a lame duck or a dead one, President Bush has decided to tempt fate: He wants to see if he can make things worse. How else to explain his bizarre counsel of defeat on two issues facing America?
Speaking of skyrocketing gas prices Sunday, Bush told a California audience to expect "a tough summer," then threw cold water on any hopes he had a solution: "The American people have got to understand what happens elsewhere in the world affects the price of gasoline you pay here."

Message: You're on your own.

Monday he preached defeat on the immigration crisis, saying, "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."

Message: There's nothing we can do about it.

As Bush might soon learn, there is something worse than being unpopular - it's being irrelevant. Even when problems are enormously complex, the American people don't hire Presidents to tell them there is nothing he can do about them. Jimmy Carter discovered as much after his infamous "malaise" speech. He told Americans to stop feeling sorry for themselves and they responded by getting a new President.

Bush has his second term, but with midterm elections approaching, he'd better come up with some answers or he'll reap a Democratic Congress. Two years of that would make him long for Carter's early retirement.

Somebody in the White House seems to understand as much, because Bush yesterday suddenly announced a series of modest measures aimed at slowing the price hikes that have sent regular gas past $3 a gallon. Pressured by both parties, he vowed to probe whether oil companies are fixing prices. "This administration is not going to tolerate manipulation," he said. "We expect our consumers to be treated fairly."

As turnarounds go, that was a fast one, which probably explains the patchwork feel to the four-point plan. But watching the President deliver his remarks on TV, I had the impression his heart wasn't in it. It wasn't just the mangled syntax, the oddly-timed smiles or the deer-in-the-headlight pauses. It was also his finish: He puffed his cheeks full of air and let out a deep breath, as if to say, I'm glad that's over.
Of course, nothing is over except his speech. The addiction to oil he first noticed in January continues unabated in part because he has been late to the table. The unraveling of the war in Iraq, along with the tensions with Iran, is driving up prices.

His policies are complicit in immigration, too. Bush has been indifferent to border security for 5-1/2 years as millions of illegal immigrants have come here. To argue, as he did Monday, that there is little to do now except lay out a path for legalization aims to make a virtue out of failure.

The point was underscored by a small dispatch from The Associated Press. It said the feds arrested 183 illegal immigrants in Florida alone last week. "Of the 183 arrested, 130 were fugitives who had been been ordered deported by immigration judges," the report said. It noted the 130 were from 26 countries and had been convicted of sex offenses, cocaine trafficking and other crimes.

Perhaps they would have been caught sooner if the President had cared.

Now that the Democrats have succeeded in pooh poohing anything and everything Bush has attempted to do, including some of which they even voted for themselves, I'm still waiting to find out what their alternative solutions are on any and all issues. I haven't seen or heard of anything yet. As Howard Dean has said, a platform is not important now, their job is to regain their power, which of course was and is to oppose anything proposed by Republicans.

What part of OK are you in, Okie? For an example of what an OK Democrat stands for and proposes to change, look at this list of where Congressional candidate John Coffee Harris (district III) stands on the issues

He either won't read it or he'll read it through his distorted lens and make of it something it's not.

Just my prediction...

I copy the following from the website:
To grow JOBS we must:

Have a Balanced Trade Policy - A balanced trade policy would insure that for every dollar of imports there would be a dollar of exports produced in the United States. Unlike free trade this would help assure American jobs stay here.
Stop Tax Breaks - American Corporations sending jobs overseas should not be given tax breaks. This current policy is yet another incentive to continue outsourcing American jobs. Trickle down economics doesn't work.
Give Tax Breaks - Corporations should earn a tax break only after they have created jobs here. Trickle down economics doesn't work.
Lower Taxes - lower taxes for individuals, small business, and family farms would encourage additional spending, stimulating the economy and assuring jobs. Demand for products and services is what creates jobs.
Increase Wages - In 1997 minimum wage was increased to $10,700 annually and has not increased since. In the same time frame Congress has increased their salaries by over $31,000. Increases in congressional salaries should not occur more often than increases in minimum wage.
Employer Healthcare - Relieve employers of skyrocketing healthcare expense."

What specifically is proposed to bring about balanced trade. Neuter our unions to bring down wages here so more products could be economically produced here? Drill in ANWR?

Stop tax breaks for specifically what? Give tax breaks for what? The devil may be in the details of the specific proposals. I would not automatically oppose such measures but would need to look at the details. Eliminating the income tax and creating a retail sales tax has been opposed, which would in fact tax products equally, regardless of where produced, which would create a more level playing field of domestic production vs foreign products.

Lower taxes, Bush has done that, but was opposed by Democrats. This Democrat is out of step with his party.

Increasing wages will only encourage more domestically produced products to be sent overseas, which is in opposition to one of his other points.

Relieve employers of health care expense. Republican proposals that could reduce the cost of health care have been opposed by Democrats, so I don't know what he has in mind here.

Anyway, Oklahoma democrats, if elected, will have to be taken out behind the woodshed by Teddy Kennedy and read the party line, such as do what we say and vote the way we tell you or you will be rendered meaningless in Washington, no campaign money, no committees, no nothing. Of course not those exact words, but I just boiled it down to language easily understood.

squinney's father is an okie, and a cowboy. A real cowboy and one tough no nonsense son of a bitch. He's a democrat and I expect he would take issue with your inference that he or any of his cronies would allow a Ted Kennedy or anyone else tell him how to behave as regards his principles.

If you ever feel like a good ass whipping okie, I'll put you in touch with him and you can give him your views face to face. I'd pay to see it.

My great grandmother was an okie, as are all the family on my mom's side. She was a lifelong Democrat and lived on her own her whole life, raising pigs, kids and chickens (although not necessarily in that order). We were never sure how old she was because nobody kept a written record when she was born! She chewed tobacco, made quilts which she sent to every Democratic President since at least JFK (that one made the local paper as well as the one she sent to Speaker of the House Carl Albert) and could whup any man to a frazzle right up to the end. She was a formidable woman in every sense of the word. Somehow I doubt she would've voted for anyone who would bend with the wind just to get by.

Oklahoma is full of democrats in the mold of FDR, Truman, etc. I'm speaking of the older generation mainly I admit, but many young people simply vote like their parents did. The sad part is that many of them do not realize their party has been hijacked so they continue to vote for Democrats, almost like a religion. Thats great for sheriffs, county commissioners, and the like. My parents are registered Democrats. They vote for few if any Democrats, but to actually change party affiliation is just too much of a admission that the party has nothing at all for them. They still hold onto the old adage, Democrats are for the common man, and Republicans are for big business. I believed it at one time, but have faced reality as an adult.

That can also be said for Republicans -- especially the part about the party being hijacked -- or just people in general. We all tend to do things that are familiar without thinking. The mistake that both you and the people you're talking about make is thinking that any of this is peculiar to one party.

Good point, Free Duck. Incompetence and ignorance are common in both major parties.

You are correct, politics is politics. I personally do not put much confidence in either party. The world is what it is. I don't expect utopia, the end of poverty, peace forever, or any other unrealistic goal. I do not subscribe to the theory that government can solve all problems, or even solve most of them, or even more than a few. I basically believe in the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, the job of government is to take care of the basics, but get out of the way for the rest of it, have confidence in people and their ability to prosper and live in a free society and free market to achieve whatever they are willing to work for. Thats the American way isn't it? To my thinking, the Republican party comes closest to that philosophy.

okie, Well said; I agree.

I don't quite get your politics. Are you what, a libertarian, liberal, .....? Your opinions seem to be kind of all over the map.

It's all over the map, because I'm an independent. I really don't care for the extremes of either party, and I fall someplace in the middle with certain issues being far left or far right. Confused?

C.I. likes swimming in muddy water.

Ive done that just recently on my visit to Costa Rica. We had a mud bath at the spa.

Yes, I am confused. That explains my question to you on another thread, I don't remember where, that asked whether you had changed your philosophy. You are an interesting study of politics here because I think certain underlying convictions more or less determine a set of consistent principles that can be applied in a consistent way to all the issues, although I realize there are minor variations. But you really are all over the map it seems.

I think that might mean there is hope for you to come around to a logical thought process if you have some logic for at least a few issues. However, the term, "independent," seems to be a good cover for not admitting to be a liberal for lots of liberals. You agreed with my general statement of a conservative philosophy, but on specific issues you end up using another philosophy of some kind.

okie, When will you learn the politics and logical thought process is an oxymoron? Will YOU ever learn?

Isn't that so typical of a knee-jerk rightie not undersatnding that many of us are free thinkers.