I suppose we ought to note that the worst president in history was ushered into his big political high chair in no small part because of this individual... jeepers!
Quote:In an interview with Florida Baptist Witness, Harris says she's been told that "what happens in Florida sets the trend for what happens nationally." "And with this election," she says, "if Bill Nelson wins, it's going to be a very frightening proposition in 2008 in the presidential elections because whoever wins Florida will win the presidency. And he'll be in a position to largely influence. No other candidate can beat Bill Nelson except for me. No one even has a chance because of name identification and fund raising abilities and things like that.
"But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is all right. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take Western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God, and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong."
Harris' standing in the polls would suggest that the world is in a whole heap o' trouble: She trails Nelson by 35 points. But Harris? She's covered no matter what happens. She says there's "no question" but that she'll be spending eternity in heaven. If God ever asks her why she deserves the trip up, Harris says she'd say: "Because I loved your son and because I know he died for my sins. I know he was resurrected at your right hand and I served him. You know, we're covered with, our sins are covered with his blood and so we are blameless before him. We are as white as snow."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
I'm grateful that our president can do
SOMETHING reasonably well.
blatham wrote:joe said
Quote:For him, and other conservatives, a heightened need to manage uncertainty and threat is the driving force in their lives as well as the need to dominate others. I think it is a life strategy that works well for people like George who obliviously has had some years of complete chaos in his life, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very healthy way to run either a Republic or a Democracy or any combination of the two.
I think so. It's very difficult not to see the similarities between the fundamentalisms of this administration and its supporters with the fundamentalisms arising elsewhere in the world. Modernity, or change which threatens old ways almost always gains such a reactionary response in some percentage of a community.
It seems the "
change which threatens old ways" which has caused the response from the US are the acts of terrorism occuring on 9/11/01, and a sea change in the approach to global terrorism, the terrorists, and the supporters of terrorism. It's clear to all but the "peace-at-all-costs" leftists who seem convinced that appeasement is the way to go, that terrorism must be defeated proactively. Sitting back, taking a purely defensive posture, and waiting for the next attack seems to be the liberals' game plan. But of course they don't want the Administration armed with all of the tools available to fight the fight, and so they oppose efforts by the Bush Administration (wiretaps, Patriot Act). And they downplay the threat of terrorism, as if it's just a figment of the "fundamentalism" of the Bush Administration, and not a real threat to the US. If the the Democrats do not win big in November, this is the reason why.
And of course you would like to conveniently forget that the incursion into Iraq had the support of the US Congress, and assert that it is merely a "reactionary response" by the "fundamentalism" of the Bush Administration. As Foxy recently said in another thread, "Sorry, that dog won't hunt."
It seems that one of the popular arguments that Bush is the "worst President" in our history is, "He's an idiot. Uneducated, illiterate, unable to speak the language, and terminally stupid." I've paraphrased that, but believe its a fair representation of the criticism.
Is Bush really worse, in this respect, than:
Andrew Johnson, who learned his letters as a grown man from his wife. Johnson was a tradesman who married well, and had the good fortune to catch the eye of Lincoln who needed a loyal Unionist from a border state as Vice President. Johnson has a reputation for being a drunk largely based on his behavior at the inauguration ceremony where he rambled and slurred his way through an almost incomprehensible speech. President Johnson was a key figure in how the defeated South was treated after the War, and his unwillingness to "punish" the South and dismissal of Secretary of War Stanton almost resulted in his successful impeachment.
Warren G. Harding, whose "bloviating" manner of speech distressed a generation, and who said up front, "I'm not fit for the Office of President of the United States". Harding, you will remember, was President when the Tea Pot Dome scandal occurred. Though Harding himself was about as honest as one might wish for, his administration had almost as many corrupt politicians as the Grant Administration. Actually, Harding in retrospect was a far better President than the folks living at the time gave him credit for.
We have had other Presidents whose education was spotty and incomplete, yet they fulfilled the duties and responsibilities of the Office. There are even more Presidents who were almost completely inarticulate than the present Executive, and though we haven't nice IQ scores to compare, it is certain that there are a number of U.S. Presidents whose IQ would have been far below the incumbent.
Where is it written that a U.S. President must be well-educated, intellectually brilliant, and a fine orator to be President? Quincy was one of the intelligent and best educated of all our Presidents, yet his administration was generally a bust. Jackson, another of the poorly educated and shoddy user of the language, was far more popular and had more influence over the development of the country. Wilson, the President of Princeton and a leading intellectual, was a disaster, while Harry Truman, a failed haberdasher with a penchant for mild profanity was one of our best.
It seems to me that this President is NOT the Worst President based on the charge that he is an mental defective with no real education, and because his use of the language is novel.
Can we now agree that Bush isn't the most stupid, uneducated and inarticulate of all the Presidents? If so, then lets move on. What other characteristic does the President have, of fail to have, that makes him the "Worst President"?
I'll conced the uneducated.
Thank you. Do you still argue that Bush is the "Worst President" because he is unintelligent and uses idiomatic speech?
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:joe said
Quote:For him, and other conservatives, a heightened need to manage uncertainty and threat is the driving force in their lives as well as the need to dominate others. I think it is a life strategy that works well for people like George who obliviously has had some years of complete chaos in his life, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very healthy way to run either a Republic or a Democracy or any combination of the two.
I think so. It's very difficult not to see the similarities between the fundamentalisms of this administration and its supporters with the fundamentalisms arising elsewhere in the world. Modernity, or change which threatens old ways almost always gains such a reactionary response in some percentage of a community.
It seems the "
change which threatens old ways" which has caused the response from the US are the acts of terrorism occuring on 9/11/01, and a sea change in the approach to global terrorism, the terrorists, and the supporters of terrorism. It's clear to all but the "peace-at-all-costs" leftists who seem convinced that appeasement is the way to go, that terrorism must be defeated proactively. Sitting back, taking a purely defensive posture, and waiting for the next attack seems to be the liberals' game plan. But of course they don't want the Administration armed with all of the tools available to fight the fight, and so they oppose efforts by the Bush Administration (wiretaps, Patriot Act). And they downplay the threat of terrorism, as if it's just a figment of the "fundamentalism" of the Bush Administration, and not a real threat to the US. If the the Democrats do not win big in November, this is the reason why.
And of course you would like to conveniently forget that the incursion into Iraq had the support of the US Congress, and assert that it is merely a "reactionary response" by the "fundamentalism" of the Bush Administration. As Foxy recently said in another thread, "Sorry, that dog won't hunt."
I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about the rise of fundamentalism in many parts of the world including the US and Canada and the Middle East and elsewhere. Rapid change almost always produces this response and the world is clearly going through a period of rapid change. So, all of this ought to be expected in a general way.
The modern conservative movement (and the Repub party) are now more entwined with fundamentalist religion than has been the case for a very long time, if not always. Coincident with this is in America is a fundamentalist nationalism - you are with us or against us, speak against the leader and your are behaving traitorously, etc.
9/11 and Iraq merely allow these tendencies to blossom and become more apparent and more powerful.
Osama and Bush mirror each other in numerous ways. There's a good reason that the CIA concluded that Osama released his video before the last election in order to help Bush win the election. Bush and his administration provide the binary opposition which Osama provides for Bush.
Asherman wrote:Thank you. Do you still argue that Bush is the "Worst President" because he is unintelligent and uses idiomatic speech?
No. That seems to be the least of his faults.
Asherman, you are bringing up ancient history that is not particularly relevant.
Tico, you and the others on the right keep mentioning congressional approval of the Iraq resolution. You posit this crap despite knowing quite well that congress was defrauded relative to the resolution. Shame!
A congressional investigation found the president did not defraud Congress. Just a small correction I thought you would find relevant to your argument here, Advocate. I know you want history to be written correctly.
A worthless investigation, because it was effectively quashed by the President's allies.
See Pat Roberts' refusal to carry out 'part two' of the investigation into pre-war intelligence manipulation.
Cycloptichorn
Asherman wrote:Thank you. Do you still argue that Bush is the "Worst President" because he is unintelligent and uses idiomatic speech?
You have a pretty weird idea of what constitutes idiomatic speech, Asherman.
Perhaps he confused the word with "idiotic".
Advocate,
The title, topic and assertion of many posters on this thread is that President Bush is the Worst President in our history. Comparison is the essence of the topic, and the comparison has to be made with the other 42 Presidents. Now no one is asserting tha Bush has the same stature as Washington or some of the other "heros of American Politics", but we do contend that all the criticisms of Bush can be equally leveled at other Presidents.
That is not borne out by the historical record. We've just, I think, resolved that he is not the lowest intelligence, the poorest education, nor the least articulate of our Presidents.
In what other way would you like to assert that Bush is the Worst President ever, and we will probably be able to show other Presidents who were just as "bad", or worse than the incumbent. If Bush isn't the dumbest, most ill-educated, or ineloquent, then what makes him the Worst in your opinion?
JTI,
Please elaborate. The President without question mangles the language, but is that a sound reason to assert that he is the worst President in our history? I've given a couple of examples of others whose ability to speak well and eloquently were even worse than the incumbent. There are other examples I might have chosen. For example, neither of the Harrisons were noted for their ability to speechify, but they aren't as well known.
On the other hand some famous speakers either never got elected, or turned out to lead administrations during times of great national turmoil. Webster and Bryan were notable speakers, but neither could talk their way into the Executive Mansion. Quincy was a polished speaker, but lost the bid for re-election to the uncouth Andrew Jackson. Lincoln wrote and spoke some immortal lines, but his administration's reputation rests on the most destructive period in American politics. Truman wasn't even close to the speaker that FDR was, but he was just as great a President.
Asherman wrote:Advocate,
In what other way would you like to assert that Bush is the Worst President ever, and we will probably be able to show other Presidents who were just as "bad", or worse than the incumbent. If Bush isn't the dumbest, most ill-educated, or ineloquent, then what makes him the Worst in your opinion?
Though it hardly scratches the surface, even this much firmly establishes it.
Quote:
Few mayors protest Bush
By Thomas Burr and Heather May
The Salt Lake Tribune
...
President Bush often encounters an unfavorable protest when he touches down in cities across America, but it usually isn't the local mayor holding the bullhorn.
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson says it's his duty to speak at a rally outside City Hall when the president visits Utah's capital later this month, adding it would be "cowardly" and "unpatriotic" to stay silent.
"I don't respect people who see things headed in the wrong direction and because of their high sense of deference or because of their membership in the [national] culture of obedience they keep their mouths shut."
"He is the president," McCrory [Charlotte, N.C., Mayor] says. "It's bad precedent for an elected official to not greet the president. . . . We're losing respect for the office by this type of inappropriate" action.
Anderson says it strikes him as "peculiar" when people say he shouldn't protest out of respect for the office.
"How much will people tolerate out of respect for an office? We're engaged in a tragic, outrageous, illegal war, the justifications for which have shifted on several occasions," Anderson says. "This so-called fiscally conservative Republican [president] and Republican Congress have turned a historic surplus at the end of the Clinton administration into a historic deficit that we'll be paying off long after I'm no longer around.
"What may in the long run be most tragic of all, this administration has not only neglected but has had utter contempt for the long-term public health and safety and sustainability of our planet."
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_4178492
Asherman wrote:JTI,
Please elaborate. The President without question mangles the language, but is that a sound reason to assert that he is the worst President in our history?
Mr Asherman,
I don't recall ever suggesting that his language abilities had anything at all to do with his abilities as a president. I just noted that you have a queer sense of idiomatic speech.
But this is a red herring the size of a blue whale. Instead of getting off topic with these little tangents, why not address the real issues? You seem to be much too careful an observer to get dragged down in these ticoisms.
Alright, I suppose your point is that Bush is the Worst President because a mayor in Salt Lake City has decided to boycott the President's appearances in his town, and will instead speak at anti-administration rallies. We presume that the mayor of Salt Lake is not a Republican. Is that it?
How many Republican mayors and governors supported President Clinton, but had the good manners to appear on the same platform? If anything, your example seems to demonstrate that Republican elected officials have better manners than some of their Democratic counterparts. Oh well.
President Eisenhower disliked JFK, and refused to appear with him on numerous occasions. Andrew Johnson was so unpopular that he couldn't appear in any public forum without near riots. New York did riot to protest both the Emancipation Proclamation and Draft laws of the Lincoln Administration. John Adams left office the night before Jefferson's took office to avoid having to be seen with him. The number of famous examples of political partisans snubbing incumbents is so large that one is torn which to mention. During most of the 19th century Presidents avoided even appearing in hostile venues rather than be faced with rioting, insults and rudeness. Not many Republican Presidents between Lincoln and Wilson ever even bothered to travel through the Deep South where the Democrats could and would have made a political sideshow of their opposition.
If the rudeness of a mid-sized city Mayor is the best rational for arguing that this President is the Worst President ever, then you're on even thinner ice than I would have believed.
