The Worst President in History?

If you aren't one of the legion whose assertion that Bush is the Worst President ever because he is an uneducated idiot unable to speak "acceptable" English, then what's your problem? How would you rather have had me characterize the Presidents unique style of speaking?

Since I'm apparently too dense to see them, what exactly are the "real issues" that prove conclusively that this President is the Worst President ever?

0 Replies

Actually, at this time I don't regard George W as the worst presitent in our history. I also don't judge him by his speaking ability or any otherappearance factor. I do think history will judge George W far more negatively due the the results of has policies and his policies should be the only criteria for him to be judged by. I will be dead by then.

0 Replies

Bush doesn't even come close to being the "worst" President in our history. Certainly, his "reign" has done more damage to the nation than many, even most controversial Presidents--but i hardly think he deserves to be called the worst. Much of what has happened which has been bad for our polity arises from the conjuntion of this President who appeals to a reactionary base, and a Republican-dominated Congress. Without that congressional support, the Shrub could have pushed little of his agenda.

0 Replies

I absolutely agree with Dys that the only criteria for judging this, or any administration, is the results of their policies. Since we do not, and can not know what the future will hold, it is not possible to make good judgements as to whether one policy is inherently better than another. The Constitution gives the responsibility for making policy into the hands of the Executive, and all President's do the best they can to set national goals and make difficult choices. How popular a goal, policy or choice is has little, or no bearing on whether a hundred years downstream is regarded as a "success" or "failure". Actually, in most cases even then it isn't clear because both "good" and "bad" outcomes are evident inmost decisions, and in the end much of the judgement will depend on the viewpoint of the person making the evaluation.

Was Andrew Jackson's administration as success, or a failure? Buchanan is blamed for not averting the Civil War, but the sources of that conflict dated back through every administration from Washington onward. Wilson's bid to found a community of nations was widely applauded at the time, but in retrospect Wilson's policies played a role in causing WWII. It is entirely too facile to, in the heat of a partisan moment, claim that any President is .....

I believe that historians a few generations hence will be regard this administration as doing the best that could be done under the circumstances.

0 Replies

Whether this President has done "more damage" to the nation than even the most controversial Presidents remains to be seen. Its pretty hard to top Nixon, and even he left a mixed legacy.

Without doubt, this administration has adopted policies that are novel in our history and that carry some risk to the foundations of our system. However, we are also faced with a novel, but very real threat that must be met. Bush and Company has made a number of mistakes and poor calculations. Yet, it is difficult to see how any President in similar circumstance could have made any better choices. Bush might have let Saddam go unchecked, but I'm not at all sure that wouldn't have been worse and even an worse outcome might have followed.

Iran is a pretty example. If the world doesn't step up to the plate and take on a nation that threatens an neighbor with extermination while developing the means to do that, what should be done? Should the United States sit idle while the world slides toward a regional nuclear war? We made a deal with the DPRK to halt their development of nuclear weapons, and the result is that today, or in the near future, the citizens of the Washington, Oregon, and California are threatened with nuclear attack. If no effective action is taken to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to carry out its threats who will be to blame? If Bush attacks Iran, he will be condemned around the world. If he does not, and there is nuclear war 10 years hence it is Bush who will be blamed for sitting quietly while Iran arms itself. Iran is a no-win situation for this administration. The question might be does Bush have the character to do the right thing regardless of the political result? What is the right thing in this case, and who is it that has the Constitutional responsiblity for making that judgement?

0 Replies

Quote:

However, we are also faced with a novel, but very real threat that must be met.

I would take task with this statement, as the threat of terrorism is hardly Novel in America... see the period from 1890-1920.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My remarks about bad decisions on the part of this admininstration primarily refer to blatantly plutocratic economic policies, of which grossly irresponsible tax cuts--at a time when no one was complaining about the rate of taxation, and when the budget annually produced a surplus--are simply the most obvious example. The admininstration appears to be attempting to dismantle the social security system, and has already drastically cut back social benefit programs which were essential to exactly those people most vulnerable to the anemic economy of the last six years.

I'm not surprised, though that your immediate focus was on the lunatic fiasco in Iraq. I am also not surprised to see you peddle neo-con propaganda about Hussein and his putative threat--disappointed, but not surprised.

0 Replies

The current situation IS novel. During the period you refer to there were bombings and assassinations both in the United States and around the world, but they were quite different from what we have today.

Anarchist efforts to murder the "evil, capitalist merchants of death" is at least qualitatively different than the Islamic religious zealots who have the capability of murdering thousands, if not millions of innocent people. Anarchists tended to be idealistic individuals who acted pretty much on their own against limited targets. Sometimes those acts had very large consequences, as in the assassination of the Arch-Duke and his wife Sophie. Russia after the Revolution harbored and sponsored spies, but didn't orchestrate mass killings designed to frighten the West into compliance with Communist aims. The tactics of the IRA is probably a better analogy, though in their case it was misguided Irish-Americans who sponsored terror bombings in Britain. I would hope that in retrospect those Irish-Americans who supported the IRA are today ashamed of themselves ... but probably not.

We have become used to wars fought between nation states for a number of political reasons. The wars we are accustomed to are conducted within agreed upon rules, i.e., soldiers are readily identifiable, disciplined, uniformed and deployed only by a recognized national authority, and; soldiers are not permitted to intentionally kill civilians who do not take part in combat. In the present situation the enemy is not bound by any of the rules of civilized warfare, they are not openly associated with any national government, but insist that they are on a world-wide crusade to destroy the infidel and put in place only Islamic governments they approve of. In the past, terrorists did not have the capacity to kill thousands or millions, but today even a small group acting alone can easily murder thousands and disrupt whole nations. Not the same thing at all.

0 Replies

Bush's prescription drug plan has been called the worst legislation even enacted. His energy bill is a giveaway to rich corporations that are reaping huge profits. He signed legislation that provides for thousands of pork projects. And this at a time of massive deficits. He failed to capture or kill bin-Laden, much less destroy his organization. He lied us into a horrible war with Iraq. The record of horrible performance is endless.

Nixon was a crook, but his performance, outside of staying in Nam for 5 additional years and his many crimes, otherwise wasn't that bad.

I don't think any of us are so knowledgeable of history to correctly judge early presidents. But Bush is undoubtedly the worst president in 100 years.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Whether this President has done "more damage" to the nation than even the most controversial Presidents remains to be seen. Its pretty hard to top Nixon, and even he left a mixed legacy.

Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace for wiretapping a single office without a warrant. Bush has exercised his "executive priviledge" to wiretap THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

0 Replies

Ah yes, Set. We disagree on a lot of things. Are this administration's economic policies wrong simply because they differ from the agenda of the Democratic Party and its dedication to socialize the nation? There has been a continual tug of war between those who value individualism and property, and those who seek social and economic equality regardless of cost. Should the nation be governed by and for the masses, or should government be carried out by duly elected representatives? It seems to me that the current Democratic position is overly socialistic and a direct descendant of the 17th century Diggers. I don't think that is what made this country into what it is, and that it is high time we altered the trend.

This President isn't the first to take issue with the Democratic Party's catering to the mob by broadcasting games and circuses for all. Goldwater was ahead of his time. Nixon tarnished the GOP, and was more interested in foreign policy than in trying to stem the tide of social welfare. Reagan and Bush did what they could to return the nation to its fundamental principles, the principles that stood to our benefit for near two hundred years. Now this Administration struggles with financing a long and difficult war, while the national debt continues to rise. Something has to give, and better it should be some cutbacks in social spending than in our support of our military.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Are this administration's economic policies wrong simply because they differ from the agenda of the Democratic Party and its dedication to socialize the nation? There has been a continual tug of war between those who value individualism and property, and those who seek social and economic equality regardless of cost.

If one recalls the eagerness with which business embraced Clinton in 1992, after the doldrums of the Pappy Bush admininstration--your comment about the Diggers is nothing short of hilariously delusional. I assert that the the economic policies are wrong because they have mortgaged the future of the nation with an enormous debt, staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion. Those policies are the more ruinous when one considers that the nation was prosperous and the budget ran a surplus prior the election of this administration. That surplus was produced by the properly elected representatives of the nation, so your little melodrama there just makes you look ridiculous. The nation has borne far heavier costs with this administration and a tax-and-spend conservative Congress and administration then you will be able to demonstrate was the case in the previous eight years of an administration by the Democrats, which faced for most of that time a Republican dominated House.

Quote:

This President isn't the first to take issue with the Democratic Party's catering to the mob by broadcasting games and circuses for all.

Strawman here--demonstate that any American administration has ever offered games and circuses for all. You sound more like hate-radio--excuse me, talk-radio--pundits here than someone making a reaoned assessment.

Quote:

Goldwater was ahead of his time.

Unsubstantiated assertion here--just how do you allege that Goldwater was ahead of his time?

Quote:

Nixon tarnished the GOP, and was more interested in foreign policy than in trying to stem the tide of social welfare.

More unsubstantiated assertion--this assumes that there were any tide to be stemmed, and that it threatened the economy. Federal prisons eat up more of the budget than do social welfare programs such as ADC and WIC. Social Security remains the single largest expenditure of the Federal Government, and the single unifying characteristic of every budget in the last 60 or so years is the planning on clever new ways to plunder the Social Security trust fund without getting caught and paying a political price--regardless of which party controlled the House.

Quote:

Reagan and Bush did what they could to return the nation to its fundamental principles, the principles that stood to our benefit for near two hundred years.

Yeah, right . . . that's why Pappy Bush described Reagan's economic policies as as "Voodoo economics" in the primaries, huh? That's why the economy was so sluggish, that a Democrat beat Pappy Bush by appealing to American business leaders, the traditional preserve of the Republican party, huh?

Quote:

Now this Administration struggles with financing a long and difficult war, while the national debt continues to rise. Something has to give, and better it should be some cutbacks in social spending than in our support of our military.

Thoroughly disingenuous. The Administration struggles with a long and difficult war which it started unnecessarily, while the national debt soard due to its own irresponsible tax policies, and the free-for-all spending of the administration. Education a hot-button topic? Trot out "No Child Left Behind," promise the moon, write checks you know will bounce, and when the furor dies down, leave the states with an unfunded manadate, the big whine of the Republicans in Clinton's days. Worried about prescription drug prices? God forbid, don't do anything to piss of the pharmaceutical companies, promise a new Social Security reform package, which starts with a one billion dollar give-away to the HMOs, and write a check you know will bounce--then drop it as soon as people start paying attention, and to hell with Seniors--your campaign contribution check will be in the mail. AIDS in Africa gets shove in your face on your Presidential tour of the continent? Promise the moon, write a check you know will bounce, and drop the program as soon as no one is paying attention. Apply the same tactics to veteran's benefits, too, because once the s.o.b.s are no longer on active duty, to hell with them--it's warm bodies we want, and no whining after they get home.

Nothing had to "give," because there was no earthly reason for this war, and the deficit is a productive of irresponsible plutocratic policies. Altogether, a very poor effort on your part, Ash.

0 Replies

Of course those are my assertions, just as your conclusions are your assertions. Both are a matter of personal viewpoint.

Damn it, I hate this continual reference to "strawmen". No, no one has said that any administration has provided games and circuses to gain popular support. However, the Democratic administrations of FDR and LBJ opened the public treasury to almost limitless spending for programs that would appeal to the poor and improvident. Democrats have been beating that drum for over 60 years ... vote Democratic, the Party of the People. The GOP's arguments for fiscal soundness, and limited government have been called plutocratic, and designed to serve only the wealthy.

If you think that there are many Republicans who are happy with a monstrous national debt, you are mistaken. There is only a finite amount of resources available to us, and when government costs more what is the alternative to rising debt? Some expenses could/should be cut so that the nations growth in wealth and productivity can catch up to expenditures. What should be cut? Should we cut the military budget whilst engaged in a long and difficult war, or should we pare back our spending for social engineering projects? If you increase taxation, you will hamper the growth of productivity and in the end have even less tax revenue to spend. If you tax only the wealthy, there is no incentive to invest in the economy, and those at the bottom of the ladder will be the first redundancies.

The nation incurred a huge debt during and just after the Revolution, but it was unavoidable. The Civil War debt was still being paid for in the 20th century, and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some WWI and WWII debts still to be paid. The cost of the Cold War certainly will remain with us for generations, as will the costs of defending the nation against radical Islamic organizations.

Its all in the point of view.

0 Replies

Quote:

Should we cut the military budget whilst engaged in a long and difficult war, or should we pare back our spending for social engineering projects?

Perhaps we should consider the costs before undertaking wars such as this one in the first place. You cannot tell me that this was done by the Bush admin in any realistic fashion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

One can never know the price that a war will cost until it is over. Do you think that the Wilson administration knew the costs of WWI in advanced, and clearly foresaw the consequences of that conflict? Should the President and Congress on December 8th have hesitated until they knew what the cost in treasure and lives would be before entering WWII? Wouldn't if have been cheaper to let the DPRK have control of the entire Korean Peninsula back in the early 1950's rather than fight a war with no expectation of winning it? Did JFK commit us to Vietnam with full realization of its costs, and the discord that it would stir up in the American polity? How much did the Cold War cost? If we had never invested a dime in fighting the Soviet Union around the world, would the outcome have been better, the same, or would we now be reporting to a Political Commissar?

You may not think this war is necessary, but not everyone agrees with you and no one can be sure one way or the other until long after the outcome. All we can do is pursue what we think is right and proper according the values we have held as a nation for two hundred years. This President, and his administration are the proper and legal arbiters of what national policies are best for the country. Maybe they are wrong, and then again, perhaps you are wrong. Time will tell, but personally my bets will always be on the Constitution of the United States and the confidence that the People will make the "right" decisions in the voting booth.

0 Replies

Oh, I don't disagree with any of that; but surely you can realize that the extremely optomistic assessments of the cost of the war offered by the exec. branch prior to attack - coupled with a pretty naive view of the post-war period, and what appears to be a case of 'hope for the best, plan for the best' - do not show a real understanding of the costs associated with war, the costs associated with occupation.

Though how can this surprise anyone, given the startling lack of military experience held by those who planned the war?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Asherman wrote:
Are this administration's economic policies wrong simply because they differ from the agenda of the Democratic Party and its dedication to socialize the nation? There has been a continual tug of war between those who value individualism and property, and those who seek social and economic equality regardless of cost.

If one recalls the eagerness with which business embraced Clinton in 1992, after the doldrums of the Pappy Bush admininstration--your comment about the Diggers is nothing short of hilariously delusional. I assert that the the economic policies are wrong because they have mortgaged the future of the nation with an enormous debt, staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion. Those policies are the more ruinous when one considers that the nation was prosperous and the budget ran a surplus prior the election of this administration. That surplus was produced by the properly elected representatives of the nation, so your little melodrama there just makes you look ridiculous. The nation has borne far heavier costs with this administration and a tax-and-spend conservative Congress and administration then you will be able to demonstrate was the case in the previous eight years of an administration by the Democrats, which faced for most of that time a Republican dominated House.

Quote:
This President isn't the first to take issue with the Democratic Party's catering to the mob by broadcasting games and circuses for all.

Strawman here--demonstate that any American administration has ever offered games and circuses for all. You sound more like hate-radio--excuse me, talk-radio--pundits here than someone making a reaoned assessment.

Quote:
Goldwater was ahead of his time.

Unsubstantiated assertion here--just how do you allege that Goldwater was ahead of his time?

Quote:
Nixon tarnished the GOP, and was more interested in foreign policy than in trying to stem the tide of social welfare.

I love this post. Wish I had written it.

More unsubstantiated assertion--this assumes that there were any tide to be stemmed, and that it threatened the economy. Federal prisons eat up more of the budget than do social welfare programs such as ADC and WIC. Social Security remains the single largest expenditure of the Federal Government, and the single unifying characteristic of every budget in the last 60 or so years is the planning on clever new ways to plunder the Social Security trust fund without getting caught and paying a political price--regardless of which party controlled the House.

Quote:
Reagan and Bush did what they could to return the nation to its fundamental principles, the principles that stood to our benefit for near two hundred years.

Yeah, right . . . that's why Pappy Bush described Reagan's economic policies as as "Voodoo economics" in the primaries, huh? That's why the economy was so sluggish, that a Democrat beat Pappy Bush by appealing to American business leaders, the traditional preserve of the Republican party, huh?

Quote:
Now this Administration struggles with financing a long and difficult war, while the national debt continues to rise. Something has to give, and better it should be some cutbacks in social spending than in our support of our military.

Thoroughly disingenuous. The Administration struggles with a long and difficult war which it started unnecessarily, while the national debt soard due to its own irresponsible tax policies, and the free-for-all spending of the administration. Education a hot-button topic? Trot out "No Child Left Behind," promise the moon, write checks you know will bounce, and when the furor dies down, leave the states with an unfunded manadate, the big whine of the Republicans in Clinton's days. Worried about prescription drug prices? God forbid, don't do anything to piss of the pharmaceutical companies, promise a new Social Security reform package, which starts with a one billion dollar give-away to the HMOs, and write a check you know will bounce--then drop it as soon as people start paying attention, and to hell with Seniors--your campaign contribution check will be in the mail. AIDS in Africa gets shove in your face on your Presidential tour of the continent? Promise the moon, write a check you know will bounce, and drop the program as soon as no one is paying attention. Apply the same tactics to veteran's benefits, too, because once the s.o.b.s are no longer on active duty, to hell with them--it's warm bodies we want, and no whining after they get home.

Nothing had to "give," because there was no earthly reason for this war, and the deficit is a productive of irresponsible plutocratic policies. Altogether, a very poor effort on your part, Ash.

0 Replies

Why would anyone, but those who hate the administration on principle, not have an optimistic view of what it would take to thrash Saddam? There was a real concern within the military that Saddam would use poison gas against our forces, and perhaps even some biological toxins. One way to minimize that was to keep the force small, agile and lethal. Those were the very traits that the military had been working on since Gulf War I. Rumsfeld was a convert to the military thinking of young professional officers who visualized a vastly more effective and efficient concert of forces. The top command levels weren't convinced that anything less than massive, overwhelming force should ever be used. Rumsfeld and the Young Turks rightly pointed out that the logistics of that approach takes a lot of time and effort, which gives the enemy equal time to prepare. The time spent trying to get everyone on board at the UN, was seen as counterproductive since we knew from the start that France and Russia at least weren't about to approve military force against their good customer Saddam who just incidently owed them a lot of money. Oh well, politics before military efficiency.

As it happened, Rumsfeld and the Young Turks were right and the smaller, quicker, and more lethal application of force made possible by the new operational doctrines worked as predicted. So the calculation of what the military cost might be to smash Saddam's military and remove him from office was pretty much as expected.

What wasn't fully appreciated was the political problems of rebuilding and restructuring Iraq after the military had done its job of destroying Saddam's military might. Nation-building, even today is a new and novel mission for military planners. The mission we assign these fine professionals is new to them, and they are still learning to do more than just blow up things and knock down traditional military organizations. In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to disband Saddam's military, especially when it became evident that the dregs of the old regime and an influx of Islamic fundamentalist "volunteers" would continue fighting long after it was clear that they had lost. We were still thinking in traditional terms, defeat the enemy who acknowledges defeat and then cooperates in rebuilding the ravages of war. Mistakes, but not not mistakes made because of negligence or lack of caring. The mistakes we've made have been the result of residual faith in the military verities of the late 19th and 20th centuries coupled with our brash American confidence that people the world over want to live as freely as we do at home.

Why do you believe that our military didn't have contingeuncy plans if the campaign had gone wrong? It didn't go wrong, so the planning of the military campaign was absolutely correct. The cost of occupation has far exceeded the administration's expectation, but what alternative did the Administration have once it was discovered that Iraq would be a ground where the radical Islamic movement would fight so tenaciously for?

The cost of occupation may not really be all that great anyway, especially if the fighting in Iraq diverts even a portion of the terrorists effort from the United States mainland, or Europe. Every "insurgent" killed in Iraq is one less who might decide to commit suicide while killing thousands in Detroit, or Chicago. So far we have suffered far fewer than 5,000 KIA and the enemy has lost perhaps 100 times that number, and every Martyr can only be used once. They have a limited supply of folks willing to die, and as the Iraqi government becomes stronger the "insurgent forces" must become weaker. There is still a long way to go, but I believe we are on the right road.

The military and Department of Defense planners were not inexperienced, or negligent in anyway. The planning was done by some of the best professional soldiers this country has ever produced, and the campaign worked as planned. Granted that the President has virtually no experience at war, but then most Presidents we've elected were also military virgins. Bush Sr. was a fighter pilot in the South Pacific, did that make him more suited as President than Reagan who never got closer to the military than a soundstage? Did JFK's heroic command of a PT boat prevent him from going ahead with an invasion of Cuba by clients operating out of Miami. And, oh by the way, that Cuban adventure was planned during the Eisenhower administration. Military savvy is important, but it isn't confined entirely to professional soldiers who've been blooded in battle.

0 Replies

Asherman, I'm sure you're a fairly decent guy, but you have some really strange ideas.

0 Replies

Asherman has well reasoned and well explained posts, which are strange to some.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know