Honest Question
I need to figure out which of our newer talk-radio drunk fools, liars, and Republican party functionaries are worth paying attention to. So it would help me out if you guys could please write a brief (3 – 4 sentence max) response to this question:
Was George W. Bush a good President?
Okay, my biggest problem with George Bush was the Iraq War. Because of the unnecessary deaths of Americans, Iraqis and our allies, GWB can never be considered a good president.
Obviously. But I already know that you are a reality based kind of guy.
I’m trying to figure out just how detached from reality guys like Bob are.
You know when a president leaves office, they were all the worst president ever. Funny how time, seems to dial in some accomplishments.
Joanne, I didn’t think that at all. Bush is the first one.
Yes, George Bush was a good president because despite all the terrorist attacks, wars and ignored hurricanes that happened when he was president, the brush at his ranch was under control.
Yes, he was a good President.
The top job for Bush was to prevent another attack and he did. For those who disagree, how many of you thought we would go for 7 1/2 years with out another attack?
Let me answer, none and some liberals were hiping we would be attacked again.
Mike Protack
There are alot of us who wouldn’t have expected to be attacked in the first place — as in not ignoring PDBs that alerted of the attacks.
Keep trying, Mr. Shallow Bench.
Bush is the first one.
I’m not so sure this is true — Nixon was the Worst.President.Ever. as was Carter when he left office.
Bush was a good President in the same sense that Torquemada was a good Christian.
That’s more like it cass. And I think there’s a bunch out there who would say LBJ hasn’t been real endeared to many either.
No. He. Was. Not.
JC = Fail. Sorry. There is objective reality and there is spin.
Protack = Fail (No surprise there)
Yes jason, the objective reality being Bush had the exponential spin of 21st century media, and LBJ only had newsclips at 6 and 11.
Sorry. Fail.
Why is so hard for otherwise smart Republicans to man up and admit that Bush was a bad President?
I get it when Protack acts like Bush was a the victim of the liberal media – but when partisanship blinds someone who I know to be smart to the truth – I don’t get it.
jason-it’s not about manning up. they were all bad presidents, because they are the nail that sticks out at the time to be hammered. So, going right down the line in my lifetime from Eisenhower to Obama stunk–and yes Bush too.
But I would prefer to note achievements moreso…LBJ’s social initiatives, Nixon’s China work, and so forth.
The LBJ legacy is very complex — the botchup that was Vietnam and the real achievement (for LBJ personally and the rest of us) of far reaching civil rights legislation.
See that jason–Cass UNDERSTANDS me. I just don’t know how all presidents come out hated, live thru it, carry on quietly, and we go on endlessly finger-pointing to one person–and not all those players arm in arm, we locally have put there. People don’t get our government doesn’t respond to “a fish cooks from head down”. You need to send it upriver first, to trial as a strong swimmer intended to do the job. Catch ’em with a net and stop them on their way, if they are getting through ineffectively. But we are complacent locally, and then the tide takes them away. Local, local, local should be the biggest scrutiny of all, and net fisherman.
h/t some old comment on Krugman’s blog
jason-I will say this, at least LBJ knew he was getting worse, and decided not to seek re-election. But I bet he would have been re-elected, in the same scenario of Bush-Kerry/Gore. Americans..we just got to live with who they vote for!
“worst” means lots of things…
Nixon was the pettiest and most corrupt, in my lifetime. Bush was the most uninvolved, disengaged and unconcerned, which may leave a more damaging legacy than corruption given what happened on his watch (even Nixon worried about the protestors and was engaged enough to have an Enemies’ List; Johnson was extremely concerned, engaged and involved.). Carter was the least politically saavy.
Who left the most damaged nation? Only time will answer that one, but Bush is certainly a front-runner.
On the whole, I think Johnson, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton’s legacies will be positive; Nixon and Bush’s II will be negative; Carter, Ford and — to a large extent — Kennedy will be two paragraphs in high school textbooks 100 years from now.
Sorry, Joanne, but Clinton left office with approval ratings over 60%.
I’m not asking about the worst, and I’m not talking about LBJ. I’m asking otherwise smart people to put down their partisan dumbness on this one issue.
George W. Bush was a bad President.
It is an objective fact of history. He was not up to the job. Why is that so hard to admit?
LBJ was the one democrat who successfully demonized the Radical Right as lunatics (’In your guts you know he’s nuts.’)…..Of course, LBJ then went on to turn what had been a rather limited U.S. advisory presence in Vietnam into a full-scale war.
Of course, LBJ then went on to turn what had been a rather limited U.S. advisory presence in Vietnam into a full-scale war.
And what would you say had he let the Russians take Vietnam instead?
Jason — I don’t know if Bush II was up to the job….but I know he certainly didn’t DO the job. He was absent, out-of-touch, unconcerned, uninvolved, arrogant and he believed his own press releases. He bought into the neocon agenda that all government is terrible and didn’t bother governing. He was elected and re-elected under shady circumstances, cavorted (and held hands with) shady characters both domestic and foreign and turned Joseph Heller’s fictional ideas into reality by creating reality out of nothingness (weapons of mass destruction, sleeper cells in the U.S., war heroes became criminals and criminals took control of the war…)
He made sure that his close friends made money while he fried the general economy. He trashed whatever parts of the environment he could, either by ignoring it or selling it. He tried to create a high-tech version of the Nixonian era to spy on “domestic enemies.”
And until the bitter end, more than half of Americans loved it, put up with it, made excuses for it, hoisted a beer to it, and waited for him to put an end to abortion — which the Republicans will never do because it is such a magnificent vote-getter for them.
Enough of an admission?
And how does that help you discover which “newer talk-radio drunk fools, liars, and Republican party functionaries are worth paying attention to”? Republican party functionaries, by definition, cannot say anything bad about Bush.
Unless, of course , he leaves the Republican party, disses torture, or supports a woman’s right to choose. Then he automatically becomes a RINO.
Ya gotta love it….
“And what would you say had he let the Russians take Vietnam instead?
Russia? All they wanted was a Marxist Vietnam…and they got it (and, the subsequent bloodbath).
My original intent was to point out the irony of LBJ portraying Goldwater as a potential ‘war mongerer,’ only to go on to do some real large scale war-mongering of his own. Get it?
callerIck = Fail (so far) Answer the question:
Was George W. Bush a good President
Progressive Mom = A+
No not really, he pretty much trounced the constitution.
“He made sure that his close friends made money while he fried the general economy. ”
I wouldn’t really stress this one too much. our current pres is doing the same thing with large campaigne donors. Just check out his latest batch of ambassador apointments.
Ambassadors often come from the large campaign contributors. Isn’t that the big, long-lasting complaint about Joe Kennedy?
I’m talking about Haliburton et al government contracts, not measly ambassador appointments.
I stand by my comment. And I’d still stress it.
And, yes, he trounced the constitution. You are absolutely right.
He was a decent and honorable man who sometimes lost his way trying to be a nice guy.
He may be appreciated for his good deeds by another generation.
The same was true of Harry Truman.
Phil was that an unqualified “no” ?
it is hard to answer an “honest question”, when you trounce every attempt to share why they thought he may have been a good president and lavish praise on those that espouse your views. This is anything but an “honest question”, it’s more like: “answer this and if I diasgree with any conclusion but my own, i’ll just bash you down and if you agree, i’ll tell the world you get an A+”
Come on, grade school was a long time ago…..
It is an honest question. Any answer other than “No.” is either an expression of stupidity or a lie since it is an established fact that he was not a good President.
I’m just trying to cull out the stupid and/or the lying.
anon = Fail.
Progressive Mom is good….and jason is the kid in the family who hates being told “maybe” (as in..if there’s time, it doesn’t rain, we have room), they wear you down for a concrete answer too early, and too absolutely.
only to go on to do some real large scale war-mongering of his own
Oh, so NOW you call it war-mongering. If LBJ had stayed out, he’d go down in history as a wingnut symbol of weakness.
You probably don’t remember how the wingnuts were hot to stick it to the Commies. At least the Russians were a real threat, unlike Saddam.
Think about Bush. There is no maybe.
JC = Fail. Sorry.
Can I change my answer?
He was not a good president, but had some good moments, like Carter, and LBJ.
That’s a qualification I can live with. He was not a good President. That is the important thing.
Can we move on to First Ladies now?
Jason-
Might you ponder that your simply imposing a personal litmus test on your commentors? I didn’t realize that your respect and admiration was contingent on homogeneity and bandwagon submisssion.
Jason — Thanks. Sorry I took more than 3 sentences…emotions run high here.
Joanne–Thanks. I have 2 kids who never dealt well with maybe, but I never got out of the habit of offering “maybe” as an honest answer. I also never got out of the habit of taking “good” as a good thing. I also agree with you that politics is “local”. Right now, my personal economy is not good — you see where that might take me in terms of rating Bush II.
As for First Ladies, I really don’t care. I don’t vote for them, don’t live with them, and have very mixed feelings about judging someone by the actions of the spouse.
(For the record, I love my spouse, but I don’t want to be judged by his actions, or vice versa!!)
Might you ponder that your simply imposing a personal litmus test on your commentors?
No.
It is not warm feelings I’m after. It is acknowledgment that there is such a thing called objective truth.
Everything is not open to interpretation and argument. Even in politics there are some simple facts.
p.s. — to Anon … if you think grade school was long ago, you must not listen to talk radio very often….
see, i did not even answer the question, i challenged the question and you assign your rating of “fail”
fail is what you must see in the mirror if this is your idea of enlightened dialogue.
i liseten to Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Bill Press and Randi Rhodes as much as I can…..and jasons question remains ill-conceived and worse implemented.
anon = Fail (for not understanding a very simple post)
Better?
my above answer has the word “no” in it…….
Its still early in his administration to see who gets lots of money.
Also, his entire admin staff and cabinet is a big “payback.”
I just really believe that he isn’t even close to a “savior.” Only time will tell though.
jason = fail (for dishonest question and intellectually dishonest grading), and I haven’t answered the loaded original Q, but your body of work in the responses is well below average.
anon,
You sound like the kind of person who is used to getting good grades. Did I miss where you answered the question?
you see, the point is, that I feel you likely would pass me with flying colors if I shared my views of Bush 43, BUT if anyone offers a view diffeent tha yours, you just summarily dismiss it. You have gone into the Repub gutter. Don’t do it. YOu can be better than this drivel.
BUT if anyone offers a view diffeent tha yours, you just summarily dismiss it.
Christ oh mighty! Here is you, right. Here is the point…on Pluto. That’s how far you missed the point by.
I’m trying to figure out the nit wits that I can ignore because they are either liars, or too stupid to pay attention to.
i am on point 100%, check yourself on this one Jason, you look a fool.
Good lord.
I am not reading 55 comments to answer the question.
No, and I will tell you why.
Presidents are defined by their actions in the face of diversity.
When faced with a catastrophic event, he rewrote the rules, lied, believed intelligence he wanted to hear, allowed his administration to bully and manipulate him, started a second war with an unprecedented reason in a inconvenient time, abandoned civil rights, broke the Geneva Convention, and ruined our country’s reputation overseas.
..and then the economy floundered. So he bailed out banks indiscriminately, let others fail, and gave billions of taxpayer dollars to an uncontrollable and unauditable entity.
That allowed the setup to the largest recession, maybe even depression, in 80 years.
He allowed so many abuses of executive powers to remain in existence when another president took over. His power grab allows the abuse of the office to be so much more possible that we are, theoretically, the closest to possibly having someone, someday name themselves King than we have ever been in the 233 year history of our country.
So, no, I think he was quite possibly the worst president ever.
JC: i don’t remember anyone, other than derangement-syndrome conservatives, thinking Clinton was a failure when he left. In fact, i remember lots of people — the prescient ones, as it turned out — bemoaning that he had to leave.
“Was Bush a ‘good’ president?”
Only after a few years, in retrospect, can we say with even a modicum of veracity….even then, historians are biased, so there will away be a divergence of opinion.
Was the prescription drug benefit for seniors ‘good?’
Was sending troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan ‘good?’
Was deposing S. Hussein ‘good?’
Was nominating Roberts and Alito ‘good?’
Was the ‘No Child Left Behind’ program ‘good?’
Was everything Bush did ‘good?’ ‘Bad?’ 50/50?
Goodness is in the eye of the beholder…and subjective.
Only after a few years, in retrospect, can we say with even a modicum of veracity
False.
callerRick = Fail
“Goodness is in the eye of the beholder…and subjective.”
This is a fact. Whether you’re taking about presidents, colors or food.
“That was a great movie!”
“I thought it stunk.”
Value statements=subjective
This whole discussion is irrelevant because Jason is too obstinate to even acknowledge the smallest hint of disagreement.
Intellectual honesty?- Fail.
Sometimes opinion is equivalent to a fact. For example, when a jury decides a person is guilty after a trial. That is generally accepted as a “fact” even though it is actually a shared opinion based on the evidence presented.
The verdict of the world is that Bush was a terrible president, and that is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You all already failed the test. By any objective measure you pick, Bush was not a good President. Your attempts to skirt the question only mean that you are not happy about being exposed as such partisan dumbasses.
I get that. You can stop now.
For what reason do you do this? Is it to cement your irrationality in people’s minds so they won’t take you seriously?
Well, then you certainly haven’t failed.
Jason wrote:
By any objective measure you pick, Bush was not a good President.
Wrong. If your objective measure was to have a President who failed to protect the country, started wars based on lies, was fiscally irresponsible, trashed the Constitution, and led a throughly corrupt political party, then Bush was a complete success.
If your objective measures were something else, he was an unmitigated failure.
BTW, my previous comment is awaiting moderation!?
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/just-to-balance-the-bush-hatred-ten-great-things-about-the-bush-presidency/
President Bush is like all Presidents. He did some good and made some mistakes. If we don’t value the good things, then we will undermine them. That is not the change we can believe in. Chew the meat and spit out the bones, but don’t listen to those who would toss out the entire meal.
President Bush saved millions of lives by turning around the AIDS epidemics and bringing hope to Africa.
Republican David = Fail
Shocker!
FSP = Fail (I think he views it as his job to pretend Bush was good)
Why I did it? Read the post. We have had an influx of wingnuts pretending to be thoughtful. I was trying to figure out who to pay attention to. The results of my study show that I have to pay attention to JC. None of the new folks merit responses from here on out.
When it comes to debate, or even conversation I need to proceed from the premise that the other person is able to grasp reality. Otherwise it is just gamesmanship. It is like talking about the Bible with a fundamentalist christian.
FSP I’ll need to continue to pay attention to, because if GOP talking points were manhattan condo buildings, he’d be Donald Trump. Rsmitty is a Republican with integrity.
The rest of them can go piss up a rope for all I care.
Well then if your goal was anything other than embarrassing yourself as a lowest-common-denominator thinker, you FAIL.
FSP = Fail.
Carry on.
President Bush is like all Presidents. He did some good and made some mistakes.
wow, Historian David A Strikes again. Except for that Pre-Emptive Doctrine thingy and torture and suspending Habeus Corpus…just like all of the rest.
FSP Defending David A.
Priceless.
DV criticizing anyone — anyone at all — for anything at all? Side-splittingly hilarious.
But…but….but…smitty didn’t even respond in this thread, and he still gets to be teacher’s pet.
Yes. Based on a consistent track record of being able to take of the GOP partisan blinders.
Is that like being excused from this final, because of overall average, and no missing assignments?
“take of the GOP partisan blinders.”
Translation: He agrees often enough with the irrational, intellectually-constipated and reason-deficient host of this blog.
So…let me get this right. You think I’m reason-deficient?
Hmmm…