Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:21:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 1:23:28 PM EDT by KUpolo]
Which President will history look more favorably at and why?

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:23:02 PM EDT
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up.

Thats what Ill remember in 50 years.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:25:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up.

Thats what Ill remember in 50 years.


I'll do you one better. Bush 41 showed how to properly build an international coalition and execute a well planned out attack in the Middle East. He also got the economy on the right track and Clinton was able to reap the benefits. I think he was an above average president.

W=fail
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:26:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 1:26:48 PM EDT by MTUSA]

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up



NAFTA. Gas guzzler tax. "No new taxes"
I'll take Bush Jr. over Sr. anyday even though they both suck.


Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:27:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fucked anything up the Reagan Coalition and paved the way for Bill Clinton.

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up and apppointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.


History will be much kinder to W.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:29:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 1:30:50 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fucked anything up the Reagan Coalition and paved the way for Bill Clinton.

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up and apppointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.


History will be much kinder to W.


I think you are rarely going to see the words "history", "kind", and "W. Bush" in the same sentence unless one of them is preceded by "not".
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:30:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fucked anything up the Reagan Coalition and paved the way for Bill Clinton.

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up and apppointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.


History will be much kinder to W.


I think you are rarely going to see the words "history", "kind", and "W. Bush" in the same sentence.


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:34:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....


Really? I really wasn't old enough to remember what was said as Reagan was leaving office except that he was senile. I look back at Reagan and see massive deficits that ended the Cold War. Massive Deficits=bad, Ending the Cold War=good. Bush 41 had to raise taxes to make up for the budget mess and it revitalized the economy for Clinton.

I think Reagan was a decent President but Bush 41 was better.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:36:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....


Really? I really wasn't old enough to remember what was said as Reagan was leaving office except that he was senile. I look back at Reagan and see massive deficits that ended the Cold War. Massive Deficits=bad, Ending the Cold War=good. Bush 41 had to raise taxes to make up for the budget mess and it revitalized the economy for Clinton.

I think Reagan was a decent President but Bush 41 was better.


Quoted for posterity.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:36:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up



NAFTA. Gas guzzler tax. "No new taxes"
I'll take Bush Jr. over Sr. anyday even though they both suck.




Bingo
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:43:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:44:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....


Really? I really wasn't old enough to remember what was said as Reagan was leaving office except that he was senile. I look back at Reagan and see massive deficits that ended the Cold War. Massive Deficits=bad, Ending the Cold War=good. Bush 41 had to raise taxes to make up for the budget mess and it revitalized the economy for Clinton.

I think Reagan was a decent President but Bush 41 was better.


Quoted for posterity.


So? I think Bush 41 was one of the most responsible leaders our country has had. He let rationality and not ideology guide his government. Wish everyone would do that.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:47:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....


Really? I really wasn't old enough to remember what was said as Reagan was leaving office except that he was senile. I look back at Reagan and see massive deficits that ended the Cold War. Massive Deficits=bad, Ending the Cold War=good. Bush 41 had to raise taxes to make up for the budget mess and it revitalized the economy for Clinton.

I think Reagan was a decent President but Bush 41 was better.


Quoted for posterity.


So? I think Bush 41 was one of the most responsible leaders our country has had. He let rationality and not ideology guide his government. Wish everyone would do that.


That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion; I voted for GHW Bush twice, although the second time I held my nose while doing it.

But it's definitely a minority opinion here.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:48:09 PM EDT
my 2 cents ....
Preface: to cut off the neocon's bitching, I'm not a DU'er or other marxist type scum. I realize other presidents have had some of these failings as well. I'm only pointing out the failures as I see it of Bush 1 and 2.



King George the 1st.

Did one big thing right, and that's building a proper coalition against Iraq. Pretty much useless or worse on everything else (taxes, big government, blatant lies to the public). Pissed on the gun rights community.

King George the 2nd.

Pretty much fucked everything to death he laid his hands on. Massive out of control government spending, a poorly planned and executed war, violated the Constitution repeatedly (Patriot Act, government spying on citizens sans warrants, etc), failed to do a thing about illegal immigration, destroyed our international reputation with most other countries, caused a massive division in our country (pro bush vs anti bush) that threatens to make this upcoming election as ugly as the 68 election goes (in terms of liberals and conservatives to work together to accomplish anything of usefulness).
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 1:57:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By the-fly:
my 2 cents ....
Preface: to cut off the neocon's bitching, I'm not a DU'er or other marxist type scum. I realize other presidents have had some of these failings as well. I'm only pointing out the failures as I see it of Bush 1 and 2.



King George the 1st.

Did one big thing right, and that's building a proper coalition against Iraq. Pretty much useless or worse on everything else (taxes, big government, blatant lies to the public). Pissed on the gun rights community.

King George the 2nd.

Pretty much fucked everything to death he laid his hands on. Massive out of control government spending, a poorly planned and executed war, violated the Constitution repeatedly (Patriot Act, government spying on citizens sans warrants, etc), failed to do a thing about illegal immigration, destroyed our international reputation with most other countries, caused a massive division in our country (pro bush vs anti bush) that threatens to make this upcoming election as ugly as the 68 election goes (in terms of liberals and conservatives to work together to accomplish anything of usefulness).


Lemme guess: You were a kid during the '80s, right?

Because from what I've seen much of what you say about W are the same things they said about Reagan.

Few people remember just how badly the Left hated Reagan. They don't bash him now because he's dead and history has proven him correct on the Soviet Union and many other things.

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:00:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 2:03:23 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Not even close.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

"President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal."

Bush currently is sitting in the low 30's to high 20's range.

ETA: It is also important to note that when Reagan left office, his approval was at the high point of his Presidency. You know what they say about going out on a high note right?

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/opinion/polls/main621632.shtml
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:07:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Lemme guess: You were a kid during the '80s, right?

Because from what I've seen much of what you say about W are the same things they said about Reagan.

Few people remember just how badly the Left hated Reagan. They don't bash him now because he's dead and history has proven him correct on the Soviet Union and many other things.

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


I remember Reagan well. I'm no fan of him, but I'd take him ANY day of the week over Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton or the Obamanation. Shame Goldwater had never made it to the top, I think he would of done a great job.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:07:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up.

Thats what Ill remember in 50 years.


I'll do you one better. Bush 41 showed how to properly build an international coalition and execute a well planned out attack in the Middle East. He also got the economy on the right track and Clinton was able to reap the benefits. I think he was an above average president.

W=fail


41 was able to build that coalition by promising not to invade Iraq. He didn't "finish". Bush 43 went in and got the job done. He did take on a much more difficult task in Iraq than his father did, and he also didn't leave the Marsh Arabs and Kurds on their own to deal with Saddam . . .

Presidents can muck up the economy, but they can't "get it on the right track". Neither Bush did anything of major impact to the economy.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:11:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 2:13:38 PM EDT by 45-Longslide]

Originally Posted By Tango7:
Wasn't 41 involved in the ATF "sporting purpose" BS?

From the Brady Bunch:


In 1989, during the George H.W. Bush Administration, the ATF expanded this list to permanently ban the importation of 43 types of semi-automatic assault rifles that were also determined not to have a sporting purpose.


Yeah, I got my Chinese AK about a month before that happened.

ETA: Two words: Stockton Massacre

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:12:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


You know, twenty years ago they said the same things about Reagan....


Really? I really wasn't old enough to remember what was said as Reagan was leaving office except that he was senile. I look back at Reagan and see massive deficits that ended the Cold War. Massive Deficits=bad, Ending the Cold War=good. Bush 41 had to raise taxes to make up for the budget mess and it revitalized the economy for Clinton.

I think Reagan was a decent President but Bush 41 was better.



Defeating the Soviets in an arms race--without resorting to a major war (just brush wars on the margins) was perhaps the greatest success of any American president.

The major problem with the deficits are the entitlement programs, the legacy of LBJ and FDR.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Not even close.

sinp snip . . .

"President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal."

Bush currently is sitting in the low 30's to high 20's range.

ETA: It is also important to note that when Reagan left office, his approval was at the high point of his Presidency. You know what they say about going out on a high note right?

snip snip . . .


Discussing approval ratings is missing the point.

The left hated Reagan. However, the right mostly loved him, as did the "blue dog" Democrats and the middle.

GarandM1 is correct. The left's hatred of Reagan was every bit as strong as their hatred of Bush 43. But Bush 43 has popularity problems among the right and moderates, Reagan was always much stronger among these groups.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:17:37 PM EDT
Sr. - Properly retakes Kuwait.

Jr. - Invaded Afghanistan (+) Invaded Iraq (-) Spent more money than the two presidents before him combined, destroyed our rights as we knew them with the "patriot" act. Creates yet another wasteful branch of our wasteful government.

To be honest, just looking at his presidency you would never guess that jr. was a republican. Just about everyth9ing he did speaks democrat.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:19:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Not even close.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

"President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal."

Bush currently is sitting in the low 30's to high 20's range.

ETA: It is also important to note that when Reagan left office, his approval was at the high point of his Presidency. You know what they say about going out on a high note right?

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/opinion/polls/main621632.shtml


See if you can find polls from 1982 or 1983. When the recession was in full-swing, and when he was trying to deploy Pershings in West Germany.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:25:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up.

Thats what Ill remember in 50 years.


I'll do you one better. Bush 41 showed how to properly build an international coalition and execute a well planned out attack in the Middle East. He also got the economy on the right track and Clinton was able to reap the benefits. I think he was an above average president.

W=fail



41 was able to build that coalition by promising not to invade Iraq. He didn't "finish". Bush 43 went in and got the job done. He did take on a much more difficult task in Iraq than his father did, and he also didn't leave the Marsh Arabs and Kurds on their own to deal with Saddam . . .

Presidents can muck up the economy, but they can't "get it on the right track". Neither Bush did anything of major impact to the economy.


Bush 43 hasn't been able to "finish" either.

This is a quote from the book A World Transformed by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft published in 1998:

Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well…. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

In short, he knew better.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:26:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:26:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Bush 41 = Didnt fuck anything up

Bush 43 = Killed a bunch of terrorists, kept us safe from the Islamo's, but fucked everything else up.

Thats what Ill remember in 50 years.


+1

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:28:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 2:34:21 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Not even close.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

"President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal."

Bush currently is sitting in the low 30's to high 20's range.

ETA: It is also important to note that when Reagan left office, his approval was at the high point of his Presidency. You know what they say about going out on a high note right?

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/opinion/polls/main621632.shtml


See if you can find polls from 1982 or 1983. When the recession was in full-swing, and when he was trying to deploy Pershings in West Germany.


This graph shows 39% as his low
online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif

ETA: From wiki:
Highest approval rating

George W. Bush holds the record with 92% (10/8-9/2001 -- after the September 11 attacks).
George H.W. Bush is second highest, with 89% (2/28/-3/3/1991 -- after the Gulf War).
Harry S. Truman is third highest, with 87% (6/1-5/1945 -- after the End of World War II in Europe).
Franklin D. Roosevelt is fourth highest, with 84% (1/8-13/1942 -- after the Attack on Pearl Harbor).

[edit] Lowest approval rating

George W. Bush holds the record, at 19% (2/16-19/2008 -- during the Iraq Insurgency).
Harry S. Truman is second lowest, at 22% (2/9-14/1952 -- during the Korean War).
Richard Nixon is third lowest, with 24% (7/12-15/1974, 8/2-5/1974 -- during the Watergate scandal).
Jimmy Carter is fourth lowest, with 28% (6/29-7/2/79 -- during the Iran hostage crisis).
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:31:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tango7:


Spending during dubya's term? I didn't know the POTUS had discretionary spending to that degree.


Come on now. Saying that W didn't have a very high degree of discretion over which bills were sent to him to sign during the first 6 years of his Presidency is completely ignoring fact.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SuperSixOne:
destroyed our rights as we knew them with the "patriot" act.


At most, the Patriot Act violated FISA. Unless, perhaps, you start assuming a 10th Amendment violation, which I might be inclined to agree with--but the 10th has been the bastard child of the Constitution ever since FDR and it has been fully ignored since LBJ, so if that's your point you need to look at something other than Patriot.

Besides wich, FISA was Carter-era crap that doesn't make sense in the modern era of communications.

If you want to look for post-LBJ efforts that destroyed our rights, look at the Endangered Species Act and other environmental BS.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:41:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By SuperSixOne:
destroyed our rights as we knew them with the "patriot" act.


At most, the Patriot Act violated FISA. Unless, perhaps, you start assuming a 10th Amendment violation, which I might be inclined to agree with--but the 10th has been the bastard child of the Constitution ever since FDR and it has been fully ignored since LBJ, so if that's your point you need to look at something other than Patriot.

Besides wich, FISA was Carter-era crap that doesn't make sense in the modern era of communications.

If you want to look for post-LBJ efforts that destroyed our rights, look at the Endangered Species Act and other environmental BS.


I guess you were in the 19% between 2/16-19/2008.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:43:19 PM EDT
I'll say that W will have more stuff written about him but HW might be looked upon as the more "internationalist" president than his son.

In the long run W has had way more stuff to deal with than his dad and has way more support even though his approval ratings suck right now. I did not like HW Bush.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:43:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Not even close.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

"President Reagan's job approval rating dropped by more than 20 points to 46 percent in November 1986, just after public disclosures about the Iran-Contra scandal."

Bush currently is sitting in the low 30's to high 20's range.

ETA: It is also important to note that when Reagan left office, his approval was at the high point of his Presidency. You know what they say about going out on a high note right?

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/opinion/polls/main621632.shtml


See if you can find polls from 1982 or 1983. When the recession was in full-swing, and when he was trying to deploy Pershings in West Germany.


This graph shows 39% as his low
online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif

ETA: From wiki:
Highest approval rating

George W. Bush holds the record with 92% (10/8-9/2001 -- after the September 11 attacks).
George H.W. Bush is second highest, with 89% (2/28/-3/3/1991 -- after the Gulf War).
Harry S. Truman is third highest, with 87% (6/1-5/1945 -- after the End of World War II in Europe).
Franklin D. Roosevelt is fourth highest, with 84% (1/8-13/1942 -- after the Attack on Pearl Harbor).

[edit] Lowest approval rating

George W. Bush holds the record, at 19% (2/16-19/2008 -- during the Iraq Insurgency).
Harry S. Truman is second lowest, at 22% (2/9-14/1952 -- during the Korean War).
Richard Nixon is third lowest, with 24% (7/12-15/1974, 8/2-5/1974 -- during the Watergate scandal).
Jimmy Carter is fourth lowest, with 28% (6/29-7/2/79 -- during the Iran hostage crisis).


Interesting. W and Truman have some of the highest and lowest ratings recorded.

I predict W will be seen much the same as Truman is today.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:45:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 2:48:24 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Interesting. W and Truman have some of the highest and lowest ratings recorded.

I predict W will be seen much the same as Truman is today.


I found that interesting as well.

The reason I would disagree with your conclusion is that Truman is remembered for giving us a great victory in WWII. His popularity later went down over the Korean War.

Bush 43 has not given us a "great anything" that he can be proud of or well remembered for IMO.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:45:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Bush 43 hasn't been able to "finish" either.

This is a quote from the book A World Transformed by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft published in 1998:

Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well…. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

In short, he knew better.


He (W) finished Saddam, and in fact won the war. The actual war was over shortly after US forces endered Bagdad. Since then we have been rebuilding Iraq, and the nature of the effort has changed. We and the Iraqis still need to finish the second phase. Eventually it will be up to the Iraqis, but if it turns out well it will be the greatest forign policy accomplishment of a US president since Reagan.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:46:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:
I predict W will be seen much the same as Truman is today.


Thats what the W Bush white house staff is hoping for.

I have my doubts.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:47:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Bush 43 hasn't been able to "finish" either.

This is a quote from the book A World Transformed by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft published in 1998:

Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well…. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

In short, he knew better.


He (W) finished Saddam, and in fact won the war. The actual war was over shortly after US forces endered Bagdad. Since then we have been rebuilding Iraq, and the nature of the effort has changed. We and the Iraqis still need to finish the second phase. Eventually it will be up to the Iraqis, but if it turns out well it will be the greatest forign policy accomplishment of a US president since Reagan.



I find his last sentence particularly poignant.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:50:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Interesting. W and Truman have some of the highest and lowest ratings recorded.

I predict W will be seen much the same as Truman is today.


I found that interesting as well.

The reason I would disagree with your conclusion is that Truman is remembered for giving us a great victory in WWII. His popularity later went down over the Korean War.

Bush 43 has not given us a "great anything" that he can be proud of IMO.


Truman just benefited from the national euphoria over the war ending. The only thing he did to win the war was drop the bomb on Japan. He basically inherited everything else.

Truman left office under a cloud in the middle of an unpopular war that today appears to have been not only necessary but beneficial.

Another interesting parallel to W.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:54:46 PM EDT
41 was the better man, 43 was the better President.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:56:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 2:56:53 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Truman just benefited from the national euphoria over the war ending. The only thing he did to win the war was drop the bomb on Japan. He basically inherited everything else.

Truman left office under a cloud in the middle of an unpopular war that today appears to have been not only necessary but beneficial.

Another interesting parallel to W.


Yes but I think he is mostly remembered for dropping the big one (or two I guess). that outweighs the negativity in most people's eyes.

In fact if you polled the majority of the people on the street today and asked the following two questions, I'll bet the percentage that got the first one right would be more than double of that who got the second one right:

1) Which POTUS dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan and ended WWII?
2) Which POTUS started the Korean War?

Without having the answer to #1 to hang his hat on, Truman would be on every list of worst Presidents IMO.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:57:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Tango7:


Spending during dubya's term? I didn't know the POTUS had discretionary spending to that degree.


Come on now. Saying that W didn't have a very high degree of discretion over which bills were sent to him to sign during the first 6 years of his Presidency is completely ignoring fact.


He didn't. One thing we have seen consistently is that a slim constitutional margin doesn't mean much. One of W's key ideas was social security reform (very much needed), and he never got that to cross his desk. Another example: an effort at tort reform for the firearms industry--the Democrats tacked on nasty suff like a renewall of the AWB, so the Republicans killed it.

In order for Bush to really control legislation, he would have had to have a good majority in both the House and the Senate, something he never had.

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 2:58:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarandM1:
Few people remember just how badly the Left hated Reagan. They don't bash him now because he's dead and history has proven him correct on the Soviet Union and many other things.

But in the early '80s they hated him just as much as, if not worse than, they do Bush today. I was there, I remember.


Big +1
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:00:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Tango7:


Spending during dubya's term? I didn't know the POTUS had discretionary spending to that degree.


Come on now. Saying that W didn't have a very high degree of discretion over which bills were sent to him to sign during the first 6 years of his Presidency is completely ignoring fact.


He didn't. One thing we have seen consistently is that a slim constitutional margin doesn't mean much. One of W's key ideas was social security reform (very much needed), and he never got that to cross his desk. Another example: an effort at tort reform for the firearms industry--the Democrats tacked on nasty suff like a renewall of the AWB, so the Republicans killed it.

In order for Bush to really control legislation, he would have had to have a good majority in both the House and the Senate, something he never had.



He had a working majority. He asked for increased spending and tax cuts at the same time. He never came out against a Republican sponsored spending bill and he never came out against a tax cut.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:04:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 3:05:53 PM EDT by DonS]

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Truman just benefited from the national euphoria over the war ending. The only thing he did to win the war was drop the bomb on Japan. He basically inherited everything else.

Truman left office under a cloud in the middle of an unpopular war that today appears to have been not only necessary but beneficial.

Another interesting parallel to W.


Yes but I think he is mostly remembered for dropping the big one (or two I guess). that outweighs the negativity in most people's eyes.

In fact if you polled the majority of the people on the street today and asked the following two questions, I'll bet the percentage that got the first one right would be more than double of that who got the second one right:

1) Which POTUS dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan and ended WWII?
2) Which POTUS started the Korean War?

Without having the answer to #1 to hang his hat on, Truman would be on every list of worst Presidents IMO.


Truman didn't start the Korean War. The communists started it by invading South Korea. His problem is that it ended as a tie.

I don't think very many people would have Truman near the top of their list of worst presidents. However, one of the worst most stupid things he did was make a statement to the effect that it was Mac's call on using nukes (in Korea), when in fact the decision rested with the President (himself).
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:10:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By GarandM1:


Truman just benefited from the national euphoria over the war ending. The only thing he did to win the war was drop the bomb on Japan. He basically inherited everything else.

Truman left office under a cloud in the middle of an unpopular war that today appears to have been not only necessary but beneficial.

Another interesting parallel to W.


Yes but I think he is mostly remembered for dropping the big one (or two I guess). that outweighs the negativity in most people's eyes.

In fact if you polled the majority of the people on the street today and asked the following two questions, I'll bet the percentage that got the first one right would be more than double of that who got the second one right:

1) Which POTUS dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan and ended WWII?
2) Which POTUS started the Korean War?

Without having the answer to #1 to hang his hat on, Truman would be on every list of worst Presidents IMO.


Truman didn't start the Korean War. The communists started it by invading South Korea. His problem is that it ended as a tie.

I don't think very many people would have Truman near the top of their list of worst presidents. However, one of the worst most stupid things he did was make a statement to the effect that it was Mac's call on using nukes (in Korea), when in fact the decision rested with the President (himself).


Did W start the Iraq War?
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:11:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Tango7:


Spending during dubya's term? I didn't know the POTUS had discretionary spending to that degree.


Come on now. Saying that W didn't have a very high degree of discretion over which bills were sent to him to sign during the first 6 years of his Presidency is completely ignoring fact.


He didn't. One thing we have seen consistently is that a slim constitutional margin doesn't mean much. One of W's key ideas was social security reform (very much needed), and he never got that to cross his desk. Another example: an effort at tort reform for the firearms industry--the Democrats tacked on nasty suff like a renewall of the AWB, so the Republicans killed it.

In order for Bush to really control legislation, he would have had to have a good majority in both the House and the Senate, something he never had.



He had a working majority. He asked for increased spending and tax cuts at the same time. He never came out against a Republican sponsored spending bill and he never came out against a tax cut.


What Republican spending bills did he sign?

The only one I can think of (with respect to domestic policy) was the medical drug bill. Bush has focused on forign policy. He never went far with his domestic policy iniatives, although those were to be the cornerstone of his administration. 9/11 changed that. In fact his major domestic bills were things like Patriot, things that were really about security . . .
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:13:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Did W start the Iraq War?


Yes.

But Truman didn't start the Korean War.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:16:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 3:25:08 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
Did W start the Iraq War?


Yes.

But Truman didn't start the Korean War.


Agree. I think that's fair.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:17:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 3:20:21 PM EDT by KUpolo]

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:

Originally Posted By Tango7:


Spending during dubya's term? I didn't know the POTUS had discretionary spending to that degree.


Come on now. Saying that W didn't have a very high degree of discretion over which bills were sent to him to sign during the first 6 years of his Presidency is completely ignoring fact.


He didn't. One thing we have seen consistently is that a slim constitutional margin doesn't mean much. One of W's key ideas was social security reform (very much needed), and he never got that to cross his desk. Another example: an effort at tort reform for the firearms industry--the Democrats tacked on nasty suff like a renewall of the AWB, so the Republicans killed it.

In order for Bush to really control legislation, he would have had to have a good majority in both the House and the Senate, something he never had.



He had a working majority. He asked for increased spending and tax cuts at the same time. He never came out against a Republican sponsored spending bill and he never came out against a tax cut.


What Republican spending bills did he sign?

The only one I can think of (with respect to domestic policy) was the medical drug bill. Bush has focused on forign policy. He never went far with his domestic policy iniatives, although those were to be the cornerstone of his administration. 9/11 changed that. In fact his major domestic bills were things like Patriot, things that were really about security . . .


This list is actually quite long. Go to Google News and search "Bush signs spending bill" Then use the date fields and search individually through each year of his Presidency.

ETA: Defense spending does count against him in my book when it involves the Iraq War. It is a nation building project that was not in our best interest and is completely a Bush 43 brainchild.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:25:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
This list is actually quite long. Go to Google News and search "Bush signs spending bill" Then use the date fields and search individually through each year of his Presidency.


It isn't how many bills signed that's the issue, it is the amount of additional spending the government is taking on. That's why I mentioned the drug bill, since it was a definit upper, and one not related to security.

It is also good to consider that nature of the spending. Entitlements like social security, medicare, welfare, and the prescrition drug bill become debts for future administrations even if they didn't vote for them.
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:25:35 PM EDT
none of the above, thanks......

Link Posted: 7/21/2008 3:42:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By KUpolo:
This list is actually quite long. Go to Google News and search "Bush signs spending bill" Then use the date fields and search individually through each year of his Presidency.


It isn't how many bills signed that's the issue, it is the amount of additional spending the government is taking on. That's why I mentioned the drug bill, since it was a definit upper, and one not related to security.

It is also good to consider that nature of the spending. Entitlements like social security, medicare, welfare, and the prescrition drug bill become debts for future administrations even if they didn't vote for them.


Here is an interesting article:

"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."

The numbers?

* Johnson: 4.1 percent
* Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
* Carter: 1.6 percent
* Reagan: 1.4 percent
* Bush I: 3.8 percent
* Clinton: 2.1 percent
* Bush II: 4.8 percent





www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top