the worst President of our lifetimes is walking

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Tex

People who call Bush the "worst" or "one of the worst" are either prone to hyperbole, ignorant of American history, or living with blinders on.

Or in the case of Waters, all three.

[Archaea]

our time means, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

From my perspective there's only one good president there, Reagan, some mediocre presidents, and a couple of poor ones.

Now for you, we might add Eisenhower and maybe even Truman.

So of this group, who is good and who is worse than Bush II?

Reagan is best IMHO.

I can't think of a second place. Liberal historians may rank Clinton equal or ahead of Reagan, I dunno.

The rest are mediocre, but Carter and Bush II stand as particularly ineffective and depending upon one's partisanship, it is reasonable to come down on either side.

Make an argument refuting Mike's point.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

our time means, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

From my perspective there's only one good president there, Reagan.

I'm surprised to hear that from you. Reagan practically invented deficit spending.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I'm surprised to hear that from you. Reagan practically invented deficit spending.

he tried the first term, but was shot down. He should have held the line, and I agree with you that such failure was his singular failing.

However, he fought and won the Cold War. He brought down tax rates, he defended the Second Amendment, he fought against socialized medicine, he reduced the size of many aspects of government, he thought and preached that the people, its subcultures, our traditions and commerce were the solutions to problems of society, not government.

He appointed some good judges.

He wasn't perfect but overall, he was the last one in which I had any belief as to his ideals or character. He didn't go to Harvard, yet was educated in the Midwest IIRC. He was at one time a government liberal prior to his presidency, and promoted an image of a healthy vibrant US.

He left with high approval ratings as well.

[Archaea]

But back to the original premise, how could one not argue that Bush II is not one of the two worst presidents of the modern era?

Ford was very mediocre, but in comparison to Nixon?

Perhaps one argues Nixon, but the retort to that is usually, "it took Nixon to open China..."

Nixon ended Vietnam, and gave us China. In return, we had price controls, an anathema, Watergate, SALT I treaty, detente, and bunch of ordinary judges.

He was at best mediocre.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But back to the original premise, how could one not argue that Bush II is not one of the two worst presidents of the modern era?

The easiest answer to this question is that his presidency just ended a few hours ago. The wisdom or folly of at least some of what he did is not always immediately evident.

I know the Truman comparison is overused, but we really could imagine this exact same conversation taking place on January 20, 1953.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

The easiest answer to this question is that his presidency just ended a few hours ago. The wisdom or folly of at least some of what he did is not always immediately evident.

I know the Truman comparison is overused, but we really could imagine this exact same conversation taking place on January 20, 1953.

Truman wasn't exactly a great president, even if he had a few folksy quotes. Are you saying history views Truman more favorably than it did at the time? I agree, but he's not exactly heralded as the coming Messiah either.

Bush may, if everything turns out well, rise to mediocre. But he failed us financially, he botched the good will of 9/11, engaged in another endless war, forfeited civil liberties, rose spending atrociously, gave us increased governmental health care expenditures, abrogated any good will we had in the world, and basically unraveled the Republican Party. I can't imagine any list of accomplishments overcoming those list of atrocities.

I don't find his abrogation of institutional walls in fighting "terror" an accomplishment, btw.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Truman wasn't exactly a great president, even if he had a few folksy quotes. Are you saying history views Truman more favorably than it did at the time? I agree, but he's not exactly heralded as the coming Messiah either.

"Am I saying"? Are you kidding? Have you seen a Truman poll then vs. now?

Originally Posted by Archaea

Bush may, if everything turns out well, rise to mediocre. But he failed us financially, he botched the good will of 9/11, engaged in another endless war, forfeited civil liberties, rose spending atrociously, gave us increased governmental health care expenditures, abrogated any good will we had in the world, and basically unraveled the Republican Party. I can't imagine any list of accomplishments overcoming those list of atrocities.

That's a very subjective list.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Bush was a pretty decent president, all things considered. The opinion of the world vis-a-vis America is a finicky and overrated thing, in my opinion. Bush made his share of mistakes as all men are wont to do, and I'm not sure many of us wouldn't have made the same mistakes were we in his shoes.

Fred Barnes published a column last week detailing 10 Bush achievements. They are not insignificant.

Barnes' 3rd item in particular is a gift to future presidents of all parties, Mr. Obama included: a strengthened executive. While Biden seems oddly determined to diminish the role of the VP, so far Obama has not given off many signals that he will do the same with the presidency. We can only hope.

People who call Bush the "worst" or "one of the worst" are either prone to hyperbole, ignorant of American history, or living with blinders on.

The Libertarian response to Barnes' column makes a lot more sense to me:

http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis...legacy-of-bush

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The Libertarian response to Barnes' column makes a lot more sense to me:

http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis...legacy-of-bush

That was an amusing read. My favorite were these lines:

There are many different types of conservatives, but I don't think Fred Barnes is one of them.
...
There is no place for Barnes' politics in a free society, ... clearly ... an enemy of the Constitution and freedom.

Nothing like engaging in wild, rampant hyperbole to completely discredit your entire article.