# GWB...great president, or the GREATEST president???



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Okay...so, I'm torn...I've been talking to alot of people about this new proposed amnesty for illegal aliens recently...and the more I think about it, the more angry I get...the thing that makes me so mad is that GWB...who I respect and admire to no end will probably sign it into law...

Now...I've fought tooth and nail to defend him on issues such as the war, the economy etc...but...I can't in good conscience defend him on this issue.

So I'mtorn...I still support him overall, and I think the liberal media has done a stupendous job at tarnishing his legacy...but, in this case...I think the reprocussions will be felt for generations to come, and perhaps this will be the worst black mark of all on his presidency (only time will tell for sure)...

any-who...my question is...do any other GWB supporters out there feel the same as me??? Anybody else as torn as I am when it comes to how you look at GW??? I mean, on one hand, he has shown time and time again that he will not cave to pressure...but now it seems like that's exactly what he's doing...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> So I'mtorn...I still support him overall, and I think the liberal media has done a stupendous job at tarnishing his legacy...but, in this case...I think the reprocussions will be felt for generations to come, and perhaps this will be the worst black mark of all on his presidency (only time will tell for sure)...


I think it will rank as Item #42 in the historic list of Bush catastrophes. The claim that it might take precedence over things like "preventive invasion", tens of thousands of Americans killed and wounded etc is pretty absurd IMO.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

cute...real cute...


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

It is never easy to take a position on something that you know is unpopular, but you do it anyway because you believe it is the right thing. I find that far more refreshing than a President who governs based on polls, and we know who I am talking about. When I place my vote for a candidate, I do so knowing that he/she will not always do the things I would want them to do. I look at their overall character, convictions, principles, and then base my vote on my belief that this person means what they say and that in most instances I agree with them. Again, it may mean they will do things I disagree with, but at least I will know that they are doing what they truly believe in. 

FrankDC notwithstanding (GWB could personally find the cure for AIDS and FrankDC would still criticize him for doing so), I think it has taken tremendous courage to continue to wage a very unpopular war (made so by the relentless Press reporting of everything bad and nothing good), to sink in the polls, and still remain steadfast because you truly believe in what you are doing. I also think the war is correct, even if unpopular, and in the end his legacy will be his courage to do what was right in the face of incredible opposition (If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing). 

I vehemently oppose this immigration bill, but I also truly believe that the President thinks it is the right thing to do. In this instance, I may not be happy with the result, but overall, I want a President who has conviction. 

Okay, FrankDC, take over this thread now too with your tired "I hate Bush" rhetoric.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> I vehemently oppose this immigration bill, but I also truly believe that the President thinks it is the right thing to do. In this instance, I may not be happy with the result, but overall, I want a President who has conviction.


I kind of have to disagree...I mean...yeah, that could be the case...but it seems to me that he is caving to pressure as far as the polls are concerned, I mean, look at how many idiots there are out there that are constantly chanting about how "America needs illegal immigrants" and all that other nonsense...and like you and I both said, one of the great things about this man is that he has never caved in the past...it's very disapointing to see this...I almost feel like he has been bullied into this by a liberal congress and a radical bleeding heart section of our population, who all though they might not be the majority, they certainly are the loudest...

I just find it very saddening to see that my favorite president (well maybe 2nd fav next to RWR) is about to make such a huge mistake...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I kind of have to disagree...I mean...yeah, that could be the case...but it seems to me that he is caving to pressure as far as the polls are concerned, I mean, look at how many idiots there are out there that are constantly chanting about how "America needs illegal immigrants" and all that other nonsense...and like you and I both said, one of the great things about this man is that he has never caved in the past...it's very disapointing to see this...I almost feel like he has been bullied into this by a liberal congress and a radical bleeding heart section of our population, who all though they might not be the majority, they certainly are the loudest...


Simply astonishing ignorance.

News flash, Gabba: this Immigration Bill is a Bush baby, not a Congress baby, and certainly not a "liberal" Congress baby.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Until 9/11 happened, he was on a course with Vicente Fox to do something very much like this, so as much as I hate to disagree with a President I strongly support otherwise, this is in keeping with his early held position on the subject. He may be caving in on one or two issues within the bill, but overall, he really wanted this bill. I wish it were not true, but it is, sadly. I suspect it is part of his Texas roots to feel this way. That said, he never could have gotten this through without the current LIBERAL Congress in power, so as usual, FrankieDC is just wrong. My word, he was standing next to Teddie Kennedy at the announcement of the bill. What more do you want?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> News flash, Gabba: this Immigration Bill is a Bush baby, not a Congress baby, and certainly not a "liberal" Congress baby.


Oh, crap! We know we're in trouble when Senator Kennedy is not part of the "liberal" Congress.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

aaaw...let's not pick on Frank...he just suffers from what-the-hell ever neurological condition most liberals seem to be afflicted with...let's just sit him in the corner with a copy of the NYT, flip on MSNBC for him and every now and then pretend we're interested in his rantings about global warming or whatever the issue du-jour with the libs is...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I would say he's a good president.What about the 9/11 situation?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Simply astonishing ignorance.
> 
> News flash, Gabba: this Immigration Bill is a Bush baby, not a Congress baby, and certainly not a "liberal" Congress baby.


really??? I seem to recall a certain bloated, red-faced, alcoholic, murderer, from Mass. up there talking about how glad he was that illegals "can finally step out into the sun" or some kind of BS like that...


----------



## jcriswel (Sep 16, 2006)

*I have to be honest*

GWB is a scourge. He has been for the past six years and will be for the next two. It will take decades to recover from the damage his presidency has done to our country. I have been appalled at how the American electorate could allow such a mediocre person to become president.

That's how I feel. Sorry.

jcriswel


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Oh, crap! We know we're in trouble when Senator Kennedy is not part of the "liberal" Congress.


You think GWB is the greatest president?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> You thing GWB is the greatest president?


No, Reagan was better.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> No, Reagan was better.


So where would you rank GWB?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I have to admit that my presidential history is lacking and there are many I know little about. Of the presidents during my lifetime, since Reagan, I rank him second. Of those I consider myself knowledgeable enough to reasonably compare, there are probably only three or four I admire more than GWB: Reagan, Lincoln (probably a tie with Reagan), and T. Roosevelt. George Washington would be the fourth, but I'm not sure I admire him, as a president, any more than GWB.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"this administration has been the worst in history"

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html

pot meets kettle.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"


...Says the worst president out country ever had...


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Has anyone looked at the economy lately? The unemployment numbers? Job creation? Stock Market? Interest rates? Revenues? Low taxes? This is the greatest economic growth our country has ever seen, but because the Dems say otherwise and their accomplices in the Press as well, people just continue to think GWB has messed everything up. Was anyone here even alive when Jimmy Carter was President? Yeah, that was a great economy! 

The war in Iraq, while clearly having some serious problems, has not been as bad as some like to claim and the myth becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And before FrankDC comes on and opens his mouth about things he knows nothing about, my sons serve in the military Frankie. I communciate, daily, with Marines in Fallujah, Baghdad, and other areas of Iraq, directly, so I do not give a rats ass about what the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, or any of your other biased sources tell you. I am hearing it directly from the mouthes of those serving and funny thing is they just do not see the Iraq the Press keeps reporting about. 

I do not think I have ever seen a time in history when a political party is actually, actively working to help our country lose a war. As much as I disliked President Clinton, and I really disliked him, when we attacked the Serbs I was right there hoping and praying that our troops would do the job, that the President would make the right decisions, and that we would decisively win the war. I think the Democratic Party, as a whole, is traitorous and that Harry Reid in particular should be hanged.

The truth is that all great men are usually hated in thier day, while alive. History will look back at President Bush and he will be remembered as one of our great Presidents. Choke on that Frankie!


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> History will look back at President Bushand he will be remembered as one of our great Presidents. Choke on that Frankie!


Here's hoping...for both...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There has to be more than strong convictions. Ted Kennedy has strong convictions, but heading in the wrong direction when trying to do these convictions. To me Bush is somewhat the same. 

Reagan really knew most of where he should stand, with his conscious as a guide for direction. Though I think he errored, too. But, at least he got most of the wimps in America from hating America. If Bush hadn't gone to Iraq he would have saved himself a huge amount of trouble.

Last I heard about Iraq is that some who have fought against us are now starting to join us. Their tired of al-Qaeda killing their children and doing so much damage.

With so much oil being robbed of the Iraqy people I don't understand why the US does not have complete oversight of Iraqs oil. That oil is huge $ and thiefs should not be stealing it.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

*GWB...great embarrassment, or the GREATEST embarrassment???*

The current POTUS makes me gag: a dim-witted, inarticulate, posturing little twerp; appointer of political hacks; a$$-kisser of the religious crazies; trigger-happy blunderer who dragged us into the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

If you haven't guessed already, I loathe the man.

And this is the best the self-proclaimed Greatest Country in the World can come up with.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> The current POTUS makes me gag: a dim-witted, inarticulate, posturing little twerp; appointer of political hacks; a$$-kisser of the religious crazies; trigger-happy blunderer who dragged us into the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
> 
> If you haven't guessed already, I loathe the man.


I was going to argue your name-calling and ask how someone possessed of the character you have described was able, twice, to outsmart so many that you would obviously consider so much smarter than GWB, but then you redeemed yourself by stating, emphatically, that you "loathe the man." I disagree with you completely, but you are at least intellectually honest about your feelings and I find that particularly refereshing, especially in light of the intellectual dishonesty that goes on so often here. [see FrankDC]


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Gabba, I can respect everything you've brought to this forum, except maybe the Paris Hilton fixation(I prefer Nicky myself,) but with a title like this, it's bound to become one of those neverending threads that disintegrate into madness.

I'm one of a very rare breed, I neither love nor hate GWB. I usually end up voting to the right, because my desire for low taxes and small government trump my liberal social positions.

Whereever Bush would have been ranked before, his second term has knocked him down several positions, because of the lack of any significant accomplishment. Iraq has gotten progressively worse, at least from the time of the second inauguration until the surge(time will tell whether the surge turns it around.) The Katrina response was hardly ideal. Social Security reform has stalled. 

Of course, he is not solely responsible for these failures, there is plenty of blame to go around(Iraqi government, Governor Blanco, Democratic committee chairs, etc.) But the great ones are those who get things done, no matter the obstacles.

If he was a good or even excellent president during his first term(response to 9/11, tax cuts that turned the recession around, removing Saddam,) then his second term will probably pull him down to average or mediocre. 

I don't have an opinion on this immigration bill, as I don't know the specifics, but I doubt there are any easy answers to this issue.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> any-who...my question is...do any other GWB supporters out there feel the same as me??? Anybody else as torn as I am when it comes to how you look at GW??? I mean, on one hand, he has shown time and time again that he will not cave to pressure...but now it seems like that's exactly what he's doing...


As others have pointed out, the immigration bill is exactly the type of reform that President Bush has been supporting since he was the Governor of Texas. He's not caving to pressure, he's supporting a terrible bill because of either two reasons, 1) he believes it will burnish his legacy or 2) he really thinks its the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, this along with the President's unquestioned loyalty to aides like Alberto Gonzales and previously to Donald Rumsfeld, is the type of action that will ultimately destroy the Republican party.



whomewhat said:


> Has anyone looked at the economy lately? The unemployment numbers? Job creation? Stock Market? Interest rates? Revenues? Low taxes? This is the greatest economic growth our country has ever seen, but because the Dems say otherwise and their accomplices in the Press as well, people just continue to think GWB has messed everything up...
> 
> As much as I disliked President Clinton, and I really disliked him...


This makes no sense, you can't give credit to one President (GWB) for the success of the economy and then state that you still hate Clinton for his personal issues and yet ignore the fact that he presided over the greatest economic expansion in the history of our nation.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I thought this was the title of an earlier thread, so I assumed this was just a bump of an ancient line, but maybe not.

Still, this is amazing.

Bush took office through fraud, and an attack on the democratic principles that underlie the legitimacy of our national government.

When our nation was attacked and at great risk, he strengthened our enemies and weakened our defense by abandoning the search for our attackers and invading a country that has never posed any threat or danger to the United States.

In support of these efforts he has undermined our constitutional values and attacked and subverted the structures that have protected the people, their communications, and their right to free association and dissent against unwarranted government surveillance.

Domestically, he has perverted the tax structure to a mechanism to enrich the wealthiest Americans while beggaring the national treasury. He has installed incompetent political cronies in important offices, and presided over corruption unparalleled in American history.

Internationally he has refused to act to respond to global climate change, perhaps the greatest challenge we have faced.

The catalogue of Bush's ineptitude and corruption is so extreme that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that he would be the equal of Grant, Fillmore, and Harding. What makes him surpass them is the extreme harm he has inflicted on his country.

He is, by far, the worst president we have had.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Bradford said:


> This makes no sense, you can't give credit to one President (GWB) for the success of the economy and then state that you still hate Clinton for his personal issues and yet ignore the fact that he presided over the greatest economic expansion in the history of our nation.


Actually, I can, especially when you check the next post after yours by jackmccullough who puts a negative spin on everything good GWB has done. It is easy when you are an admitted partisan, which I am, and Mssr. jackmccullough appears to hide from. Clinton was a horrible President, but a great politician, maybe the greatest. He was also the luckiest man alive. Republican Senators were thrown out of office in recent years becuase they kissed a woman. Clinton is accused of far worse, even rape, but he manages to not only slither out of it, but he does so with the support of womens groups! He was also lucky as to the economy. He was the receipient of the first "peace dividend" which followed the end of the Cold War, a war all previous Presidents since WWII had to contend with and spend on. He also benefitted from the technology boom. Nothing he did, just being President at the right time. And then after doing nothing for several years, having control of both houses and the White House, he finally got some things done when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress brought in the "contract with America" and the President went along with it. By the time Clinton left office, he was for all intents and purposes a Republican. I did not say and have never said that the nineties were bad under Clinton, rather, I have maintained that he had nothing to do with the good. I find it extraordinary that those who want to argue that he did so something good, many things good, that he is responsible for the economy of the nineties, are the same ones now claiming Bush has had nothing to do with the current booming economy [again, see jackmccullough]. Funniest of all, Mssr. jackmccullough continues the left talking points of "Bush stole the election of 2000," offers a littany of horrific things he thinks Bush did, but then offers no explanation for how, in light of all of that, Bush was able to get re-elected in 2004? In fact, let us not forget, their are more registered Democrats, by far, than registered republicans, so the Dems begin with an advanatage, yet, they could not even rally their own base against the evil GWB. I mean, if he stole the 2000 election and then presided over the worst administration is history [see jackmccullough] then the Dems should have been able to put up Bozo the Clown and still won in 2004 by a landslide, but then that is not what happened, is it? Even funnier, the VP nominee, John Edwards, is running again, this time for President, after being unable to defeat who Mssr. jackmccullough calls the absolute worst President in the history of the United States! So their you have it, good or bad, my explanation.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Believe it or not, you said something I agree with:

"By the time Clinton left office, he was for all intents and purposes a Republican."

Only it wasn't just when he left office. Clinton was the most conservative Democratic candidate when he ran, probably even more conservative than Jimmy Carter.

The thing is, though, I didn't say anything good about Clinton in my post. If you could concentrate on the evil that Bush has done you might have a more realistic view of his standing in history.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The thing is, though, I didn't say anything good about Clinton in my post. If you could concentrate on the evil that Bush has done you might have a more realistic view of his standing in history.


The problem is, and I guess you missed this, I was not responding to your post, rather, I was responding to the post by Bradford and only referred to yours in doing so. I mean what I say and say what I mean. I know what I said here.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm no left winger, but to me, Bush always has been and always will be a completely unqualified puppet. He is an embarrassment in so many ways.

The only thing he has accomplished is keeping his zipper closed in the oval office. While I'm disappointed that Clinton could not do so, this in no way establishes Mr. Bush as a great president.

"Brownie, your'e doing a great job!!"


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Bradford said:


> This makes no sense, you can't give credit to one President (GWB) for the success of the economy and then state that you still hate Clinton for his personal issues and yet *ignore the fact that he presided over the greatest economic expansion in the history of our nation.*


I think an honest look at the economic conditions of the late 90s shows the economic success was fake. Not that any data was falsified by the administration, just that they had the benefit of the dot-com bubble to really pump up the markets. People were making money hand over fist until a lot lost everything. It was a very comfortable time for a while, until the correction.

On a somewhat related note, I've never understood how anybody can link the corporate scandals (ie, Enron) to the Bush administration. A look at the history of what took place at Enron shows that illegal behavior was taking place during the Clinton administration. It wasn't until the Bush administration that these people were prosecuted. A lot has been made of the friendship between the President and the late Ken Lay, but it doesn't seem like it did Lay any good.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Bush took office through fraud, and an attack on the democratic principles that underlie the legitimacy of our national government.


Everything else you've said is garbage, that has been responded to by other members of this forum repeatedly, but this is just silly. Just because you say it is so, Jack, doesn't make it true.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

I don't really think that you can give credit for a good or bad economy to any President. The economy was strong under President Clinton more because of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve than anything that Clinton or Newt Gingrich did. The economy has slid and recovered under President Bush more because of its inherent cyclical nature than anything done by the administration or the congress.

Unfortunately, just as much of the Clinton boom was predicated on the runup in the dot-com stocks, which then crashed at the end of his term and the beginning of the Bush administration, it is becoming somewhat apparent that the runup in the housing markets and the defense industries will likely not be sustainable, as seen by the recent implosion of the sub-prime lending markets and we will likely see a downturn either as this administration exits office or as a new one takes over.

Much of the growth in this economy has been based on increased consumer spending, financed by ever increasing levels of consumer debt.

While I certainly think the government can hurt the economy through increased taxes and regulations and I certainly appreciate the lower taxes under both Clinton and Bush, I don't really see that any President can change the economic cycle of ups and downs. If anything, the administration can just work to lessen the impact of that cycle on the downside.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> "Brownie, your'e doing a great job!!"


I've always wondered if maybe there was more to this quote, like:
"Brownie, you're doing a great job of not removing your tie and strangling the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans!!"

Alabama and Mississippi have the same federal government as Louisiana, and they didn't have any of the same problems. It's obviously easiest to blame the administration for the response to Katrina, but I think placing blame with them is not well thought out.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> I think an honest look at the economic conditions of the late 90s shows the economic success was fake. Not that any data was falsified by the administration, just that they had the benefit of the dot-com bubble to really pump up the markets. People were making money hand over fist until a lot lost everything. It was a very comfortable time for a while, until the correction.
> 
> On a somewhat related note, I've never understood how anybody can link the corporate scandals (ie, Enron) to the Bush administration. A look at the history of what took place at Enron shows that illegal behavior was taking place during the Clinton administration. It wasn't until the Bush administration that these people were prosecuted. A lot has been made of the friendship between the President and the late Ken Lay, but it doesn't seem like it did Lay any good.


FWIW - a lot of people made real money and were smart enough to get out before the bubble burst.

I do agree with you about the scandals though. I don't think they can be blamed on any one administration and I actually blame both the scandals during Clinton and Bush on one common factor - the complete lack of ethics in many members of the baby boomer generation.

Clinton and Bush epitomize the two sides of the cultural struggle that has been going on since the 1960's and unfortunately, both sides have adopted the attitude in both politics and business that "the end justifies the means" and it doesn't matter what you do as long as you win. These attitudes are the root cause behind all these scandals and it hasn't changed no matter which administration or party is in power.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Bradford said:


> Unfortunately, just as much of the Clinton boom was predicated on the runup in the dot-com stocks, which then crashed at the end of his term and the beginning of the Bush administration, it is becoming somewhat apparent that the runup in the housing markets and the defense industries will likely not be sustainable, as seen by the recent implosion of the sub-prime lending markets and we will likely see a downturn either as this administration exits office or as a new one takes over.


We're going to have to see how the issues with the sub-prime lending markets shake out. As far as the bloating in the housing markets, I really don't see it having that much of an impact. People are always going to need a place to live, and we've got more people showing up every year than we've got leaving.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Tax policy has made a huge difference in mitigating the cyclical and non-cyclical economic events of the last six years. SarBox and fiscal policy have had negative effects as you are seeing it revised now by implementation the new Treasury and SEC secretaries. I don't see how one can minimize Presidential impact in these areas.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I think history will look back at the Bush years as some of the worst leadership ever....pity. If you watched face the nation this morning you would have seen even Newt G dissin' the prez....this is one unpopular president for a reason, he is like many executives in corporations except he has run out of placed to hide and people to hide behind. Not a personal attack on you GG, just by views on GWB.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

I really thought that it was a joke when I read the title of this thread.

I'm still amazed and I guess there is a parallel universe or something.

The Gabba Goul has a good sense of humour, but it's not April's Fools Day.

Is this a joke?


----------



## jcriswel (Sep 16, 2006)

*I agree*



Bradford said:


> I don't really think that you can give credit for a good or bad economy to any President. The economy was strong under President Clinton more because of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve than anything that Clinton or Newt Gingrich did. The economy has slid and recovered under President Bush more because of its inherent cyclical nature than anything done by the administration or the congress.
> 
> Unfortunately, just as much of the Clinton boom was predicated on the runup in the dot-com stocks, which then crashed at the end of his term and the beginning of the Bush administration, it is becoming somewhat apparent that the runup in the housing markets and the defense industries will likely not be sustainable, as seen by the recent implosion of the sub-prime lending markets and we will likely see a downturn either as this administration exits office or as a new one takes over.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on this one. I am no economist but one might argue that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy and the expansion we are seeing today is a consequence of that. It's all extremely complex and it is true that the economy is in an expansion mode. Who can take credit? I don't think any political person can take credit. If anyone has an a real impact on the markets and the economy it is the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He is the man. He is the mover and the shaker. Just ask any investor!

jcriswel


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> I really thought that it was a joke when I read the title of this thread.
> 
> I'm still amazed and I guess there is a parallel universe or something.
> 
> ...


The title of the thread comes from Stephen Colbert...but for the record, I do, indeed, think GWB is a great president...


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> The title of the thread comes from Stephen Colbert...but for the record, I do, indeed, think GWB is a great president...


OK, Colbert seems appropriate for a title like that.

And you are a good guy with a sense of humour.

If you think GWB is a great President, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I don't share it.

But calling him "The greatest President", would put him in the ranks of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt! I think that is absurd.

There are some that think that Bill Clinton was a great President. I don't share that opinion either but they are entitled to it.

Likewise, it would be absurd to call Bill Clinton "Our greatest President, and compare him to Lincoln, Jefferson, and TR.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I tend to keep out of discussions like this just because I would rather make and keep friends in these fora instead of enemies. 

However, I am somewhat dismayed to see in these discussions of "great" American presidents that my favorite, Andrew Jackson, has so far been overlooked.

Now there was a real MAN--duellist (who had killed his man after taking a heavy-caliber lead ball in his body), Indian fighter, cockfigher, horse racer, and he smashed a great British army. Someone like that could never be elected today, of course.

TR, whom I would also rank high, was (like me) verbose and pedantic, which aren't altogether manly traits. Moreover, one black mark against him in my book was that he was a real cheerleader for the aggressive militarism of Japan, favoring them in the Russo-Japanese War and encouraging the annexation of Korea by Japan. Had he lived to old age, I am sure he would have been horrified by the excesses of the Japanese militarism he had encouraged. If you want to excuse his lack of foresight, consider where, say, Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover would stand in public esteem today had they been early admirers of Hitler and the cruel Nazis.


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

Fear not, the consensus among scholars is that Andrew Jackson ranks in the top 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_rankings


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> Gabba, I can respect everything you've brought to this forum, except maybe the Paris Hilton fixation(I prefer Nicky myself,) but with a title like this, it's bound to become one of those neverending threads that disintegrate into madness.
> 
> I'm one of a very rare breed, I neither love nor hate GWB. I usually end up voting to the right, because my desire for low taxes and small government trump my liberal social positions.
> 
> ...


Great post, my feelings as well...

Cheers


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

UPDATE:

Carter said, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he "certainly was not talking personally about any president."

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It seems Bush is just as polarizing a figure as Clinton was. I really put them at about the same level as Presidents. Both Administrations were/are full of scandals, misguided policies, a few good policies, and both have a certain amount of hubris. Some key differences are Bill blew hell outta Chinese embassies, aspirin factories, and picked a fight (Balkans) that he could get into and out of. Bill was wishy-washy and had no problems changing course at a moment's notice with his big teary eyes and pouty bottom lip convincing his fans black is red just as fast as he could convince them black is green. Dubya picked a bad war to get into (Iraq) and is as far from wishy-washy as you can get. He is the Captain that goes down with his ship, when a simple modification in course could have avoided the rocks altogether. He is a horrid public speaker and could probably not convince an Inuit that snow is cold. 

I think the public speaking abilities of the two is the deciding factor on why one is going to be remembered positively and the other not so much.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Public speaking is a HUGE part of any politician's job, especially for the leader of the executive branch. I don't give Bush a pass just because he happens to have this for a weakness. This is the central part of his job and a big part of why he has always turned me off.

He doesn't need to be as good as Churchill and Roosevelt, I suppose, but I don't think it's too much to expect him to outdo Forrest Gump.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

In Michigan, the Republicans totally ignored the need to run a good speaker and campaigner for the Governor's office. I voted for him anyway, even though I knew he could not possibly win.

Now, we are stuck with an absolute union-panderer that is doing nothing to help with our budget crisis. 

(Of course the Republicans in the legislature are just as bad. It's like they both want a disaster to happen so they can try to blame the other side for it. Meanwhile, I may end up being forced to sell my house at a loss (if I can sell it) and move out of state.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> In Michigan, the Republicans totally ignored the need to run a good speaker and campaigner for the Governor's office. I voted for him anyway, even though I knew he could not possibly win.
> 
> Now, we are stuck with an absolute union-panderer that is doing nothing to help with our budget crisis.
> 
> (Of course the Republicans in the legislature are just as bad. It's like they both want a disaster to happen so they can try to blame the other side for it. Meanwhile, I may end up being forced to sell my house at a loss (if I can sell it) and move out of state.)


I am sorry to hear about your financial hardships forsb, but Michigan's economy, specifically as it relates to the auto industry, deeply effects the economy of Essex County Ontario. After spending my early adulthood being bashed by my Big Union friends and relatives there for my pro-market, anti-union stances, I have to enjoy a little bit of scahdenfreude at their expense. As the woes of the US/Canadian auto industry continue, the size of my retirement home in Essex County just keeps growing with each plant closure  You are very correct, property values continue to drop, and I hope it stays depressed another 8-10 years so I can scoop up my retirement dream home for a pittance. Even another five years and I'll be ready to buy something; I can just rent it to a family member until I am ready to move in.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

To me, Bush's most egregious failing has been his refusal to call for and develop a top priority coherent and well defined national energy policy - that treats the issue as one involving national security. Drilling in ANWAR and increasing doemstic oil production is NOT the answer. New technologies need to be used/adopted to dry up petrol dollars - dollars which prop up corrupt regimes and are indirectly used to fund terrorism. Increasing domestic oil production does nothing to decrease world-wide demand for oil (and the dollars that flow to its producers) and it may, in fact, increase demand if increased production leads to lower prices and thereby decreases the incentive to conserve.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not really having financial problems. My house will be paid off this October. My salary is laughably low, though. I'd have a difficult time if I were not single.

However, if I want to make a competitive salary, I would have to leave Michigan as there are no jobs here.

Neither party really gets the problems and wants to solve them. Having power and scheming as to how to get it is more important to both of them than to provide a logical business tax system that would provide predictabilty and hopefully be competitive with other states.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Neither party really gets the problems and wants to solve them. Having power and scheming as to how to get it is more important to both of them than to provide a logical business tax system that would provide predictabilty and hopefully be competitive with other states.


Well put. And then the eternal battle of Dem Detroit vs. usually Repub Lansing does not help the situation.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

rnoldh said:


> OK, Colbert seems appropriate for a title like that.
> 
> And you are a good guy with a sense of humour.
> 
> ...


Neither Clinton or GWB will be considered great Presidents.



Wayfarer said:


> It seems Bush is just as polarizing a figure as Clinton was. I really put them at about the same level as Presidents. Both Administrations were/are full of scandals, misguided policies, a few good policies, and both have a certain amount of hubris. Some key differences are Bill blew hell outta Chinese embassies, aspirin factories, and picked a fight (Balkans) that he could get into and out of. Bill was wishy-washy and had no problems changing course at a moment's notice with his big teary eyes and pouty bottom lip convincing his fans black is red just as fast as he could convince them black is green. Dubya picked a bad war to get into (Iraq) and is as far from wishy-washy as you can get. He is the Captain that goes down with his ship, when a simple modification in course could have avoided the rocks altogether. He is a horrid public speaker and could probably not convince an Inuit that snow is cold.
> 
> I think the public speaking abilities of the two is the deciding factor on why one is going to be remembered positively and the other not so much.


I don't agree that the major difference in the two is their public speaking abilities.

The 800 Lb. Gorilla in the oval office is IRAQ not GWB's public speaking abilities.

The effects on our international reputation and the incompetent way the post-war has been handled is truly alarming.

Were there no Iraq war, GWB's ratings would not be hurt by his lack of public speaking ability. And clearly, the war on terrorism could have been fought without the ill advised invasion and occupation of Iraq.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Even if Bush were successful in the Iraq war, his public speaking flaws would be a huge problem for me. (And they are certainly a lost opportunity for Republicans.) If you have an important issue to take to the public, who do you want speaking, Reagan or Bush??

(Although, to be fair, Reagan was one of the absolute best at this. I think he compares with FDR in his ability to communicate with public speeches.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Wayfarer, I live in Lansing and we are a heavily Democratic city. Even though I am a ticket splitter, no Republican will be mayor here any time in the near future.

I believe you are talking about the legislature, where the Detroit area, especially Detroit itself and a few other black-majority cities elect Democrats, while the white majority out-state and Western areas are overwhelmingly Republican.

This unfortunate culture clash does nothing for the government's ability to lead us as a state.

I'll add that there is so much cynical campaigning going on that I wonder whether either side really believes in anything any more. I am really starting to think that they are just interested in power and the political jobs it provides for themselves and their close allies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Even if Bush were successful in the Iraq war, his public speaking flaws would be a huge problem for me. (And they are certainly a lost opportunity for Republicans.) If you have an important issue to take to the public, who do you want speaking, Reagan or Bush??
> 
> (Although, to be fair, Reagan was one of the absolute best at this. I think he compares with FDR in his ability to communicate with public speeches.)


Clinton was a master too. Give credit where it is due, Bill is a world class speaker. It is what helped get him elected in the first place (and the 15% of the vote Perot took from Bush I) and kept him in power through two terms.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Clinton is a spell binder, to be sure. I liked him a lot more than Bush, although I feel he and his wife are both incredibly cynical to their very core.

(Do they believe in anything besides having power?)

I won't vote for Hilary unless Forrest Gump is literally resurrected from fiction to run against her.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Clinton was a master too. Give credit where it is due, Bill is a world class speaker. It is what helped get him elected in the first place (and the 15% of the vote Perot took from Bush I) and kept him in power through two terms.


Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I never really saw that. He had his moments, like after Columbine. But overall, I always thought his style was completely superficial and transparent, and anyone with half a brain could see how phony he was. Like biting his lip when trying to be serious, or waving that thumb for emphasis, or pounding the lectern when feigning anger...

I'm in the same generation as the grunge-rock crowd, and I can remember all my peers being totally mesmerized by him. When they spoke of how inspired they were by Clinton, I always thought, "What the hell? You cannot be serious!"

By the way, would bring back Engler help Michigan?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Democrats don't think so, but he did a LOT to improve our business tax environment. On the down side, he hid some budget problems and spent more than he really should have given his tax cuts. He should have been more honest about that. 

I would prefer him 1000 times over the current spineless joke we have in office now. All she does is totally pander to the teaching and public employee unions. She does not have a single idea to really help improve things.

Even the Democrats hooted down her "two-penny" tax. (A two per cent sales tax on services which are now not taxable. Can you imagine every barber in the state keeping these records and submitting the taxes? No efficiency there, and the extra employees required to collect and account for the taxes could well offset most of the extra money collected.)


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> Carter said, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he "certainly was not talking personally about any president."
> 
> https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18759682/


UPDATE:

"Carter still sucks..."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

He was a disaster on a lot of levels, but Bush appalls me even more.

On some level, Carter seemed to know he was weak (although he did run for re-election.) Bush has no clue.

Carter had at least made something of himself before he became president.

Bush was just a spoiled, immature, drunken frat boy who traded on his daddy's name. He truly was "born on third base and thought he had hit a triple."

Although, at the time I refused to believe it, Reagan was right, and Carter was terribly, terribly weak and wrong. I'm amazed that Carter gets any credibility related to foreign policy when he is so bold as to speak about it.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

They got it early.

More seriously, for all the frustration and missed opportunities of the Clinton years, we were a long way from the bungling and recklessness exhibited by the current crew.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> He was a disaster on a lot of levels, but Bush appalls me even more.
> 
> On some level, Carter seemed to know he was weak (although he did run for re-election.) Bush has no clue.
> 
> ...


I voted against W in the primary, but voted for him twice in the general election. Certainly, he was a better choice IMHO than Gore or Kerry, but I just wanted to say that your post is hard to argue with even for me.

Although I never find many "Proud to be with W" supporters in my everday life, I also never find anyone that wishes they voted for Kerry.

I find it odd that the Democrats seem to blame the voters for the failure of the Democratic party to field a reasonable alternative to W.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The truly sad thing is that we could not come up with anything better than Bush or Kerry. Both of them are spoiled rich boys who are shallower than a table top.

I also don't think Bush has grown a bit since he got the office. The Republicans should have been more responsible than to place such an unprepared jerk up for the nomination.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The truly sad thing is that we could not come up with anything better than Bush or Kerry. Both of them are spoiled rich boys who are shallower than a table top.
> 
> I also don't think Bush has grown a bit since he got the office. The Republicans should have been more responsible than to place such an unprepared jerk up for the nomination.


Don't blame me I voted for Pat Buchanan! Or was it Alan Keyes in that primary? I can't even remember. It wasn't W.  I think Buchanan had bolted by 2000. Perhaps it was 1996 when I voted for Pat over Dole in the primary. Keyes really flipped out later on. I was happy W won after I saw how he ended up in that Senate race with Obama. I might have voted for Jack Kemp in the primary. I always liked him. I think I wrote him in, actually.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peanut Envy
The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter's big, smug mouth.
By Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Peanut Envy
> The latest absurdities to emerge from Jimmy Carter's big, smug mouth.
> By Christopher Hitchens


I thought he was a retired ex-president,Why all of a sudden does he involve himself now?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> I thought he was a retired ex-president,Why all of a sudden does he involve himself now?


Well he's retired. He has time on his hands.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Well he's retired. He has time on his hands.


But What does he have to do with this?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> But What does he have to do with this?


Everything.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This was pretty funny, off the drudgereport



"JIMMY WHO?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard said:


> But What does he have to do with this?


As is detailed in the article by Hitchens, Carter specifically helped create many of the problems we face today in the M.E.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> As is detailed in the article by Hitchens, Carter specifically helped create many of the problems we face today in the M.E.


There shouldn't be anymore problems in The Middle East.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I think we should all chip in and buy our friend Howard a subscription to his local reputable journal of opinion...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think we should all chip in and buy our friend Howard a subscription to his local reputable journal of opinion...


I'm sorry Gabba,I guess I'm not up to date with politics these days.


----------



## tom78 (Dec 11, 2006)

Howard said:


> I would say he's a good president.What about the 9/11 situation?


I think 9/11 showed his lack of gravitas and statesmanship. Contrast his pathetic, inarticulate mumblings with the dignity and eloquence of Tony Blair in July 2005 (or on 9/11) and you see the difference.

Or even contrast with Clinton's masterful address at the Oklahoma City memorial.

A president needs to be able to speak for the nation and put into words hope, collective grief, certainty and shared values. The great presidential communicators could: Kennedy, Reagan, FDR, even Lyndon Johnson (think of the Great Society speech, his eulogy for Kennedy, the Civil Rights Act speeches), and of course Lincoln. Bush doesn't come close.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

tom78 said:


> I think 9/11 showed his lack of gravitas and statesmanship. Contrast his pathetic, inarticulate mumblings with the dignity and eloquence of Tony Blair in July 2005 (or on 9/11) and you see the difference.
> 
> Or even contrast with Clinton's masterful address at the Oklahoma City memorial.
> 
> A president needs to be able to speak for the nation and put into words hope, collective grief, certainty and shared values. The great presidential communicators could: Kennedy, Reagan, FDR, even Lyndon Johnson (think of the Great Society speech, his eulogy for Kennedy, the Civil Rights Act speeches), and of course Lincoln. Bush doesn't come close.


I actually have a DVD about GWB, and it includes his speach at ground zero...I still get a chill when I watch it...he can get his point across...just because he isnt a silver tounged fast talker doesnt mean he's stupid...

Just like AMVanquish said...I was never impressed by Clinton's schtick...he always kinda reminded me of a used car salesman...I think Bush is every bit as intellegent, if not brighter...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think Bush is every bit as intellegent, if not brighter...


I am going to have to disagree here. I certainly don't think Bush is dumb, and I'd guess he's well smarter than average. But I think in a comparison of raw intelligence Bill Clinton would probably come out on top. The problem, though, is that intelligence is not a substitute for judgment.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tom78 said:


> I think 9/11 showed his lack of gravitas and statesmanship. Contrast his pathetic, inarticulate mumblings with the dignity and eloquence of Tony Blair in July 2005 (or on 9/11) and you see the difference.
> 
> Or even contrast with Clinton's masterful address at the Oklahoma City memorial.
> 
> A president needs to be able to speak for the nation and put into words hope, collective grief, certainty and shared values. The great presidential communicators could: Kennedy, Reagan, FDR, even Lyndon Johnson (think of the Great Society speech, his eulogy for Kennedy, the Civil Rights Act speeches), and of course Lincoln. Bush doesn't come close.


I was with you until you mentioned Lincoln. Are you kidding? Lincoln was probably the biggest liar on the planet at his time. Great communication is based on honesty and intellectual integrity - as you said "shared values".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> I am going to have to disagree here. I certainly don't think Bush is dumb, and I'd guess he's well smarter than average. But I think in a comparison of raw intelligence Bill Clinton would probably come out on top. The problem, though, is that intelligence is not a substitute for judgment.


Clearly President Clinton would win such a comparison hands down.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I certainly do not think Dubya is as stupid as some would have you believe (and then the next minute they'll have you believe he is an evil genius that can manipulate the world price of crude!) but I think Clinton is certainly much more intellgient. Dubya did get his MBA at HBS, and Bonesman or not, that says he is not a dimwit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I certainly do not think Dubya is as stupid as some would have you believe (and then the next minute they'll have you believe he is an evil genius that can manipulate the world price of crude!) but I think Clinton is certainly much more intellgient. Dubya did get his MBA at HBS, and Bonesman or not, that says he is not a dimwit.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*Texas "post turtle"*

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to former Texas Governor George W. Bush and his elevation to the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." 
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor, dumb **** get down."

M


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I am going to have to disagree here. I certainly don't think Bush is dumb, and I'd guess he's well smarter than average. But I think in a comparison of raw intelligence Bill Clinton would probably come out on top. The problem, though, is that intelligence is not a substitute for judgment.


I've got to agree with hopkins_student on both his points.

Clinton is almost certainly smarter than GWB in an IQ sense.

But Hillary might even be brighter than Bill in that IQ sense.

Imagine a Hillary Presidency

So, Yes, intelligence is not a substitute for judgement.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> So, Yes, intelligence is not a substitute for judgement.


Niether is mediocrity.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Clearly President Clinton would win such a comparison hands down.


what about The Monica Lewinsky situation?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> what about The Monica Lewinsky situation?


That situation was resolved many years ago. Nothing for you to worry about Howard.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Howard said:


> what about The Monica Lewinsky situation?


That had nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with judgment (the lack thereof).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> I've got to agree with hopkins_student on both his points.
> 
> Clinton is almost certainly smarter than GWB in an IQ sense.
> 
> ...


I don't get the Hillary thing. I've seen nothing from Hillary that shows me has an above average IQ. I've listened to her carefully and she is just not as bright as Bill - not even close. If I agreed with Bill on issues I would be a huge fan of his. No way she is "the smartest woman." Just no way.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't get the Hillary thing. I've seen nothing from Hillary that shows me has an above average IQ. I've listened to her carefully and she is just not as bright as Bill - not even close. If I agreed with Bill on issues I would be a huge fan of his. No way she is "the smartest woman." Just no way.


You may be right.

I have no way of measuring her intelligence.

How about her shrillness and lust for power. Would you rate her highly in those departments?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I would.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> How about her shrillness and lust for power. Would you rate her highly in those departments?


I cannot really say anything about shrillness, since I don't really get that concept, but as for lust for power, I don't really see how that sets her apart from other professional politicians.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> How about her shrillness and lust for power. Would you rate her highly in those departments?


World Champion!


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Now, Gabba Goul, why did I just assume that you'd be a GWB supporter. Must be your sense of the elegant and class.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

I'm just surprised that more than 30 years after he came to office I finally agree with James Earl Carter on something; unfortunately that one thing bodes ill for all of us. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that whomever the protracted campaign produces as the choice in November 2008 we can't do worse than we've already done.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

tom78 said:


> I think 9/11 showed his lack of gravitas and statesmanship. Contrast his pathetic, inarticulate mumblings with the dignity and eloquence of Tony Blair in July 2005 (or on 9/11) and you see the difference.


This is exactly what I am talking about . . pure, unadulterated hatred of the President. Almost all pundits, and Americans, thought President Bush handled the 9/11 aftermath beautifully . . have you forgotten the poll rating in the 80-90 range? He was relected primarily on his handling of the 9/11 aftermath. This is what happens when a Brit speaks on things American that he knows absolutely nothing about. I agree Tony Blair is a great stateman and, frankly, probably a greater hero in America than he is in Briton. tom78 must be one of the 50 Brits who still support Tony Blair as he is hated in Briton as much as Bush is in America. What a shame.

The President may be hated now by most everyone (not me, obviously), but he was certainly not hated after 9/11 and he was not considered any of the things written of above by tom78. To suggest such is the case just because you hate the man so much now is complete intellectual dishonesty and revisionist history at its worst.


----------

