Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever?

[Displaced Flames fan]

For my money, Carter was the worst President in US history. You have to admit, though, that it is very difficult to compare the presidencies of 20th and 21st centur Presidents with their 19th century counterparts.

Someone mentioned Nixon. Other than being paranoid and letting it drive him to illegal (and grossly unnecessary action) Nixon was actually a very good President. He brought an end to the Vietnam war that he inherited from his predecessors. He made contact with China among other things on the world trade front.

Bush has sorely disappointed me in this second term. He's done nothing and looked bad doing it.

For all the Reagan haters, the truth is somewhere in the middle on him. Let's not forget that the very day Reagan took office the hostages being held in Iran for 444 days were released. That was not a coincidence. I agree about the deficit spending and a seemingly continued covert Cold War when on the surface he had played a part in ending it. Reagan was a unifier though. Even his opponents liked him and respected him. We need that again.

Clinton gets beat up by a lot of Republicans, but I actually think the guy was a decent president. I hate the Lewinsky thing, it makes me sick. He had some shortcomings in dealing harshly with terrorism. He did a lot of good stuff otherwise though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Let's not forget that the very day Reagan took office the hostages being held in Iran for 444 days were released. That was not a coincidence.

It's true that it wasn't a coincidence--but I doubt it had much to do with Reagan's abilities as president per se--since as you say, it happened as soon as he took office. In point of fact, that's a time when the old administration's diplomatic policies are still pretty much in effect. It may also have been a final F-U to Carter from the hostage takers--but either way, I doubt Reagan deserves much credit.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Clinton gets beat up by a lot of Republicans, but I actually think the guy was a decent president. I hate the Lewinsky thing, it makes me sick. He had some shortcomings in dealing harshly with terrorism. He did a lot of good stuff otherwise though.

You make a good point. It's worth noting that Clinton isn't really on anybody's list for worst president ever. Bush makes Clinton look pretty darn good, I think.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's true that it wasn't a coincidence--but I doubt it had much to do with Reagan's abilities as president per se--since as you say, it happened as soon as he took office. In point of fact, that's a time when the old administration's diplomatic policies are still pretty much in effect. It may also have been a final F-U to Carter from the hostage takers--but either way, I doubt Reagan deserves much credit.



You make a good point. It's worth noting that Clinton isn't really on anybody's list for worst president ever. Bush makes Clinton look pretty darn good, I think.

They let them go because they knew the diplomacy ended when Carter left office. Reagan made it clear he would ACT.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You make a good point. It's worth noting that Clinton isn't really on anybody's list for worst president ever. Bush makes Clinton look pretty darn good, I think.

Nothing happened in Clinton's term. Nothing serious that is.

To me, as a Canadian, Clinton will always be known for his sex-scandel. Everything else isn't talked about much.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Where is the sarcasm smilie????? You were kidding, right?

Yeah I was joking.

But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006.

I find this almost unbelievable. Is this true?

They can explain away the Iraq thing with "we believed the WMD were there", but it's kind of hard to say "we believed we weren't accumulating mindboggling amounts of debt".

Do they have an excuse for this, or do they just pretend it's not there? It makes for a pretty nifty soundbite so you'd think they'd play it on the LIBERAL BIAS MEDIA nearly every day but nope.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nothing happened in Clinton's term. Nothing serious that is.

To me, as a Canadian, Clinton will always be known for his sex-scandel. Everything else isn't talked about much.

Clinton did some good things.

The Dayton Accord comes to mind. He also lead the charge in Kosovo, along with NATO allies. He mediated in Northern Ireland, and reduced trade barriers.

He was also hands-on with Israel and the Palestinians. Domesitcally, he increased funding to drug programs and law enforcement.

(I admit, I got a lot of that from Wikepedia... so, you know....)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Clinton did some good things.

The Dayton Accord comes to mind. He also lead the charge in Kosovo, along with NATO allies.

You know I'd have to go look that up. Not because I don't believe you, but because no one ever talks about it. Like I said, Clinton will forever be known only for his sex-scandel.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah I was joking.

But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006.

I find this almost unbelievable. Is this true?

They can explain away the Iraq thing with "we believed the WMD were there", but it's kind of hard to say "we believed we weren't accumulating mindboggling amounts of debt".

Do they have an excuse for this, or do they just pretend it's not there? It makes for a pretty nifty soundbite so you'd think they'd play it on the LIBERAL BIAS MEDIA nearly every day but nope.

I'm sure under John Kerry the economy would have jumpstarted after 9/11, erased all the debt and left the US with a 10 billion dollar surplus.

Its all Bush's fault that the US has an huge debt. All 8 trillion of it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure under John Kerry the economy would have jumpstarted after 9/11, erased all the debt and left the US with a 10 billion dollar surplus.

Nope, it is likely that Kerry would have done very much the same things Bush has done/is doing. Kerry was a bad candidate, but he still would have been a vast improvement over the village idiot from Crawford for the lone reason of a change. The international community knows Bush is an arrogant idiot and will not do a damn thing to help the US out. Bush is a divider, not a uniter, and no one trusts the guy. You can only lie so many times before no one believes what comes out of your mouth, and the Bush administration is caught in this trap. The United States is stuck in a holding pattern until Dopey gets run out of office. 2008 can't come soon enough. I just hope the Democrats are smart enought to NOT run Hilliary Clinton and will pick someone progressive with a real plan.

Its all Bush's fault that the US has an huge debt. All 8 trillion of it.

No, but a very, very, very large part of it is. Its the typical neo-con response to ignore the fact that Bush has borrowed/spent more money than the other 42 presidents before him COMBINED. Bush did what he has done his whole life, he tried to spend his way out of trouble. Sadly he's going to continue to do what he did in the private sector and leave the shareholders (the American tax payers) footing the bill.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure under John Kerry the economy would have jumpstarted after 9/11, erased all the debt and left the US with a 10 billion dollar surplus.

Its all Bush's fault that the US has an huge debt. All 8 trillion of it.

Nope, but Kerry likely wouldn't have invoked massive increases in government spending combined with tax cuts to big business. And more to the point (since Kerry shouldn't even be brought up in a debate about worst presidents), it's unlikely many past presidents would have; certainly most conservative presidents would reduce taxes while reducing government spending, while most liberals would increase taxes while increasing spending.

[Azure]

Nope, it is likely that Kerry would have done very much the same things Bush has done/is doing. Kerry was a bad candidate, but he still would have been a vast improvement over the village idiot from Crawford for the lone reason of a change. The international community knows Bush is an arrogant idiot and will not do a damn thing to help the US out. Bush is a divider, not a uniter, and no one trusts the guy. You can only lie so many times before no one believes what comes out of your mouth, and the Bush administration is caught in this trap. The United States is stuck in a holding pattern until Dopey gets run out of office. 2008 can't come soon enough. I just hope the Democrats are smart enought to NOT run Hilliary Clinton and will pick someone progressive with a real plan.

And I doubt whomever they run will eliminate all of the debt. That problem with take years to fix. Blaming Bush for making it bigger is true, but for not fixing it? Maybe Clinton should have fixed it? Or Bush 1? Reagen? Carter? Nixon? Johnson?

Get my point. Both parties seem to not give a **** about the debt or deficit. Clinton ran a surplus, but Bush ran into 9/11. Maybe if whomever is in charge would start cutting the pork....

No, but a very, very, very large part of it is. Its the typical neo-con response to ignore the fact that Bush has borrowed/spent more money than the other 42 presidents before him COMBINED. Bush did what he has done his whole life, he tried to spend his way out of trouble. Sadly he's going to continue to do what he did in the private sector and leave the shareholders (the American tax payers) footing the bill.

Not a large part. Just a part of it. Sure he borrowed a lot of money. But that amount is still less then 1/8 of the debt.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not a large part. Just a part of it. Sure he borrowed a lot of money. But that amount is still less then 1/8 of the debt.

It's less than 1/8th of the debt, so that's acceptable? Gee, and I thought these were conservatives we were talking about. Suddenly it's okay to increast the debt by a measly 12.5% in 4 years? Did you guys get a memo?

I swear, he's got some people hypnotized or something. No matter how badly he effs things up there are going to be a few people who will continue to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's less than 1/8th of the debt, so that's acceptable? Gee, and I thought these were conservatives we were talking about. Suddenly it's okay to increast the debt by a measly 12.5% in 4 years? Did you guys get a memo?

I swear, he's got some people hypnotized or something. No matter how badly he effs things up there are going to be a few people who will continue to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

Well it would've been more if he had his way too. The Republican controlled Congress hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the mad money lately.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

For all the Reagan haters, the truth is somewhere in the middle on him. Let's not forget that the very day Reagan took office the hostages being held in Iran for 444 days were released. That was not a coincidence. I agree about the deficit spending and a seemingly continued covert Cold War when on the surface he had played a part in ending it. Reagan was a unifier though. Even his opponents liked him and respected him. We need that again.

I'm not a big fan of Reagan's economic policy.

While it is true that he did assist in turning the economy around (Actually Milton Friedman did most of the work), he did it with the path of most resistance and made plenty of boneheaded moves - The Clinton administration started to get it right and really showed that they could manage an economy properly.

Supply-Side economics (Reaganonmics) is a generally flawed principle based on tax cuts, which don't pay for themselves (which for some odd reason they people who make these cuts insist that they do). It has been shown over at least a couple of Administrations that this is the quick and easy way to debt. His military spending really burdened the country and who can forget "Star Wars", what a great idea that was.

Reagan also really had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was all about Gorbachev and his implementation of reform policies, which contributed to the collaspe of the Soviet Union.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Nope, but Kerry likely wouldn't have invoked massive increases in government spending combined with tax cuts to big business. And more to the point (since Kerry shouldn't even be brought up in a debate about worst presidents), it's unlikely many past presidents would have; certainly most conservative presidents would reduce taxes while reducing government spending, while most liberals would increase taxes while increasing spending.

Which I agree on. Bush is at fault here, and will be for all of his 8 years as President. But before he became President the debt already existed and after he'll be done serving his term, the debt will continue to exist, unless someone is willing to massively cut down on everything.

Didn't Klein do that here in Alberta? And look at the surpluses we're running. Difference is, the US could save billions of dollars by shutting down all those useless social programs.

[FireFly]

Should I wade in or not.... Hmmmm....

The first question should really be, 'what makes a good President?' Then and only then can you actually answer the question. Is it foreign or domestic policy? How much does one affect the other?

As the US is the world's remaining superpower, what should their role be on the world stage? There are good things about them being isolationist, and good things about them being unilateralist. The problem for the US is finding a happy-medium.

What do you suppose the long-term repercussions of the war in Iraq will be? Maybe it is a war for oil, and maybe people are dying because of it. Is it better to have 3000 (I think it's around that now) die in order to ensure the wealth of the nation and a sustainable supply of oil which is reaching record high prices? Is it better to have short term pain in order for the US to not face economic problems due to rising oil prices? What would happen to the rest of the world if the US couldn't afford to buy oil anymore?

Is it a wise idea to put the issues arising in SE Asia on the backburner? (That's the biggest one IMO. What happens when WWIII starts over there? At least US troops will be close?)

There are too many factors to determine whether or not Bush has been any good for the US. The fallout of the war in Iraq will last a very long time. While he's had to make some unpopular decisions, it is my belief that some of those decisions will reap benefits for the US for a long time coming. However, he's also done some boneheaded things too...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's less than 1/8th of the debt, so that's acceptable? Gee, and I thought these were conservatives we were talking about. Suddenly it's okay to increast the debt by a measly 12.5% in 4 years? Did you guys get a memo?

I swear, he's got some people hypnotized or something. No matter how badly he effs things up there are going to be a few people who will continue to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

Did I say it was acceptable? Maybe you should read the frickin' post properly.

Bush is at fault too, but not completely. 1/8 of it was his doing. Hell even less then that. And you can thank 9/11 for half of that.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh I agree. It's always about hating Bush and nothing more. To put it in Edmo-centric language, this author is a "playa hater".

There couldn't possibly be a reason (although he listed several) to say he's a terrible president, it's just blind hatred.

You never even tried to understand the point I was making.

Saying he is a bad/terrible president is one thing.....saying he is the worst EVER is "I hate Bush" silliness. Only history will show whether he is a worst or not. Lincoln himself most likely was considered the worst ever too. History has shown him to be one of the most visionary.

And before you or anyone else get into the silliness of me comparing Bush to Lincoln. Considering that I agree with just about 100 percent of Cowperson's post....I can't see Bush getting a statue on Monument Row.

History will tell us where he stands.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

You never even tried to understand the point I was making.

Saying he is a bad/terrible president is one thing.....saying he is the worst EVER is "I hate Bush" silliness. Only history will show whether he is a worst or not. Lincoln himself most likely was considered the worst ever too. History has shown him to be one of the most visionary.

And before you or anyone else get into the silliness of me comparing Bush to Lincoln. Considering that I agree with just about 100 percent of Cowperson's post....I can't see Bush getting a statue on Monument Row.

History will tell us where he stands.

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

The guy presented several arguments as to why he believes Bush is the worst of the bunch and you didn't even bother trying to argue or dispute any of them, you just dismiss his conclusion as "silliness", and claim that the author hates Bush. What is so silly about about it? How do you know he "hates" Bush?

The very fact that it's actually debatable tells me it isn't silly at all. Even his supporters are offering up nothing more than "oh Jimmy Carter was worse" or even more pathetically "history will judge if he's the worst one ever". Not exactly ringing endorsements from the "non-hater" crowd.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HOZ

You never even tried to understand the point I was making.

Saying he is a bad/terrible president is one thing.....saying he is the worst EVER is "I hate Bush" silliness. Only history will show whether he is a worst or not. Lincoln himself most likely was considered the worst ever too. History has shown him to be one of the most visionary.

And before you or anyone else get into the silliness of me comparing Bush to Lincoln. Considering that I agree with just about 100 percent of Cowperson's post....I can't see Bush getting a statue on Monument Row.

History will tell us where he stands.

It's fine not to put a lot of stock in it. Kinda like the debates over on the main forum comparing hockey players. Is Iginla the best Calgary Flames player of all time? Only history will tell; sure, we all know that. But it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy discussion to have now; we can look at the existing evidence, compare that against how past presidents have fared in the historical record, and make predictions. Which is what this writer does very methodically.