Bush is stubborn

And his big domestic proposals in that time period went down in flames so I suppose that time period can be called a wash. Which doesn't really have anything to do with the question at hand. I think you'd need a different President, but I don't know who would be so obstinate.

John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Baines Johnson, take your pick.

I suppose it's a matter of personal politics who you would see among these as the "worst, most stubborn" besides W.

But Bush II's absolute refusal to admit a single mistake in his entire 8 year administration, beyond his worst: "Bring It On" (1), puts him at the top of the list.

1) IIRC, he made this admission AFTER he left office.

And, no, Bush didn't manipulate the country to war,

"He tried to kill my daddy" will be etched on his tombstone.

the country already wanted to topple Saddam,

Only when the W Administration employed words like "mushroom clouds" and "yellow cake in Niger" did Good People come to accept the Neo-Conservative rhetoric. They were NOT going to support an invasion over supposed bioweapons or chemicals, and certainly not over Saddam "being behind 911".


Bush tried to pushed tried to push/manipulate/cajole the UN to support the war which is why he didn't go in during the Spring of 2002 on the advice of Blair who said he could bring the UN aboard so most his and his teams song and dance from the Spring of 2002 to early 2003 was not actually to get America on board, it was to get the UN on board.

Um, you DO realize that the UN's intelligence was totally correct and Bush's cherry-picked intel was totally not just fucked up but exactly what the Neo-Cons wanted to hear?

You seem to be making an argument that was already tossed into the trashbin of history 12 years ago.:confused:
 

jahenders

Banned
Very hard to argue he was the worst. The economy didn't fare as badly as under several other presidents (Hoover, etc), there was less corruption than under many others (Grant, etc), and while the Iraq War was definitely bad in hindsight, it wasn't the only war we've ever entered on dubious grounds (Vietnam, Spanish-American, etc).

The suggestion that Bush is the worst-ever is typically made by those who confuse the strength of their political views with historical context. They also tend to over-emphasize the recent, thinking that recent figures are typically the best, worst, etc.

John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Baines Johnson, take your pick.

I suppose it's a matter of personal politics who you would see among these as the "worst, most stubborn" besides W.

But Bush II's absolute refusal to admit a single mistake in his entire 8 year administration, beyond his worst: "Bring It On" (1), puts him at the top of the list.
 
Very hard to argue he was the worst. The economy didn't fare as badly as under several other presidents (Hoover, etc), there was less corruption than under many others (Grant, etc), and while the Iraq War was definitely bad in hindsight, it wasn't the only war we've ever entered on dubious grounds (Vietnam, Spanish-American, etc).

The suggestion that Bush is the worst-ever is typically made by those who confuse the strength of their political views with historical context. They also tend to over-emphasize the recent, thinking that recent figures are typically the best, worst, etc.

Well, he is the worst in my lifetime, but I would probably put him above the guys who let the nation fall apart in the 1850s. Assuming a base level competence, anyone would do something. Heck, Hoover, who gets a bad wrap on the Depression thing, implemented some corrections to solve the problem. Maybe W picked Ron Paul for Vice President...for some reason...and then that shoe killed him and we get President Paul. There's someone who may not step in. But then, Congress would overturn a veto.
 
Very hard to argue he was the worst. (1) The economy didn't fare as badly as under several other presidents (Hoover, etc), (2) there was less corruption than under many others (Grant, etc), (3) and while the Iraq War was definitely bad in hindsight, it wasn't the only war we've ever entered on dubious grounds (Vietnam, Spanish-American, etc). (4)

The suggestion that Bush is the worst-ever is typically made by those who confuse the strength of their political views with historical context. They also tend to over-emphasize the recent, thinking that recent figures are typically the best, worst, etc. (5)

1) Only in terms of there not being sufficient time in history to see just how much damage W has done. But for now, he's in Buchanan territory. A terrorist nuking New York,:eek: God help us, would probably give W a political resurrection.

Just as Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan were the Three Midwives of the American Civil War, so too Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were the Three midwives of the Great Depression. HOWEVER, none of these men served eight years. Less time to do damage, easier to spread the damage between them.:mad:

2) Only by presiding over the biggest shift over of personal wealth from the poor, working poor, and middle class to the top 1% since the Gilded Age. Strike that, Andrew Carnegie made only about 30 times what his average employees did. Today's top CEOs make 360 times that:eek:

3) The corruption, thanks to deregulation, has been transferred from the government to the banks and the stock market. The whole system is rigged to protect the rich while the little guy gets hosed. Besides, you don't need bulging brown paper bags of money with Superpacs around.

4) Agreed. And you can toss in the Indian Wars, the Mexican War, and sending the Marines to Lebanon.

5) I'm sorry, but no. And I mean REALLY sorry. :( Bush left the White House with Republicans worshipping the ground he walked on (I consider 70% approval ratings as worshipful in nature). This was the result of his Rovian governance ideal of feed-the-base, feed-the-base, feed-the-base. That's all very well for an election/off-year election/re-election strategy, but its no way to run a country. Something that seemed to bore Bush.

Maybe if he didn't consider "winning" his presidency by a one vote majority (Sandra Day O'Connor's) as a "mandate", declaring his re-election on the back of Usama bin-Laden and fifteen thousand votes in SW Ohio as another "mandate", and spending six years pretending the opposition Democrats and the small moderate wing of his own party didn't even exist...Maybe he wouldn't be down there in the dumpster of our Worst. Presidents. Ever.

Though as I stipulated above I can well understand why Republicans and Right-leaning Independents would love/like him, and take umbrage at criticisms of Bush.

I remember even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly stating at the time that "...if there is another 911 on Bush's watch he's gone, period! He'll be down there with Buchanan." And this, from a self-described Traditionalist (Conservative:rolleyes:) Independent (Republican:rolleyes:)(6)

6) O'Reilly claimed for years he was an Independent, until someone ferreted out his voter registration card. Anybody care to guess what his entry was for "affiliation"? I'll give you 314, 679 guesses, but you'll only need one! Needless to say, he ran right out and changed it to "Independent".

Well, he is the worst in my lifetime, (7) but I would probably put him above the guys who let the nation fall apart in the 1850s. Assuming a base level competence, anyone would do something. (8) Heck, Hoover, who gets a bad wrap on the Depression thing, implemented some corrections to solve the problem. (9) Maybe W picked Ron Paul for Vice President...for some reason...and then that shoe killed him and we get President Paul. There's someone who may not step in. But then, Congress would overturn a veto. (10)

7) All our lifetimes, including Nixon, who did not create Vietnam. Nixon may have been a crook, and did much damage, but not to the scale of Bush and his Neo-Cons. They were easily the most aggressor nation types since the Polk Administration. And Polk launched a war if bloody was at least brief.

8) The problem was that the three midwives of the ACW were all pro-Southern, who saw no problem with promoting Southern interests, including protecting the institution of Slavery in ALL states, thanks to the Fugitive Slave Law and Dred Scott. So by their own lights, and until the passage of the 13th Amendment, they were "following the light as they saw the light". SOUND FAMILIAR?

9) Hoover stuck to his own dogma, even as his country was falling apart around him. He needed to break the mold, not just fiddle with it. And this was beyond the man. Though he too was only one man. It took a village to destroy the village.:rolleyes: The thing is, Hoover's "village were his predecessors Harding and especially Coolidge. Bush OTOH CHOSE his "village", (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al) they weren't elected officials responsible to the voters.

10) Why would Congress vote to override President Ron Paul's vetoes? That's not something to be done lightly? Or are you referring to attacking Iraq? If Paul refuses to go to war against Iraq, the Congress isn't going to launch a DoW that hasn't been used since WWII. And when Saddam dies of the diabetes that was consuming him (and apparently letting go untreated), Paul comes up smelling like a rose. No way do the Ba'athists let his two crazy sons take over.:)
 
Last edited:
If the bailouts fail, our economy would be in much better shape, and we may not have had the LIBOR and similar scandals. Hopefully the lack of bailouts would allow for the Obama Administration to investigate robosigining, and send some people to jail over it. Perhaps the federal involvement would not be from the Treasury but from DoJ taking banks over due to RICO.
 
Top