Happy New Year Zaid…
Is Bush The Worst President Of The Past 50 Years?
When a group of pundits gathered for a recent Oxford-style debate, the proposition alone was provocative: “Bush 43 Is the Worst President of the Past 50 Years.” But when you consider that one of the panelists defending President Bush’s legacy was his longtime adviser Karl Rove, the night became even more interesting.
NPR article here, podcast here.
FWIW- I’m not sure I care if he is or isn’t, the fact remains that there is a lot of work to do in the 111th Congress, in our communities and on President Elect Obama’s plate. Even if Bush was the 10th worst President, does a label really matter?
Discuss.
20 Responses to Promoted from comments
Help Daniel
Yes. Take Reagan. Gave the conservatives a chance to polish any of the bullcrap from Bush’s shoulder and they will.
We probably won’t have a Cult of W like we do with Reagan, but there should be no illusions as to how disastrous this Republican rule has been ten years later.
I listened to the entire debate, which was hard because anytime Bill Kristol or Rove was speaking all I could do was scribble furiously on a piece of paper the best ways to kill myself if their propagandizing was to ever succeed and Bush was seen as triumphant as they portray him.
I have to say the most hilarious part was when Kristol basically tried to character assassinate the Guardian journalist by pointing out he was British, and then saying something to the tune of, “How DOES the world feel about the United States? Do they hate us in East Asia? No! It’s Liberal Elites from Western Europe! Those Liberal Elites from Western Europe hate us no matter what we do and hate George W. Bush!”
I don’t know if Kristol remembers, but Bush’s approval ratings in the US are the lowest of any President since Truman, and I don’t think there’s a country on earth where he’s more (relatively) popular than here, so either Those Liberal Elites procreate rather fast or maybe, just maybe, Bush is unpopular past the New England-Western Europe nexus of Marxists and hippies.
Got to put Clinton and Carter in any of these discussions.
Actually other than LBJ they are all racing to be the worst of the last 50 years.
Bush being named “the worst” is important to the extent that the publicity it generates should (or could) serve to discredit some of the disastrous things he stands for. That is probably our job here in the blogosphere; identify bad policies, connect them to people or a party, and don’t let people forget.
Cronyism, greed, deregulation, war, anti-intellectualism, faith-based policymaking, deception… all these things are generally bad. As long as Republicans continue to accept these things as a means of achieving their ends, we need to try to make them take responsibility for the consequences.
I wish they would stop eating babies too.
Carter, I might be persuaded to give some bad marks to, but Clinton? Naw, the guy wasn’t a progressive by any means, but the trains run solidly on time.
Clinton may have not had huge moments of inspiration, but he was an excellent administrator. I don’t think he saw the writing on the walls in terms of “free” trade, but again, not many others did.
And compared to the parade of lamers like Bush I, Nixon, and Ford, he definitely stood above that particular crowd.
Clinton caused more destruction the the Democratic Party in Dixie than anyone else. Plus he enacted the deregulation of the financial sector that caused the BS we are in now. He basically sounded the death knell for unions. He f*cking LIED UNDER OATH. You want me to go on?
Look, who cares he didn’t see the writing on thewall w/r/t free trade. That is still admitting it was sh*t legislation.
If our standard for good POTUSes is that he is better than Reagan or Bush I, whoop dee f&cking dee. I’d like to have some higher standards.
Dixie was lost to the Democrats with or without Clinton. In fact, his victory in the Presidency (along with Carter) is probably what kept the electability = white Southern male alive far beyond its time. And totally fuck that Lewinsky tripe.
I don’t know how Clinton specifically screwed the unions. Yes, manufacturing went overseas to lower wages, but I’m not sure that it wouldn’t have gone to “right to work” states down South here otherwise.
He also took a pretty serious shot at getting us to a better health care system, shifted the tax code in a progressive direction, and presided over S-CHIP (which is a good wedge to open to further government-backed health care).
His crew also did a pretty well-reviewed job in Bosnia in halting ethnic cleansing without bogging down in a massive mess.
And of course, there was that work on cleaning up the national deficit during his economic peak so that we could try and save for a rainy day.
“Dixie was lost to the Democrats with or without Clinton.”
And what happened in 1994 and beyond? Clinton became a wedge and most of that was because of Lewinski.
“I don’t know how Clinton specifically screwed the unions.”
NAFTA. If you want to continue to say he couldn’t see the writing on the wall then you’re still admitting it was bad legislation.
“He also took a pretty serious shot at getting us to a better health care system.” Yeah and failed and made the topic toxic for quite some time (it is much less so now, but still incredibly dangerous for the way the Clintons handled it). Let me make an analogy. The POUTS’ job is to get legislation passed. Yeah, there are de facto roles he must play but let’s face it, the laws that are enacted during his tenure are what define him. I liken this to a place kicker in football. He may kick 99 FGs out of 100 in a year. That 100th he misses was in the Super Bowl for the victory and he missed it. Then he hasn’t done his job. Same way with healthcare. Not only was it an Epic Fail, it was an EF on an issue near and dear to the hearts of progressives that made progressive legislation dangerous to adopt. Why do you like his efforts again?
“His crew also did a pretty well-reviewed job in Bosnia…” And then there is Rwanda. Bang up job there. Let’s see, couldn’t stop thugs using ancient technology from killing more people than Hitler did during the same period. Sure fine, blame it on the international community. But then you are admitting an American President couldn’t, and wouldn’t try to marshall the IC to stop that? Once again, Epic Fail (shit when he apologized in Rwanda he gave some bullshit half-assed apology when he was there and there not long enough to even shut down the engines of the plane).
“And of course, there was that work on cleaning up the national deficit during his economic peak so that we could try and save for a rainy day.”
+1.
So, in review, failed as a leader of the Party, failed to help workers in America (workers who also support his party), failed miserably in human rights abuses and stopping genocide, failed at getting the KEY progressive legislation passed, and did a good job with money. C+ at best. There is no need to hold the same rosy vision of Bill-dog that Republicans have of Reagan.
I love being Zaid sometimes.
Dude, Clinton ain’t my Reagan, but by no means is he my Nixon, which is what you’re saying in putting him down in your worst in 50 years crowd. Your statement is that Clinton is just as bad as every Republican president we’ve had in the past 50. I’m saying that isn’t true.
My standard isn’t perfection in that point. My standard is somewhat bright spot in really crappy procession.
“Yeah and failed and made the topic toxic for quite some time”
Well, the toxicity did show up in the elites, but let’s face it – once the first shot was fired, it was up to the DC Elite to be sure that it was toxic. Meanwhile, you had S-CHIP working away out there. You get people wondering why middle class people get such crap for so much money when those Other People get good government care for their kids for very little. The disgust isn’t at the program’s poor performance – it is why everyone doesn’t have it.
“NAFTA. If you want to continue to say he couldn’t see the writing on the wall then you’re still admitting it was bad legislation.”
Yeah, I referred to that above. Again, I don’t see how that *specifically* screwed union workers. Dixie is / was more than happy to be the anvil upon which labor was broken – the Mexicans just got to the finish line first. Everyone got screwed in that one.
Look, I hate the DLC as much as anyone else, and of course Clinton was the founder / flagbearer of that “Third Way” movement. They idolized the market just a little too much, and forgot why we did all this regulating in the first place.
There were even some clever innovations in there, like pollution markets and the formulation of market incentives to drive toward social goals.
However, the chief difference of the DLC and the Republicans is that the DLC believes a properly operating market can help the little guy just as much as the big if you design it and the support systems right. The Republicans believe that the little guy getting crushed is a feature, not a bug. Survival of the best innovators / risk takers and so on.
I’m for giving Bill the status of competent, okay President, not build a shrine to the man. Obama’s the first Prez I’ve had any excitement over in my life.
Also, as for the market thing – I believe the market does have a lot of power. However, it is merely an evolutionary algorithm conducted using humans rather than computers. EA’s are what you use when all of your other tools have broken down against a complex problem.
The greatest challenge for a market is to get the price signals correct.
Take CO2 emissions – a no brainer for a market. All you want to do is transform carbon sinks from “infinite” (un-priced) to the finite commodities they really are. Allow X Gigatons to be emitted per year, auction them as assets, and then have them swapped around.
Of course, there are problems with things like trying to make the NHS in Britain into a market-driven deal … I think it was one of the BBC documentaries (“Fuck you Buddy” as an episode?) that showed all the perverse ways that administrators figured out to game the system for bonuses.
Also, don’t forget that Clinton gave your boy Richardson a major boost by naming him the Energy Secretary.
And, point man for NAFTA in the House.
“Your statement is that Clinton is just as bad as every Republican president we’ve had in the past 50 years.”
Not at all. I can point to several accomplishments from Billdog that are good. Something I can’t really say for the GOP POTUSes. What I am saying, is, let’s call a spade a spade. He was a bad President. He was so bad that his VP tried to distance himself from Bill. Does that sound like a decent POTUS for you? We’ve just had decades of OK or middling POTUSes (and I’ll admit its not like they are a dime-a-dozen).
“Also, don’t forget that Clinton gave your boy Richardson a major boost by naming him the Energy Secretary.
And, point man for NAFTA in the House.”
Not at all ignoring that, nor would I say Richardson is perfect (he’s far far far far far FAR FAR FAR *FAR* from it).
See, I don’t think we are actually disagreeing on anything per se, probably just different perspectives on certain elements of Clintonism. But because I am Zaid, your ignorance is so glaring on the subject that even if we do agree 90% on certain things, you are unfit to even direct a general train of ESP toward the section of the library that contains texts on Clinton. Oh wait, you go to Tech, there aren’t books on social sciences. Look, unless you want to stop trolling and not be a giant asshole and stop this bullshit character assassination, you need to move aside old man. (It’s been a while since he brought up the debate about age).
Hahahaha, good times, IRE. I did want to twist the Richardson knife a little, though.
“He was so bad that his VP tried to distance himself from Bill.”
Actually, that was probably one of the dumber things Gore did. For whatever reason, Clinton’s zipper problems were supposed to spill onto Gore, and that was enough to keep him from claiming credit on an economy that looked rather good in 2000.
Also, somehow I remember Bush getting to the left of him on some bullshit CO2 rhetoric in the campaign. For whatever reason, it seems they didn’t want Gore to come off as some kind of Crazy Environut or something.
I think it was in Dr. Drew’s book that I saw a suggested speech for Gore to use when Clinton’s character was brought up in debate. Namely that a coke-head, drunk-ass, draft dodger that had never run a business that wasn’t bailed out by Daddy’s Men had no business calling out a guy for Blowjob by Proxy.
I don’t know what’s going on except IRE has developed an unhealthy obsession with me (I guess he moved on from Joe Lieberman biographies?).
I don’t bring up anyone’s age unless they step in the shit first and bring mine up, and IRE’s up in an cow’s butt right now.
“Obama’s the first Prez I’ve had any excitement over in my life.”
If I could ask a sincere question, how are you excited about Obama and why weren’t you excited about other Presidents?
I want to thank the admins for putting it up. If you want any space in anything I write for let me know and we’ll see what we can work out.
“Bush being named “the worst” is important to the extent that the publicity it generates should (or could) serve to discredit some of the disastrous things he stands for. That is probably our job here in the blogosphere; identify bad policies, connect them to people or a party, and don’t let people forget. ”
I think this is absolutely crucial. We have an opportunity to make a clean break and discredit the bad policies of the past 35 years. But that only happens if we really seize it and not back down to pressure from the inevitable people that will try to stand in the way (I’m hearing that the GOP wants to filibuster just about everything in the Senate, maybe it’s time to go back to the history books and look at the strategies of a Mentzenbaum or a Gravel closely).
IRE’s up in an cow’s butt right now.
Don’t judge me.
“If I could ask a sincere question, how are you excited about Obama and why weren’t you excited about other Presidents?”
Well, my life has been relatively short. The only Presidents I have lived through are George HW Bush, Clinton, George W Bush, and now Obama.
As I’ve said earlier, Clinton was competent, but he didn’t do anything so fantastic that it made me think of government as a great thing for people’s lives. He was well designed for my apathy – kept the trains running and didn’t blow up the system, had some pretty competent guys under him and generally spoke like I thought the head of a state should speak.
GWB, I could tell was an idiot from the moment he started campaigning. My chief emotion in 2000 was a sinking feeling accompanied by, “Holy shit, they fell for it?!?”
You may look at Obama as centrist, but even without going too far left, he has laid out a very ambitious agenda. A total overall of the country’s largest technological system (energy), a major revision of its fastest growing system (health care), and an across-the-board end to Teh Stupid are pretty major things to get excited about. His election comes with a feeling of relief, that the adults are back in charge, and that the wheels of progress are turning again.
My engineering field has some of the brightest minds in the country dedicated to one of the most monumental tasks humanity has ever undertaken, so I know that big moves are usually also slow moves. So, I’m not expecting Obama to deliver overnight. But, I am pretty excited about him pointing us in the right direction.
Well, I guess I lived through Reagan, too, but I never remember that guy once on national TV. I think the first Presidential speech I can recall is George Sr. telling us we were about to go hit Saddam.
The writing on the wall with NAFTA was that we could try to keep some jobs in this hemisphere with a chance of continued progress, or lose them ALL to China or elsewhere. Saving jobs for the USA was never an option, unless we want to start talking about big tariffs on imports, which also isn’t going to happen, especially for USA-owned companies.