Okay: Its possible that the historians took a look at the above videos of G W bush and enjoyed how he was getting windy, enjoyed burrito's (they're related) and used the term recruiterment LOL. or maybe they used commonsense and compared the fact that: we are still in 2 wars; longest in American history virtually snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by ignoring Afghanistan Happened to be in power and established the environment for the worst recession in 70 years Directed billions of dollars into a few corporate accounts in the largest transfer of American taxpayer money to a few favored friends (socialism at its worst) and had a great affinity for Sammy Sosa the cheating steroid taking baseball player (adding material)
I don´t think it is fair to call Bush a President, it gives a bad name to other Presidents. Clown, Stupid or Jerk is a more appropriate title for Bush.
Maybe the scholars read this article about 20 brutal mistakes by George W. Bush . Possibly any one or 2 of them might have gotten him that worst ranking amongst modern presidents....or maybe it was one of the video's seen above....or maybe it was because he favored that cheaten baseball player, Sammy Sosa.
Lets concede Bush is the worst president of all time, for the sake of argument. This poll should tell you a bit about where Obama truly ranks. I would encourage the continued Bush bashing all the way through November. Its about all you have to hang on to.
We Americans have a short memory. It is apparent that the consistent bashing of Obama by the extreme right is having the effect that the Right Wing wants, at least in the perspective of polls. I might have cited this in DP P&R before. Some time in the 90's the GOP was bashing the Dems about political contributions from some notorious foreign scumbag. The Dems were doing nothing in response. A friend of mine, who was a reporter by experience, and was then working as a Clinton appointee as press secretary to one of the Cabinet officials was incensed by this. The thing he knew was that the same scumbag was giving similar money to the GOP. He leaked the story with facts. The foreign guy who shouldn't have been involved in the first place was similarly giving money to the GOP. The attacks ended. The issue got dropped. Dems are nowhere as vicious and consistent in their attacks as the Pugs. Were they to do so, Bush and the GOP would have been savaged during the first decade of this century and now. I should quit working as a business guy and lead the counter attack. I got a store of well researched and well thought out stuff, 2/3 of which I've never unloaded. I don't know why Dems don't have that kick @ss attitude. They never have. OTOH....in one sense I don't care. I don't love Dems....and I don't hate Pugs (I've voted for a fair amt of Republicans). Its the current stream of extremism from the Right Wing that smells so bad. Its not just that virtually everything they put into place failed miserably (miserable failure...hm...I remember that) its that they want to continue policies that are extremist to the hilt and doomed to failure. Its not bad enough that we've had 2 enormous national financial/real estate induced recessions since the late 1980's based primarily on crappy @ssed philosophies of let the financial institutions do whatever they want without oversight....its that the Pugs would sponsor that again in a second. (just one of a myriad of examples)
When does the empirical evidence start? Last time that happened, it seemed we had a Democrat at the helm. You'll get no argument from me that Republican representatives have all to often championed causes of business special interests at the expense of the American people. I take issue with your point when you try and single out the Republicans, as if they are unique in the activity. You don't strike me as that naive, even though you sometimes spout the gospel according to Alinsky. I suppose that, in and of itself, is a testament to your lack of naivete.
Your idea of "Empirical Evidence"? Thanks for sharing. You may have the best selective memory of anyone I know. Conveniently forgot about this, even though it happened long after your little incident. I suppose I shouldnt bring up the war the Democrats waged to keep Fannie and Freddy from reform. Non regulation is a Libertarian issue. Over regulation is a Democratic issue. Proper regulation is a Republican issue. Get it right. I believe owning up to being a follower of Alinsky is, in and of itself, in violation of his rules. In case you forgot them, here they are. I thought this quote explains much of what you and Breezewood put to print:
Taking from the Democrats will help but the fear of proper regulations is the Republican issue they are now in the minority for. By the way, what is G Bushes lasting legacy?
Glad you asked. Bush saved 1.1 million lives in Africa. He may also be the first President in history to implement Democratization, something many others have tried and failed. Time will tell. By the way, the lives Bush saved he did for USD$2,700/life. Compare that with Obama managed to swindle USD$2,700 from every breathing US citizen, give the money to special interests who supported his campaign, and destroy the US economy in the process
You might be interested in his new book, "Decision Points" which will be released November 9th of this year, or not. On Amazon,
I can hardly wait...... Bushes unselfish acts to restore discipline to the markets through Treasury financing just prior to the national elections will probably be forgotten but was a display of courage when the need was the greatest - recognized his mistakes and made the appropriate decision. For Republicans I would guess the choice of Roberts as Chief Judge to the Supreme Court would rank quite high.
Destroy the US economy? That is what Bush did...and that is why 238 historians have determined he is the worst president in modern times. btw: How many hundreds of billions did the Bushies and the basic Republicans give to the pharmaceutical industry with passage of the 2003 drug bill? How many hundreds of billions?
Guess that's why they call them historians instead of economists, cause there's no way anyone with training in that field can honestly blame the economic collapse on the Bush presidency. [Some with partisan leanings will do so, but that's more politics than economics. Such is life.] On the economic collapse he shares blame with prior presidents and a host of people in congress that played a MUCH larger role, and those can be found on both sides of the aisle. They preceded and set the wheels in motion, and a few rather notable Democrats fought off anyone that attempted to grab the brake. Additionally, from a historical view... worth noting that the only time we had a surplus before the Clinton administration was during the Andrew Jackson administration... and the economy collapsed like a house of cards on the predecessor that time too. Some policies and actions are time bombs. There were several in place when Bush arrived. Fwiw... IMO Bush did some things that were good, he did some I didnt like. There is zero way that we can assume that "history" can truly judge a president during or immediately after his term. Give it 50 years and take a look. My guess is the current rankings of Bush, Clinton, and Obama will have been vetted by then. That said, the guys in the ivory tower have always and probably will always appraise more kindly presidents that are closer to their own ideological stripe, so they'll tend to rank the Republican candidates based on a bit different predisposition than Dems. If not, Carter would be below permanently inked in the bottom 5.
Well, just who was it then - the spaghetti man in the sky? Bush began with a balanced budget that was paying down the deficit and ended by borrowing $750 Billion to bail out the banks.