1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Bush leaving office more unpopular than Nixon

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by guru-seo, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. #1
    guru-seo, Nov 10, 2008 IP
    guerilla likes this.
    SEMrush
  2. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Popularity doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I think we'll truly know how good or how bad of a President he was in 20 years or so.
     
    LogicFlux, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  3. PHPGator

    PHPGator Moderator Staff

    Messages:
    4,437
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #3
    Yeah, I agree with LogicFlux. This is too current to really be able to look and see how things will end up working out with Obama. If things improve drastically during Obama's term, I think he will be viewed as a bad President. But that is yet to be determined.
     
    PHPGator, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  4. niko250

    niko250 Banned

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Most americans are under the influence of the financial crisis. They has lost much money. That is why Bushis not so popular
     
    niko250, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  5. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #5
    Bush was fiscally irresponsible spending like crazy while putting the nation into a downward debt spiral. He started a war in Iraq that was not called for. He did not have the evidence of terror from Iraq, but wanted to overthrow Saddam. The war cost America lives and money, and essentially strengthened Iran which is moving toward nuclear weaponry. He practiced a foreign policy that increased hatred of the US across the world. In his pursuit of defense against terrorists, he sacrificed many American freedoms, tortured the enemy, making Americans as low as the lowest of villains in the eyes of the world. Lastly he presided over an incredible financial meltdown, more serious than any financial crisis since the Great Depression. (I left out a few other "accomplishments".

    It will be hard to see him in a positive light.

    He had an opportunity for American unity following 9/11 and created disunity through his practise of divisive politics over governance.

    Oh...wait....he rode his bike a lot and maintained his leg strength and cardiovascular system.

    It would be strange if history ever sees him in a positive light.


    At some point his popularity crested so low that it sunk in and has carried at this low level for a long time. The current financial crisis certainly hasn't helped him in the eyes of the citizens.

    I don't think he is all bad but the majority of the nation has had it with the president. It is high time we have a substantial change of leadership.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 10, 2008 IP
    guerilla likes this.
  6. Codythebest

    Codythebest Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Likes Received:
    253
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #6
    Well, we're all agree: he's one the worst US president ever...

    I think Obama won't be re-elected after his 4 years term unlike Clinton for specific reasons:

    Bush father is smarter than W. and made less mistake than his son.
    Bush father made mistakes for 4 years only, not 8.
    Therefore, Clinton had much less to do to cure the country. Clinton has seen the bottom in 1994, or 2 years after Bush left. This time, I think Obama will see a bottom of what W. did in 2-3 years after he takes office. People will see him as someone who could not readdress the country.
    What W. did is heavy and deep. Much more than 4 years will be necessary to undo all that...
     
    Codythebest, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  7. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    The new Iraq is still in its infancy. A new Iraq could have a positive, transformative effect on the middle east. We simply don't know how it's going to turn out. If it turns out well, Bush could be seen as a visionary 20 years from now.

    He may get blamed for the financial crisis, but the blame probably isn't warranted. But who knows, he may be seen as saving us from another depression by giving Bernanke and Paulson the tools to be proactive, instead of sitting on their hands and waiting for a replay of '29.
     
    LogicFlux, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  8. Codythebest

    Codythebest Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Likes Received:
    253
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #8
    Iraq had nothing to do with all this. That's the problem. Terrorism now exists in Iraq as Resistance born in France under the nazis. These french resistants were terrorism if you see it that way. They disagreed with the german invasion.


    W. has no clue whatsoever about economy. That's why he's asking others people to act proactively...
     
    Codythebest, Nov 10, 2008 IP
    guerilla likes this.
  9. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    Terrorism exists in large part because of religious fanaticism coupled with a culture that relies on values that predate modern civilization. Saddam's Iraq was a pretty good example of the middle eastern paradigm that encourages the most vicious and brutal to rule. And that paradigm contributes to the problem of terrorism.

    Changing that paradigm may not be feasible, and certainly isn't popular(after all who the fuck are we to tell an entire region of the world how to live?), but it may be necessary in an ever shrinking world to be able to reach a place of relative global stability and peace.

    The point is, we don't know yet how feasible it is. It's looking increasingly good though, and I'm hopeful.


    Presidents aren't supposed to be economists.
     
    LogicFlux, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  10. Codythebest

    Codythebest Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Likes Received:
    253
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #10
    I agree. And for Bush, it shows...
     
    Codythebest, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  11. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #11
    It's tuff to be supportive if you have to project out 20 years. Of note, when Truman left office he had long term low popularity ratings similar to those of Bush and Nixon. At some point in the 1960's and beyond historians started to write well of him. On the other hand its been 35 years since Nixon left office and he is largely reviled as among the worst presidents. Of course history will make its judgement long into the future.



    In that regard I hope you will have patience in seeing how this bailout works. We live in an age of instant response. There are criticisms already with regard to AIG and monies that the Treasury has lent, taken securities and not been transparent about.

    I'm of the opinion that we didn't oversee finandcial markets as we could have. Somewhere in the interplay of immense consumerism credit worthinesss became a concern of the past. Who is responsible for that? Maybe all of us.

    In any case as a business person my experience is that when things go bad, you start trying all sorts of things to stem the negative tide. Hopefully some of these things you referenced above work. ;) Currently we are in a downward spiral in terms of economic activity.
     
    earlpearl, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  12. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    I'm starting to think the 9/11 terrorists are more responsible than anyone.

    Well, Alan Greenspan's actions may have been what lead to the problem more than anything, with his lowering(and maintaining low rates) of interest rates after 9/11, but you can't really blame him for doing it(well, actually some economists are blaming him), so I guess you have to blame the terrorists.

    What we are seeing today may be the prolonged, indirect, but real effects of 9/11.
     
    LogicFlux, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  13. kadesmith

    kadesmith Peon

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    Atleast he is leaving office with more moral dignity than Clinton did.
     
    kadesmith, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  14. Codythebest

    Codythebest Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Likes Received:
    253
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #14
    I agree. W. stopped his alcoholism before the office while Clinton shows he's a man during office..
     
    Codythebest, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  15. alexa_s

    alexa_s Peon

    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    This is now true.

    Whereas before the invasion of Iraq, there wasn't terrorism there. Saddam Hussein's one positive achievement was that he knew how to keep terrorists and religious fundamentalists out of his country (which was why they hated him so much, of course). But that was, after all, the main thing that Western powers effectively put him there for in the first place, if you know the history.
     
    alexa_s, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  16. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Debatable. He did have some big spends, much of which was called for by the left. How do we approach spending as an issue, considering BHO is about to take office and bring out the largest spending spree ever seen in America? Will OBH be held to a lower standard, because he's liberal?

    Incorrect. Liberal democrats had been calling for war with Iraq throughout the 90s. Bush simply gave them what they wanted.

    Incorrect again. He, and intelligence agencies had evidence gathered by liberal democrats throughout the 90s. Liberals were calling for war with Iraq based upon the intelligence gathered during their "rule" for years, long before Bush was even thinking about running for office.

    Wars cost lives and inaction cost lives as well. Iran was not strengthened through nuclear technology by the war, it was already working on it. There is no correlation. OBH will make sure that Iran continues it's progress towards a nuclear goal and put an end to Israel.

    Defending America isn't always "popular." Especially among liberals. The strange thing is, liberals seemed to side with those outside of our country (perhaps because being "popular" is so important to them?). Rather than stand up and defend our country and honor, liberals joined in with the euros and islamists to bash America as well.

    Wrong again. American freedoms were not sacrificed in the least bit and there is no foundation for the notion that Bush authorized torture on any account. This is so troubling, that the left would manufacturer outright falsehoods and say the worst possible things about their country, simply because of blind hatred for a President.

    How disingenuous are those new calls for "bipartisanship" and "working to move forward" when the same old rhetoric based on imaginary reality are still the talking points of the left? How does the left expect the right to "join together" to put silly "partisanship" aside to "move our country forward?" Shouldn't the left be leading by example? Are we to conclude that OBH is "off limits" right now, but the same old hateful rhetoric of Bush isn't "bipartisan?"

    Wrong again. Programs created by democrats, influenced by ACORN who has extensive ties to OBH caused this mortgage crisis that has affected the economy. Until a few months ago, it wasn't even an issue. While democrats like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (and many others) were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of America by repeatedly stating nothing was wrong with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (why would they...they were lining their pockets with their money), republicans including Bush and McCain were warning of terrible consequences and recommending immediate action. Years before it finally bottomed out. It's simply dishonest to lay blame on GWB for this, when he was one of the principle leaders warning of the impending crisis and democrats were unwilling to even acknowledge the problem existed.

    The best we can "hope" for is good men to keep others honest when they attempt to rewrite history. Everyone deserves a fair shake, even those we come to hate.

    Wrong again. He created unity and for the first time since I can remember, even angry liberals took their box of patriotism off the top shelf, dusted it off and actually put America first. It wasn't Republicans who were "disenfranchised" about going after those responsible for 9/11. And as "inconvenient history" clearly shows, liberals were all about war with Iraq as well, during the 90s, based upon their assessments that saddam had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

    I wonder what could be said about OBH putting in a basketball court in the White house to "maintain leg strength and cardiovascular system?"

    It would be stranger if the left were not so dishonest about him and coming up with fantasy rhetoric that has no foundation in reality in order to perpetuate hatred for him.

    Not as low as the democrat controlled Congress. Democrats, collectively, have a lower approval rating than Bush.

    I agree. We need a substantial change in leadership in Congress. A Congress that will actually put forth some effort to get things done for the American people. This democrat controlled Congress has done nothing more than collect a paycheck for doing nothing (anyone appreciate the irony there?). Unwilling to work with others, unwilling to put the American people first. Unwilling to do anything. "Me first, country second." And now they want to call for "unity?"

    Oh, and no hard feelings, just voicing some opposition based upon observations. I thought about you the other night when I had that homemade chili! The results were devastating. My wife was NOT happy! You'd have been proud of me :D
     
    GTech, Nov 10, 2008 IP
  17. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #17
    No hard feelings. I know we disagree on many points.

    I only copied some of GTech's comments and left some of them to comment upon. I was looking for places for agreement.

    On cardiovascular and leg strengthening....It'd be cool to put a basketball court in the WH. If I was younger I'd try and get in there to play.

    If I was guarding Obama and he tried to drive on me, and there were no refs covering the games, I'd foul his @ss black and blue until he'd quit that sh1t.

    If we were playing on the same team I'd expect him to set up picks so I could shoot!!!!! ;)

    GTech: I think you know I'm for defense. I disagree with you on how and what to do. I am definitely for attacking the extremist Islamic groups that include Al Queda and other such groups that threaten the established world. How this is done is open to debate.

    I'm going to omit comments on who was for the war in Iraq or not. I do agree, and have acknowledged publishing here that everyone in power, as a result of the best intelligence available, believed Saddam had WMD. It was not a liberal or conservative thought. It was a result of the best available intelligence at the time. It was worldwide.

    With respect to that I refer people to the 60 Minutes interview with the guy from American Intelligence that interviewed Saddam over many months. It covers his actions and reasons for faking WMD. I'm too lazy ATM to supply reference links. One of the reasons had to do with putting fear into Iran, which was a well established enemy of the Saddam regime.

    With regard to connecting liberals to Islamists, I repectfully offer the following:

    Personally I do not fall into that category. I believe in going after Al Queda. I'd like to see us wipe that group in Pakistan and develop a program that monitors and squashes groups that are similar. Do you realize that Al Queda was going after the regime in Saudi Arabia. I have no love for that regime, but Al Queda wants to take the world back to the middle ages and establish an ugly form of restrictive religeous control, IMHO.

    A friend of mine comes from a far more leftist orientation than me. He has recently started to hit me up on issues regarding Afghanistan. I'm restricting my political comments to a few places so after a few comments I've terminated that discussion. I don't view him as an Islamist lover. I view him more as a peacenik. I think his views are more like libertarians in that he doesn't want the US involved militarily overseas. I disagree.

    Labeling all dems as liberals and then supporters of Islamists, etc. is IMHO a purely political effort not substative. Its good for the pols (from the right in this instance) but it doesn't reflect the variety of opinions concerning America's stances.

    As to history, I agree, GTech, with what I copied above. I hope honest historians write honestly in their expertise about Bush. I did refer to Truman and Nixon. Despite my personal current perspective time will tell with regard to GWB and have far more weight than my perspective.

    As far as unity, in the short term following 9/11/01 GWB did a wonderful job in terms of unity. America was behind him. Polls showed it.

    Over time he lost that following. One could blame it on the libs. I disagree. People evaluated his actions and their opinions shifted. There is so much media and opinions out there. GWB's loss of popularity is his own fault. Admittedly he was President, doing what he thought was right, and hopefully acting more for "what was right" than for popularity or politics.

    I personally believe many of his actions reflected politics not what was right or popular.

    I refer people to the book by Suskind about Paul O'Neill's period in the WH, and the book by Scott McClellan, GWB's former press secretary.

    both of those views and perspectives are by insiders. They present interesting views on actions over a number of issues from the GWB years.

    The Suskind book is a better read than the McClellan book IMHO.

    On a different topic but also providing views from the inside, I sugest the latest book by Bob Woodward essentially covering dynamics leading up to the "surge". Woodward provides inside interviews with many, including GWB. On the Pentagon side, the Joint Chiefs were in significant disagreement with the Pres.

    There are a great variety of opinions on Defense and protecting America, different from those of the current administration. They do not include people who support the radical Islamists.

    Congress has incredibly low ratings. It is different from low ratings for the Pres. Rating the Congress low does not finger any one guy. Rating the Pres low, does.

    Most members of Congress were reelected, even with those incredibly low ratings. Are citizens saying, for the most part, and on behalf of those that were reelected including GOP and dems that the problem is everyone else but not my Congressman/woman? Who knows. I'd simply say that the ratings don't relate to the vote, which ended up seeing most incumbents win.

    Finally, I'm sure the chili was good. I'm glad I wasn't in wind of you. ;)

    haven't been cooking much lately myself. You may have inspired me to go spicey and wet........:D
     
    earlpearl, Nov 11, 2008 IP