• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Ever Became of George W. Bush?

out of sight out of mind

l hope :lamo
 
CanadaJohn said:
Being Canadian, I never had the chance to vote for Bush, but I would have been honored to do so.

The reason you don't hear much from GW is because he respects the Office of the President and unlike two former Democrat Presidents who make fools of themselves frequently, he follows in his father's footsteps, keeping his counsel to himself and never criticizing the current President for his handling of the office.

GW is a fine man, a good person, and he served your country faithfully, with integrity, and being snarky says a great deal more about you than it does about the former President of your great country.
Click to expand...

Agree with you about Bush behaving like a gentleman. Besides, with BHO adopting a lot of Bush's ideas, it's interesting that the Dems cannot seem to connect the dots: one idea--two men sharing same idea--one right and one wrong? That doesn't make sense!

CJ, this is off topic, but we are currently getting hit with squalls of pouring rain! I should have known better than to question Mother Nature's intentions earlier! :shock:
 
a351 said:
From your source: An Update: A 2010 survey ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president and George W. Bush among the worst.
Click to expand...

I would also remind you that historians haven't actually put out any histories of his administration yet, and documents flow after 20 years. Historians are not immune from presentist concerns. This reflects more of their present day concerns than their own work, even though this too can be shaped by their politics.
 
Fiddytree said:
I would also remind you that historians haven't actually put out any histories of his administration yet, and documents flow after 20 years. Historians are not immune from presentist concerns. This reflects more of their present day concerns than their own work, even though this too can be shaped by their politics.
Click to expand...
Noted, and I wouldn't even confidently predict his position will remain in the bottom five. I just had to point out the fact that his source thoroughly contradicted his own claim.
 
a351 said:
From your source: An Update: A 2010 survey ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president and George W. Bush among the worst.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant about "present-day" public frenzy. Historians will not place Bush among the worse, because historians look at the whole picture. Headlines (especially those politicially motivated) do not judge events. Obama is a standing President. It's a great example of how people suffer from near sightedness and ignorance and can't look beyond what is happening day to day.
 
MSgt said:
That's what I meant about "present-day" public frenzy. Historians will not place Bush among the worse, because historians look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a public poll. Again I'll quote your source:

President Obama ranks 15th out of 44 in a poll of the best and worst presidents while former President George W. Bush earns a place in the bottom five, according to the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars released Thursday (July 2010) .
Click to expand...
 
a351 said:
Noted, and I wouldn't even confidently predict his position will remain in the bottom five. I just had to point out the fact that his source thoroughly contradicted his own claim.
Click to expand...

How did it contradict? The 10 worst are recorded. Bush doesn't come anywhere near the scandals of the listed.
 
Harshaw said:
Can't say as I'm especially impressed with the reasoning behind those guys being the worst 10.
Click to expand...

Their scandals had wide affecting issues to the population. Grant is probably sitting at number 11 if he's not on that list of 10.
 
MSgt said:
Their scandals had wide affecting issues to the population. Grant is probably sitting at number 11 if he's not on that list of 10.
Click to expand...

Only of couple of them had scandals. The rest were for odd things like not being a good public speaker, or only being in office 30 days, or delaying the civil war.
 
MSgt said:
How did it contradict? The 10 worst are recorded. Bush doesn't come anywhere near the scandals of the listed.
Click to expand...
You used the source in order to demonstrate that historians do not view Bush as among the worst presidents in history when in fact the most recent survey of presidential scholars said precisely the opposite, which was included in your own link. Pretty simple really.
 
Catawba said:
[h=1]What Ever Became of George W. Bush?[/h]
"This may seem like an odd question, but the other day I found myself wondering what had become of George W. Bush. The answer, of course, is nothing. He lives in Dallas with Laura and…that's about it. For all practical purposes, he's disappeared. You'd hardly know that for eight years he was one of the most polarizing presidents in recent memory.Why? Partly, it's because Bush himself has chosen to keep such a low profile. He makesmotivational speeches now and again, and shows up for the odd dedication or funeral, but otherwise keeps to himself. Even his 2010 memoir barely made a splash.
But the real reason is deeper. Bush may have seemed larger than life for eight years, but he left a surprisingly thin legacy. Take his legislative agenda. No Child Left Behind is now widely unpopular among both liberals and conservatives—so unpopular that Congress has spent the past five years assiduously avoiding a vote to reauthorize it. His tax cuts expired in 2010 and are now little more than a political football. His own party wants to repeal key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. The Supreme Court has effectively gutted campaign finance reform. On the foreign policy front, his wars are widely viewed as expensive failures. And he was never able to get so much as a vote on Social Security privatization or immigration reform.

That doesn't leave much. Pretty much all that's left is the PATRIOT Act and the Medicare prescription drug bill. That's not much for eight years."

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/what-ever-became-george-w-bus
h
Click to expand...

He tries to do thing for wounded Warriors on a face to face basis. He and Laura did that when they were in the WH but wouldn't take the press along and hardly spoke of it because they consider those interactions personal.
 
a351 said:
It wasn't a public poll. Again I'll quote your source:
Click to expand...


Oh good god. Are we going to do this? From the link you selected.....

"Obviously, there's not great validity to it since they've only been in office for one year," says the survey's co-director and statistician Douglas Lonnstrom."

"President tend to rank around 20th while they are in office, and Obama is no exception."

"Lonnstrom points out the unpopular former president has time on his side, explaining it takes four or five decades to know a president's true worth."


This is why you needed to click on the link that produced the actual list as recorded in history. I thought giving the outside link would offer a general look. I didn't realize that people would skip the actual list and opt for the near sighted public opinion list. And yes, presidential scholars who look at headlines and go off of day-to-day events immediately during and oafter a presidency are among the public opinion. Here is the link that goes directly to the actual list as compiled by historians....

10. Zachary Taylor: The 10 Worst Presidents - US News & World Report

I'll state it again....The pathetic thing is how anti-Bush mongers insisted for years how Bush was among the worst American presidents in history and would go down as the worst. Historians have proven to be far more honest than the public's talent to fall into present-day frenzies.
 
MSgt said:
That's what I meant about "present-day" public frenzy. Historians will not place Bush among the worse, because historians look at the whole picture. Headlines (especially those politicially motivated) do not judge events. Obama is a standing President. It's a great example of how people suffer from near sightedness and ignorance and can't look beyond what is happening day to day.
Click to expand...

what is that whole picture ?


all l can see is him using 9/ 11 attacks as an excuse to attack İraq ,his claim that he talked to god ,his declaration of crusade against the muslim countries .

l am trying to find sympathetic sides in him but l cant.

even elephants protested him
............................

When Bush went to a small nature preserve for some big game encounters, four elephants were pre-positioned for the benefit of the president - and the cameras beaming pictures back home.

There was only one problem.

As the yellow pickup truck carrying the president, the first lady and their daughter, Barbara, rolled up, two of the elephants became engaged in some decidedly amorous activities.

The mating scene created an awkward dilemma for the White House advance team, charged with setting up perfect shots and events.

Bush Safari ends in climax (actual sexual orgasm) - Democratic Underground

:lol:
 
a351 said:
You used the source in order to demonstrate that historians do not view Bush as among the worst presidents in history when in fact the most recent survey of presidential scholars said precisely the opposite, which was included in your own link. Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...


"The pathetic thing is how anti-Bush mongers insisted for years how Bush was among the worst American presidents in history and would go down as the worst. Historians have proven to be far more honest than the public's talent to fall into present-day frenzies."


Historians don't judge events until they are far removed from the present day hysteria. This is why the latest president on the list is Nixon. Any list with Bush on it is pre-mature. Today's presidental scholars are among the public present day opinion.

But who cares either way? 6 years later, he is not the worst even by public opinion (scholars) because the further away we get the more rational morons become.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know what - no one cares . . . I don't. Presidents matter when they're president. Very few continue to be involved in politics after their presidency. . .
Click to expand...

And yet 'conservatives' still mention Bill Clinton when it suits and he has been out of office for a baker's dozen. :2wave:

Presidents do continue in politics, party politics at the very least the next couple of national conventions for President after they leave office unless illness or disgrace prevent it as in Nixon or BushII. Most former Presidents embrace some 'good works' project and make public appearances and Public Service Announcements.

Reagan, though ill, appeared at the '92 convention
BushI, though considered by many Republicans to be a bit of a RINO, did endorse McCain in '08
Clinton worked the '08 and '12 campaigns

BushII .....

Presidents don't matter when the person doing the considering would rather not be reminded.

I think we ALL can agree the best course of action is to forget BushII was ever President, even as the economy is still hurting and Iraq is still smoldering. :peace
 
MSgt said:
"The pathetic thing is how anti-Bush mongers insisted for years how Bush was among the worst American presidents in history and would go down as the worst. Historians have proven to be far more honest than the public's talent to fall into present-day frenzies."


Historians don't judge events until they are far removed from the present day hysteria. This is why the latest president on the list is Nixon. Any list with Bush on it is pre-mature. Today's presidental scholars are among the public present day opinion.

But who cares either way? 6 years later, he is not the worst even by public opinion (scholars) because the further away we get the more rational morons become.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's far too soon to comment on Bush's terms of office.

Just a couple of days ago, a colleague and I were discussing how Dubya has conducted himself as a former President. I think he sets the benchmark.

And I think it's just pitiable that in Obama's second term, Bush Derangement Syndrome remains untreatable.
 
MSgt said:
From the link you selected.....

"Lonnstrom points out the unpopular former president has time on his side, explaining it takes four or five decades to know a president's true worth."

This is why you needed to click on the link that produced the actual list as recorded in history. I didn't realize that people would skip the actual list and opt for the near sighted public opinion list.
And yes, presidential scholars who look at headlines and go off of day-to-day events immediately during and oafter a presidency are among the public opinion. Here is the link that goes directly to the actual list as compiled by historians....
Click to expand...
Your link actually.

I'd agree wholeheartedly, and I've never indicated otherwise. Just felt the need to point out an error in your estimation of the viewpoints of actual scholars, near or long term.

Probably important to note that this Sienna poll consisting of presidential scholars that you so casually label as public opinion and disregard as useless is actually one of the five polls used to calculate the rankings you're citing currently. Take a peek: Worst Presidents: A Survey of Major Polls - US News and World Report. Upon further inspection, it seems that there's a couple public polls within this "Historical account" you've presented. Might as well bail altogether if you wish to attack your own source when confronted with your error.
 
Medusa said:
what is that whole picture ?
Click to expand...

You look at the big picture everyday from Cairo to Islamabad in the headlines. To pretend that these countries have ntohing to do with each other and that they aren't themed alike is ignoring the big picture. Every participant in the Arab Spring is the big picture. Everytime Turkey looks to deal with Syria as international players seek deals for peace you are looking at the big picture. Everytime Al-Queda (as a mere representation of hundreds of others) pop up in a new base of operations you are looking at the big picture. Iraq was merely a piece of a disease. 9/11 was merely a symptom.

Medusa said:
all l can see is him using 9/ 11 attacks as an excuse to attack İraq
Click to expand...

Yes.

Medusa said:
his claim that he talked to god ,his declaration of crusade against the muslim countries
Click to expand...

Well a fairer person would just acknoweldge that he was doing the Christian prayer thing, but sure...announcing to the world of his relationship with God was stupid and actually dangerous since we have been doing our best to not turn their perspective of a religious war into a legitimate war cry.

Medusa said:
l am trying to find sympathetic sides in him but l cant.
Click to expand...

Sympathy doesn't matter. Besides that it is hard to have sympathy for a dimwit who relied on what was quite possibly the worst SECDEF and Vice President in American history.

But does it matter how we got into Iraq? It may to the immediatist or the hate monger, but not to the big picture of the world. All that matters is why it was done and it was not because of some fabricated confusion about WMD and it certainly wasn't just about Iraq. When we have an international terrorist stating that 9/11 happened because of the "starving children of Iraq" and the existence of "forieners in the holy land" we have to acknowledge that the Middle East and our role in it had to change. And when Sunni fighters from all over the region came to disrupt Iraqi democracy and slaughter the Shia, we have to acknowledge that Iraq was simply a piece of the diseased pie that needs cured. The Arab Spring validated the need for a course change as they chanted for democracy throughout 1 month after Iraq held its first successful election without international security. Iraq was and is not a black void that the rest of the region is blind to.

Presidents throughout the Cold War used whatever they could to do what they did. We used BS to get us into Europe for both World Wars, despite an overwhelming wish for Americans to stay out of both. Wilson used a letter to Mexico to launch us across the Atlantic for WWI, despite the fact that Mexico wanted no part. FDR used Germany's declaration of war to get us across the Atlantic for WWII even though they were merely following Japan's lead. Both Presidents knew of the larger issues that a European crisis was causing us. It's not about sympathy. It's about looking at what is really going on beyond headlines and a politican's microphone. People today can only see what is presented before them....unless they educate themselves to the issues.

I am no fan of Bush. But I will not criticize him for doing badly what needed to be done. Will we criticize Obama for North Korea if he does something he feels is necessary? I won't because he is merely dealing with a situation he inherited. It's inevitable that we finish the things we start and every president wants to push it to the next guy. Clinotn didn't have a 9/11 when he asked Congress to OK regime change or when he was sending troops to Kurdistan to deal with the crisis Hussein was causing. Bush, however did have a 9/11 and though it did not have anything to do with the 18 terrorists in New York, it was a part of the disease that breeds that activity.
 
MSgt said:
You look at the big picture everyday from Cairo to Islamabad in the headlines. To pretend that these countries have ntohing to do with each other and that they aren't themed alike is ignoring the big picture. Every participant in the Arab Spring is the big picture. Everytime Turkey looks to deal with Syria as international players seek deals for peace you are looking at the big picture. Everytime Al-Queda (as a mere representation of hundreds of others) pop up in a new base of operations you are looking at the big picture. Iraq was merely a piece of a disease. 9/11 was merely a symptom.



Yes.



Well a fairer person would just acknoweldge that he was doing the Christian prayer thing, but sure...announcing to the world of his relationship with God was stupid and actually dangerous since we have been doing our best to not turn their perspective of a religious war into a legitimate war cry.



Sympathy doesn't matter. Besides that it is hard to have sympathy for a dimwit who relied on what was quite possibly the worst SECDEF and Vice President in American history.

But does it matter how we got into Iraq? It may to the immediatist or the hate monger, but not to the big picture of the world. All that matters is why it was done and it was not because of some fabricated confusion about WMD and it certainly wasn't just about Iraq. When we have an international terrorist stating that 9/11 happened because of the "starving children of Iraq" and the existence of "forieners in the holy land" we have to acknowledge that the Middle East and our role in it had to change. And when Sunni fighters from all over the region came to disrupt Iraqi democracy and slaughter the Shia, we have to acknowledge that Iraq was simply a piece of the diseased pie that needs cured. The Arab Spring validated the need for a course change as they chanted for democracy throughout 1 month after Iraq held its first successful election without international security. Iraq was and is not a black void that the rest of the region is blind to.

Presidents throughout the Cold War used whatever they could to do what they did. We used BS to get us into Europe for both World Wars, despite an overwhelming wish for Americans to stay out of both. Wilson used a letter to Mexico to launch us across the Atlantic for WWI, despite the fact that Mexico wanted no part. FDR used Germany's declaration of war to get us across the Atlantic for WWII even though they were merely following Japan's lead. Both Presidents knew of the larger issues that a European crisis was causing us. It's not about sympathy. It's about looking at what is really going on beyond headlines and a politican's microphone. People today can only see what is presented before them....unless they educate themselves to the issues.

I am no fan of Bush. But I will not criticize him for doing badly what needed to be done. Will we criticize Obama for North Korea if he does something he feels is necessary? I won't because he is merely dealing with a situation he inherited. It's inevitable that we finish the things we start and every president wants to push it to the next guy. Clinotn didn't have a 9/11 when he asked Congress to OK regime change or when he was sending troops to Kurdistan to deal with the crisis Hussein was causing. Bush, however did have a 9/11 and though it did not have anything to do with the 18 terrorists in New York, it was a part of the disease that breeds that activity.
Click to expand...


elephants.........elephants ...l remember them ...
 
History will remember GWB as the Herbert Hoover of the 21st Century. That much is guaranteed.
 
Bush's record will ALWAYS be relevant. An inconvenient truth for republicans but the truth, nonetheless.
 
a351 said:
Your link actually.
Click to expand...

Well, my link went to a page where you could have clicked on the actual list or the opinion list. My point was to show them both so that people could see the difference between an historical study and present-day hysteria. The greatest historian alive can not accurately place a present day President. This is why Nixon is the only modern day president. We have been far enough removed to see the bigger issues surrounding his conduct.

Give it 10 years and we may see the unlikely list where Bush is number 1 worst president. However, I don't believe he is going to be on that list because presidents that deal with international issues like this need more than international issues to be judged harshly. Nixon is only on the list because of Watergate and a series of other secretive plots surrounding his tireless effort to figure out a way out of Vietnam with honor. But were it not for Watergate, he would not be there.

I am curious to find out how historians judge Clinton in regards to Glass-Steagall (made banks responsible). If Roosevelt is praised for the New Deal in which Glass-Steagall was introduced in his first 100 days after the Depression began, what will history say about Clinton who killed it in 1998 right before our worst recession in which Bush is blamed by Democrats and Obama is blamed by Republicans for simply not fixing it? Politicians don't talk about this, but historians do and will.

These are the things historians look at. They don't merely look at whether or not WMD existed. That's a surface rallying cry for haters and an ignorant source of support for supporters. They will and do look at why the "lie," "exaggeration," "fabrication," - whatever pleases the lovers and the haters - was introduced.
 
66gardeners said:
Bush's record will ALWAYS be relevant. An inconvenient truth for republicans but the truth, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Yes....once there is time enough to accurately judge the record. Imagine how people felt about Johnson during Vietnam during the period. People were far more in opposition in rallies, parades, and riots. Yet...not on the list. The record goes beyond headlines and opinionated commentary of those who live the moment through television.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom