The Worst President in History? - Sean Wilentz in Rolling Stone magazine

[criddic3]

Yeah....okay....if you say so.

[Sonic Youth]

someone so consistantly dishonest.

This is where you lose the argument.

Not at all. This is where you conveniently and cowardly bail out, relieving you of any obligation to address any facts presented to you. But if you're going to keep on with your usual evasiveness, that's all for the better.

How high-minded of you to take offence, after spouting this temper tantrum to me:

You just don't get it do you? And you never will, so it's okay. You think that being against everything makes you "courageous" and "high-minded," "thoughtful" and "nuanced." This can be true in some cases, but when it's done simply because you don't like the President or his supporters, or because you think that the principle you're espousing is somehow more important than the reality of the situation it's just you acting elitist. But i don't mind. Really i don't.... You aren't really hearing the other arguments and what the opposite side of the debate really is. You aren't really interested in what the facts are. You see the headlines, you hate the President, and then you see me supporting most of the programs. With all of that you figure there must be something wrong in what is going on and you don't bother to actually hear what I'm saying or posting or quoting.

Paleface speak with forked tongue. And through both sides of mouth.

[criddic3]

Among American voters 18 - 29 years old, Clinton leads the "best" list with 40 percent.

That's laughable. Shows how arbitrary these things are.

Consider:

American voters pick the worst U.S. President in the last 61 years. Bush is named by 34 percent of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17 percent and Bill Clinton at 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today

Clinton places third as the worst president and then in a separate question in the same poll, is listed as among the best. I know that this shows a gap between generations, in part, but it also reflects the nature of politics. Also, I have a problem with polls that rate the current president in terms of where he stands in history. We will not fully appreciate George W. Bush's contributions, good or bad, until some real time has passed.

someone so consistantly dishonest.

This is where you lose the argument. By calling me dishonest, dismissing everything I say, you don't truly have grasp of the conversation yourself. I don't want to drag this on since Oscarguy has been nice enough to point out that it is unnecessary and wasteful, but i think it only fair to say that you are totally wrong about me and you are blinded by your bias against what I have to say. I get things wrong sometimes, but I am not a liar (nor do I intentionally "dodge" your questions). That's all I want to say about that.

[Damien]

Quinnipiac University Poll Report:

BUSH TOPS LIST AS U.S. VOTERS NAME WORST PRESIDENT

June 1, 2006
Strong Democratic sentiment pushes President George W. Bush to the top of the list when American voters pick the worst U.S. President in the last 61 years. Bush is named by 34 percent of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17 percent and Bill Clinton at 16 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Leading the list for best President since 1945 is Ronald Reagan with 28 percent, and Clinton with 25 percent.


President Bush is ranked worst by 56 percent of Democrats, 35 percent of independent voters and 7 percent of Republicans, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Best ranking for Reagan comes from 56 percent of Republicans, 7 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independent voters. Among American voters 18 - 29 years old, Clinton leads the "best" list with 40 percent.


Among young voters, 42 percent list Bush as worst. Clinton tops the "worst" list among white Protestants - 24 percent, and white evangelical Christians - 29 percent.


American voters disapprove 58 - 35 percent of the job Bush is doing, compared to 58 - 36 percent in a March 2 survey. Even voters in red states, where Bush's margin was more than 5 percent in 2004, disapprove 52 - 39 percent.


"Democrats just plain don't like President Bush. His father, the 41st President, was voted out of the White House after one term. Nixon quit under fire. But most Democrats think Bush 43 wins the worst-president race," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


"Kennedy and Truman get big Democratic votes, especially among Baby Boomers (45 - 64 years old) and seniors (over 65), but recent memory counts," Carroll said. "Democrats say Clinton's the best and Republicans say he's the worst. Republicans don't think much of Jimmy Carter either. There's no contest for the GOP favorite: It's the Gipper."


"Bush's job-approval numbers remain in the cellar. But he might finally have hit bottom."


The main reasons cited by American voters who approve of Bush are that he is a strong leader who does what he thinks is right - 18 percent; and that he is doing a good job handling terrorism - 15 percent.


The main reason cited by voters who disapprove of Bush is the war in Iraq, listed by 43 percent.


A total of 38 percent of voters are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the way things are going in the nation today, while 62 percent are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied," matching the previous satisfaction low point from March 2.


In an open-ended question, where respondents can give any answer, 16 percent of voters say the war in Iraq is the most important problem facing the U.S. today, down from 23 percent in March. Another 12 percent list economic issues and 11 percent list immigration, the first time this issued has hit double digits in a national poll.


American voters say 56 - 39 percent that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do.


The U.S. should remove all troops from Iraq, 29 percent of voters say, with 28 percent who want the U.S. to decrease the number of troops; 26 percent who want to maintain current troop levels and 11 percent who want to increase troop levels.


From May 23 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,534 registered voters nationwide. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.


The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida and nationwide as a public service and for research.

[Sonic Youth]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm going to have very limited online access for the next month, so let me briefly summarize what I have to say...

Criddic, you're such a hopeless dupe.

You have such wonderful debating skills.

What hurts your credibility on this board more than anything else is not your politics or your blind, uncritical loyalty. It's your lack of sense of humor.

How is that changing the subject? If someone really wants to earn a place in our society, they have to maintain the course which is laid out for them.

Brilliant. He still doesn't realise he keeps changing the subject. Huh!

Of course, he decided not to quote the passage where I explained HOW he changed the subject, before he changed the subject in the same way again. As one would expect from someone so consistantly dishonest.

If you can wait a month, I can rebut your second-hand talking points bit by bit, because this topic in particular is something I know quite a bit about. But by then, it will have faded into the background. Oh, well.

You know, I thought that the elitist, progressive mind was supposed to maintain civility while debating those you disagree with. I guess I was wrong.

pro·gres·sive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

Nope. I see nothing about debating styles or decorum.

You wanna get your money back from the faulty dictionary you bought? So far, you got "progressive" and "amnesty" wrong.

[criddic3]

Criddic, you're such a hopeless dupe.

You have such wonderful debating skills.

you asinine subject-changer?

How is that changing the subject? If someone really wants to earn a place in our society, they have to maintain the course which is laid out for them. This is part of the plan for illegal immigrants. Same subject. It is not saying that a future transgression warrants deportation, because those with prior criminal pasts are most likely going to be deported as a result of the senate bill passed this month. I think this part of the bill will survive conference with the House.

You know, I thought that the elitist, progressive mind was supposed to maintain civility while debating those you disagree with. I guess I was wrong. Or maybe being progressive has nothing to do with your way of thinking. Maybe you simply like to argue in a negative tone.

[Sonic Youth]

No no, one more thing...

If you do not do all of the above things, you will have to leave the country.

You mean, if they commit a FUTURE transgression? As in "we'll overlook it this time and give you one more chance?"

What does that have to do with PAST transgressions, you asinine subject-changer?

[Sonic Youth]

amnesty

n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)

If that's the dictionary definition, then it's definitely NOT amnesty. The illegal immigrants will be punished with big fines and larger application fees then the normal applicants. The Congress just recently approved the raised amount for Illegal immigrants from the normal $500 to about $2400. And that's just the first part. The next parts of the definition talk about pardoning someone, which the President is not doing. He wants the illegals to go to the "back of the line," comply with certain steps like learning English, paying back taxes and holding a job for a certain number of years. He has also talked about making the Temporary/Guest Worker Program something enforceable. If you do not do all of the above things, you will have to leave the country. That's what he has said. So this is not amnesty.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm going to have very limited online access for the next month, so let me briefly summarize what I have to say...

Criddic, you're such a hopeless dupe.

[criddic3]

amnesty

n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)

If that's the dictionary definition, then it's definitely NOT amnesty. The illegal immigrants will be punished with big fines and larger application fees then the normal applicants. The Congress just recently approved the raised amount for Illegal immigrants from the normal $500 to about $2400. And that's just the first part. The next parts of the definition talk about pardoning someone, which the President is not doing. He wants the illegals to go to the "back of the line," comply with certain steps like learning English, paying back taxes and holding a job for a certain number of years. He has also talked about making the Temporary/Guest Worker Program something enforceable. If you do not do all of the above things, you will have to leave the country. That's what he has said. So this is not amnesty.

[Sonic Youth]

It's funny to see more Democrats support the President's immigration plan than hardline conservatives, who've confused his long-term route for citizenship for amnesty.

Probably because Reagan offered a sweeping immigration plan in 1987 with terms that were nearly identical to what Bush is offering, and THAT was called "amnesty".

Also probably because the dictionary definition for "amnesty" is:

amnesty

n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)


But okay. Dictionary aside, it's not amnesty.

Of course, if amnesty was seen as a positive word (which I thought it often was considered to be) and it was in Bush's best interest to use the word "amnesty", that's what it would be called. 'Cause, like, that's what the dictionary calls it, and that's what Reagan called it.

Couldn't harvest even a single brain cell impervious to washing in the week I was away, Criddic?

[criddic3]

Perhaps. We'll see.

[OscarGuy]

How could he go wrong with it? It's been a nasty issue for years and there isn't a single American who doesn't believe that illegal immigration is an issue.

Americans are tired of losing jobs to other nationalities and while the Bush administration should really target foreign-deportation of jobs, it's one of those "legacy" type moves that will bolster his presidential history. However, he's got a LONG way to becoming a better president. One good move does not make up for the dozens of bad ones.

[criddic3]

BLITZER: So when it comes to this issue, George, you and the president and the Bush administration are pretty much on the same page? CLOONEY: I think so. I think that -- and I think that most of the world, especially most of the country, is on the same page, if they are reading the book. And unfortunately that book isn't getting read very often right now or loud enough. And so my job is to try and bring attention to that.

-- CNN interview about Darfur.

Bono hails Bush's Aids funding

-- January 2003 BBC headline.

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Wednesday, June 23, 2004

-- CNN headline

This little quotefest was brought on by a news item I saw on one of the cable news stations about a speech former President Clinton gave yesterday in which he apparently praised President Bush's work on Immigration. When I find the item online, I'll post a quote for that, too.

It seems that this "unpopular" President finds friends in unlikely places from time to time on some issues.

It's funny to see more Democrats support the President's immigration plan than hardline conservatives, who've confused his long-term route for citizenship for amnesty. Some Republicans are on board with this plan, like Lindsay Graham, but some hardcore conservatives are still skeptical of it. I'm sure they'll work it out. I saw Meet the Press and two Republicans debated the issue. Interesting stuff.

[criddic3]

CBS

Poll: Border Plan Gives Bush A Boost

Most Americans Approve Of Sending National Guard To U.S.-Mexico Border NEW YORK, May 18, 2006

Most Americans say they approve of the immigration reform proposals the president outlined in a nationally televised address earlier this week. They're also somewhat optimistic that Congress will pass an immigration bill by year’s end.

Sixty-two percent favor the president's plan to station up to 6,000 National Guard troops at the U.S.-Mexico border, while 32 percent are opposed.

Six in 10 also approve of Mr. Bush's proposal for a guest worker program, which would let foreign workers stay in the United States on a temporary basis and then return to their home country.

An even higher number, 77 percent, support a program that would clear the way for illegal immigrants to seek citizenship if they've been in the United States for at least five years, pay a fine and back taxes, learn to speak English and have no criminal record.

PROPOSALS ADDRESSING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

National Guard troops at the border:
Favor 62% Oppose 32%

Allow foreign workers to work in U.S. temporarily and then return home:
Favor 61% Oppose 36%

Let illegal immigrants already here for 5 years stay & work if they learn English, pay back taxes and a fine, and have no criminal record:
Favor 77% Oppose 19%

On another issue much in the news these days, the CBS poll finds Americans narrowly approve, by 51-44 percent, of the government collecting phone records to use in the fight against terrorism.

But when asked if phone companies should be sharing such information, Americans are strongly opposed. Sixty percent don't think the phone companies should be sharing this data with the government, while 32 percent think they should.

Mr. Bush's overall approval rating remains low at just 35 percent, but that's a 4-point increase from before his immigration speech.

Americans continue to cite the war in Iraq as the most important problem facing the country, and most still say the war is going badly. Thirty-one percent approve of the president's handling of Iraq, up slightly from 29 percent earlier this month.

[Damien]

A Conservative Radio Jock Has Seen The Light

AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER
By Doug McIntyre
Host, McIntyre in the Morning

Talk Radio 790 KABC

There’s nothing harder in public life than admitting you’re wrong. By the way, admitting you’re wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it’s out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.

So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period.

In 2000, I was a McCain guy. I wasn’t sure about the Texas Governor. He had name recognition and a lot of money behind him, but other than that? What? Still, I was sick of all the Clinton shenanigans and the thought of President Gore was… unthinkable. So, GWB became my guy.

For the first few months he was just flubbing along like most new Presidents, no great shakes, but no disasters either. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts.

Then September 11th happened. September 11th changed everything for me, like it did for so many of you. After September 11th, all the intramural idiocy of American politics stopped being funny. We had been attacked by a vicious and determined enemy and it was time for all of us to row in the same direction.

And we did for the blink of an eye. I believed the President when he said we were going to hunt down Bin Laden and all those responsible for the 9-11 murders. I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them.

I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan, after all, that’s where the Taliban was, that’s where al-Qaida trained the killers, that’s where Bin Laden was.

And I cheered when we quickly toppled the Taliban government, but winced when we let Bin Laden escape from Tora-Bora.

Then, the talk turned to Iraq and I winced again.

I thought the connection to 9-11 was sketchy at best. But Colin Powell impressed me at the UN, and Tony Blair was in, and after all, he was a Clinton guy, not a Bush guy, so I thought the case had to be strong. I was worried though, because I had read the Wolfowitz paper, “The Project for the New American Century.” It’s been around since ‘92, and it raised alarm bells because it was based on a theory, “Democratizing the Middle East” and I prefer pragmatism over theory. I was worried because Iraq was being justified on a radical new basis, “pre-emptive war.” Any time we do something without historical precedent I get nervous.

But the President shifted the argument to WMDs and the urgent threat of Iraq getting atomic weapons. The debate turned to Saddam passing nukes on to terror groups. After 9-11, the risk was too great. As the President said, “The next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.” At least that’s what I thought at the time.

I grew up in New York and watched them build the World Trade Center. I worked with a guy, Frank O’Brien, who put the elevators in both towers. I lost a very close friend on September 11th. 103 floor, tower one, Cantor Fitzgerald. Tim Coughlin was his name. If we had to take out Iraq to make sure something like that, or worse, never happened again, so be it. I knew the consequences. We have a soldier in our house. None of this was theoretical in my house.

But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.

I have watched the President say the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war won’t be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can’t do on the ground and any commander who did not go along with the administration was sacked, and in some cases, maligned.


I watched and tried to justify the looting in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. I watched and tried to justify the dismantling of the entire Iraqi army. I tired to explain the complexities of building a functional new Iraqi army. I urged patience when no WMDs were found. Then the Vice President told us we were in the “waning days of the insurgency.” And I started wincing again. The President says we have to stay the course but what if it’s the wrong course?

It was the wrong course. All of it was wrong. We are not on the road to victory. We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran in our wake. Bali was bombed. Madrid was bombed. London was bombed. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.

Most historians believe it takes 30-50 years before we get a reasonably accurate take on a President’s place in history. So, maybe 50 years from now Iraq will be a peaceful member of the brotherhood of nations and George W. Bush will be celebrated as a visionary genius.

But we don’t live fifty years in the future. We live now. We have to make public policy decisions now. We have to live with the consequences of the votes we cast and the leaders we chose now.

After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.

Presidential failures. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding-— the competition is fierce for the worst of the worst. Still, the damage this President has done is enormous. It will take decades to undo, and that’s assuming we do everything right from now on. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.

And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let’s talk for a minute about President Bush’s domestic record. Yes, he cut taxes. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public’s money. We’re drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren’s credit cards. Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?

Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. He lied to the country about its true cost. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. It helps nobody except the multinationals that lobbied for it. So much for smaller government. In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, or environmental protection, and/or worker’s rights.

I’ve talked so often about the border issue, I won’t bore you with a rehash. It’s enough to say this President has been a catastrophe for the wages of working people; he’s debased the work ethic itself. “Jobs Americans won’t do!” He doesn’t believe in the sovereign borders of the country he’s sworn to protect and defend. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security in a post 9-11 world. The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t.

Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, skyrocketing gas prices, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, contempt for the opinion of the American people, the war on science, media manipulation, faith based initives, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.

You can make a case that Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do, the public be damned. If you roll the dice on your gut and you’re right, history remembers you well. But, when your gut led you from one business failure to another, when your gut told you to trade Sammy Sosa to the White Sox, and you use the same gut to send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a distraction from the real war on terror, then history will and should be unapologetic in its condemnation.

None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an endorsement of the opposition party. The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.

Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.

The two party system has always been clumsy and imperfect, but it has only collapsed once, in the 1850s, and the result was civil war.

I believe, as I have said countless times, the two party system is on the brink of a second collapse. It’s currently running on spin, anger, revenge, and pots and pots and pots of money.

We’re being governed by paper-mache patriots; brightly painted red, white and blue, but hollow to the core. Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel.

This is painful to say, and I’m sure for many of you, painful to read. But it’s impossible to heal the country until we’re willing to acknowledge the truth no matter how painful. We have to wean ourselves off sugar coated partisan lies.

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken, it’s almost inevitable it pukes up the Al Gores and George W. Bushes. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Where are the men and women of vision and accomplishment? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?

It may be decades before we have the full picture of how paranoid and contemptuous this administration has been. And I am open to the possibility that I’m all wet about everything I’ve just said. But I’m putting it out there, because I have to call it as I see it, and this is how I see it today. I don’t say any of this lightly. I’ve thought about this for months and months. But eventually, the weight of evidence takes on a gravitational force of its own.

I believe that George W. Bush has taken us down a terrible road. I don’t believe the Democrats are offering an alternative. That means we’re on our own to save this magnificent country. The United States of America is a gift to the world, but it has been badly abused and it’s rightful owners, We the People, had better step up to the plate and reclaim it before the damage becomes irreparable.

So, accept my apology for allowing partisanship to blind me to an obvious truth; our President is incapable of the tasks he is charged with. I almost feel sorry for him. He is clearly in over his head. Yet, he doesn’t generate the sympathy Warren Harding earned. Harding, a spectacular mediocrity, had the self-knowledge to tell any and all he shouldn’t be President. George W. Bush continues to act the part, but at this point whose buying the act?

Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? Maybe, although I prefer to call it realism. And, for those of you who never supported Bush, its also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he’s down. After all, you were kicking him while he was up.

You were right, I was wrong.