USA Today's publisher changes mind, now says that Bush is the worst President ev

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good to see that he's finally getting the picture.

One year ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/16/175458/042

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

[bullmoose88]

Good to see that he's finally getting the picture.

One year ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/16/175458/042

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Yes. Yes they have. And our country is worse off that Bush proved them to be right.

[JSojourner]

Jfern, you are being much too hard on The Decider. Don't you remember his plaintive appeal during the debates with John Kerry?

"I don't think people realize.  It's hard work being the President."

That puts it all into perspective.  Sorta like when my six year old says to me, "But Daddy, it's hard work to color in the lines."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected Dan Quayle.  Twice.

[bullmoose88]

Jfern, you are being much too hard on The Decider. Don't you remember his plaintive appeal during the debates with John Kerry?

"I don't think people realize.  It's hard work being the President."

That puts it all into perspective.  Sorta like when my six year old says to me, "But Daddy, it's hard work to color in the lines."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected Dan Quayle.  Twice.

Don't do Quayle that injustice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, you are being much too hard on The Decider. Don't you remember his plaintive appeal during the debates with John Kerry?

"I don't think people realize.  It's hard work being the President."

That puts it all into perspective.  Sorta like when my six year old says to me, "But Daddy, it's hard work to color in the lines."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected Dan Quayle.  Twice.

Don't do Quayle that injustice.

Damn straight. Quayle at least made it into law school, even though he had to be admitted under an affirmative action program for those born with a silver foot in their mouth.

[bullmoose88]

Jfern, you are being much too hard on The Decider. Don't you remember his plaintive appeal during the debates with John Kerry?

"I don't think people realize.  It's hard work being the President."

That puts it all into perspective.  Sorta like when my six year old says to me, "But Daddy, it's hard work to color in the lines."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have elected Dan Quayle.  Twice.

Don't do Quayle that injustice.

Damn straight. Quayle at least made it into law school, even though he had to be admitted under an affirmative action program for those born with a silver foot in their mouth.

Ah Legacies. Does anyone think Bush could have gotten into Yale and Harvard (MBA) on his own merits?

[memphis]

I really don't see how Nixon could be ranked as one of the worst. Yeah, Watergate is pretty disgusting, but he was an amazing president.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I really don't see how Nixon could be ranked as one of the worst. Yeah, Watergate is pretty disgusting, but he was an amazing president.

Even looking past Watergate, I can't forgive him for Henry Kissinger.

[minionofmidas]

Andrew Jackson? I hope that's a misprint for Johnson.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Not even close.  Not yet.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Wow, Jimmy Carter not being on that list is disturbing

He is one of the only modern presidents to be blatently racist and his decisions in office were some of the worst ever

[Joe Biden 2020]

Its true that Bush will go down as one of the worst President's in the world.  However, even being a Democrat, I'm still glad Bush was around during 9/11 instead of Gore.  I think if Gore had been if office these six years, we would have been attacked at least a couple more times.  At least Bush has kept our homeland safe from attacks from 5 and a half years.  That is a reflection on Gore, not on the Democratic Party, as some might suggest.  Gore probably would have gone into Afghanistan, but he probably would have left Saddam Hussein in power with the capability of killing his own citizens and being a threat to his neighbors.  Even though no WMD's were found, given time and Saddam would have been able to amass the weapons and probably sooner or later would have linked up with al-Qaeda and created even more havoc on the Western World.  Bush's mistake was not going into Iraq in the first place, but not having a plan to win the peace and having no clue as to what to do once Saddam was deposed.  Having said all that, I voted for John Kerry in 2004, and I do wish he was president the last two years.  He would have done a far better job, and we might have been out of Iraq by now if he were President.  Kerry was just a poor campaigner and a huge flip-flopper.

And, don't write me off a being a "Bushie" and think I'm not a loyal Democrat.  I just happen to be a Democrat who likes President Bush, not for his administration's policies, but for his personal character.  Is that wrong?  Am I wrong to like the man?  I don't like his administration right now, but I think the man is a pretty good guy.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I really don't see how Nixon could be ranked as one of the worst. Yeah, Watergate is pretty disgusting, but he was an amazing president.

Oh come on, he was a freaking war criminal. If those such as Ho-chi Minh are guilty of war crimes (as many here claim) then there can be no arguement for Nixon, Kissinger or Mitchell were.

Without a doubt Bush is there where he deserves.

Its true that Bush will go down as one of the worst President's in the world.  However, even being a Democrat, I'm still glad Bush was around during 9/11 instead of Gore.  I think if Gore had been if office these six years, we would have been attacked at least a couple more times.  At least Bush has kept our homeland safe from attacks from 5 and a half years.  That is a reflection on Gore, not on the Democratic Party, as some might suggest.  Gore probably would have gone into Afghanistan, but he probably would have left Saddam Hussein in power with the capability of killing his own citizens and being a threat to his neighbors.  Even though no WMD's were found, given time and Saddam would have been able to amass the weapons and probably sooner or later would have linked up with al-Qaeda and created even more havoc on the Western World.  Bush's mistake was not going into Iraq in the first place, but not having a plan to win the peace and having no clue as to what to do once Saddam was deposed.  Having said all that, I voted for John Kerry in 2004, and I do wish he was president the last two years.  He would have done a far better job, and we might have been out of Iraq by now if he were President.  Kerry was just a poor campaigner and a huge flip-flopper.

And, don't write me off a being a "Bushie" and think I'm not a loyal Democrat.  I just happen to be a Democrat who likes President Bush, not for his administration's policies, but for his personal character.  Is that wrong?  Am I wrong to like the man?  I don't like his administration right now, but I think the man is a pretty good guy.

Lol. Al Gore would have continued Clinton's bombing and sanctions, which were still killing many Iraqi civilians and actually strengthened the Saddam Regime. The Mistake was not fully invading in 1991 or not supporting the Shia revolution then (mainly due to French pressure believe it or not.)

[Bono]

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Bush isn't a conservative.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Bush isn't a conservative.

In the Traditional American sense, as in a "Libertarian Conservative" then no he is not one of those.

But he has supported many tenants of conservatism - especially in regards to what has become known as "social issues" (as if they were seperate from Economic ones).

Coming to think of it, the current world leader most like Bush is probably Jacques Chirac. (I know many people here won't like that.. but it's true.)

[PBrunsel]

Those who call themselves"presidential historians' should not be taken seriously anyway. Their so called "ideas" are just manufactured sound bites. Most have no idea why they cal men like Harding, grant, and Hoover "terrible presidents", or why they call FDR and Wilson "great" presidents.

In my opinion FDR and Wilson were awful presidents who are only remembered for the problems they created like wars and the federal reserves. However "presidential historians" prop them up, so now everyone thinks these men were great. To quote A18: "A great president has to invade people's freedom and start a war." If that is the criteria than these so called "presidential historians" should name George W. Bush as the very greatest of U.S. Presidents!

T. Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush are very much alike. Both are idealists. They cling to the idea that an "association if nations" will ever work together for a common good. They both embrace free trade with friend and enemy alike as a "good" thing that helps the American laborer. Both had Attorney Generals that like to raid the homes of people with "dangerous" political philosophies. Both got involved with wars, and then had terrible reconstruction periods. Finally, both lost control of both chambers of Congress in their second term.

If "presidential historians" call Wilson a "great president" does it not make sense they call George W. Bush one?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Those who call themselves"presidential historians' should not be taken seriously anyway. Their so called "ideas" are just manufactured sound bites. Most have no idea why they cal men like Harding, grant, and Hoover "terrible presidents", or why they call FDR and Wilson "great" presidents.

In my opinion FDR and Wilson were awful presidents who are only remembered for the problems they created like wars and the federal reserves. However "presidential historians" prop them up, so now everyone thinks these men were great. To quote A18: "A great president has to invade people's freedom and start a war." If that is the criteria than these so called "presidential historians" should name George W. Bush as the very greatest of U.S. Presidents!

T. Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush are very much alike. Both are idealists. They cling to the idea that an "association if nations" will ever work together for a common good. They both embrace free trade with friend and enemy alike as a "good" thing that helps the American laborer. Both had Attorney Generals that like to raid the homes of people with "dangerous" political philosophies. Both got involved with wars, and then had terrible reconstruction periods. Finally, both lost control of both chambers of Congress in their second term.

If "presidential historians" call Wilson a "great president" does it not make sense they call George W. Bush one?

There was women's suffrage, the 14 points plan, helping the Allies win WWI, the setting up of the Fedeal reserve system etc under Wilson (though most of those things were only vaguely related to him) so I believe that he did more positive than Bush has done. (Whether you consider any of these positive though is up to you - personally I think the US was on the wrong side of WWI.)

It doesn't matter to me much anyway, as I despise Wilson greatly, almost as much as Bush. See my signature.

[Bono]

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Bush isn't a conservative.

In the Traditional American sense, as in a "Libertarian Conservative" then no he is not one of those.

But he has supported many tenants of conservatism - especially in regards to what has become known as "social issues" (as if they were seperate from Economic ones).

Coming to think of it, the current world leader most like Bush is probably Jacques Chirac. (I know many people here won't like that.. but it's true.)

Prefectly correct. In fact, I've said so before on these forums. Chriac and Bush are almost carbon copies of each other. As for being separate, are you arguing that libertarians and populists (of which Bush is one) don't exist?

[Bono]

Those who call themselves"presidential historians' should not be taken seriously anyway. Their so called "ideas" are just manufactured sound bites. Most have no idea why they cal men like Harding, grant, and Hoover "terrible presidents", or why they call FDR and Wilson "great" presidents.

In my opinion FDR and Wilson were awful presidents who are only remembered for the problems they created like wars and the federal reserves. However "presidential historians" prop them up, so now everyone thinks these men were great. To quote A18: "A great president has to invade people's freedom and start a war." If that is the criteria than these so called "presidential historians" should name George W. Bush as the very greatest of U.S. Presidents!

T. Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush are very much alike. Both are idealists. They cling to the idea that an "association if nations" will ever work together for a common good. They both embrace free trade with friend and enemy alike as a "good" thing that helps the American laborer. Both had Attorney Generals that like to raid the homes of people with "dangerous" political philosophies. Both got involved with wars, and then had terrible reconstruction periods. Finally, both lost control of both chambers of Congress in their second term.

If "presidential historians" call Wilson a "great president" does it not make sense they call George W. Bush one?

There was women's suffrage, the 14 points plan, helping the Allies win WWI, the setting up of the Fedeal reserve system etc under Wilson (though most of those things were only vaguely related to him) so I believe that he did more positive than Bush has done. (Whether you consider any of these positive though is up to you - personally I think the US was on the wrong side of WWI.)

It doesn't matter to me much anyway, as I despise Wilson greatly, almost as much as Bush. See my signature.

Establishing the Federal Reserve was one of the worst things a president has ever done. he paved the way for FDR fascism.
As for WWI, the US had no business in that war.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Liberals have truly been vindicated on Bush.

Bush isn't a conservative.

In the Traditional American sense, as in a "Libertarian Conservative" then no he is not one of those.

But he has supported many tenants of conservatism - especially in regards to what has become known as "social issues" (as if they were seperate from Economic ones).

Coming to think of it, the current world leader most like Bush is probably Jacques Chirac. (I know many people here won't like that.. but it's true.)

Prefectly correct. In fact, I've said so before on these forums. Chriac and Bush are almost carbon copies of each other. As for being separate, are you arguing that libertarians and populists (of which Bush is one) don't exist?

Well I consider Bush a Right-wing Populist or a Corporatist, would be more accurate. What I meant by that remark is that people's actual views cannot be considered on a chart as such but rather as a general viewpoint or narrative, Left-wing Populists (in WJ Bryan mold) for example would believe it's goverment duty to protect it's citizens from all evils in society regardless of liberty - and for them those evils include both poverty and Social Liberalism (and be slightly isolationist too, as Bryan was) . Bush is not one of those.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Those who call themselves"presidential historians' should not be taken seriously anyway. Their so called "ideas" are just manufactured sound bites. Most have no idea why they cal men like Harding, grant, and Hoover "terrible presidents", or why they call FDR and Wilson "great" presidents.

In my opinion FDR and Wilson were awful presidents who are only remembered for the problems they created like wars and the federal reserves. However "presidential historians" prop them up, so now everyone thinks these men were great. To quote A18: "A great president has to invade people's freedom and start a war." If that is the criteria than these so called "presidential historians" should name George W. Bush as the very greatest of U.S. Presidents!

T. Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush are very much alike. Both are idealists. They cling to the idea that an "association if nations" will ever work together for a common good. They both embrace free trade with friend and enemy alike as a "good" thing that helps the American laborer. Both had Attorney Generals that like to raid the homes of people with "dangerous" political philosophies. Both got involved with wars, and then had terrible reconstruction periods. Finally, both lost control of both chambers of Congress in their second term.

If "presidential historians" call Wilson a "great president" does it not make sense they call George W. Bush one?

There was women's suffrage, the 14 points plan, helping the Allies win WWI, the setting up of the Fedeal reserve system etc under Wilson (though most of those things were only vaguely related to him) so I believe that he did more positive than Bush has done. (Whether you consider any of these positive though is up to you - personally I think the US was on the wrong side of WWI.)

It doesn't matter to me much anyway, as I despise Wilson greatly, almost as much as Bush. See my signature.

Establishing the Federal Reserve was one of the worst things a president has ever done. he paved the way for FDR fascism.
As for WWI, the US had no business in that war.

Probably true on the last point. And I can't comment on the Fed as I really only have a very elementary grasping of economics. (But I object to the Fascist label to FDR, though Authoritian would fit.)

But still there was the failed morality of the 14 points plus Women's suffrage, and he did veto Prohibition. That's more positive than what Bush has done. And really I hate having to defend Wilson. Again I point to my signature.

[12th Doctor]

No... liberals won't be vindicated on their view of Bush until ever soldier is Iraq is dead and the US is hit by an asteroid that wipes out half the country.  While the rest of us are recovering from the shock and trying to rebuild the world, they will be dancing up and down about how they were right and how great they feel about it.

[Silent Hunter]

I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd suspect that Wilson quote is being taken out of context.

[bullmoose88]

I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd suspect that Wilson quote is being taken out of context.

Eh. Not likely.

Wilson was a bit of a bastard. I think the best years of his presidency were those that were run by his wife, Madam President, while he was bedstricken.

[Smash255]

I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd suspect that Wilson quote is being taken out of context.

Eh. Not likely.

Wilson was a bit of a bastard. I think the best years of his presidency were those that were run by his wife, Madam President, while he was bedstricken.

still better than this putz