Obama or Bush?

Bush, not because I yhought he was a great President. It's because Obama is worse.

neither:mrgreen:

Sparky said:

Bush, not because I yhought he was a great President. It's because Obama is worse.

Click to expand...

^^^^ That exactly.

Sparky said:

Bush, not because I yhought he was a great President. It's because Obama is worse.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible to be worse. Bush started two needless wars, began the spend and tax cut mentality (a moronic position), convoluted rational for torture, and increased government powers while stripping civil liberties. And let's not forget taht our economic woes began under Bush. While no president controls the economy, you can't balme Obama wihtout a nod to Bush. Even no not rolling back all those polices wouldn't make one worse.

Redress said:

Any one but Paul.

Click to expand...

:roll: Way to go off topic...yes, yes Redress, we all know by now how much you hate Paul, you can stop now.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think it is possible to be worse. Bush started two needless wars, began the spend and tax cut mentality (a moronic position), convoluted rational for torture, and increased government powers while stripping civil liberties. And let's not forget taht our economic woes began under Bush. While no president controls the economy, you can't balme Obama wihtout a nod to Bush. Even no not rolling back all those polices wouldn't make one worse.

Click to expand...

While I would put Bush in my bottom 10 or maybe even bottom 5, I'm positive he is not the worst president in our history.

I am actually conducting a personal ranking of presidents using my own subjective methods and reasoning. I'll be sure to publish it on this forum asap.

I don't think it is fair to judge a president until after 10 years from the time he leaves office. But Obama, IMHO, is probably on the lower end of the scale for sure.

Mensch said:

While I would put Bush in my bottom 10 or maybe even bottom 5, I'm positive he is not the worst president in our history.

I am actually conducting a personal ranking of presidents using my own subjective methods and reasoning. I'll be sure to publish it on this forum asap.

Click to expand...

Maybe and maybe not. I can't speak for all history, but in my life time, I don't see how anyone could be worse. As for the ten thing you mention above, not sure I fully agree with that. There is a tendency to rewrite history to suit whoever is in power. It could become more a distortion than a fact.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think it is possible to be worse. Bush started two needless wars, began the spend and tax cut mentality (a moronic position), convoluted rational for torture, and increased government powers while stripping civil liberties. And let's not forget taht our economic woes began under Bush. While no president controls the economy, you can't balme Obama wihtout a nod to Bush. Even no not rolling back all those polices wouldn't make one worse.

Click to expand...

Not possible? Bush and Obama haven't yet resorted to the mass murder of civilians, so I think they've got a loooong way to go before that's not possible. (I think that was a facetious remark, but just saying.)

If one's going to blame Bush, by that logic one also has to blame the Democrats who had taken over Congress in 2007.

One can never overstate ones opposition to Ron Paul.

Black_Zawisza said:

Not possible? Bush and Obama haven't yet resorted to the mass murder of civilians, so I think they've got a loooong way to go before that's not possible. (I think that was a facetious remark, but just saying.)

If one's going to blame Bush, by that logic one also has to blame the Democrats who had taken over Congress in 2007.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is even possible here, yet (you were correct).

And not sure what you mean by blame. You may want to reread my remarks:

Boo said:

While no president controls the economy, you can't blame Obama without a nod to Bush. Even no not rolling back all those polices wouldn't make one worse.

Click to expand...

Now you add congress to president if that helps clarify.

Boo Radley said:

Maybe and maybe not. I can't speak for all history, but in my life time, I don't see how anyone could be worse.

Click to expand...

Depending on how old you are, I would argue LBJ may give Bush a run for his money.

As for the ten thing you mention above, not sure I fully agree with that. There is a tendency to rewrite history to suit whoever is in power. It could become more a distortion than a fact.

Click to expand...

It is impossible to gain a well-rounded objective assessment of presidential effectiveness immediately after leaving office or while still in office. There may be rare exceptions (say, a president betrays the country to our enemies without a reasonable doubt). Most historians agree that you need to wait a certain period after the president leaves office to gain an accurate assessment. Heck, many of a president's programs won't even take effect or show its effects until years after he's gone.

Mensch said:

Depending on how old you are, I would argue LBJ may give Bush a run for his money.

Click to expand...

I remember LBJ, and while not a fan, I would not rate him worse than Bush.

It is impossible to gain a well-rounded objective assessment of presidential effectiveness immediately after leaving office or while still in office. There may be rare exceptions (say, a president betrays the country to our enemies without a reasonable doubt). Most historians agree that you need to wait a certain period after the president leaves office to gain an accurate assessment. Heck, many of a president's programs won't even take effect or show its effects until years after he's gone.

Click to expand...

Perspective is good, and it is good to step back, but what we've seen, and Reagan is a prime example, is that too often history gets rewritten. There is a tendency to give them credit for things they did not really deserve credit for. Our memory gets clouded.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think that is even possible here, yet (you were correct).

And not sure what you mean by blame. You may want to reread my remarks:



Now you add congress to president if that helps clarify.

Click to expand...

No government can control an economy, but it sure exerts a massive influence over it - and did, at the start of the Great Recession. Both parties are fully responsible for this mess.

haymarket said:

One can never overstate ones opposition to Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul isn't so bad. He doesn't bow down to corporate interests or the military industrial complex like so many other presidents.

Boo Radley said:

I remember LBJ, and while not a fan, I would not rate him worse than Bush.

Click to expand...

If you look at the devastation of the Vietnam War, and the deceitful way Johnson pushed it into that war (Gulf of Tonkin), coupled with his gross distortion of executive power via the Great Society, I would argue he is close to Bush, if not worse than him. His only saving grace, IMHO, was his commitment to civil rights.

Perspective is good, and it is good to step back, but what we've seen, and Reagan is a prime example, is that too often history gets rewritten. There is a tendency to give them credit for things they did not really deserve credit for. Our memory gets clouded.

Click to expand...

But in the public eye, the administration doesn't write the definitive historical narrative. Academic historians do.

Mensch said:

If you look at the devastation of the Vietnam War, and the deceitful way Johnson pushed it into that war (Gulf of Tonkin), coupled with his gross distortion of executive power via the Great Society, I would argue he is close to Bush, if not worse than him. His only saving grace, IMHO, was his commitment to civil rights

Click to expand...

.

Iraq has the potential to be even more devastating on a few levels. And as I understand it, Johnson was lied to, whereas Bush was part of the lie. Though close I might accept.

But in the public eye, the administration doesn't write the definitive historical narrative. Academic historians do.

Click to expand...

No, politicians do. Reagan, as an example, has a myth not grounded in real historians, but in political mythology. The public's accepted version is not the historical view.

Boo Radley said:

.

Iraq has the potential to be even more devastating on a few levels. And as I understand it, Johnson was lied to, whereas Bush was part of the lie. Though close I might accept.

Click to expand...

As I said, he would give LBJ a run for his money. I'm not sure how much of the blame you could pin on a president after the official turnover of power. If we were to blame all of the devastation on Iraq caused to the present day (and the future) on Bush, we could effectively denounce and condemn every single one of our presidents (or at the least, the vast majority). There should be some sort of acceptable cut-off date.

No, politicians do. Reagan, as an example, has a myth not grounded in real historians, but in political mythology. The public's accepted version is not the historical view.

Click to expand...

I have two issues here. First, what is the Reagan myth you're referring to? Second, the presidents do write a version of their own history, usually through their memoirs and diaries. But it is not the accepted public version of historian. We leave that to the consensus formed from decades of academic interpretation.

Mensch said:

As I said, he would give LBJ a run for his money. I'm not sure how much of the blame you could pin on a president after the official turnover of power. If we were to blame all of the devastation on Iraq caused to the present day (and the future) on Bush, we could effectively denounce and condemn every single one of our presidents (or at the least, the vast majority). There should be some sort of acceptable cut-off date.

Click to expand...

No invasion, no Iraq. It is as simple as that. It was the decision to invade that is the fundamental error. Everything else either hurt or help, and even after invasion, Bush's neglect of Afghanistan hurt. But it was the initial decisions that hold the majority of the blame. Without them, nothing else happens.

I have two issues here. First, what is the Reagan myth you're referring to? Second, the presidents do write a version of their own history, usually through their memoirs and diaries. But it is not the accepted public version of historian. We leave that to the consensus formed from decades of academic interpretation.

Click to expand...

As the late President Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday is observed, historians point out that his political successes, not his persona, have been mythologized over the years.

"Today's Republicans created this fantasy role of Reagan as anti-government," said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. "He was really Reagan of government efficiency."

Reagan's myth has grown over time - CNN

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

(snip)

With the exception of the 1986 bombing of Libya, Reagan also disappointed hawkish aides with his unwillingness to retaliate militarily for terrorism in the Middle East. According to biographer Lou Cannon, the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations "terrorism itself."

In 1987, Reagan aide Paul Bremer, later George W. Bush's point man in Baghdad, even argued that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts. "A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are - criminals - and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law, against them," Bremer said. In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever."

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy

Few read the history, but instead hear the myths and accept them. This means the myth becomes the reality for too many. As the journalist in the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" said: "When the truth conflicts with the myth, print the myth."

Boo Radley said:

No invasion, no Iraq. It is as simple as that. It was the decision to invade that is the fundamental error. Everything else either hurt or help, and even after invasion, Bush's neglect of Afghanistan hurt. But it was the initial decisions that hold the majority of the blame. Without them, nothing else happens.

Click to expand...

Then, by that logic, and by using collateral damage numbers, Reagan was arguably better than Clinton, given that Clinton's bombing campaign against Iraq led to a half a million Iraqis losing their lives (most of them under the age of 15). Iraqis are still suffering from the effects from that campaign.

As the late President Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday is observed, historians point out that his political successes, not his persona, have been mythologized over the years.

"Today's Republicans created this fantasy role of Reagan as anti-government," said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. "He was really Reagan of government efficiency."

Reagan's myth has grown over time - CNN

Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

(snip)

With the exception of the 1986 bombing of Libya, Reagan also disappointed hawkish aides with his unwillingness to retaliate militarily for terrorism in the Middle East. According to biographer Lou Cannon, the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations "terrorism itself."

In 1987, Reagan aide Paul Bremer, later George W. Bush's point man in Baghdad, even argued that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts. "A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are - criminals - and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law, against them," Bremer said. In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever."

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy

Few read the history, but instead hear the myths and accept them. This means the myth becomes the reality for too many. As the journalist in the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" said: "When the truth conflicts with the myth, print the myth."

Click to expand...

That appears to be an argument that Reagan's image among republicans has been mythologized. It doesn't really do any good in assessing his actual success as president or his ranking among other presidents.

Mensch said:

Then, by that logic, and by using collateral damage numbers, Reagan was arguably better than Clinton, given that Clinton's bombing campaign against Iraq led to a half a million Iraqis losing their lives (most of them under the age of 15). Iraqis are still suffering from the effects from that campaign.

Click to expand...

Not a fan of Clinton. And did not support his bombing effort. And we have caused Iraqis a lot of harm over the years. But yes, you can make a case Clinton is worse than Reagan.

That appears to be an argument that Reagan's image among republicans has been mythologized. It doesn't really do any good in assessing his actual success as president or his ranking among other presidents.

Click to expand...

In terms of how the president is viewed by the public, no it does no good at all. Perception becomes reality for far too many.

Boo Radley said:

Not a fan of Clinton. And did not support his bombing effort. And we have caused Iraqis a lot of harm over the years. But yes, you can make a case Clinton is worse than Reagan.

Click to expand...

And yet, I'm hesitant to actually make that case. It may be true if we look at foreign policy alone. But my subjective methods would require analyzing both foreign and domestic policies. But I do think there should be some sort of cutoff date when assessing the effectivness/utility of a presidency. I understand that our foreign policy has been responsible for the rise of many dictators and wars around the world. But there still should be some sort of cutoff date. A transfer of power, dissolving of ties, etc.

Mensch said:

And yet, I'm hesitant to actually make that case. It may be true if we look at foreign policy alone. But my subjective methods would require analyzing both foreign and domestic policies. But I do think there should be some sort of cutoff date when assessing the effectivness/utility of a presidency. I understand that our foreign policy has been responsible for the rise of many dictators and wars around the world. But there still should be some sort of cutoff date. A transfer of power, dissolving of ties, etc.

Click to expand...

Each president is responsible for his actions. They don't go away with the passing of the torch. The new guy will likely have new things to be criticized for, as did Clinton and as does Obama. But the actions their predecessors made don't vanish. Bush will always be responsible for what he did during his term, as will Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Boo Radley said:

Each president is responsible for his actions. They don't go away with the passing of the torch. The new guy will likely have new things to be criticized for, as did Clinton and as does Obama. But the actions their predecessors made don't vanish. Bush will always be responsible for what he did during his term, as will Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Click to expand...

I didn't say "the passing of the torch." What I'm saying is that I don't think that William McKinley should be blamed for whatever economic stagnation occurs in Puerto Rico today or that Abraham Lincoln should be blamed for the failures of Reconstruction. Likewise, I don't believe Bush should be blamed for the troubles that occur in Iraq after a transfer of power has occurred. But if we did happen to include post-war Iraq into Bush's record, it would undoubtably improve Bush's overall ratings (given that today's Iraq is better off than Saddam's Iraq).

Mensch said:

I didn't say "the passing of the torch." What I'm saying is that I don't think that William McKinley should be blamed for whatever economic stagnation occurs in Puerto Rico today or that Abraham Lincoln should be blamed for the failures of Reconstruction. Likewise, I don't believe Bush should be blamed for the troubles that occur in Iraq after a transfer of power has occurred. But if we did happen to include post-war Iraq into Bush's record, it would undoubtably improve Bush's overall ratings (given that today's Iraq is better off than Saddam's Iraq).

Click to expand...

Nor do I. I think he's responsible for what he did. He invaded two countries, one on a pretext. Iraq has always ultimately been up to the Iraqis. If Iraq is better, it is because of Iraqis, paid for with their blood. And if it falls apart, that too will be their legacy and not Bush's.