• 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!

GWB's Legacy

What will be GWB's legacy?

  • A great and inspired world leader

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which option best fits your view of what GWB's legacy will be.

Vote accordingly:
 
Last edited:
History will show GWB in a positive light.
Anyone that considers him a faulure needs to look back no nurther than Truman...
 
Last edited:
There's no poll.

History will show GWB in a positive light.

Why do you think that? The public opinion of the man is rather low at this point and has been for some time. How do you think that would change?
 
I don't see an intellectually honest poll question to answer. Just another BDS poll, not even a fake stab at objectivity much less a option for other. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Why do you think that? The public opinion of the man is rather low at this point and has been for some time. How do you think that would change?
You didnt see my edited post.

Look at Truman, his approval ratings, and how he got them.

Then tell me how approval ratings while in office have any bearing whatsoever on how a President is seen by history.
 
I think your poll options are kind of polarizing. I personally wouldn't call his presidency a complete and utter failure, but I wouldn't say that he was a man who lacked ideas. I will give him credit for bringing the country together right after 9/11, even though anyone would have probably done that.

I despised the fact that he tried to use 9/11 as currency to push for the war with Iraq and I equally despised his lack of care for the opinions of the majority of people in this country as to their distaste for the war. I realize that a government shouldn't govern based on public opinion polls, but they should at least take them into account. There was a significant amount if disrespect and arrogance coming from his administration. I think his administration really split this country apart far more politically which I think is why we have far more outspoken whackos on both sides of the political aisles who are actually given a voice on legitimate news stations and through various publications.

I also despised how he handled the Hurricane Katrina situation and even more the Bush apologists who made excuse after excuse for the guy blaming everything solely on local and state governmental bodies. While they do shoulder some of the blame, we should have been there taking care of those people on a federal level and we weren't.

I also despised how inarticulate he was and would wince every single time he made a speech because I knew that this stuff was being seen all over the world and that it was making us look foolish for even electing the guy in the first place.

I don't hate the guy like many of the extreme left wing groups and people do because I don't know him. He seemed like he was probably a decent guy in person. That being said, I don't think he was a decent President and not everyone would be. I'm still honestly baffled as to how he made it two terms. Though, when one looks at his opponent the second time around (Frankenstein) it's hard not to wince with equal disdain.
 
I don't see an intellectually honest poll question to answer. Just another BDS poll, not even a fake stab at objectivity much less a option for other. :roll:


Try looking at the poll options. There are plenty of options to choose from. Certainly one that fits most everyone's views
 
You didnt see my edited post.

Look at Truman, his approval ratings, and how he got them.

Then tell me how approval ratings while in office have any bearing whatsoever on how a President is seen by history.

Well, I consider myself a "glass is half full" kinda guy and I don't really see someone successfully putting a positive spin on his Presidency that most people will swallow willingly.
 
He has got this poll pretty much in the bag:

Who is the Worst US President Ever?

88% when I voted

Worst President Ever is kind of absurd. Most people are kind of solipsists and don't really think outside of their own realm of existence. So when they have polls like that, it's hard to take them seriously because nobody remembers or fully knows what all Presidents were like. They only have history books to tell them and those aren't completely unbiased.
 
Well, I consider myself a "glass is half full" kinda guy and I don't really see someone successfully putting a positive spin on his Presidency that most people will swallow willingly.
Same was said about HST -- imagine, threatening to draft striking railroad workers into the military in order to break a strike.

How is his legacy holding up?
 
Try looking at the poll options. There are plenty of options to choose from. Certainly one that fits most everyone's views
Hence you felt no need for an "other" field because your five BDS options are the options that "fit's most everyone's" views. Right. :think:
 
Last edited:
Hence no need for "other" because your five BDS options are the options that "fit's most everyone's" views. Right.

Take off your own "BDS" glasses...maybe you will see something other than what you want to see. I made the poll options with 1 basically 100% in favor of Bush, 1 100% against Bush and the other three that fall within.
What are your views of his legacy and how don't they fall within any of the options provided....please enlighten us.
 
Worst President Ever is kind of absurd. Most people are kind of solipsists and don't really think outside of their own realm of existence. So when they have polls like that, it's hard to take them seriously because nobody remembers or fully knows what all Presidents were like. They only have history books to tell them and those aren't completely unbiased.

You'll never hear me overestimate the general intelligence of the average person.

All polls have inherent statistical problems. However, I challenge you to find any other end-of-term poll that damns the outgoing guy as bad as this one.
 
You'll never hear me overestimate the general intelligence of the average person.

All polls have inherent statistical problems. However, I challenge you to find any other end-of-term poll that damns the outgoing guy as bad as this one.

That's true, but I think it's only because we haven't had a President this bad in a long time or at least in most people's memories of past Presidents. The problem with the poll, though, is that it goes to show just how much Bush managed to split the country. I personally can't think of a President who has caused more problems than Bush, but I also wouldn't call him the "Worst President Ever" because that's a pretty extreme and somewhat melodramatic statement to make.
 
but I also wouldn't call him the "Worst President Ever" because that's a pretty extreme and somewhat melodramatic statement to make.

Being the "worst" is sometimes hard to determine. It's not like you have any scorecard to compare. However, people can have opinions; and all will vary in their degree of melodrama, factual support, and emotions.

Having said all that, I will still declare GWB the worst in my book.

YouTube - 8 Years Of Bush in 8 Minutes! ~Olbermann
 
That's true, but I think it's only because we haven't had a President this bad in a long time or at least in most people's memories of past Presidents.
In what specific terms was GWB worse that Jimmy Carter?
Or... Harry Truman?

I personally can't think of a President who has caused more problems than Bush....
In terms about dividing the country....
How about Buchanan/Lincoln?
 
The historians won't be people who hate Bush because he stole an election from Al Gore. They won't be people who believe Bush lied us into a war. They won't be people who think a president is responsible for every economic downturn.

So they'll write about 50 million people liberated from tyranny in the Mid East and the spread of democracy. No terrorist attacks for 8 years after 9/11, two million people saved from death by AIDS in Africa. Our seniors no longer having to choose between food and medicine. Our students doing better in school with No Child Left Behind.

Given that he tried to change the oversight of Fannie Mae since taking office in 2001 it will be hard to pin the economic crisis on him, which the economists say is the cause of the crisis.

The historians are not likely to be particularly sympathetic to the treatment of terrorists or people having their phone lines tapped during a war.
 
In what specific terms was GWB worse that Jimmy Carter?
Or... Harry Truman?

Well, I was like 2 years old when Jimmy Carter administration ended, so I don't remember anything specifically bad about Jimmy Carter. However, I will say that I don't remember people talking about how he split the country in two or how a national tragedy happened on his watch or how he used said national tragedy as currency to go into a completely unrelated war.

In terms about dividing the country....
How about Buchanan/Lincoln?

I never said he's the only one who divided the country.
 
Well, I was like 2 years old when Jimmy Carter administration ended, so I don't remember anything specifically bad about Jimmy Carter.
I believe you have put your entire argument here into exactly the correct perspective.

I never said he's the only one who divided the country.
You said:
"...it goes to show just how much Bush managed to split the country..."

Compare and contrast the "split" that Bush "caused" to that of Buchanan/Lincoln.

Neve rnind that the country was obviously split -before- Bush took office.
 
He probably had some good ideas. He just didn't accomplish any of them.
 
I believe you have put your entire argument here into exactly the correct perspective.


You said:
"...it goes to show just how much Bush managed to split the country..."

Compare and contrast the "split" that Bush "caused" to that of Buchanan/Lincoln.

Neve rnind that the country was obviously split -before- Bush took office.

And he did manage to split the country. I wasn't saying it as a comparative statement that he split the country more than some Presidents of the past. The country was definitely split beforehand, but it seems to me that the political divisions were much more clear and more defined during the Bush Administration. Perhaps it was just that both sides were yelling louder, who knows? All I know is that people were, for a short while, united after 9/11 and that it didn't last long. The divisions seemed even sharper than the were before 9/11.
 
And he did manage to split the country.
As noted, the coutnry was split before he got in office.

I wasn't saying it as a comparative statement that he split the country more than some Presidents of the past.
You have to be comparing it to something, especially in tems of a 'worst/best President topic.

The country was definitely split beforehand, but it seems to me that the political divisions were much more clear and more defined during the Bush Administration.
More than in 1861?

Perhaps it was just that both sides were yelling louder, who knows? All I know is that people were, for a short while, united after 9/11 and that it didn't last long.
Given that Bush has always done more or less exactly what he said he would do -- how do you suppose this split came about?
 
As noted, the coutnry was split before he got in office.

Again, I never said it wasn't split before he was President. It wasn't as defined and sharp as it was after 9/11.

You have to be comparing it to something, especially in tems of a 'worst/best President topic.

No, I don't. I've already said that I wouldn't consider him the Worst President Ever as I think that's an absurd and melodramatic sentiment. I obviously don't consider him the best.

More than in 1861?

Once again, I didn't say it as a comparative statement. If you want to have that non-existent argument you can have it with yourself.

Given that Bush has always done more or less exactly what he said he would do -- how do you suppose this split came about?

Like I said earlier, I think the split came about when Bush tried to use 9/11 as currency to push for an unrelated war. If you are going to continue to ask the same questions over and over again I'll stop responding to your posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom