• 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!

Was George W Bush a good president?[W:439:621]

Was George W Bush a good president?


  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Yes, they do, but unfortunately it has led to the "Bat Shirt Crazy Division" of the once Grand Ole Party. What a shame since the Left side of the aisle is full of weak sticks with no conviction . . . both sides saddled to big money and big money interests.

Do you think the country was as divided under Reagan as it is under Obama? I honestly can't remember because I was very young when Reagan was president, but from everything I've learned, read and heard about him, he was a pretty good president who accomplished quite a bit with bipartisan support.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Buchanan & Hoover. Barack is moving into the top 10.

My top two are Wilson and Obama. It's a difficult task for those of us that are not presidential historians to accurately and objectively compare and contrast all of the presidents we've had.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Do you think the country was as divided under Reagan as it is under Obama? I honestly can't remember because I was very young when Reagan was president, but from everything I've learned, read and heard about him, he was a pretty good president who accomplished quite a bit with bipartisan support.


I too was very young when Reagan was president but I don't remember such division. I seme to recall it getting bad toward the end of the Clinton years. While Bill Clinton is obviously morally deficient, let's face it he's a lying scumbag, sexual predator, he did not damage the nation the way Bush and Obama have so he gets a pass from me.

As a conservative/libertarian i am saying Clinton was a better president than Bush.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I too was very young when Reagan was president but I don't remember such division. I seme to recall it getting bad toward the end of the Clinton years. While Bill Clinton is obviously morally deficient, let's face it he's a lying scumbag, sexual predator, he did not damage the nation the way Bush and Obama have so he gets a pass from me.

As a conservative/libertarian i am saying Clinton was a better president than Bush.

I think that Clinton had a very magnetic personality and had diplomacy on his side. I can't say that I can agree with all his decisions, but I don't consider him to be a "terrible" president either. I don't know about GWB's legacy if it hadn't been for the wars. That's some pretty heavy decision making he had to do, and after the trauma of 9/11 it couldn't have been an easy time to be a president.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Ronnie was as polarizing as they come. He introduced the religious right to mainstream politics when he invited the moral majority into governance. Arguably, he was the catalyst that created the divisions we now see today. My opinion only. He did some good things too. GWB is in the top-3 as it relates to bad presidents . . . again, just my opinion.

No, RR wasn't the catalyst - it was the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent Southern Strategy of Nixon. The Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without Republican liberals in Congress. When LBJ signed the CRA into law, he is supposed to have said, "we have lost the South for a generation" (because until then, the quite-racist South had been a Democratic stronghold - the "Solid South"). When Nixon was running, his campaign manager popularized (though did not originate) the Southern Strategy:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

The "negrophobe whites" were the key to winning the Southern states, so the GOP had to adopt policies to attract those voters...and that's precisely what the GOP did, according to Reagan advisor Lee Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni***r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni***r, ni***r.”

This is how the Deep South - which had once been the Democratic "Solid South" - became the electoral base of the Republican party. But that's not all: the Deep South is known by another name, too - the "Bible Belt". An atheist has close to zero chance of getting elected in the South...and because the new base of the GOP is deeply religious, the requirement to be religious became part and parcel of GOP politics. If someone wasn't religious or - horrors! - was against things like prayer in school or posting the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, well, obviously that someone wasn't a conservative, and therefore wasn't a Real American. And as the GOP became the party of the Religious Right, opposition to all things liberal became not a matter of politics...but a matter of religious conviction.

That is how the GOP came to hate liberals. Reagan wasn't the catalyst - even Bob Dole says that Reagan, Bush 41, or himself would have a "very hard time" getting elected in today's GOP. Reagan was just one part of a truly tectonic sociopolitical shift.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

No, RR wasn't the catalyst - it was the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent Southern Strategy of Nixon. The Civil Rights Act could not have been passed without Republican liberals in Congress. When LBJ signed the CRA into law, he is supposed to have said, "we have lost the South for a generation" (because until then, the quite-racist South had been a Democratic stronghold - the "Solid South"). When Nixon was running, his campaign manager popularized (though did not originate) the Southern Strategy:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

The "negrophobe whites" were the key to winning the Southern states, so the GOP had to adopt policies to attract those voters...and that's precisely what the GOP did, according to Reagan advisor Lee Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni***r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni***r, ni***r.”

This is how the Deep South - which had once been the Democratic "Solid South" - became the electoral base of the Republican party. But that's not all: the Deep South is known by another name, too - the "Bible Belt". An atheist has close to zero chance of getting elected in the South...and because the new base of the GOP is deeply religious, the requirement to be religious became part and parcel of GOP politics. If someone wasn't religious or - horrors! - was against things like prayer in school or posting the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, well, obviously that someone wasn't a conservative, and therefore wasn't a Real American. And as the GOP became the party of the Religious Right, opposition to all things liberal became not a matter of politics...but a matter of religious conviction.

That is how the GOP came to hate liberals. Reagan wasn't the catalyst - even Bob Dole says that Reagan, Bush 41, or himself would have a "very hard time" getting elected in today's GOP. Reagan was just one part of a truly tectonic sociopolitical shift.

I have to agree with you that it seems the republican party adopting "religion" is going to be it's downfall eventually. I don't know if another party will rise to take it's place or what will happen to them, but it seems to me that ostracizing those who aren't necessarily "religious" but may believe in other conservative values is a really BAD idea.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I have to agree with you that it seems the republican party adopting "religion" is going to be it's downfall eventually. I don't know if another party will rise to take it's place or what will happen to them, but it seems to me that ostracizing those who aren't necessarily "religious" but may believe in other conservative values is a really BAD idea.

It's not like the Democrats have not adopted religion. Their god is the state and they ostracize anyone who does not bow down at the feet of the federal government. up until now they've had good luck with it because they've been able to abuse the producer class enough to provide for the dependent class but sooner or later that will no longer be possible and the it's really going to hit the fan.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I have to agree with you that it seems the republican party adopting "religion" is going to be it's downfall eventually. I don't know if another party will rise to take it's place or what will happen to them, but it seems to me that ostracizing those who aren't necessarily "religious" but may believe in other conservative values is a really BAD idea.

Religion really didn't play a huge roll in politics until the Roe v Wade decision which lead to the advent of the Religious Right. At least that how I saw it in the 50's and 60's. Then came all these religious political organizations, the moral majority, the christian coalition, etc. They basically came together to fight Roe v Wade and abortion. The idea was to support the Republican Party so enough Supreme Court Justices who were against abortion could be appointed to the bench and overturn the original SCOTUS decision which legalized it.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I get you point, but I have come to the conclusion a long time ago it does no good to replace a Republican with a Democrat or a Democrat with a Republican. You still end up with business as usual elected officials. The Rhetoric is polar opposite, but the governing is the same. Both owe their moneyed people, the corporations, Wall Street, the lobbyists, special interest groups for their elections and neither party is willing to buck them. If they did, all those millions, tens of millions of campaign dollars would just flow into the other parties coffers.

This is what most people do not realize. I do not think it makes a bit of difference if we replace an R with a D or a D with an R. what is that old saying, the more things change, the more things stay the same.

I totally agree.
What we need to do is replace the incumbents, regardless of their party affiliation. But, that's just pie in the sky. So many people just vote for "their" party that nothing is likely to change.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I totally agree.
What we need to do is replace the incumbents, regardless of their party affiliation. But, that's just pie in the sky. So many people just vote for "their" party that nothing is likely to change.

That wasn't my point, it makes no difference what incumbent we replace as long as the one replacing the incumbent is still beholding to those same special interests, lobbyist, corporations, Wall Street etc. Big deal, we get a new face, but that face still has an R or a D behind his name which translate to being bought by the moneyed folks I just mentioned. They owe the moneyed folks for their election to what ever office.

But with Citizens United ruling by the supreme court, it just give cart blank authority to those folks who buy our elected leaders through multi million dollar campaign donations.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Do you think the country was as divided under Reagan as it is under Obama? I honestly can't remember because I was very young when Reagan was president, but from everything I've learned, read and heard about him, he was a pretty good president who accomplished quite a bit with bipartisan support.

I don't recall the country being divided when Reagan was president. Overall, he was a very popular president, but a lot of his popularity was based on the things he said and the way he came across rather than his accomplishments. Reagan was a very likable guy, and said all the right things about fighting Communism and so on. His "tear down this wall" statement is remembered to this day. What people forget is that he was a popular and likable president who presided over the Iran Contra affair, the bail out of the S and L industry, and an increase in deficit spending.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

That wasn't my point, it makes no difference what incumbent we replace as long as the one replacing the incumbent is still beholding to those same special interests, lobbyist, corporations, Wall Street etc. Big deal, we get a new face, but that face still has an R or a D behind his name which translate to being bought by the moneyed folks I just mentioned. They owe the moneyed folks for their election to what ever office.

But with Citizens United ruling by the supreme court, it just give cart blank authority to those folks who buy our elected leaders through multi million dollar campaign donations.
Right. Replacing one purchased politician with another purchased politician isn't going to change anything.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

It's not like the Democrats have not adopted religion. Their god is the state and they ostracize anyone who does not bow down at the feet of the federal government. up until now they've had good luck with it because they've been able to abuse the producer class enough to provide for the dependent class but sooner or later that will no longer be possible and the it's really going to hit the fan.

Honestly, I thought the TEA party was a GREAT idea when it first came out. I am for anything that is against excessive taxation, which is exactly what our government does to us constantly. But then they started with the religious bull crap and their ridiculously strict social stances on issues, and the more moderate people who may have been interested in their group no longer felt like that group represented them. I don't want any party pushing their social/religious views upon me.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Religion really didn't play a huge roll in politics until the Roe v Wade decision which lead to the advent of the Religious Right. At least that how I saw it in the 50's and 60's. Then came all these religious political organizations, the moral majority, the christian coalition, etc. They basically came together to fight Roe v Wade and abortion. The idea was to support the Republican Party so enough Supreme Court Justices who were against abortion could be appointed to the bench and overturn the original SCOTUS decision which legalized it.

I'm not against any group wanting to have their views represented, however, I think that political parties who take hard social/religious platforms are really only hurting themselves.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Right. Replacing one purchased politician with another purchased politician isn't going to change anything.

So this nation and voters are in the catch 22 situation. Dang if you do, danged if you don't.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I'm not against any group wanting to have their views represented, however, I think that political parties who take hard social/religious platforms are really only hurting themselves.

Perhaps, but that is part of the GOP base. A reliable voting group much like blacks are with the Democratic Party. The problem for Republicans is that they have been the smaller party ever since the beginnings of the Great depression. Sometimes by as much as 2-1. I am not defending the Republican Party for having them, but can the Republican Party cast a huge portion of their base aside and still be viable? Could the Democratic Party cast away the black vote and still be viable? Apples to oranges I know, but each makes up a sizable amount of each parties base. Its a catch 22 situation, dang if they do and dang if they don't. The Republicans can't attract the pure fiscal conservatives who dislike their stance on social issue and they can't afford to throw the social conservatives under the bus.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Perhaps, but that is part of the GOP base. A reliable voting group much like blacks are with the Democratic Party. The problem for Republicans is that they have been the smaller party ever since the beginnings of the Great depression. Sometimes by as much as 2-1. I am not defending the Republican Party for having them, but can the Republican Party cast a huge portion of their base aside and still be viable? Could the Democratic Party cast away the black vote and still be viable? Apples to oranges I know, but each makes up a sizable amount of each parties base. Its a catch 22 situation, dang if they do and dang if they don't. The Republicans can't attract the pure fiscal conservatives who dislike their stance on social issue and they can't afford to throw the social conservatives under the bus.

I suppose, but I still think they could attract more people to their party if they would stop with the "self righteous" bull crap. We all KNOW they aren't righteous anyways. :lol: Obviously some of them can't be taking these issues TOO seriously.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

So this nation and voters are in the catch 22 situation. Dang if you do, danged if you don't.

If we could only get people to ignore the ads and think for themselves, we could pull off a bloodless coup at the ballto box, but I suppose that is asking too much.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I'm not sure just when I alleged that Bush wanted revenge. Perhaps you should link back to my post asserting such a thing.

As for the second paragraph, yes that's right. He did rely on them, and they steered him and the country into an unholy mess,
this despite their great experience.




Good judgement comes from experience.

Experience comes from bad judgement.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

If we could only get people to ignore the ads and think for themselves, we could pull off a bloodless coup at the ballto box, but I suppose that is asking too much.
It sure is. The same hot button topics polarize voters to the lesser of two evils, every time, without fail. Still, before we get away from this two party system, we need runoff elections. Without them, there will from time to time be a Perot that some of the electorate thinks took the winning votes away from their candidate.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I suppose, but I still think they could attract more people to their party if they would stop with the "self righteous" bull crap. We all KNOW they aren't righteous anyways. :lol: Obviously some of them can't be taking these issues TOO seriously.[/QUOTER


No, most just give it lip service.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

It sure is. The same hot button topics polarize voters to the lesser of two evils, every time, without fail. Still, before we get away from this two party system, we need runoff elections. Without them, there will from time to time be a Perot that some of the electorate thinks took the winning votes away from their candidate.

It's such a crappy situation though. People feel like they are throwing their vote away when they vote for a third party or lesser known candidate. :roll: Shame really. The two main parties have SUCH a monopoly on our politics with such limited and narrow-minded views. BOTH of the main parties will become obsolete hopefully soon. I really think that people are STARTING to wake up.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

It's not like the Democrats have not adopted religion. Their god is the state and they ostracize anyone who does not bow down at the feet of the federal government. up until now they've had good luck with it because they've been able to abuse the producer class enough to provide for the dependent class but sooner or later that will no longer be possible and the it's really going to hit the fan.

Your quote is a wonderful example of "I don't like those people, so whatever bad things I think of, they must be guilty of."

In other words, it simply doesn't occur to you that just because a certain group of people have a different set of political beliefs from you, that they might actually be everyday people who work hard, pay their bills, and pay their taxes.

Want proof? Look at the ethnic group that is the most highly educated, most financially successful: Asian Americans. Are you going to call them lazy "takers" who are dependent on the state? Of course you wouldn't. But 73% of those Asian Americans voted for Obama in 2012.

That, and if Dems were so lazy and dependent on the state, then shouldn't blue states be more dependent upon the federal dole than red states? But in reality, it's just the opposite:

wpid-Photo-Jan-25-2012-534-PM.jpg

In other words, it's time for you to see your political prejudice for what it is. We Dems and liberals work hard, we pay our taxes...and as you can see above, we generally pay out more than we receive, whereas the Republicans generally receive more than they pay out.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Perhaps, but that is part of the GOP base. A reliable voting group much like blacks are with the Democratic Party. The problem for Republicans is that they have been the smaller party ever since the beginnings of the Great depression. Sometimes by as much as 2-1. I am not defending the Republican Party for having them, but can the Republican Party cast a huge portion of their base aside and still be viable? Could the Democratic Party cast away the black vote and still be viable? Apples to oranges I know, but each makes up a sizable amount of each parties base. Its a catch 22 situation, dang if they do and dang if they don't. The Republicans can't attract the pure fiscal conservatives who dislike their stance on social issue and they can't afford to throw the social conservatives under the bus.

Actually, yes, the Democratic party can cast away the black vote and be viable. If you'll notice, Hispanics strongly went Democratic this past election - and there's a lot more of them than blacks. Not only that, but women did, too - and there's a heck of a lot more of them than blacks and Hispanics put together. Pretty much the only ethnic constituency that the GOP won was mature white men.
 
Back
Top Bottom