What would it take for GWB to be considered a "Great" president?

[Ed]

If he got fatter than Taft or died tomorrow. Got it.

Aside from the flip responses, what would it take.

When this stupidity in Iraq started my thought was that he was on the razors edge and that it could go either way.

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats. Personally, I think that the far left realizes this and the idea of a military based solution to the mideast problem, particularly since they appear to have no solutions whatsoever, rankles them no end.

Could happen.

[Matabiri]

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats.

Pretty big if, that.

I thought he might have been onto something in Israel/Palestine for a while, but that seems not to have taken either.

[Ed]

Pretty big if, that.

I thought he might have been onto something in Israel/Palestine for a while, but that seems not to have taken either.

Little "ifs" are the provence of small men.

[Lurker]

Ed,

I'll agree with you and I am part of that "far left". If Bush somehow transforms the Middle East into a Democracy and peace reigns there than I will consider my criticisms of Bush totally wrong and Bush and his advisors certainly had a vision of how to get there that I just did not have.

Of course, I sincerely doubt that will happen but I really would love for Bush to be correct.

Lurker

[richardm]

To be honest I think it's too late for him. Even if the Middle East turned into a paragon of democracy as a result of his actions I think it will a take sufficiently long time for a subsequent president to take the credit.

In my opinion outside of America Bush will be remembered as the thick guy who lied about WMD no matter what he does now or how things turn out in the future. I suspect that a good chunk of the US population will feel the same way. A similar sized chunk will feel the opposite, I presume.

[Mephisto]

I think it's too late for that now. He would have to personally discover the cure for AIDS or open the White House to Katrina survivors for him to simply break even for all the things his administration has done wrong.

And what better place to be flippant than this?

I could offer that many of us might be entertained with either the public acknowledgement of his guilt and an impassioned apology OR he could create a reality show where his twin daughters Barbara & Jenna don Marine uniforms, helmet cams, [inadequate] body armor and rifles to join the Marines in Baghdad on daily patrols.

[Luke T.]

Let's see.

Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.

Repeal the Patriot Act.

STOP SPENDING SO DAMN MUCH!!!

That would just get him back to Square One. Then he could work on "great".

I would say Bush spends like the proverbial drunken sailor in a whorehouse, but I have personal experience as a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, and Bush makes me look like an amateur.

Yeah. Bush's only hope for greatness is in Iraq.

Good luck with that!

[Ed]

As with Nixon, the lines today are etched in stone and that is not really of interest to me.

From the more relaxed perspective of the future I doubt that many of the things that get people exercised today will be of any great interest.

[Luke T.]

As with Nixon, the lines today are etched in stone and that is not really of interest to me.

From the more relaxed perspective of the future I doubt that many of the things that get people exercised today will be of any great interest.

If my kids are paying high taxes to pay off the national debt GWB has accumulated, they might not know it's Dubya's fault, but it will definitely be of interest to them.

If their rights are as in much jeopardy tomorrow as mine are today, they might not know its Dubya's fault, and they might be so used to it that they don't even notice their freedoms are more diminished than they should be, that doesn't make it okay or uninteresting from a historical perspective.

Once your rights are gone, it's pretty damn hard to get them back, especially if you have grown up without them to begin with and don't know how it should be.

[Luke T.]

We're a nation that's real big on precedents, and GWB is setting an awful lot of bad ones.

That's one of the biggest reasons I hated Clinton so much.

[Ziggurat]

To be honest I think it's too late for him. Even if the Middle East turned into a paragon of democracy as a result of his actions I think it will a take sufficiently long time for a subsequent president to take the credit.

You are correct that later presidents could end up with credit for widespread reforms in the region, but if Iraq becomes democratic (without going through another Saddam in the meantime), Bush WILL get credit for that, even if it doesn't reach maturity during his term.

In my opinion outside of America Bush will be remembered as the thick guy who lied about WMD no matter what he does now or how things turn out in the future. I suspect that a good chunk of the US population will feel the same way. A similar sized chunk will feel the opposite, I presume.

That too might come to pass, depending on the ultimate success. Lincoln was widely reviled in Europe in his day, and might not be so respected even now if he hadn't won the civil war. Bush is no Lincoln, to be sure, but in the long run it's the success or failure of his efforts in the middle east that most people will care about. If those efforts bear fruit, he will be widely respected, including on the left. If they all come to naught, he will be widely reviled, including on the right. The partisan issues of the day will not matter 50 years from now.

[Melendwyr]

He's already one of the "Great" Presidents. Just like Nixon.

[President Bush]

http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/bush_proud.jpg

Being President when custom 8" wide trench drain galvanized steel grate frames with ductile iron slotted grates and stainless steel grate lockdown bolts were fearlessly installed at my daddy's airport (http://www.acousa.com/casestudies/aquaduct_case1.htm).

[Mephisto]

As with Nixon, the lines today are etched in stone and that is not really of interest to me.

From the more relaxed perspective of the future I doubt that many of the things that get people exercised today will be of any great interest.

You're probably right. Nixon was seen (long after he was gone and Watergate was forgiven) as a superb diplomat (no doubt for his dealings with the Chinese), Reagan brought down the Iron curtain and Clinton got a BJ.

[KelvinG]

At this point his only real hope to achieve "greatness" is to singlehandedly save a family from a burning building. (including the family pet which will seal the photo op)
Aside from that, he's pretty much f*cked.

[richardm]

You are correct that later presidents could end up with credit for widespread reforms in the region, but if Iraq becomes democratic (without going through another Saddam in the meantime), Bush WILL get credit for that, even if it doesn't reach maturity during his term.


... which would be fair enough of course. I wonder though whether it would be enough to ensure he was thought of as "Great". I think it's possible that with the benefit of 50 years' hindsight the way it was done - plus the domestic issues he's faced - will stack up in the debit side for him and rob him of "Greatness", even though the end result of the goings-on in Iraq turned out okay (assuming, of course, that it does).

Or perhaps they won't. I suppose we'll find out by-and-by!

[Snide]

Anything's possible I suppose. Reagan, whom I have come to like or at least appreciate somewhat, was still, in my opinion, a bad B actor at the podium who visibly shook, and yet history knows him as the "Great Communicator." So I suppose someone who, to me, is at best a candidate to run a small chain of bowling centers, could be deemed a "great" president someday.

[Manny]

At a minimum, Osama bin Laden will have to be taken into custody or his body found with the cause of death being the US military -- during Bush's term. I understand and agree with the overall Bush Doctrine, but Osama hit the Trade Center and President Bush promised to get him.

[Snide]

Ed,

I'll agree with you and I am part of that "far left". If Bush somehow transforms the Middle East into a Democracy and peace reigns there than I will consider my criticisms of Bush totally wrong and Bush and his advisors certainly had a vision of how to get there that I just did not have.

Of course, I sincerely doubt that will happen but I really would love for Bush to be correct.

LurkerCan't be. You liberals hate America. Period. :)

I'm not "far" left, but I otherwise agree. Funny how that is, being a skeptic: willing to change your position when shown compelling evidence, different circumstances, etc. We're really just a couple of flip-floppers, though, ain't we? ;)

[Mephisto]

At this point his only real hope to achieve "greatness" is to singlehandedly save a family from a burning building. (including the family pet which will seal the photo op)
Aside from that, he's pretty much f*cked.

I'm not even sure I would believe THAT wasn't just as staged as everything else we've seen. I would be skeptical of the family being related at all, I would skeptical that they even lived in the house, I would be skeptical of the authenticity of the flames (I'm sure there would be gas elements hidden somewhere) and I would even be skeptical that the family pet wasn't stuffed and Karl Rove wasn't behind the door screaming, "Oh my God! He's saved them all! What a great, great man!"

[billydkid]

If he got fatter than Taft or died tomorrow. Got it.

Aside from the flip responses, what would it take.

When this stupidity in Iraq started my thought was that he was on the razors edge and that it could go either way.

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats. Personally, I think that the far left realizes this and the idea of a military based solution to the mideast problem, particularly since they appear to have no solutions whatsoever, rankles them no end.

Could happen.

Well, really, he would have to be great human being to begin with, which is a pretty tall order for a mediocrity with delusions of grandeur.

[Chaos]

We're a nation that's real big on precedents, and GWB is setting an awful lot of bad ones.

That's one of the biggest reasons I hated Clinton so much.

You hate Clinton because Bush is setting bad precedents? :confused: ;)

[Ed]

I think that every President sets "bad" precidents. I think the end of the world is regularly predicted and after the passage of half a century (or more) the emotional issues receed and you can see what actually happened.

Lincoln was seriously hated during his lifetime, he ran roughshod over civil liberties, instituted a draft, started a war that was not universally popular, put a cap on States Rights and freed the slaves.

And now he is on the penny.

[jj]

If he got fatter than Taft or died tomorrow. Got it.

Aside from the flip responses, what would it take.

When this stupidity in Iraq started my thought was that he was on the razors edge and that it could go either way.

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats. Personally, I think that the far left realizes this and the idea of a military based solution to the mideast problem, particularly since they appear to have no solutions whatsoever, rankles them no end.

Could happen.


Just like with Sylvia Brown, I'll believe it when I see it happen.

[drkitten]

Lincoln was seriously hated during his lifetime, he ran roughshod over civil liberties, instituted a draft, started a war that was not universally popular, put a cap on States Rights and freed the slaves.


On the other hand, Harding was seriously hated for running what was regarded at the time as the single most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States.

Today, Harding's administration is regarded (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0822703.html) "as one of the most corrupt in American history."

Contemporary judgement is not always wrong. They laughed at Gallileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

[Meadmaker]

If he got fatter than Taft or died tomorrow. Got it.

Aside from the flip responses, what would it take.

When this stupidity in Iraq started my thought was that he was on the razors edge and that it could go either way.

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats. Personally, I think that the far left realizes this and the idea of a military based solution to the mideast problem, particularly since they appear to have no solutions whatsoever, rankles them no end.

Could happen.

I was optimistic at the beginning of the Iraq war that this could happen. However, I am now a real pessimist. I hope I'm wrong. I hope real democracy will come from this, and if it does, he'll be among the greats, but I don't expect it.

[Mephisto]

At a minimum, Osama bin Laden will have to be taken into custody or his body found with the cause of death being the US military -- during Bush's term. I understand and agree with the overall Bush Doctrine, but Osama hit the Trade Center and President Bush promised to get him.

Yep, it's those gol'durn tangents . . .

[Glite]

My opinion is that time will change the overall impression of Bush. I would say that people look at their leaders in a more favorable light as time goes by, unless the leader was atrocious to the point of Hitler or Stalin. Just as we Canadians have a wishy washy view of Trudeau.

But, I would say that in the here and now, Bush could improve his standing by addressing the divide that seems to be happening in the US. the differences that seem to be widening between the right and left. I suppose when you have such control, the type of control he seems to have over the US gov. at this time it takes a pretty big person to take a non-partisan approach to governing. And that may very well be a good start to healing any credibility damage he has suffered with the US.

Sorry if my impression is wrong, I am not an American and will admit that I don't know first hand about the state of politics within the US.

[Upchurch]

At a minimum, Osama bin Laden will have to be taken into custody or his body found with the cause of death being the US military -- during Bush's term. I understand and agree with the overall Bush Doctrine, but Osama hit the Trade Center and President Bush promised to get him.This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say when I read the OP. My major objection to the Iraq War (before, during and now) is that it distracts* from the OBL objective which is the primary* goal of the "War on Terror".


* my opinon

[Tricky]

How long does he have to be "great"? People tend to remember the last few presidents, but after a century or so, they forget most but the ones who presided during tumltuous times. People remember Wilson, though not much he did could be considered great. He was there when we fought WWI though, so he gets counted a lot. Teddy Roosevelt did some great things, but I'm not sure he deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore. Probably FDR must be considered great, in spite of several (IMO) poor decisions, because he changed self image of the country.

But little wars like Iraq will be swept under the rug of history. A hundred years from now, nobody will much remember anyone from Roosevelt to... well, the next truly great president... just like we don't much remember anyone from Jefferson to Lincoln or Lincoln to Teddy R. It doesn't mean they didn't do good jobs or make horrible missteps, it just wasn't enough to get them big chapters in history books.

There are, however, presidents we remember for presiding during eras of corruption, like Grant and Harding. I suspect Dubya may fall in to that kind of historical pigeonhole.

[drkitten]

But little wars like Iraq will be swept under the rug of history. A hundred years from now, nobody will much remember anyone from Roosevelt to... well, the next truly great president... just like we don't much remember anyone from Jefferson to Lincoln or Lincoln to Teddy R. It doesn't mean they didn't do good jobs or make horrible missteps, it just wasn't enough to get them big chapters in history books.

Presidents who make sweeping changes are still remembered. In the gap between Jefferson to Lincoln, you missed another "major" president who is still remembered and who gets large chapters in history books -- Andrew Jackson. Among his other accomplishments, he created both the American politican party in its modern form, and invented the "spoils" system that ruled politics until the civil service reforms of the early 20the century (and still persists today -- see Halliburton.) I similarly suspect that Reagan will still be remembered -- not necessarily positively, but certainly remembered -- for the way he reshaped the American and world political landscape.

[gnome]

My opinion is that time will change the overall impression of Bush. I would say that people look at their leaders in a more favorable light as time goes by, unless the leader was atrocious to the point of Hitler or Stalin. Just as we Canadians have a wishy washy view of Trudeau.

But, I would say that in the here and now, Bush could improve his standing by addressing the divide that seems to be happening in the US. the differences that seem to be widening between the right and left. I suppose when you have such control, the type of control he seems to have over the US gov. at this time it takes a pretty big person to take a non-partisan approach to governing. And that may very well be a good start to healing any credibility damage he has suffered with the US.

Sorry if my impression is wrong, I am not an American and will admit that I don't know first hand about the state of politics within the US.

If he were to do this, he would be truly great. However, the critical need for something like this has been apparent since he got elected... and only doubled with 9-11. In fact, he has often spoken of it, and yet his actions seem to divide the nation even further.

As much as I feel his foreign and domestic policy are incompetent, I would not see Americans or the world suffer just to prove me right. I would be among the first to applaud him if he achieves great success in the middle east. I PLAN on applauding him if his ambitious plans for NASA come to fruition.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think there are degrees of “greatness.” The rarest of great presidents were more than the sum of their accomplishments. They had not only the gift of vision, but the ability to lift the nation and compel ordinary folks to take up that vision as their own. They were articulate, courageous, and possessed of an intelligence that was unmistakable even to their enemies.

This level of greatness is simply beyond Bush. Even if the Mideast becomes a hotbed of peace and democracy, I still don’t think the man is fit to polish Lincoln’s boots.

The bigger problem, of course, is that the way the system is set up, we are unlikely ever to get a Lincoln back in office. I once heard Carl Sagan wonder despairingly why there have been no Jeffersons in the Whitehouse lo these many years. Surely he’s out there somewhere. The answer, IMHO, is that you couldn’t get the man to run in this day and age. He’d be too wise. American democracy has evolved to repulse the men and women who would be great.

[CFLarsen]

A brain would be a good start.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A brain would be a good start.

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
-GW Bush

[kalen]

You are correct that later presidents could end up with credit for widespread reforms in the region, but if Iraq becomes democratic (without going through another Saddam in the meantime), Bush WILL get credit for that, even if it doesn't reach maturity during his term.
Shouldn't it be the Iraqis that get the credit if democratic reforms take place?

[Kerberos]

Shouldn't it be the Iraqis that get the credit if democratic reforms take place?
If Iraq becomes a model democracy, I'd say there's enough credit to go around.

[Hazen]

An incompetent halfwit who hasn't mastered chew before swallowing being called 'great'?

wtf?

Will be interesting to see just how much the world is concerned about the middle east situation once the arabian oil fields are dry

[Zep]

Considering that Dubya hasn't been personally responsible for the whole Middle East "skylark" anyway, but has only been the spokespuppet for a bunch of hell-bent fundamentalists that make up his cabinet and make the real decisions...

...he will never be "great". He's done nothing but say what he's told to say, and let other people suffer the consequences and do the tough mopping up for him. Like he has done all his life. He's merely a bookmark sitting in the Oval Office until the next president arrives, that's all.

[The Fool]

A hundred years from now, nobody will much remember anyone from Roosevelt to... well, the next truly great president... just like we don't much remember anyone from Jefferson to Lincoln or Lincoln to Teddy R. It doesn't mean they didn't do good jobs or make horrible missteps, it just wasn't enough to get them big chapters in history books.


The fact that there are two of them ....father-son, means that they will be remembered, thats about it i think....

[Darat]

A miracle....

(Sorry couldn't resist.)

[a_unique_person]

If he got fatter than Taft or died tomorrow. Got it.

Aside from the flip responses, what would it take.

When this stupidity in Iraq started my thought was that he was on the razors edge and that it could go either way.

IMO, if, over the coming 5-6 years, Iraq become a centroid of democracy in the ME and in so doing creates pressure on Iran, Syria and the like he will have succeeded in cutting the ME Gordian Knot and that would, in the far future, make a place for him in the Pantheon of greats. Personally, I think that the far left realizes this and the idea of a military based solution to the mideast problem, particularly since they appear to have no solutions whatsoever, rankles them no end.

Could happen.

You are just making stuff up, aren't you?

[Orwell]

As soon as Dubya's two terms are over, neo-conservatives will start rewriting history and they will convince most americans that Dubya was a great president. They did it with Reagan...

[gnome]

Considering that Dubya hasn't been personally responsible for the whole Middle East "skylark" anyway, but has only been the spokespuppet for a bunch of hell-bent fundamentalists that make up his cabinet and make the real decisions...

...he will never be "great". He's done nothing but say what he's told to say, and let other people suffer the consequences and do the tough mopping up for him. Like he has done all his life. He's merely a bookmark sitting in the Oval Office until the next president arrives, that's all.

I have to say, if I plan to hold him responsible for being a tool when things go badly, is it not fair that I credit him with choosing the right people to listen to, if he follows their advice, and things go well?

[Zep]

I have to say, if I plan to hold him responsible for being a tool when things go badly, is it not fair that I credit him with choosing the right people to listen to, if he follows their advice, and things go well?Not if he just says what they tell him to say, and provides no redeeming social value himself. In the case of Dubya, it's clear even from this distance that both credit and blame should accrue almost exclusively to the puppeteers behind him pulling his strings. We have long since given up on him having any capacity in matters of state and power. He's merely the junior cabin-boy allowed to stand at the helm while the captain goes for a piss.

[T'ai Chi]

I think he'll be remembered as a great President for making tough decisions during difficult times.

[gnome]

I think he'll be remembered as a great President for making tough decisions during difficult times.

Which decision do you think was the hardest for him?

[RandFan]

Sadly, how a person views a president is likely to say more about an individual's world view than it does any objective standards.

I'm beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a "great" president. They were all human and made mistakes. FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans due to fear of their loyalty. So much for fear being the only thing to fear. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.

That being said I wouldn't put Bush in a league with Lincoln or FDR.

[Orwell]

That being said I wouldn't put Bush in a league with Lincoln or FDR.

I wouldn't put Dubya in a league with Bozo the clown! :D

[RandFan]

I wouldn't put Dubya in a league with Bozo the clown! :D Of course. We know that. But then we knew that based on your ideology and your adherence to the propaganda of those who share your ideology.

I know people who believe that Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc., are all in a league with Bozo the clown. I know people who believe that Dubya, Dole, Bush, Reagan, Ford, etc., are all in a league with Bozo the clown. Can you guess their respective ideologies? Sorry but that question doesn't come with any points.

On the other hand however I'm willing to entertain your opinions of any Republicans that don't mirror left leaning propaganda.

[RandFan]

Ooops. You "wouldn't" put Bush in a league with Bozo? :D

Ok, I'll lighten up. :p

[fishbob]

Sadly, how a person views a president is likely to say more about an individual's world view than it does any objective standards.

I'm beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a "great" president. They were all human and made mistakes. FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans due to fear of their loyalty. So much for fear being the only thing to fear. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.

That being said I wouldn't put Bush in a league with Lincoln or FDR.Look at the sum of FDR accomplishments, compared to the sum of the Bush accomplishments. Greatness is relative.

Everybody makes mistakes. Fewer mistakes are better. Lesser of 2 evil mistakes are better. Having actual thoughts before pronouncing decisions is better.

[RandFan]

Look at the sum of FDR accomplishments, compared to the sum of the Bush accomplishments. Greatness is relative.

Everybody makes mistakes. Fewer mistakes are better. Lesser of 2 evil mistakes are better. Having actual thoughts before pronouncing decisions is better. Good response.

[Zep]

RandFan, just to make you happy, I have little problem in saying I would have much preferred that a Republican such as Colin Powell was in the Oval Office right now to any other candidate of either stripe. Or even, at a severe pinch, Condy Rice (if she could only let go of her fundamentalist leanings for a bit). At the very least, they would give the impression that someone with a modicum of intelligence and honest maturity is at the helm, and who actually understands the gravity and responsibility of the position.

To us out here, it's not whether the US president is Republican or Democrat, or "right" or "left", or whatever. It's their ability to do the job in a responsible, mature and statesmanlike fashion, to make decisions that make clear benefit to their country first, and to represent their country in a manner that commands respect at home and overseas. Most of the US presidents I have any knowledge of (i.e. back to Kennedy) have met those criteria, at least in some respects. Some have in spades, even as they were undermined by their own personal foibles and pecadillos. Dubya has never met any of these criteria, and still hasn't. He is a boy sent to do a man's job.

[Ed]

Look at the sum of FDR accomplishments, compared to the sum of the Bush accomplishments. Greatness is relative.

Everybody makes mistakes. Fewer mistakes are better. Lesser of 2 evil mistakes are better. Having actual thoughts before pronouncing decisions is better.

FDR refused to deal with the Nazi's, allying us with britain thus causing us to fight a two front war. His lack of respect for the japanese probably forced them to try to take out the pacific fleet for self defence. He ok'ed terror/firebombing of Japan, he interned the Japanese and be caused the development of the a bomb. He espoused "unconditional surrender" thus prolonging the war and causing many civilian deaths.

[T'ai Chi]

Which decision do you think was the hardest for him?

I not sure how to rate them on a scale.

[RandFan]

Most of the US presidents I have any knowledge of (i.e. back to Kennedy) have met those criteria, at least in some respects. Some have in spades, even as they were undermined by their own personal foibles and pecadillos. Dubya has never met any of these criteria, and still hasn't. He is a boy sent to do a man's job.Interesting. If you found out that someone disagreed with you what would you think of that persons ability to reason?

[Manny]

FDR refused to deal with the Nazi's, allying us with britain thus causing us to fight a two front war. His lack of respect for the japanese probably forced them to try to take out the pacific fleet for self defence. He ok'ed terror/firebombing of Japan, he interned the Japanese and be caused the development of the a bomb. He espoused "unconditional surrender" thus prolonging the war and causing many civilian deaths.Tried to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies, taxed the poor for the first time in history, inaugurated chronic deficit spending (even after all those tax increases on the middle class!), socialized loss (while leaving profits private) among banks, and started the Social Security ponzi scheme even though he knew it was doomed to actuarial failure.

[Tricky]

As soon as Dubya's two terms are over, neo-conservatives will start rewriting history and they will convince most americans that Dubya was a great president. They did it with Reagan...
That is simply not true.

They started it before Reagan's two terms were over.

[davefoc]

Let's see.

I would say Bush spends like the proverbial drunken sailor in a whorehouse, but I have personal experience as a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, and Bush makes me look like an amateur.

Yeah. Bush's only hope for greatness is in Iraq.

Good luck with that!

This sums it up pretty much for me.

Bush, is probably the worst president of my life. His administration has been driven by politics more than any I can remember.

The whole Katrina response was not, I think, an aberation. Politics is what drives this administration, good government is only a driver when it satisfies the political goals. He has not shown the slightest willingness to reel in a corrupt congress addicted to spending. The voters of California rejected Gray Davis for exactly this kind of crony relationship with the Democratic state government.

And he took the country into a war that has been both enormously costly and probably futile. It was a decision that I suspect no other individual that might have been elected would have made.

The consequences of a positive outcome in Iraq might be huge. But I think what is most likely now is a confused situation for many years to come. It is hard to say that the consequences of a fundamentalist Shiite regime, resisted by the Sunnis and ignored by the Kurds will be better or not for all the relevant parties than the Hussein regime was. But when one factors in the coaliton deaths and injuries, the Iraqi deaths and injuries and the staggering economic costs of this war, it is a pretty good bet that almost everybody involved would have been better off if Bush hadn't been elected.

But, if the Iraq war was a good idea then Bush was a great president for taking the path that almost no one else would have. I doubt that it was, but even if it was it is almost inconceivable that we will ever be able to know that it was a good idea. But the situation will be confused enough that Bush partisans will be able to argue that it was a good idea and for the war opponents to feel completely vindicated.

[varwoche]

A wayback machine and a brain transplant.

[peptoabysmal]

All it would take is one little document taken from Iraq linking Saddam with 9/11 and, compared to the last decade or so of presidents, he would come out looking like a saint.

But you know how the lefties are; if Bush walked on water, they would accuse him of not being able to swim. :D

[Kerberos]

I honestly think there are two criterias for becoming recognized as a great President (or PM) . First you need a great huge big crisis, preferably a war. WW2 did it for Churchill and FDR, the Civil war did it for Lincoln. Secondly you need to solve that crisis. Whether you won because you were ever so brilliant or becuase you country had more guns than the other country, probably matters less. Based on that I'll say Bush willbe considered great if Iraq turns out well, whether he handled it badly or well, though not as great as FDR for the simple reason that his crisis was smaller than FDR's.I honestly think there are two criteria for becoming recognized as a great President (or PM). First you need a great huge big crisis, preferably a war. WW2 did it for Churchill and FDR, the Civil war did it for Lincoln. Secondly you need to solve that crisis. Whether you won because you were ever so brilliant, or because you country had more guns than the other country, probably matters less. Based on that I'll say Bush will be considered great if Iraq turns out well, whether he handled it badly or well, though not as great as FDR for the simple reason that his crisis was smaller than FDR's. Actually being utterly brilliant probably doesn’t hurt, but without a huge crisis to deal with you’ll never make it into the history books

[fishbob]

FDR refused to deal with the Nazi's, allying us with britain thus causing us to fight a two front war. His lack of respect for the japanese probably forced them to try to take out the pacific fleet for self defence. He ok'ed terror/firebombing of Japan, he interned the Japanese and be caused the development of the a bomb. He espoused "unconditional surrender" thus prolonging the war and causing many civilian deaths.

See, I knew you liked FDR.

Look closely at your list. Did he make reasoned choices based on the options and knowledge available to him? Does Bush?

[Zep]

Interesting. If you found out that someone disagreed with you what would you think of that persons ability to reason?:confused: Sorry, RF, but I'm failing to see the relevance of that question to my own comment. I suppose you can put it in context for me?

However I've already pointed out that the red/blue internal political allegience thing means very little as far as the US president is perceived out here. We look to see how well the incumbent does the job, not which political party he belongs to while doing it. Dubya consistently scores 0/10 so far. If he was a Democrat, he would STILL be 0/10. So what?

[Darat]

:confused: Sorry, RF, but I'm failing to see the relevance of that question to my own comment. I suppose you can put it in context for me?

However I've already pointed out that the red/blue internal political allegience thing means very little as far as the US president is perceived out here. We look to see how well the incumbent does the job, not which political party he belongs to while doing it. Dubya consistently scores 0/10 so far. If he was a Democrat, he would STILL be 0/10. So what?

I'd just second this. From my viewpoint - and of most people I know who I discuss this type of thing with - it is very hard to distinguish between your two parties and certainly the party he belongs to has no relevance to us for what we think about him.

[a_unique_person]

I think he'll be remembered as a great President for making tough decisions during difficult times.

Completely the opposite, IMHO. He is an incredibly weak president, who just goes with the solution that best fits his prejudices.

It doesn't take strength to unleash the most powerful armed forces on the planet. It takes great strength and wisdom to use that power the best way it can be used. The Cuba crises could so easily have been a total disaster, if the hotheads had been listened to.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which decision do you think was the hardest for him?

Which shoes to wear this morning?

[Mephisto]

An incompetent halfwit who hasn't mastered chew before swallowing being called 'great'?

wtf?

Will be interesting to see just how much the world is concerned about the middle east situation once the arabian oil fields are dry

:)

My thoughts exactly! I wonder if Democracy in the middle east will be as important as promoting Democracy in Sudan once the oil is gone? The important thing is, the oil WILL BE gone someday and we Americans are doing all we can to hasten that - now if we could get the Europeans to quit making pissy little cars and start making the equivalent of the Lincoln Navigator we might get somewhere! ;)

BTW, welcome to the forum. :)

[Mephisto]

Which decision do you think was the hardest for him?

That's a tough one! I would say it would be a run-off between:

A. proclaiming himself President under a mandate from heaven while ignoring election scandals

B. lying to the American people about WMD

C. deciding to "conquer" Iraq instead of hunting for Bin Laden (remember him?)

D. deciding whether to put Michael Brown or Spongebob Squarepants in charge of FEMA

E. to try and put newly-coined words like "suiciders" into common usage

F. to show the children of America that; anyone whose father is immensely rich, who can be shuffled out of Harvard with a degree, who father's political ties extend to several Republican administrations, whose military career defies close scrutiny, whose drug usage is still questioned and whose campaign is supported by the richest, most criminal men in the country can become President.

[gnome]

I not sure how to rate them on a scale.

That's all right, can you give me a few of the ones you thought were really difficult for him?

[Nyarlathotep]

Unfortunately for him, I think the Greatness ship has already sailed for him. I think the absolute best he can hope for now is a mixed legacy like Nixon where people regard him as an utter a-hole but concede he did some good.

The problem for him is, I think, that most of his legacy will be staked on the "War on Terror" and on the Middle East. The problem is, this late in the game, barring a miracle of some sort, there isn't enough time for him to make a good name for himself on that front. Even if he is completely in the right in his policies in regards to the WOT and the Middle East, the best he can accomplish is to set some future president up for greatness.

Right now the Middle East is a festering hellhole and I doubt it will be anything but by the time he leaves office. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the policies he has set in place there work 100% as advertised and in five or ten or twenty years it's a wonderful example of peace, democracy and free ponies for everyone. He won't get credit for that, whoever is president five or ten or twenty years from now will. That's just the way public perception works. Even in that rosy scenario, he will only be credited by pedantic history buffs who will point out that he set up the policies that this future president uses.

[Mark]

Republicans already consider Bush to be a great president, and always will no matter what. He's a Republican.

[Mephisto]

I not sure how to rate them on a scale.

How about #1 being the ability to discern the difference between Tony Blair and a pigeon and #10 could be, ummmmm, . . . deciding to commit troops to die in a war based on lies?

[RandFan]

:confused: Sorry, RF, but I'm failing to see the relevance of that question to my own comment. I suppose you can put it in context for me? Your post is so absolute. You leave no room whatsoever for disagreement. It would seem, reading your post, that anyone who disagreed is unreasonable. I was trying to find out if that is the case. That's all.

Dubya has never met any of these criteria, and still hasn't. He is a boy sent to do a man's job. So, is this just opinion or is it a conclusion based on objective evidence that could only lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion?

[RandFan]

I'd just second this. From my viewpoint - and of most people I know who I discuss this type of thing with - it is very hard to distinguish between your two parties and certainly the party he belongs to has no relevance to us for what we think about him. I'm really not certain of the relevance. Would you otherwise identify with Bush's policies? I hate to break the news to you but Bush is iconic, to a large degree of the Republican party. And yes, there are Republicans who sincerly do not like Bush. But most do. There are Democrats that do like Bush but most don't.

It's easy to sit there and and say that you are unfamiliar with American politics but come on, surely you must have some inkling of what the man stands for. Were you able to understand any differences between Dean and Bush? Kerry and Bush? Clinton and George H.W. Bush? Are there any presidents or American politicians that you did like? I'm assuming if you know them then FDR and Lincoln are a given. Anyone else? Are there any American policies that you like or dislike?

FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2. If you know them who did you like?

I have a strong suspicion if we get below the surface that you are far more likely to identify with the left in this country than the right. And I don't have a problem with that. It's just that I have become rather skeptical of people when their ideology is on the line. That is when wooism kicks in even for many who are normaly critical thinkers.

How would we know that we are being honest with ourselves when it comes to our ideological beliefs?

[RandFan]

Republicans already consider Bush to be a great president, and always will no matter what. He's a Republican. And Democrats already consider him one of the worst presidents ever and always will no matter what. Mark, the sword always seems to only cut one way with you.

[Darat]

I'm really not certain of the relevance. Would you otherwise identify with Bush's policies? I hate to break the news to you but Bush is iconic, to a large degree of the Republican party. And yes, there are Republicans who sincerly do not like Bush. But most do. There are Democrats that do like Bush but most don't.


What I was saying is that we judge Bush not through the filters of any party loyalty but rather simply on what we can see. Whether he is Republican or Democrat makes no difference. (See some points below)


It's easy to sit there and and say that you are unfamiliar with American politics but come on, surely you must have some inkling of what the man stands for. Were you able to understand any differences between Dean and Bush? Kerry and Bush? Clinton and George H.W. Bush?


The honest answer is for me on this side of the Atlantic what you see as black and white differences I see as trying to distinguish between two shades of grey.


I have a strong suspicion if we get below the surface that you are far more likely to identify with the left in this country than the right. And I don't have a problem with that. It's just that I have become rather skeptical of people when their ideology is on the line. That is when wooism kicks in even for many who are normaly critical thinkers.

How would we know that we are being honest with ourselves when it comes to our ideological beliefs?

Which left? This is the point I don't think you get but in the USA you have the choice of two far right (in UK terms) parties, you do not have a mainstream party that can be defined as "left". (And I suspect this is the viewpoint of many people from the EU.)

[RandFan]

Which left? This is the point I don't think you get but in the USA you have the choice of two far right (in UK terms) parties, you do not have a mainstream party that can be defined as "left". (And I suspect this is the viewpoint of many people from the EU.) I realize that there is this false dichotomy. I don't deny it. However I'm reasonably certain that if we could get you to comment on your preferred politicians and preferred policies that you would fall on the left side of American politics. If you were to move here and involve yourself with politics I'm guessing you would identify with the left. You would be far more likely to vote for Democrat politicians than Republican ones. Just because American politics don't dovetail with UK politics is hardly a reason to claim you couldn't likely identify with either side.

Thanks anyway.

[Darat]

I realize that there is this false dichotomy. I don't deny it. However I'm reasonably certain that if we could get you to comment on your preferred politicians and preferred policies that you would fall on the left side of American politics. If you were to move here and involve yourself with politics I'm guessing you would identify with the left. You would be far more likely to vote for Democrat politicians than Republican ones. Just because American politics don't dovetail with UK politics is hardly a reason to claim you couldn't likely identify with either side.

Thanks anyway.

But you don't have a left to identify with! That's what I was meaning what you call left to me is still a far right position. Now because my political ideology is no longer left (e.g. socialist) leaning but pragmatic (to deliver on what I think should be done) I could support policies from the Republicans, Liberal Democrats, Communist party and so on. But could I support either the Democrat or Republican party in the USA - the answer is no.

[davefoc]

Republicans already consider Bush to be a great president, and always will no matter what. He's a Republican.
I wonder what the truth is. I assume by Republican you mean registered Republicans that are not part of the Party aparatus.

I think registered Republicans can be roughly divided into two groups:
1. Fiscal and Economic conservatives, social moderates
2. Social conservatives that are in varying degrees fiscal and economic conservatives.

Most of the Republicans that participate in this forum are most likely to be in the first group.

My guess is that very few people that see themselves in the first group would consider Bush a great president. Some of them (such as myself) think that he is one of the worst presidents of all time. A few of them, who still believe that the general direction of Bush administration foreign policy has been good might tend to see the Bush presidency as good but even they can't be too happy with massive deficits or foreign policy snafus like the no WMD mess. I think my dad is in the first group of Republicans and maybe his view is more typical than his son's of Bush. He sees the foreign policy as largely a success since we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since 9/11, but still he's pretty skeptical of the guy.

It is in the second group that one would find a number of people that think Bush might be a great president. He's fighting the good fight for the social conservative cause. He's succeeded in getting one anti-abortion supreme court judge approved and is on the cusp of getting a second one approved. He is fighting to keep the gays from being able to marry. He favors teaching ID in the schools. He is also strong on two groups of issues that the rural social conservatives care about. His administration has precided over a huge run up in agricultural subidies and his administration is perceived as resisting many of the environmental restrictions that piss off people in rural areas. Without a major economic collapse or Iraq turning into an obvious and massive disaster this group of people is going to think very highly of Bush.

[RandFan]

But you don't have a left to identify with! That's what I was meaning what you call left to me is still a far right position. Now because my political ideology is no longer left (e.g. socialist) leaning but pragmatic (to deliver on what I think should be done) I could support policies from the Republicans, Liberal Democrats, Communist party and so on. But could I support either the Democrat or Republican party in the USA - the answer is no. Ok, fair enough.

Thanks,

Randfan.

[RandFan]

I wonder what the truth is. I assume by Republican you mean registered Republicans that are not part of the Party aparatus.

I think registered Republicans can be roughly divided into two groups:
1. Fiscal and Economic conservatives, social moderates
2. Social conservatives that are in varying degrees fiscal and economic conservatives.

Most of the Republicans that participate in this forum are most likely to be in the first group.

My guess is that very few people that see themselves in the first group would consider Bush a great president. Some of them (such as myself) think that he is one of the worst presidents of all time. A few of them, who still believe that the general direction of Bush administration foreign policy has been good might tend to see the Bush presidency as good but even they can't be too happy with massive deficits or foreign policy snafus like the no WMD mess. I think my dad is in the first group of Republicans and maybe his view is more typical than his son's of Bush. He sees the foreign policy as largely a success since we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since 9/11, but still he's pretty skeptical of the guy.

It is in the second group that one would find a number of people that think Bush might be a great president. He's fighting the good fight for the social conservative cause. He's succeeded in getting one anti-abortion supreme court judge approved and is on the cusp of getting a second one approved. He is fighting to keep the gays from being able to marry. He favors teaching ID in the schools. He is also strong on two groups of issues that the rural social conservatives care about. His administration has precided over a huge run up in agricultural subidies and his administration is perceived as resisting many of the environmental restrictions that piss off people in rural areas. Without a major economic collapse or Iraq turning into an obvious and massive disaster this group of people is going to think very highly of Bush. Good post. I largely agree. I don't think Bush is a great president. I think there are some troubling issues particularly ones that deal with fundamental principles concerning freedom. Also, there was some cronyism that simply went beyond the pale. Clinton also had some problematic cronyism which is a sore spot with me. And the spending is simply way out of hand.

That being said, I think 9/11 was a defining moment. On many fronts Bush failed. I don't think he failed in his search for Osama btw. There is only so much you can do before you reach a point of diminishing returns searching for a single man in a giant wilderness amongst people who want to protect him.

Bush failed on the domestic front. He didn't make the ports safer. He didn't make high risk facilities safer. In many areas we are no better than day one. Katrina demonstrated just how bad America was prepared to deal with a large scale disaster. I give Bush a D- for domestic preparedness. Creating a new agency, Homeland Security, did little to solve systemic problems. It truly baffles me how so little was done and causes one to wonder if safety from terrorism was truly a priority.

On the foreign front. Bush did pretty much what needed to have been done. Afghanistan and Iraq sent precisely the message that needed to be sent. We were not going to lay back and not respond in a bold way. There will not be equivocation. If you strike we will strike back.

Yes, it is true that there was no WMD. There was no Al Qaeda link. Yes, Iraq can be argued to have stirred the passions of Muslims. I don't think there is any way around that. Afghanistan alone stirred those passions.

Great? No, I can't soberly claim he is or will ever be known as great. But I certainly don't see Bush as the caricature that everyone wants to paint him to be. Sorry folks, it aint going to happen.

[Just thinking]

Yes, it is true that there was no WMD. There was no Al Qaeda link. Yes, Iraq can be argued to have stirred the passions of Muslims. I don't think there is any way around that. Afghanistan alone stirred those passions.

If I may ... I think that a brief look at recent history will show that those passions were well stirred up prior to 9-11 and our response. It's like saying that swatting at stirring hornets once they left the hive and are after you is what's causing them to sting.

[bob_kark]

I have a serious question to the conservative minded among our group. It seems that the majority in this thread has been about what Bush has done wrong. IYO, what has Bush done during his two terms that you would consider great or at least good?

[Orwell]

I have a serious question to the conservative minded among our group. It seems that the majority in this thread has been about what Bush has done wrong. IYO, what has Bush done during his two terms that you would consider great or at least good?

Everything the "liberals" think he has done wrong... ;)

[Orwell]

Putting Iraq and Afghanistan in the same sentence is disingenuous, not to say dishonest. You can argue that invading Afghanistan was striking back for the 9/11 events. You cannot say the same about Iraq.

[Just thinking]

OK, seriously, (and I do not think everything he has done/not done is great or even best for the country), his response to 9-11. The bringing down of Saddam, who was legally able to be invaded by his violation of umteen UN resolutions independent of WMD's. Domestically, a bit of tax relief, plus doing what he feels best to fight terrorist actions against the US, its allies and its interests.

This, of course is very general and brief.

[Manny]

I have a serious question to the conservative minded among our group. It seems that the majority in this thread has been about what Bush has done wrong. IYO, what has Bush done during his two terms that you would consider great or at least good?Good question.

The invasion of Iraq was long overdue and a good idea. Even the execution isn't as bad as people say it is -- anyone remember the predictions of tens of thousands of American dead and street-to-street fighting with the Republican Guard? Between Iraq and Afganistan Bush will have finished his term having delivered 50 million people from the yoke of tyranny. In terms of numbers that's behind Reagan and Roosevelt but ahead of Lincoln. Not too shabby.

No Child Left Behind was and is a great idea which over time will remake the el-hi education system in this country. It'll need some rejiggering along the way. But the philosophical change of demanding performance from schools cannot be overstated. It's worth noting that this was a bipartisan victory -- a lot of brave Democrats stood up to some of their biggest backers to make NCLB happen and deserve credit for that.

The Medicaid prescription benefit was a horrible, horrible idea. But it was exactly as horrible as Social Security and most people consider that to have been a success. Let's hope that the definition of "success" in this area doesn't include increasing the taxes tenfold to fund the thing. This was another bipartisan success. (Note that all of the bipartisan successes occurred prior to 9-11. I firmly believe that the reality of 9-12 drove Democrats, as a group, insane.)

After a poor start, he seems to be getting the message on tariffs and has done a good job on the subject lately. He's got a real chance of having that be a net success for his administration just as it was for Clinton.

Both tax cuts, particularly the second one, were enormous successes and deserve to be extended into the future.

Despite a terrible gaffe with one of his proposed nominees (Miers), Bush will have sent two extremely qualified conservative jurists to the Supreme Court.

People really seem to like the idea of going to Mars. If we ever get there he'll obviously be due some credit for getting the ball rolling, even if it's another President's name which will be on the plaque when the thing lands (a la Nixon on the moon).

[Just thinking]

People really seem to like the idea of going to Mars. If we ever get there he'll obviously be due some credit for getting the ball rolling, even if it's another President's name which will be on the plaque when the thing lands (a la Nixon on the moon).

I don't think it will be forgotten what Kennedy said about sending a man to the moon and back before the decade was out -- hence, if we get there History will remember G.W.

[davefoc]

I have a serious question to the conservative minded among our group. It seems that the majority in this thread has been about what Bush has done wrong. IYO, what has Bush done during his two terms that you would consider great or at least good?
Good question and I'd like to take a shot although I am afraid that many of the conservatives in this forum don't think I belong in the club any more.

I thought manny made a nice list and I thought I'd base my response on his.

The invasion of Iraq was long overdue and a good idea. Even the execution isn't as bad as people say it is -- anyone remember the predictions of tens of thousands of American dead and street-to-street fighting with the Republican Guard? Between Iraq and Afganistan Bush will have finished his term having delivered 50 million people from the yoke of tyranny. In terms of numbers that's behind Reagan and Roosevelt but ahead of Lincoln. Not too shabby.
Disagree here with Manny. The net result of this war is not likely to be an Iraq that is any more beneficial to US interests than Hussein's. We have just spent thousands of Coaltion and Iraqi lives to end up exchanging one set of uncertainties wiith another.

No Child Left Behind was and is a great idea which over time will remake the el-hi education system in this country. It'll need some rejiggering along the way. But the philosophical change of demanding performance from schools cannot be overstated. It's worth noting that this was a bipartisan victory -- a lot of brave Democrats stood up to some of their biggest backers to make NCLB happen and deserve credit for that.
Disagree here with Manny. Education and welfare is something the federal government should have very little to do with. I think this is best left completely to the states. I think Manny's view here is a little unconservative. Maybe we fellow conservatives need to examine whether Manny really qualifies for membership in the club based on his ideas here.

The Medicaid prescription benefit was a horrible, horrible idea. But it was exactly as horrible as Social Security and most people consider that to have been a success. Let's hope that the definition of "success" in this area doesn't include increasing the taxes tenfold to fund the thing. This was another bipartisan success. (Note that all of the bipartisan successes occurred prior to 9-11. I firmly believe that the reality of 9-12 drove Democrats, as a group, insane.)
Basically agree, I don't think socialized medicine is an absolutely bad idea but socialized medicine designed to benefit the suppliers more than the patients seems like the worst of both worlds. That Manny can see something good here for Bush because some day the plan might be changed into something beneficial for the country is small praise indeed.

After a poor start, he seems to be getting the message on tariffs and has done a good job on the subject lately. He's got a real chance of having that be a net success for his administration just as it was for Clinton.
Bush made a little foray into protectionism for compeltely political reasons, got his fingers burned a bit and decided not to mess with it again. So, agree with Manny on this one.

Both tax cuts, particularly the second one, were enormous successes and deserve to be extended into the future. I don't have a clear cut ideological view on this. Tax cuts when the tax rates are above the tax income maximization point on the laffer curve are clearly a good idea even when the country is running deficits. Tax cuts that will reduce net income to the treasury when the country is running huge deficits seem questionable to me. If Bush had stepped up to the plate and confronted congress's big spending ways I would have seen the tax cuts as an unqualified good. As it is I think they may reduce the strength and stability of the country and they may be some of the cause for our trade deficits.

Despite a terrible gaffe with one of his proposed nominees (Miers), Bush will have sent two extremely qualified conservative jurists to the Supreme Court.

Is Roberts a conservative in the sense of being a jurist constrained by the literal words of the constitution or is Roberts a social conservative? Right now based on his vote against the right of Oregon to ennact an assisted suicide law he is looking like a social conservative that isn't going to be particularly constrained by the constitution. Does Manny think this is a good thing?

People really seem to like the idea of going to Mars. If we ever get there he'll obviously be due some credit for getting the ball rolling, even if it's another President's name which will be on the plaque when the thing lands (a la Nixon on the moon).
I don't have an opinion on this one. If we go to Mars fine, I'll enjoy the adventure. If we don't, fine, I'll be happy that we didn't spend the money.

Just to add one of my own:
I thought Bush handled the 9-11 disaster well (after he finished reading to the elementary school kids of course). He had the right brand of optimism and pragmatism that allowed the country to quickly overcome its grief and begin looking forward again.

I thought the handling of Afghanistan was gutsy and skillful. I would give him the high praise for that.

[Mark]

I wonder what the truth is. I assume by Republican you mean registered Republicans that are not part of the Party aparatus.

I think registered Republicans can be roughly divided into two groups:
1. Fiscal and Economic conservatives, social moderates
2. Social conservatives that are in varying degrees fiscal and economic conservatives.

Most of the Republicans that participate in this forum are most likely to be in the first group.

My guess is that very few people that see themselves in the first group would consider Bush a great president. Some of them (such as myself) think that he is one of the worst presidents of all time. A few of them, who still believe that the general direction of Bush administration foreign policy has been good might tend to see the Bush presidency as good but even they can't be too happy with massive deficits or foreign policy snafus like the no WMD mess. I think my dad is in the first group of Republicans and maybe his view is more typical than his son's of Bush. He sees the foreign policy as largely a success since we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since 9/11, but still he's pretty skeptical of the guy.

It is in the second group that one would find a number of people that think Bush might be a great president. He's fighting the good fight for the social conservative cause. He's succeeded in getting one anti-abortion supreme court judge approved and is on the cusp of getting a second one approved. He is fighting to keep the gays from being able to marry. He favors teaching ID in the schools. He is also strong on two groups of issues that the rural social conservatives care about. His administration has precided over a huge run up in agricultural subidies and his administration is perceived as resisting many of the environmental restrictions that piss off people in rural areas. Without a major economic collapse or Iraq turning into an obvious and massive disaster this group of people is going to think very highly of Bush.

If you conduct a poll among registered Republicans, I suspect you will find that the majority of them will favor Bush over any Democrat. Given Bush's record (massive federal deficits, thousands dead, etc.) I find that completely mystifying...especially so since these were the very issues they used against Democrats for years. Proving that the average Republican voter cares about their party, not the issues at all.

Partisan Democrats are just as bad...just not as common.

[Orwell]

I don't think it will be forgotten what Kennedy said about sending a man to the moon and back before the decade was out -- hence, if we get there History will remember G.W.

Gotta get there first! Frankly, I thought Dubya's was full of faeces on that one, and I'm a strong proponent of manned missions! He tells NASA "we're gonna get to Mars" but he doesn't give NASA the means to start even seriously going that way. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

I'm increasingly starting to believe that the first human on Mars won't be an American.

One thing that I find to be particularly annoying with the Bush administration is their blatant disregard for Scientific research.

[T'ai Chi]

That's all right, can you give me a few of the ones you thought were really difficult for him?

I don't really care to.

Just expressing my opinion.

[a_unique_person]

Good question.

The invasion of Iraq was long overdue and a good idea. Even the execution isn't as bad as people say it is -- anyone remember the predictions of tens of thousands of American dead and street-to-street fighting with the Republican Guard? Between Iraq and Afganistan Bush will have finished his term having delivered 50 million people from the yoke of tyranny. In terms of numbers that's behind Reagan and Roosevelt but ahead of Lincoln. Not too shabby.

Counting your chickens before they are hatched. No one knows how this will turn out still. It is still what it always was, a huge gamble.

[Renfield]

Admit his incompetence and resign. That would truly be a noble act, and people should think highly of him if he had the integrity to do that. Not that it would be enough to make him a great President.

[Mycroft]

The invasion of Iraq was long overdue and a good idea. Even the execution isn't as bad as people say it is -- anyone remember the predictions of tens of thousands of American dead and street-to-street fighting with the Republican Guard? Between Iraq and Afganistan Bush will have finished his term having delivered 50 million people from the yoke of tyranny. In terms of numbers that's behind Reagan and Roosevelt but ahead of Lincoln. Not too shabby.

I’m unsure about the invasion of Iraq. I think it’s great that 25 million people were freed from the rule of Saddam Hussein, but I’m reserving judgment about the long-term benefit. I’m cautiously optimistic about where they’re going and I hope for the best, but I can’t quite bring myself to say the invasion itself was a good idea.


No Child Left Behind was and is a great idea which over time will remake the el-hi education system in this country. It'll need some rejiggering along the way. But the philosophical change of demanding performance from schools cannot be overstated. It's worth noting that this was a bipartisan victory -- a lot of brave Democrats stood up to some of their biggest backers to make NCLB happen and deserve credit for that.

I don’t think I agree. From the point of view of the educators I’ve spoken too, it seems to act more as a club to punish schools that are already having problems.


The Medicaid prescription benefit was a horrible, horrible idea. But it was exactly as horrible as Social Security and most people consider that to have been a success. Let's hope that the definition of "success" in this area doesn't include increasing the taxes tenfold to fund the thing. This was another bipartisan success. (Note that all of the bipartisan successes occurred prior to 9-11. I firmly believe that the reality of 9-12 drove Democrats, as a group, insane.)

Agree.


After a poor start, he seems to be getting the message on tariffs and has done a good job on the subject lately. He's got a real chance of having that be a net success for his administration just as it was for Clinton.

Agree.


Both tax cuts, particularly the second one, were enormous successes and deserve to be extended into the future.

Hmmm… I can’t say I agree here.


Despite a terrible gaffe with one of his proposed nominees (Miers), Bush will have sent two extremely qualified conservative jurists to the Supreme Court.

I can’t really say this is a good thing that he’s done. He’s expected to make extremely qualified selections.


People really seem to like the idea of going to Mars. If we ever get there he'll obviously be due some credit for getting the ball rolling, even if it's another President's name which will be on the plaque when the thing lands (a la Nixon on the moon).

I can’t agree with this. If he provided funding, maybe, but he hasn’t. That makes it nothing more than a joke.

[gnome]

I don't really care to.

Just expressing my opinion.

As you please.

[Just thinking]

Gotta get there first! Frankly, I thought Dubya's was full of faeces on that one, and I'm a strong proponent of manned missions! He tells NASA "we're gonna get to Mars" but he doesn't give NASA the means to start even seriously going that way. He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

I'll be fair and give him to the end of his 2nd term ... mentioning it is at least a first step.

[EatatJoes]

But, if the Iraq war was a good idea then Bush was a great president for taking the path that almost no one else would have. I doubt that it was, but even if it was it is almost inconceivable that we will ever be able to know that it was a good idea. But the situation will be confused enough that Bush partisans will be able to argue that it was a good idea and for the war opponents to feel completely vindicated.

If going into Iraq ends up being the best thing for the ME, the only credit Bush gets is that he got LUCKY. That's it. The man doesn't know his @sshole from a hole in a wall. He's stubborn to the point of sheer stupidity.

[Ed]

If going into Iraq ends up being the best thing for the ME, the only credit Bush gets is that he got LUCKY. That's it. The man doesn't know his @sshole from a hole in a wall. He's stubborn to the point of sheer stupidity.

The reason for success is irrelevant. Stubborness, for a winner, is viewed as determination.

[Mephisto]

The reason for success is irrelevant. Stubborness, for a winner, is viewed as determination.

Yes, and walking around with your arms bowed out as though you're ready to draw your guns is viewed as a tough Texas attitude except by those of us who quit playing, "Cowboys & Indians" when we were nine.

Stubborness and inciting violence should be seen for what it is - pig-headed, mean-spirited bullying.