Is Bush The Worst President...In The Last 50 Years?

You don't have to plan these things
you simple have to DO NOTHING

If I know someone is going to burn my house down
but
I really want it burned . . because i'm behind on the mortgage and could
use the insurance money.

I simply pack up my stuff. . . goto the country for a weekend
and let it happen . . .

I didn't cause it
but. . . I did allow it to happen because it benefits me

Rocket River

 

What specifically do you think made him a failure. I mentioned the good things that he did. I haven't seen too many specific examples of the bad. What makes him the worst?

 

But that is the point. All of the other presidents had the chance for their policies to become history. Bush has not. It would only be fair if he were judged after the fact like the others were.

It could also be that by then we find out exactly how damaging his policies were.

 

Stag-flation.

Dios Mio!

You also could say he fail to lead. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, yet Carter had a fairly acrimonious relationship with them. (I suspect that the bottomline here is that the Democrats in Congress had power for so long and did not like the idea of sharing it, even with a Democratic President.)

 

edit: I agree. The policies of our government have to play out before we know their full ramifications

 

Yes I agree with you. I don't think that those failures put him near the bottom of all the Presidents we have had even in the last 50 years.

His ideas were right. We should've been conserving, we should have been making more fuel efficient cars, and Carter spoke about that and tried to institute it, and people hated him. He should have been a leader and been ale to make people see the wisdom in what he was saying.

But he didn't escalate Viet Nam, he didn't authroize break-ins, and then illegally use his power to strike out and keep tabs on his enemies. He didn't start a war that shouldn't have been started. He didn't go on a wild spending spree while cutting taxes for the wealthiest in the nation. He didn't try and overstep checks and balances. He didn't attack any carribean isles that weren't going to be a threat, or mine the harbors of any sovereign nations, or veto sanctions against a South African govt. that was practicing Apartheid.

He did help bring peace to middle east which is totally amazing. And he did uphold U.S. agreements regarding the Panama Canal, and increase our standing in Latin America.

He certainly wasn't near the top, but neither would I say he was the worst. I guess it is just the criteria I look at when judging.

 

Why is it nobody gives credit to Clinton for 8 years of prosperity but everybody gives credit to Carter for "stag-flation."

Everybody who defends these type of statements always says a president inherits the prior presidents' economic actions. That's what all the Bush supporters said when our economomy slipped when W came into office.

 

besides the lewinsky scandal, and regardless if he did nothing right, why doesn't he at least get more cred for being the charismatic captain of the american ship in a time of prosperity and good will?

 

Because, I think serious economists attribute it to the largest expansion of credit in our history, the Fed created the market bubble, the dot.com bubble and the real estate bubble on his watch. Add to this the Chinese factor came on his watch which basically flooded the economy with cheap goods to consume.

The Clinton economy was the 'Years of the Consumer" we borrowed, we spent, we partied!

It wasn't anything Clinton did, it is how the Feds ran those years. Presidents don't make a difference on an economy they are controlled by the powers of the central banks.

If you want to give credit or blame- look to the Federal Reserve- control of money supply, credit and stability of currency are the key factors.

All Clinton did was give us a great personality and some nice National Enquirer behavior.

I think Clinton and Bush are interchangeable- they each could do nicely what the other did (except maybe some of the extracurricular personal stuff)

Bush seems to have more good old fashioned respectfulness and good manners.
Clinton seems to have had the bright, intelligent charisma.

 

Whether it is right or wrong, presidents get credit for the economy. It also goes into how the Presidents will eventually be rated.

 

carter really shouldn't get that much blame for the economy. american companies, not just the auto industry were having hard to adjusting to foreign competition. however, I do remember my parents talking about carter's tax policies were pretty bad for the country.

 

I actually think we've had some pretty good presidents in the last 50 years. Eisenhower, Kennedy (eh), Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton. Not too bad. Definitely W is the worst of that bunch.

 

W. rolled the dice, and came up snake eyes. Trouble is, like most people in Las Vegas, he didn't think before he placed his bets. He is an utter failure, and will be leaving this country in much worse shape than it was when he took office.

And no, Almu, you cannot have your vote back.

 

What about our starting left guard from the Maize and Blue....President Gerald Ford??

 

Here's how you get your vote back:

You vote for Democratic candidates in November so we can get both houses back and impeach him and Cheney.
You contribute to Democratic candidates outside of your state/district who do the same.

You cannot get the first six years back. They are gone, but maybe you can stop the bleeding.

 

If Bush is the source of the "leak" then it wasn't a leak at all.

A leak is an unsanctioned release of information. When that information has been authorized by the President it is no longer classified and free for release.

It does make him a hypocrite but the release wasn't a "leak."

 

that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

 

What leak?

 

Nevermind.