Very interesting reading. Would any Bush fans care to comment?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20051203/cm_u...stpresidentever

The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

# He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (

Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney

who were the 77 historians that approved of Bush? Can they read and write?

Butterfy- It's not how someone is viewed now, but 20-40yrs from now.

Butterfy- It's not how someone is viewed now, but 20-40yrs from now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agree. But there is always an exception and you don't need to be a genius to see the writing on the wall for that one ?

Butterfy- It's not how someone is viewed now, but 20-40yrs from now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agree. But there is always an exception and you don't need to be a genius to see the writing on the wall for that one ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so certain - Nixon was rated poorly. However now he is rated near the top and that was only 30yrs ago.

Also Lincoln was skewered on a daily basis for his strong support of Union during the Civil War, and now he is seen as the yank's greatest president. Could GWB be next??

We just had a local election and the main opposition candidate for mayor put down "historian" as his profession (He's 29 and still in school). I guess that sounded better than writing down "Doesn't matter, my wife makes lots of money".

cv

Out of 415 who responded they took the 50 who viewed Bush the most negatively and published their views.....what did you expect....there is nothing here to even talk about......this is a non-event and not worth discussing unless you have nothing better to do than to argue about nothing....reminds me of two year olds tring to get along...they can't....but some of us grow up.....and for those who don't it would be more productive if they went out and played in the sand box.

Well if the weight of complaints about Bush are anything to go by ,If the American Electorate actualy voted instead of complaining incessantly Bush wouldnt be there.

Problem gone.

Out of 415 who responded they took the 50 who viewed Bush the most negatively and published their views.....what did you expect....there is nothing here to even talk about......this is a non-event and not worth discussing unless you have nothing better to do than to argue about nothing....reminds me of two year olds tring to get along...they can't....but some of us grow up.....and for those who don't it would be more productive if they went out and played in the sand box.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting reading. Would any Bush fans care to comment?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20051203/cm_u...stpresidentever

The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

# He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

# He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

# He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

# He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

# He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (

Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

# He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

# He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

# He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney

who were the 77 historians that approved of Bush? Can they read and write?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those 77 historians are probably on the same payroll as the "scientists" who now tout and promote Intelligent Design as a scientific theory

IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER?

Yahoo News | December 5, 2005

By Richard Reeves

PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..."

But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out.

"No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with."

Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times.

But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual.

Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property.

He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents.

There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:

He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney.

Personally I think he will be forgotten very quickly as a "all talk, no action" president. Nixon was doing a better job and he was competent, he was just a crook that's all. The current president is a crook and an incompetent fool. That's too much for one man.

I think his presidency will just be remembered as the begining of the fall of American "expansionism" but the man itself is of no significance and will be forgotten. Only his desperate mignons on Faux will keep quoting him like he was the Buddha god himself.

Not so certain - Nixon was rated poorly. However now he is rated near the top and that was only 30yrs ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's interesting though that the praise Nixon receives now is for actions he took that were considered "liberal" at the time and not much liked by his most conservative supporters:

- Federalizing the welfare system

- Recognizing "Red" China

- Using Keynsian economics to bolster the economy

If he is really THAT BAD why on earth was he re-elected?

Surely the American Public had four years to work out that he was an incompetant fool?

If he is really THAT BAD why on earth was he re-elected?

Surely the American Public  had four years to work out that he was an incompetant fool?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You select the leaders that ressemble you the most. So if it's an indication of what the American public think of itself, then it's not flattering.

You also have to admit that the "alternative" was not great either. It seems that the American public was more confortable to vote for a looser than a smart cookie like Kerry. Question of taste I guess.

There is also the question of the vote frauds in OH, not to be discounted.

I am actually happy that the Chimp is still there. He has no credibility left and he is harmless. And this second term is another chance for the "liberals" loonies to "get" him. Should be more entertaining than Clinton blowjob.

Small lie ("I didn't have sex with that woman") and they were all over him and ready to impeach him, big lie (Iraq, 911) and they worship him like God.

Got Your Back

Bush Hatred, the Real Pandemic

Larry Elder makes the mistake of trying to engage with and debate a victim of full-fledged Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the result is a torrent of illogical abuse—naturally: Bush Hatred - The real pandemic

No Mercy for Iraqi Children Under US Military’s Reign of Terror

"The Right-Wing Attack Machine is at it again. Over the weekend, esteemed Senator, decorated war hero, and rightful inhabitant of the White House, John Fitzgerald Kerry spoke candidly on Face the Nation about the hopeless quagmire in Iraq, and why our troops are such heartless bastards.

“There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.”

It’s all pretty cut and dry, and certainly nothing we haven’t heard from other Democrat leaders and high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda for months now. But before the program was even over, the right-wing blogosphere exploded with typical hate-filled bile, ignoring the crux of the interview to dwell on one or two little lines that were spoken completely off the cuff and shouldn’t be taken literally. Chickenhawk Hannity, Fatty McFatso, and Fraulein “Hooray for Internment Camps” Malkin all got their digs in, resorting to the same old playbook they’ve been using for years. By constantly spinning the senator’s nuanced statements to mean what he actually says, the fascists of conservative punditry intend to "Murtha” Sen. Kerry by forcing him to be held accountable for every tidbit of wisdom that spews forth from his stately blowhole. But John Kerry won’t be bullied. Anyone doubting his authority on the quagmire in Iraq need only remember that Rush Limbaugh had anal cysts in 1965.

Despite what republican radio hacks want us to believe, Sen. Kerry is absolutely correct: the U.S. government is indeed ordering jackbooted squads of armed goons to bust down the doors of private residences and terrorize women and children – actions that are entirely inexcusable unless done to reunite nice little Cuban boys with their loving Uncle Fidel. During these nightly raids, Muslim customs such as the ceremonial greasing of the sacred yak are completely ignored, and large collections of priceless weaponry and improvised explosives are confiscated without recompense. But perhaps out of his unwavering reverence for our brave soldiers who are merely unwitting pawns in Bush’s war games, John Kerry did not expand on all the details of our military’s campaign of terror against the innocent children of Iraq.

In addition to their barbaric stormtrooper tactics, U.S troops have been waging a highly documented guerilla war on the children of Iraq for some time. Inhuman atrocities are committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. Large numbers of soldiers have been known to descend on small Iraqi villages like packs of wild dogs, forcing unsuspecting children to wear second hand or off-the-rack clothing in a fashion reminiscent of Jingus K-mart. Many children are subjected to bizarre medical experiments and given mysterious injections. Countless more suffer unexplainable weight gain and, in rare circumstances, borderline chubbiness.

The coalition forces want desperately to paint a rosy picture of their horrifying activities. As these staged photographs suggest, many children laugh and sing at the arrival of troops, perhaps out of fear for what might befall them should they express the true, unbridled hatred that most Iraqis and half the population of Massachusetts have for our military. But as soon as the cameras are off, the innocent laughter turns to blood-curdling screams as the unsuspecting children are herded into small, non-descript buildings, where they are held against their will for several hours a day and brainwashed with pro-western propaganda. As helpless parents look on, crayons and construction paper are shoved into the tiny hands of their crying sons and daughters, who are forced to produce variety of arts and crafts with virtually no pay or health benefits. Finally, once the tots have been thoroughly “re-educated”, they are hastily ground up and fed to blacks in New Orleans.

It’s enough to make anyone sick to their stomach, but John Kerry has seen it all before. He fought to bring an end to similar atrocities in Southeast Asia, and in return for his patriotism he was assailed by GOP attack dogs like the Hateboat Haters of Hate, a group of Bush lackeys who claimed to have served with Kerry in Vietnam yet never once sat on his lap and called him “Daddy”. John Kerry volunteered for four years in the military so he could spend the next forty attacking it with impunity, and he won’t be intimidated by those who “had better things to do” than hook cell phones up to human genitals and turn up the power when their country called."

Thanks to Blame Bush

"The Right-Wing Attack Machine is at it again. Over the weekend, esteemed Senator, decorated war hero, and rightful inhabitant of the White House, John Fitzgerald Kerry spoke candidly on Face the Nation about the hopeless quagmire in Iraq, and why our troops are such heartless bastards.

When all is said and done, this will shown as further political suicide for the extreme left. A bad as the Dem's were under the reign of Clinton & McAuliffe, they are spiralling earthward that much faster under the reign of Kerry & Dean. When are they going to realize that their attempts to rewrite reality don't work anymore. The American people aren't all elites like Kerry and they know the difference between right and wrong, and truth and deceit.

The Kerry bad-mouthing of Bush and the Iraq war effort is a strategy doomed to failure before it even started. His latest tack is trying to slam Bush on the telephone eavesdropping, calling it against the Constitution. Unfortunately Kerry is lying through his teeth again. The President's actions were and are in precise compliance with the law.

The American economy is in the tank right?

Yeah right ....

All leading economic indicators up! Dow expected to break 11k soon!

Bush's approval ratings are in the tank right?

Yeah right ....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/s...TC-RSSFeeds0312

The West Wing has provided the lefties with 6 years of fantasy while Bush has effectively dealt with 6 years of reality. The Dems door is closing faster than this show's ratings.

No Mercy for Iraqi Children Under US Military’s Reign of Terror

"The Right-Wing Attack Machine is at it again. Over the weekend, esteemed Senator, decorated war hero, and rightful inhabitant of the White House, John Fitzgerald Kerry spoke candidly on Face the Nation about the hopeless quagmire in Iraq, and why our troops are such heartless bastards.

I have several friends who have been working in Iraq for about a year and a half. I get regular emails and the occasional photo from them. You know, it's funny, their reports are nothing like the crapola being printed in the mainstream media. Just further evidence that modern media attempts to create it's own version of history rather than simply report on history as it is made.

Mainstream Media Headline and Spin:

"THE US ECONOMY IS IN THE TOILET AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT"

Reality:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051221/economy.html?.v=5

The US economy is so strong and robust that large natural disasters and wildly flutuating prices are merely bumps in the road, not the "sky is falling" like all the Chicken Little's and Democrats would have all the lemmings believe.

Hey Liberals

Mainstream Media Headline and Spin:

"THE FEDERAL DEFICIT IS SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT"

Reality:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

In a vote to cut 2006 federal deficits by $40billion, all 45 Senate Democrats voted against the bill (along with 5 Republican turncoats).

Yes, that's right. All 45 Senate Democrats voted in favor of increasing the deficit by $40B.

But the budget deficit is the President's fault. Yeah ... right!

Fortunately, the President's right hand man, Vice President Cheney in his role as Senate President, interceded to cast the deciding vote to push the cuts through.

I'm guessing you aren't going to say WHAT they cut, and what other things they keep?

Your spin on the news is sad.

I'm guessing you aren't going to say WHAT they cut, and what other things they keep?

Your spin on the news is sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. It's more like you're too lazy to follow it further.

The "budget cut" is like so many others in Washington DC. No budget really gets heavily whacked. What happens is the projected budget increases that everyone fights for the the discretionary spending budget. In this case it was the vintage left wing social program, of which most do little more than protracts the strain on the society that supports them and further institutionalizes those who are raised to depend upon them.

But the point is the Dems will go tooth and nail and fall on their swords for this stuff. The Reps prefer to not have it at all, but will tolerate certain things to get what they want politically. That's part of how the game is played.

My main point was and is that the media and Dems spin is geared at doing whatever is necessary to take shots at the current administration, including distorting the truth, flat out lying publicly, etc., rather than achieving gains by being smarter, working harder, and doing more things that are in the majority public's interests.

I was just wondersing who Boon Mee was fighting with, now that TMerton no longer resides here.

I´ll just be on my way now! Thanks for the funny comic strips!

Spee>> To make it easy: Public Health-system, support it or not?

Public Health-system, support it or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As in government owned and operated, as in socialized medicine?? With all the red tape and bureaucracy that goes with it?? Like Canada? Like the UK?

Not no but he11 no!! That is just one more tax burden to be absorbed by the middle class.

Government subsidies to doctors and hospitals to defray costs for patients who cannot afford to pay?

Sure, in a heartbeat.

Lifelong government handouts and emergency room walk-in service for people who are too lazy to maintain a primary care physician for themselves and their children, and who are too lazy to go out and work to support their offspring?

No!

For those who are on the dole, they should have to meet some basic requirements, such as maintaining a primary care physician, making mandatory scheduled appointments for checkups, and demonstrate that their kids are getting a decent diet and proper physical and mental exercise.

Don't like those rules? Then fine. Get thy life and sh*t together and take enough responsibility to have options to choose from some different rules.

In the same breath I'm not going to agree that the US healthcare system is as good as it was, or as good as it could be. I think the system of hospitals being run as for profit corporations is just not right. IMHO, all hospitals should be run as non-profit corporations. People who have insurance and can pay, they pay their bills. People that can't get put on a federally and/or locally subsidized program.

Unfortunately, the only way this works is to get greedy executives out of the boardroom, get the lawyers and bureaucrats out of triage and out of the operating theater, get the malpractice insurance fiasco back under control, and then let doctors and nurses do their job.

Put more concisely ..... if you were living in the US, who would you want in charge of your health care?

Yourself?

or

John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and the rest of the east coast liberal elite hypocrites?

Not Bush nor Kerry.

"You work three jobs? And got two kids? That's just amazing. Isn't that what makes this country great?"

And FYI, the people who CHOOSE to be poor is in clear minority. Don't always proclaim that people should 'get their act together'. That is very narrow-minded of you.

Public Health-system, support it or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As in government owned and operated, as in socialized medicine?? With all the red tape and bureaucracy that goes with it?? Like Canada? Like the UK?

Not no but he11 no!! That is just one more tax burden to be absorbed by the middle class.

Government subsidies to doctors and hospitals to defray costs for patients who cannot afford to pay?

Sure, in a heartbeat.

Lifelong government handouts and emergency room walk-in service for people who are too lazy to maintain a primary care physician for themselves and their children, and who are too lazy to go out and work to support their offspring?

No!

For those who are on the dole, they should have to meet some basic requirements, such as maintaining a primary care physician, making mandatory scheduled appointments for checkups, and demonstrate that their kids are getting a decent diet and proper physical and mental exercise.

Don't like those rules? Then fine. Get thy life and sh*t together and take enough responsibility to have options to choose from some different rules.

In the same breath I'm not going to agree that the US healthcare system is as good as it was, or as good as it could be. I think the system of hospitals being run as for profit corporations is just not right. IMHO, all hospitals should be run as non-profit corporations. People who have insurance and can pay, they pay their bills. People that can't get put on a federally and/or locally subsidized program.

Unfortunately, the only way this works is to get greedy executives out of the boardroom, get the lawyers and bureaucrats out of triage and out of the operating theater, get the malpractice insurance fiasco back under control, and then let doctors and nurses do their job.

Put more concisely ..... if you were living in the US, who would you want in charge of your health care?

Yourself?

or

John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and the rest of the east coast liberal elite hypocrites?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you think most people without healthcare coverage in the United States are lazy? That would include more than 1 million people, some of who work back-to-back breaking shifts at dead-end jobs. That would include freelance consultants or small business owners, who cannot afford the spiralling costs of managed healthcare - or private physicians

Boon Mee, That was a DISGUSTING comment.