Bush's Real Legacy

[Arc]

Years after Iraq is history and regardless of the outcome, John Roberts and Sam Alito are going to be deciding cases that impact our lives and the lives of our children. Could this be Bush's real legacy? And if he gets one more?

 

[Cut-Throat]

Years after Iraq is history and regardless of the outcome, John Roberts and Sam Alito are going to be deciding cases that impact our lives and the lives of our children. Could this be Bush's real legacy? And if he gets one more?

Wishful thinking - Bush will go down as a complete failure that ran the country into a ditch.

 

[gindie]

Wishful thinking - Bush will go down as a complete failure that ran the country into a ditch.

Well, if that's the case (and I'm not sure it is), then it will have taken Bush 8 years to do what Carter managed to do in only 4!

 

[2B]

I've said it before and I'll say it again now. Presidents can not be effectively evaluated for at least 50 years. Since people are living longer, the time may stretch to 75 years.

FDR is going to remain a highly rated president. Unfortunately, the dem elite are working on sainthood status for him. I've seen people that have questioned his tax proposals, attempt to stack the Supreme Court and other issues be effectively belittled and attacked for mearly questioning any decision or program of the "greatest American president that ever lived."

Carter as a one term president and his failure to rise to the challenges of his only term don't bode well for him into the future. The attacks on Bush II are premature and seem to be "rants" at this point. I would certainly have wished other decisions to be made than what I've seen but I didn't run for president.

I agree that Supreme Court appointments are usually the longest lasting legacy of most presidents. They don't always turn out as hoped (by the appointing president). Burger was appointed by Nixon. If for no other reason than Roe v. Wade, the conservatives were very disappointed.

 

[dumpster56]

No bush ran us into the ditch well before 2004.

The day we attacked Iraq is the turning point for me. While bin laden and al zwahiri remain free.

 

[astromeria]

Bushe's legacy...hmmm. How about: Sometimes you go forth with the lame excuses you have rather than the solid achievements you wish for.

 

[Texas Proud]

As one says... legacy is strange...

Take Nixon... the only president that resigned in disgrace (Clinton just could not do it.. wasn't ashamed I guess...) but now looked on as a 'good' president..

I just don't see it...

He put in price controls, had a strange gas policy that created the gas crisis... inflation was out of control... but, he opened China..

 

[Arc]

I've said it before and I'll say it again now. Presidents can not be effectively evaluated for at least 50 years. Since people are living longer, the time may stretch to 75 years.

FDR is going to remain a highly rated president. Unfortunately, the dem elite are working on sainthood status for him. I've seen people that have questioned his tax proposals, attempt to stack the Supreme Court and other issues be effectively belittled and attacked for mearly questioning any decision or program of the "greatest American president that ever lived."

Carter as a one term president and his failure to rise to the challenges of his only term don't bode well for him into the future. The attacks on Bush II are premature and seem to be "rants" at this point. I would certainly have wished other decisions to be made than what I've seen but I didn't run for president.

I agree that Supreme Court appointments are usually the longest lasting legacy of most presidents. They don't always turn out as hoped (by the appointing president). Burger was appointed by Nixon. If for no other reason than Roe v. Wade, the conservatives were very disappointed.

50 - 75 Years - My goodness - Clinton's quest to rewrite his legacy is a bigger job than he anticipated. Think about it, in 50 years his legacy is going to be 75 years old. And when people see Monica at 75 (not going to be a pretty sight) and ask "Bill did what with her?," all that legacy building will be for nothing.

 

[sgeeeee]

I've said it before and I'll say it again now. Presidents can not be effectively evaluated for at least 50 years. Since people are living longer, the time may stretch to 75 years.

. . .

You can say this as many times as you want. I don't believe this at all. A President can do all the right things and have everything counteracted by another administration that follows them in 4, 8, 12, ... years. 50 years? . . . that is 7x infinity in political time constants today. In contrast, a President can do everything wrong but have his/her administration followed by an effective administration that eliminates the long term damage they might have done.

As far as GWB goes, you can delude yourself into believing that history may be kind to him . . . but losing an unjustified war with questionable goals is not a good start. Driving the deficit to historic world record levels is not a good start. Supporting the torture of prisoners is not a good start. Somehow it is hard for me to see how making speeches in favor of god and guns or opposing gays is going to allow historians to consider this man as a good President.

 

[sgeeeee]

Take Nixon... the only president that resigned in disgrace . . . but now looked on as a 'good' president..

By who? The man was a crook. Everyone I know (even knee-jerk Republicans) still consider him an embarrasment.

 

[sgeeeee]

What a strange thread. All these diehard Republicans want to talk about how it is too early to tell whether GWB is really an incompetent charlatan or a great leader, about how Nixon is not a crook like we originally thought but that time has shown him to be a great leader. But these same people also want to declare that Clinton is a complete failure. This, they know already.

Yeah . . . It's Clinton's fault. That's what I always say.

 

[youbet]

Everyone I know

There's that long list of ficticious characters again!

 

[sgeeeee]

There's that long list of ficticious characters again!

Hi youbet,

There is a different context here than in my previous discussion of your earlier post. The original statement here was, "Take Nixon... the only president that resigned in disgrace (Clinton just could not do it.. wasn't ashamed I guess...) but now looked on as a 'good' president.." This is an unjustified assertion. I first asked who made such an assertion, then admited that my only experience was with people I knew who all believed otherwise. My post was not a justification for a statement I made, but a request for sources.

In the thread that you refer to implicitly, I asked you a specific question about how many people you were basing your broad assertions on. You never answered that question, but instead made additional broad statements about unspecified people.

If you still don't understand the difference, just ask. I will be happy to explain logical analysis to you to whatever level is required for you to grasp the difference.

 

[youbet]

So, who is this "everyone I know" group of folks?

 

[kowski]

Certainly Supreme Court appointments will carry on a lasting legacy. Personally I will remember him as a God fearing man who did his best.

 

[jeff2006]

What a strange thread. All these diehard Republicans want to talk about how it is too early to tell whether GWB is really an incompetent charlatan or a great leader, about how Nixon is not a crook like we originally thought but that time has shown him to be a great leader.

The perceptions of Nixon and Bush may be relative. I thought that Nixon was an incompetent crook, until Bush came along and set a completely new standard. Now even Nixon doesn't look too bad. But you're right -- it's really all Clinton's fault!

The people who still defend Bush are Republicans in name only, and certainly are not conservatives in any meaningful sense.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

The people who still defend Bush are Republicans in name only, and certainly are not conservatives in any meaningful sense.

That's the way I see it.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Hi youbet,

There is a different context here than in my previous discussion of your earlier post. The original statement here was, "Take Nixon... the only president that resigned in disgrace (Clinton just could not do it.. wasn't ashamed I guess...) but now looked on as a 'good' president.." This is an unjustified assertion. I first asked who made such an assertion, then admited that my only experience was with people I knew who all believed otherwise. My post was not a justification for a statement I made, but a request for sources.

In the thread that you refer to implicitly, I asked you a specific question about how many people you were basing your broad assertions on. You never answered that question, but instead made additional broad statements about unspecified people.

If you still don't understand the difference, just ask. I will be happy to explain logical analysis to you to whatever level is required for you to grasp the difference.

Semantics, boys. Semantics.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Somehow it is hard for me to see how making speeches in favor of god and guns or opposing gays is going to allow historians to consider this man as a good President.

Perhaps not, but some of us like it. In fact, his staking out these positions
is one thing that I still find appealing about the guy. That and his stubborn-
sure of his positions confidence,
which reminds me of someone else I admire very much.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

And when people see Monica at 75 (not going to be a pretty sight) and ask "Bill did what with her?," all that legacy building will be for nothing.

Monica wasn't really "a pretty sight" at the time IMHO.

JG

 

[Texas Proud]

From a quick review.... from Wiki..

"Some presidents present special problems because their foreign policy success/failure stands in contradiction to their domestic policy failure/success. Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles. On some very important dimensions both Wilson and L.B. Johnson were outright failures in my view; while on others they rank very high indeed. Similarly with Nixon." Historian Alan Brinkley said: "There are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon). James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, 'How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?'" (Skidmore 2001)."

So, if it wasn't for that resignation thingy.... Nixon would be a great or near great president??

As I said, history will change the way people look at them..

They rank him 'on average' as the 29th best president.. but has been as high as 23..

Richard Nixon Republican 29.2 Vietnam War, Normalization of relations with China, détente, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Clean Water Act, creation of Environmental Protection Agency, wage and price controls, corruption (Watergate scandal, harrassment of opponents via FBI and IRS), resignation to avoid impeachment


As of 2005 rankings.... Bush was ahead of Clinton 19 to 22...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents

 

[2B]

50 - 75 Years - My goodness - Clinton's quest to rewrite his legacy is a bigger job than he anticipated. Think about it, in 50 years his legacy is going to be 75 years old. And when people see Monica at 75 (not going to be a pretty sight) and ask "Bill did what with her?," all that legacy building will be for nothing.

That's why it may take longer now. By going around with your PR department talking it up, you just may extend the time before all the papers and results settle down.

Is SS an FDR problem or is it the problem of the presidents that followed that didn't control the finances? In the midst of one Great Depression, FDR may have sowed the seeds for the next one.

Clinton could have put out the word and had a line of starlets lining the White House for their turn. What kind of dufus does what was "alleged" with a staffer? Then he lies about it in sworn testomony. He could have said he did it and it was fully consensual and it would have ended. The purjury created the stir.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Clinton could have put out the word and had a line of starlets

Always worked for me.

JG

 

[jeff2006]

Is SS an FDR problem or is it the problem of the presidents that followed that didn't control the finances?

Neither.

This is so typical of today's confident but uninformed right-wing spin. SS is not a problem at all -- it is the most successful govt program in US history. Medicare is a problem, because health care financing in the broader sense is the problem.

 

[lets-retire]

Neither.

This is so typical of today's confident but uninformed right-wing spin. SS is not a problem at all -- it is the most successful govt program in US history. Medicare is a problem, because health care financing in the broader sense is the problem.

That's why it's going bankrupt and will not be there by the time I am eligible. If the government would have kept it status quo and raised the minimum eligibility age as the life expectancy raised it would be in good shape, but that would be seen as anti-old people and the Senators and Congressmen would be quickly voted out. Who was it that said, the Republic will be short lived once the people realize they can vote themselves benefits (or something like that)?