Bush: worst president ever

[willy88]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

Wow. That's really sad.

 

[jgrillo2002]

yes indeed this is sad. this is why CNN hates republicans because they only support liberal/democrats. trust FoxNews

 

[Missioncmdr]

yes indeed this is sad. this is why CNN hates republicans because they only support liberal/democrats. trust FoxNews

Trust FOX News? Trust FOX News!?!? Are we talking about the same FOX News here?

Anyway, what amazes about Bush is that, since approval ratings were started sometime in the 30s, he holds the record for having the highest and lowest approval rating ever. (Not just CNN's poll, though.)

 

[Urwumpe]

Worst president ever? Did people forget about Nixon?

And honestly: You will rarely see a more biased TV station than Fox News. Almost all stations are biased in one way, but Fox news is pretty fundamentalist - they don't report things, which should not exist and report about things, how they should be - instead of how they are.

 

[V8Li]

His father was a president and he got everything he wanted all his life, including free flights with the US jets while he was "active" in the army. What would you expect? Really, I don't think is his fault, he was elected, right?
I've seen his interviews regarding Katrina and you could tell he leaves in a different world. Again, not his fault...

 

[simonpro]

And if you take a world view then Bush doesn't seem so bad at all...who would you rather have: Bush or Robert Mugabe?

 

[Urwumpe]

Pest and Cholera...

I take "or".

 

[Donald]

Fox News isn't news at all. It is a dog and pony show put on by people who disseminate propaganda for the current crooks running the Executive Branch of the US government. The only real news left is free Speech TV and Amy Goodman hosting Democracy Now!

Anybody who watches Fox News and believes what they see has sawdust for brains.

 

[Whatu]

And if you take a world view then Bush doesn't seem so bad at all...who would you rather have: Bush or Robert Mugabe?

Its different thing because this two countries arent at the same "stage" of development.

Africa stills needs to make a step towards democracy.

Anyways, as a foreign espectator to US politics I only get little bits of information about Bush, but... I dont know, I just think hes plain stupid. Not his political ideas (which I dont support by the way) but the person itself.

Anyways... I just cant believe the war he made up and is today still killing thousands of people

War is not the way to go.

 

[jedidia]

I'm not aproving with much of the things Bush did... however, I have to admit, there seldomly has been a worse time to be president of the U.S., with 9. 11. right after the start... I think he did not do too bad under the circumstances.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm not aproving with much of the things Bush did... however, I have to admit, there seldomly has been a worse time to be president of the U.S., with 9. 11. right after the start... I think he did not do too bad under the circumstances.

I think he performed especially bad regarding 911. He deployed his army in a completely unimportant war, instead of keeping the pressure high against terrorists and their supporters (For example in Pakistan or Jemen).

Instead of strengthening and assuring US values in the conflict against Islamic fundamentalism, he resorted to Christian fundamentalism, further pushing Islamic neutral nations into the hands of terrorists. Also his "If you are not for us, you are against us" did not really help finding allies.

And he did not drop his ties to criminal companies in the US (Enron) or have the sensibility to avoid interest conflicts (Halliburton).

Also, it is really a wonder that somebody, who got confirmed a liar, gets reelected. Even in Italy, they have the politic understanding to drop a liar - and reelect him when the alternative failed.

 

[jedidia]

or have the sensibility to avoid interest conflicts (Halliburton).

Well, that is his major problem: he doesn't seem to have any sensibility at all. Neither political nor cultural. I agree that he wasn't a very good choice for a position like president of the worlds mightiest nation, exactly because of this atribute. It might have worked out allright if there were no serious external struggles.

as I said, I don't aprove with much he did. I wouldn't have wanted to be in his stead in this situation, though... :dry:

Also, it is really a wonder that somebody, who got confirmed a liar, gets reelected.

erm... the french seem to do that every now and then too...

I think it's mostly due to the "Republican-Democratic shizm", if you want to call it like that. It had to be either him or a democrat, so the republicans didn't have much choice other than voting for him, given the inerpolitical situation.

 

[computerex]

You have to give some credit to Bush, it's not easy leading a country, and thrice as hard to lead United States. He was unfortunate enough to have had to make some decisions that would ultimately decide the faith of the US. United States depends heavily on oil, oil is running out rapidly, so what did he try to do? He tried to get more oil. There is nothing more to it.

 

[Urwumpe]

You have to give some credit to Bush, it's not easy leading a country, and thrice as hard to lead United States. He was unfortunate enough to have had to make some decisions that would ultimately decide the faith of the US. United States depends heavily on oil, oil is running out rapidly, so what did he try to do? He tried to get more oil. There is nothing more to it.

The united states are simple to rule. They have so much inertia, that 5 years are not really enough to change it from its basics. But that does not mean, that any kind of rule is a good one.

Just look at more complicated countries with less inertia. For example Italy. Or Iran. Or even Saudi-Arabia. Ruling such a country is really a walk between extremes. In the US, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is often only the sticker on the pick-up truck. Not really a challenge.

 

[GregBurch]

Since this is a forum that deals with aerospace technology, I thought I'd add this tidbit that folks less familiar with the minutiae of US military aircraft history might not know. Bush flew the F-102 when he was in the Air National Guard. This was a 50's-vintage fighter that had, as Tom Wolf so famously put it, "the aerodynamic characteristics of a set of car keys." According to this page:

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/08/bush_and_the_f1.html

the death rate for serving military personnel in Vietnam was 2%. For F-102 pilots flying in peacetime, it was 1.2%, which was not atypical for aircraft of that type and generation (but not as bad as the beautiful but deadly F-104).

Here's another piece:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

that covers the F-102's service during Bush's time in the Guard, pointing out that the unit had served in Vietnam in combat, and that it was at risk of doing so again at any time during the time that Bush was flying the "Deuce."

GB

 

[Andy44]

The New Jersey Air Guard flew F-106's into the 1990s, an aircraft similar to, and of the same era, as the F-102. A really cool, old-school interceptor, can't believe it lasted that long. I think they even had their own air-to-air missile that only worked with that particular aircraft type.

As to the topic of this thread, I'm certainly no Bush fan and I despise Faux News, but I'm equally contemptuous of the left, so I'll just bow out. All I will say is Go Ron Paul Volunteers: the future awaits.

 

[GregBurch]

Foolishly, I'll make another comment here. There's no question that Fox News is slanted -- very much so. But consider that it is much easier to see that kind of thing when it is presented from a viewpoint that is opposed to ideas and values you hold. To those who hold different views from you, the "mainstream media" seems grossly slanted, as well.

One of the things that underlies this phenomenon is the fact that a set of assumptions about society and politics can become so ingrained in segments of a culture that they become invisible. Before the advent of Fox, the mass media in the US at least was pretty much "monotonous" in the sense that it voiced opinions in its reporting -- not recognized as opinions -- that came from a fairly uniform political and social world-view.

As someone who has spent my entire adult life studying a culture with a very different history than my own (China), I think I've become sensitized at least a little to this phenomenon. I find that most people are not consciously aware at all of the actual political and moral foundations of the way they view the world, and become very uncomfortable when they are probed or pointed out or -- Newton forbid! -- questioned.

GB, THHotA

 

[reverend]

I don't think is his fault, he was elected, right?

That's debatable. In 2000, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, but because of the semantics of our electoral system, and a vote recount in Florida that was questionable at best, Bush got to be president.

In the 2004 election, he didn't have any real competition. He should have been beaten by Howard Dean, except the media devoured Howard Dean after he cheered in excitement at a rally with the microphone a little too close to his mouth. Something that shouldn't have been anything unusual for a rally like this got way overblown in the media, and disqualified the best chance to take Bush out of office. John Kerry was chosen after Dean had to drop out from stupid criticism, and Kerry is just a joke. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but in '04 I too voted for Bush over Kerry.

What really worries me is that McCain is going to win this election, and most of the current republican officials are going to keep their office, which means the majority of our policies are going to remain mostly the same.

At a time when we need a democrat in the white house more than ever, the democratic party decides to put forth a black man and a woman! I'm not racist or sexist, but have they forgotten that there has never been a black or female president? Maybe our country is ready for one, but that's sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Lets see... all previous US presidents were white males... Doesn't it sound kind of stupid to try to take the white house by putting forth a candidate other than a white male?

McCain can pretty much start planning his inaugural speech, and we get to look forward to another 4 years of stupidity from the American government.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm not racist or sexist, but have they forgotten that there has never been a black or female president?

Hey, we in Germany currently make good experiences with getting ruled by a woman AND DSc (actually Dr. rer. nat. or Doctor rerum naturalium. But you don't have something similar in the US). You think black people are a minority in the US? Imagine DSc!

There is always a first time. And about when being ready, lets quote Crush:

Well, you never really know, you know, but when they know, you'll know, ya know?

 

[GregBurch]

At a time when we need a democrat in the white house more than ever, the democratic party decides to put forth a black man and a woman! I'm not racist or sexist, but have they forgotten that there has never been a black or female president? Maybe our country is ready for one, but that's sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Lets see... all previous US presidents were white males... Doesn't it sound kind of stupid to try to take the white house by putting forth a candidate other than a white male?

I know it's comforting to think that it's all about race or gender, but at least consider that Obama or Clinton might lose the general election because of their policies. As much as folks on the left in the US don't like to think about it, the US isn't Europe. Believe it or not, there are millions of people in the US who would be perfectly happy to have a black or a woman as president: Just not these two.

GB, THHotA