Primaries

Remove all ads!

That's right. They still managed to inflict them onto an unwitting American population anyway. There's no escape.

She probably remembers a time that America, as a nation, still acted occasionally upon time-honored principles. We don't have those anymore. We now have GWB - But only for 6 more months. Let the countdown begin!

 

A bit overboard Chandos. President Bush is not the anti-Christ, nor is he the cause of all the problems in the world (or the US for that matter). As far as Hillary acting on time honored principles -- why does she want to void a treaty? I would think keeping a promise (especially when it was the promise of her husband) would be a "time honored principle."

 

remember T2Bruno, no one with the last name clinton can do wrong & anyone with the last name bush can do any but bad according to chandos.

 

Not at all. He's only the worst president this country has ever had - the bottom of the barrel, as they say. To see an incompetent, corrupt and unconsitutional president retired from office is a great thing; a really, really, great thing for this country. But that's just my opinion. Most of the rest of the country believes he's just plain awful. Oh, yes. That too.

I've nothing against Bush I. He was RR's VP, and that means that I voted for him. But I did not vote for him as president - I voted for Bill instead. As such, I voted for both a Bush and a Clinton. Can you make that claim?

 

nope, i would never vote for a man who doesn't know the definition of "is" & i'm sorry to say but clinton was a much worse president than either of the bushes(even though the current one is trying to get almost as bad as clinton with his last year policies & decisions)

 

Well, I guess you will have to retract your previous statement. But really, Martaug, there is so much more upon which we can disagree, so why let just the Clintons come between us in this instance?

 

hah! that was funny have we ever agreed on anything
you:liberal democrat - me conservative republican(with libetarian leanings)
we are pertty much opposite ends of the spectrum

 

Neither did anyone else! The fact is, no one was able to vote for Bill after his now-infamous "What's the definition of 'is'" comment, because the Lewinsky affair became public knowledge in 1997. And 1997 was - you guessed it - the year after Bill was elected to a second term, and obviously Bill was unable to run again in 2000. So to say you wouldn't vote for him because of that comment is misleading (and also false unless you are a seer) - you obviously had other reasons to do so in 1992 and 1996.

I will concede that the reason that Bill gets relatively poor marks in the history books is because of the Lewinsky scandal. Had the affair not become public knowledge, Clinton would have been considered an above average president, mostly because the economy was so good during his two terms.

Most historians are going to disagree with you there - at least as far as Bush II is concerned. I really doubt you want to do an honest comparison of Bush II and Clinton as to who was the worse president. I think you'll do much better if you picked a more traditional scapegoat of former Democratic presidents. Jimmy Carter springs immediately to mind.

 

If you honestly believe that, you have more partisanship than sense. Bush I was a very decent President. Clinton was a very flawed, but ultimately very popular and effective President. Bush II is regarded by many historians (and most of the world) as one of the worst, if not THE worst, Presidents we've ever had by nearly every measure. An honest assessment of our standing in the world today compared to where we were before he took office would make this clear to just about anyone.

I have a lot of problems with Clinton, but he was light years ahead of this buffoon. I'll just chalk that comment up to partisan bluster and assume you didn't really think that one through.

 

Chandos, you're exaggerating again. George W. Bush will be nowhere near the bottom when ranked by historians. Clinton and Bush Sr are both middle of the pack presidents. Carter was below average and I believe Bush will ultimately end as below average as well (along with the likes of Ford, Nixon and Hoover). In most academic polls; no modern president sits as low as Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, and Harding -- all of whom were dismal failures as president. I think Truman said it best when he commented (paraphrasing) 'the worst thing a president can do is nothing.'

There is a really interesting article published by Cornell and the Wall Street Journal in 2000 where 78 professors of law, political science and history were polled on this. You can find it here.

I can beat you Chandos: I voted against both a Bush and a Clinton.

 

I'm an Independent, which explains why I have voted both Republican and Democratic. I've never been a member of the Democratic party. The only party I was ever a member of was the Green Party. But no longer, since that party is broken. But the Democratic party is just too conservative for me.

T2 - if I were a Democrat, I probably would have voted against Hill in the last Texas primary. Thus, I would have been able to make the same claim. The problem for me is that I like Obama AND Hill. But Obama is more liberal and that's the way I'm leaning. To be true to my Independent roots, I still would have considered Mac, had he not made a complete fool of himself by selling out to the Bushmen.

But, IMO, I believe that historians will place GWB among those "dismal" presidents which you cite in your list, T2.

 

GWB will certainly fall into the category of "dismal Presidents" -- no question there. For his adminstrations bungling of the Hurricane Katrina I say he deserves to be in the Top Ten Most Inept Presidents of all time, if not Top Ten Most Inept political leaders. History may find a way to forgive him for Iraq and Afghanistan, but no amount of spin can make the Katrina disaster and his pathetic response to it in any way acceptable.

If there were no term limits, I were Amertican, and GWB were stupid enough to run again, I'd have a real conundrum on my hands. I despise the Hill and all Clintons, but there's no way I could support GWB. Luckily I'm a Canuck and there ARE term limits!

 

Fat chance. History may find a way to forgive him for bungling Afghanistan, but history isn't about to forget that Bush and his administration deliberately lied about Saddam's (non-existent) relationship with Al-Quaida, purposely mislead the American people into associating Iraq with 911, and knowingly used faulty intelligence to mislead us into entering an unnecessary war and occupation of Iraq.

 

Fair enough, Drew, but even now GWB has a number of supporters despite the facts you mentioned. History may well reflect their views, though there are sufficient people like yourself whose records will probably also go into the long term history books.

Going back to the primaries, has GWB endorsed Mccain? If he did, wouldn't that be BAD for Mccain?

 

So did Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon. All the least popular presidents all still had their holdouts right up to the bitter end. There are still people who think Nixon was a great president and Joe McCarthy was a hero.

And yes, McCain picked up Bush's endorsement the day after he officially clinched the nomination. You're right, it was bad for McCain...which is why he got it overwith quickly, to be quickly forgotten.

 

And even if those could miraculously be disputed, there is the small matter of the idiotic planning - or lack thereof - of the entire affair. I am hard pressed to find anything about the Iraq war which was done right, or anyone who argues that that the preparation, if not the operation itself, was a success.

Anyway, I was somewhat surprised WJC ranks so low on that report, but it is telling that he was the president for whom there was the largest divergence of scores - 1.11, more than for Reagan or Nixon.

 

...And that would be a pretty small number. But hey, let's not make popularity our only criteria. How about a "historical" list of GWB's accomplishments? I've heard a number of people on this forum claim that he was the best choice in 2004 - better than John Kerry. So, lets ante up: Who would like to start the historical list? I'll start, as a token of SP bi-partisanship spirit:

Tax Cuts: Although largely aimed as a pay-off for his rich supporters, this did help to get the economy through the 9/11 disaster. The spread could have been fairer, but a pay-off is what it is....And I'm sure all politicans, regardless of party, engage in this kind of "policy" crafting for those who helped get them to the "top." Anything else would be just plain Un-American. But the tax cuts proved to be a fairly sound policy. The downside was the deficit. But I would argue that the Iraq War was more of a deficit spending "buster", than the tax cuts.

Edit: I just realized this could be a far leap off the topic; for that I apologize in advance. But if there are any high-stakes gamblers here, I would be more than happy to fashion a separate thread for my challenge....

 

Did Obama just commit political suicide? For those who haven't been following this. At a fundraiser in San Francisco's "billionaire's row" he is credited with saying.

Well since then it appear that these small minded "little folk" don't seem to appreciate being talked about that way. As recently as April 5th he had pulled into a statistical dead heat with Hillary. Now he is behind by 20% according to the American Research Group

I think this gives further ammunition to Hillary that Obama may be able to win the nomination, but not be able to win the Presidency. For the first time in my life, I may actually watch the convention.

 

Remarkable! I love how a thread about the primaries turns into a Bush bash!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Alley of Lingering Sighs! *sigh*

Thank you Mr. Snook for bringing us back on topic. Obama is certainly making it more interesting. He pretty much had it sewn up and he keeps making blunders that must make his party wonder if he can win in November. Personally, I don't think he can. I believe Hillary would have a MUCH better shot.

The next few months should be very entertaining.

 

HIllary has made her share of blunders. And to be honest, I don't think what Obama said was that bad. He's explaining the roots of blue collar frustration. I didn't see his comment as denigrating at all. Of course, Hillary's spin doctors and the Republican spin machine will make it sound like he hates those people, but I believe Obama's message will come through loud and clear eventually (though not clear enough to win the presidency. But Hillary wouldn't be able to take it either, IMHO.)