Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '01
39907_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 7/20/07 12:50pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency - Date Edited: 7/20/07 12:55pm (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
Not once did I ever use the term "good." This latest discussion only happened because for whatever reason, mediocre wasn't seen as being strong enough..


It isn't strong enough. Mediocre is dangerously close to "forgettable", as Carter was. Bush is absolutely not forgettable, and he will be an integral part of American history, no matter what your opinion of him is. He's done very little good, and a whole lot of bad.

In 30 years, virtually no one but social conservatives will look well upon Bush, and movies that get about 25-30% on rottentomatoes aren't considered mediocre. They're considered bad movies, sometimes awful.

 

-----signature-----
Omar: "Can you fix this, Joe?" *clock bangs on table*
Prop Joe: "What's the problem?"
Omar: "Run out of time."
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 12:56pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Yes, yes... fine.

Bush is evil. Bush is the worst ever. Everything under Bush is bad. In 20 years, you'll be proven correct as the world celebrates "Burn Bush in Effigy Day" as the first unifying holiday.

I accept that you think all of that, but I sincerely hope you're not giving yourself an ulcer carrying around all that hatred. Such negativity tends to consume the person holding on to it, and it's definately not worth it.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DeathStar1977 
Registered: Jan '03
7850_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/20/07 12:59pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Mr44

I don't think Carter is considered 'mediocre', I'd say certainly below-average yes?

KW

Possibly amongst social conservatives, but even then it would probably require overturning Roe v. Wade. After all, the gay marriage ban amendment ain't happening, and its not like the Republican party is a paradigm of family values right now, although it be hard to attribute that to Bush.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '01
39907_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:00pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency - Date Edited: 7/20/07 1:01pm (2 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
Mr44 posted:
Yes, yes... fine.

Bush is evil. Bush is the worst ever. Everything under Bush is bad. In 20 years, you'll be proven correct as the world celebrates "Burn Bush in Effigy Day" as the first unifying holiday.

I accept that you think all of that, but I sincerely hope you're not giving yourself an ulcer carrying around all that hatred. Such negativity tends to consume the person holding on to it, and it's definately not worth it.


I'm not this upset because of Bush (well, I am, but not in this case). I'm upset because folks like you are almost apathetic about it, which infuriates me. There is an incredible amount of evidence as to how bad a president he's been, and all you can say is that he'll be remembered as "mediocre". Bush may be many things, but he is not mediocre. He's far too polarizing for that.

 

-----signature-----
Omar: "Can you fix this, Joe?" *clock bangs on table*
Prop Joe: "What's the problem?"
Omar: "Run out of time."
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:03pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
I apologize then for not seeing things the way you do. I shall work on it.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:24pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency - Date Edited: 7/20/07 1:28pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
KnightWriter posted:
I'm not this upset because of Bush (well, I am, but not in this case). I'm upset because folks like you are almost apathetic about it, which infuriates me. There is an incredible amount of evidence as to how bad a president he's been, and all you can say is that he'll be remembered as "mediocre". Bush may be many things, but he is not mediocre. He's far too polarizing for that.
He is polarizing today, but there have been similarly polarizing figures in the past who today are not seen as being "a disaster". Again, look to Truman. He had the lowest approval ratings, faced multiple major scandals, had a tumultuous economy to deal with, an unpopular war (with 54000 casualties in less time than we've been in Iraq), and barely won reelection (when he was predicted to lose). There are many, many parallels to Bush when you take a close look at Truman.

And yet, when you look at lists of "great" presidents, he is routinely in the top ten.

Compare that with where Bush ranks in surveys among historians today. Wikipedia has a list of such surveys. In the two surveys that include Bush (dated 2002 and 2005), he averages 21 out of 43 presidents. That puts him almost exactly in the middle of the pack, or as Mr44 would say, mediocre.

So tell me, if Truman, who had at least as many public failures and scandals as Bush has had and even lower approval ratings, can still be ranked in the top 10 presidents, then how is it that Bush cannot from a historical perspective be ranked in the middle of the pack?

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: In fact, if you look at the Wikipedia page, the only surveys where Bush comes out at the bottom of the pack are the popular opinion surveys that have been done about him. Those are utterly worthless when it comes to determining the historical perspective.

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:28pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Your facts and outside source support have no place in here.. This is the Senate Forum after all...

Oh, wait.....

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DeathStar1977 
Registered: Jan '03
7850_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:53pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency - Date Edited: 7/20/07 1:56pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DeathStar1977
Before you finish patting each others' backs for Bush-defense while insinuating that KW is nothing but a Bush-hater, even the Wikipedia entry regarding historians indicates that Bush provokes a strong reaction amongst historians:

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President George W. Bush a split-decision rating of "average".

And I'd seriously wonder about the impartiality of a poll conducted by a member of the Federalist Society in conjunction with The Wall Street Journal, featuring Kenneth Starr and Lynne Cheney as contributors. Either way, I'll be surprised if even the most partisan historians rank Bush sixth-best President ever.

Again, look to Truman. He had the lowest approval ratings, faced multiple major scandals, had a tumultuous economy to deal with, an unpopular war (with 54000 casualties in less time than we've been in Iraq), and barely won reelection (when he was predicted to lose). There are many, many parallels to Bush when you take a close look at Truman.

And there are many differences, as noted above, and I don't think Bush was 'predicted to lose', or certainly not in the manner that Truman was (by 15 points). It was predicted to be a close race, and Bush hadn't angered many in his own party as Truman had (from liberals to southernors). There are many broad parallels to all Presidencies, but this whole Bush=Truman thing is just an attempt to co-opt Truman's appeal as a plain-spoken everyman and newfound respect...Bush has none of that.

Anyway, many Presidencies face such adversity. So we get it, Truman had low approval ratings, Bush has low approval ratings, therefore Truman=Bush. What we (I) am saying is that surmises a whole lot and requires a whole lot of external variables to take shape, and it is not that he 'cannot' be ranked in the middle of the pack, rather that it would be, at least IMO, at this point wholly inaccurate.

EDIT: And I'd say public opinion polls aren't 'worthless', rather like all opinion surveys, a reflection of the opinion of the general population. It may not carry as much weight as a group of historians, but whose to say who is really an expert on such matters?

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Divia 
Registered: Jun '05
23791_Aayla Secura
Date Posted: 7/20/07 1:57pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency - Date Edited: 7/20/07 2:02pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Divia
Dont' use wiki..it will make you turn into a pumkin.


I think it should be noted, who did these polls on wiki? Who were the historians. Cause I can tell you right now the historians in my college would rank him as the worst. So what leanings do these historians have?

And for the love of god stop making historians out to be some angelic creatures who can do no wrong. They are human, with bias and that said bias tends to show up in their works. They are not faultless.

 

-----signature-----
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be Evil.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:11pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Bush Defense? At what point does it stop being about politics, and starts being about the topic? If arguing for mediocrity is some sort of defense, then we've certainly hit a new standard.

DS, that certainly seems beneath you. My reply was simply a joke directed at the nature of the forum. The Senate should welcome a variety of opinions and views. However, the point of the forum isn't to argue, but to debate.

Truman doesn't equal Bush, or Harding or Taft. That's not the point. Every President has had adversity and has been unpopular at one point or the other. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that it isn't specifically about the President, and yet still have my statement be ignored. I do support many of Bush's policies, but the two certainly aren't the same. I might begin to understand your point if I kept repeating that I thought Bush was the best President ever, but that's not the case. He's not the best, but not the worst, from an overall perspective.

I bet if we all looked, we could find speeches that were directed at every President and/or public opinion that questioned if the end of the union was near. From Marbury v Madison, to the first income tax, to Teapot Dome, to the Korean War, and everything in between. It's not about defending a specific President, but rather examining the context of such examples.

It's not enough to simply say "because I said so, and everyone should just think the way I do," but rather it's how one supports the points being made.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:16pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Divia posted:
Dont' use wiki..it will make you turn into a pumkin.
Every survey listed in there is fully cited. Wiki is good for that sort of thing. It's the uncited references that are a problem on Wiki.

Divia posted:
I think it should be noted, who did these polls on wiki? Who were the historians. Cause I can tell you right now the historians in my college would rank him as the worst. So what leanings do these historians have?

And for the love of god stop making historians out to be some angelic creatures who can do no wrong. They are human, with bias and that said bias tends to show up in their works. They are not faultless.
I'm not making historians out to be perfect. What I am saying is that once we get farther removed from the Bush Presidency in time, the extremely passionate feelings on both sides will have reduced, and it's those feelings more than anything (as seen in this thread, among others) that introduce bias to the current rankings.

Once we get a good 30 years or so separation from the Bush Presidency, it will pretty much be only the historians looking back at it, hence my point that we won't know how history views it until passions have cooled and history is actually looking at it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
DeathStar1977 
Registered: Jan '03
7850_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:27pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Mr44

Bush Defense? At what point does it stop being about politics, and starts being about the topic? If arguing for mediocrity is some sort of defense, then we've certainly hit a new standard.

DS, that certainly seems beneath you. My reply was simply a joke directed at the nature of the forum. The Senate should welcome a variety of opinions and views. However, the point of the forum isn't to argue, but to debate.

C'mon man, you know me well enough that while I do chide you (and KK), I was making a sarcastic comment in reference to how you replied to KW. While I DID intend to be a smart-ass, I did not intend to be a jackass...if that was the case, then I do apologize. happy

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post, and I don't think I insinuated that 'everyone should agree with me'. I've always stated my opinions, backed them up, often stating them strongly...but that certainly doesn't mean that I think everyone should agree with me. I am more interested in discussing people's opinions and letting the chips fall where they may, agree to disagree, but at the very least, as you stated, address the topic at hand without repeating ourselves. I try to add sarcasm and/or wit, but sometimes I obviously don't express it too well. wink happy

That said...What do you mean that it isn't always about the President? On an interesting side note, I read an article the other day that referenced a philosopher who felt that politicians and so-called leaders had very little effect on society, that society itself is too large and too variable to be affected by such things. I don't really agree, but I found it to be interesting.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:36pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
I don't think I insinuated that 'everyone should agree with me'. I've always stated my opinions, backed them up, often stating them strongly...but that certainly doesn't mean that I think everyone should agree with me.

I know. That part wasn't directed at you, as mine was more of an "all inclusive" type of post.

That said...What do you mean that it isn't always about the President? On an interesting side note, I read an article the other day that referenced a philosopher who felt that politicians and so-called leaders had very little effect on society, that society itself is too large and too variable to be affected by such things. I don't really agree, but I found it to be interesting.

I would agree, and I also think it's the crux of the "30 years from now.." sentiment.

What I mean when I claim it's "not always about the President" is in relation to specific examples. As an example, I may recognize the utility of something like the Patriot Act, but I don't think it's some tool used specifically by Bush for world domination or anything.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '01
39907_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:37pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
Divia posted:
Dont' use wiki..it will make you turn into a pumkin.
Every survey listed in there is fully cited. Wiki is good for that sort of thing. It's the uncited references that are a problem on Wiki.

Divia posted:
I think it should be noted, who did these polls on wiki? Who were the historians. Cause I can tell you right now the historians in my college would rank him as the worst. So what leanings do these historians have?

And for the love of god stop making historians out to be some angelic creatures who can do no wrong. They are human, with bias and that said bias tends to show up in their works. They are not faultless.
I'm not making historians out to be perfect. What I am saying is that once we get farther removed from the Bush Presidency in time, the extremely passionate feelings on both sides will have reduced, and it's those feelings more than anything (as seen in this thread, among others) that introduce bias to the current rankings.

Once we get a good 30 years or so separation from the Bush Presidency, it will pretty much be only the historians looking back at it, hence my point that we won't know how history views it until passions have cooled and history is actually looking at it.

Kimball Kinnison


And my point is that once the passions and emotions are removed, Bush will look worse than he does right now.

 

-----signature-----
Omar: "Can you fix this, Joe?" *clock bangs on table*
Prop Joe: "What's the problem?"
Omar: "Run out of time."
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 7/20/07 2:42pm Subject: RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
And of course, I predict a race of giant atomic Martians are going to invade the US. If you're right, then I owe you. If I'm right, then it's not going to matter anyway.

Of course, without knowing what exactly is going to happen in 30 years, both have an equal chance of being accurate, but the giant atomic Martian theory is much more exciting.

 

-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (8.11.25.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64214) 0.453