| Author |
Topic:
Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 4:17pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
I'm watching All the President's Men today, off and on, and it's depressing to realize that, in all likelihood, crimes at least as bad as Watergate are going on right now, or have in the past few years, and the same kind of stonewalling silence has gone up, only more so. Even Nixon could not have imagined the depths to which things have sunk. His imperial presidency was no match for this one.
Cheney learned the lessons of Watergate very well.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 5:57pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
8/4/07 6:00pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Mischievous
|
KnightWriter posted:
I'm watching All the President's Men today, off and on, and it's depressing to realize that, in all likelihood, crimes at least as bad as Watergate are going on right now, or have in the past few years, and the same kind of stonewalling silence has gone up, only more so. Even Nixon could not have imagined the depths to which things have sunk. His imperial presidency was no match for this one.
Cheney learned the lessons of Watergate very well.
^
|
Comedy gold...
Imperial presidency? Sounds like someone's been spending too much time on far left-wing blogs....
Besides, no "Imperial" President would have abdicated his 'throne' as Nixon did, threat of impeachment or not.
Where oh where did the old KW go? 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 6:00pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
8/4/07 6:02pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
Believe as you want, DM. I'm confident that historians will lean much closer to my perspective than they will to yours.
Where oh where did the old KW go?
To a place where a lot of naive people went after W came along and started his reign: the past.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 6:12pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Who knows? I sure don't claim to be a soothsayer.
Truman had atrocious ratings at the end of his Presidency as well, but he's viewed in a positive light now. I'm sure people back then said the same thing....
Look, I have serious problems with the Bush Adminstration, especially in relation to the local situation. There are many negatives, to be sure. There have also been positives, admit them or not. No terror attack on US soil since 9/11 (although that can certainly change before '08). Full employment. Generally low interest rates.
He could indeed end up being viewed as a Republican Jimmy Carter, a failed President.... or he could end up with a more positive view in the light of history after enough time has passed.
I just think you have an emotional and visceral hatred of him. It's understandable that individuals really despise him, but one at least must be open to the possibility that their views may or may not be consistent with the overall picture over a length of time.
We can't honestly say what his Presidency will look like in 30 years from now.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 6:25pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
8/4/07 6:37pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
I don't hate him personally so much as I hate his administration and what they've done. Their arrogance, their defiance of the law, their preference for partisan ideology over the good of the country, their ignorance of and often willful defiance of science, and on and on and on. It isn't about just Bush, and to some extent, it has more to do with others in the administration collectively than it does about the president himself, though everyone takes their cue and lead from him.
Truman is starting to become the new "But Clinton did it". Now it's "But Truman was hated too, and look how he turned out." Well, I'm here to tell you that that's borderline delusional (both for Bush to keep believing it and for anyone else who believes it). Truman turned out well because he made smart decisions for the most part and was a good leader. Bush has made very stupid decisions and has been a very poor leader. We don't need history to tell us that. Bush will be damned more by historians than he is today by anyone here. You can take that to the bank. He'll be the Warren Harding of this century, if not Buchanan (widely regarded as the worst president ever).
We're 33 years past Watergate now. Nixon is still reviled for what he did, and his presidency is still loathed by a great many people. Smart people have come to realize that he was actually a decent president in many respects, but that's because he was a very intelligent man. Smart observers knew that then, just as smart people today know that Bush doesn't have any of what Nixon had going for him. No paranoia, just outright stupidity and arrogance.
We should be dealing with the energy problems facing this country, and we are not. History will damn him for that, and even more so for Cheney. We should be facing the oncoming Baby Boomer crisis. Nothing happening on that front. They've grudgingly started to deal with the environment, and they've been muzzling scientists for years now. Who knows what else will come out.
Things will look worse in 30 years, not better. Things that Bush will be taken to task for haven't really become a major problem yet in the immediate sense.
And finally, we've spent over 1 trillion dollars on a failed war and occupation. That's a hundred billion dollars ten times over. That's a zero-sum mistake in many ways, because all that money (which we've largely borrowed, of course) could and should have been spent on other things, or, you know, saved.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 8:00pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
- Date Edited:
8/5/07 1:44pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
And finally, we've spent over 1 trillion dollars on a failed war and occupation.
Not that it is that important, because your point still stands, but the trillion dollar cost isn't what has been spent already, but represents an estimate for the total cost, including long term health care for veterans, which is spread over decades.
Immediate costs for Iraq are estimated at around 500 billion, if the US pulls out within the next 3 years.
However, as an important comparison, Prof Steven Davis, who is an economist with the University of Chicago, illustrated that had Bush not invaded and simply continued the prior policy of containment, the US would have still spent a total of 350-700 billion dollars. (his figures include the yearly cost of deploying the 28,000 troops required to enforce the no-fly zones/ inspection compliance.)
1 trillion for the war <==> 700 billion for containment, both sound like large numbers, but it means that the trillion dollar cost simply wasn't created out of nothing, it illustrates the real costs of the US being involved in Iraq in the first place.
To add, the only real alternative to not spend billions of dollars in Iraq through either invasion or containment would have been to pull out completely, but I'm not sure any President (or candidate) at the time, from Clinton to Gore, to Kerry to Bush would have done so.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 8:03pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Most interesting. Some hard numbers to ponder, so I appreciate that.
Still, it doesn't take away from the much more vast and deep human cost that the war and occupation has brought us, and I don't think anyone can seriously believe that containment would have resulted in several thousand troops dead, thousands more injured and an angry electorate.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
8/4/07 8:07pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Still, it doesn't take away from the much more vast and deep human cost that the war and occupation has brought us, and I don't think anyone can seriously believe that containment would have resulted in several thousand troops dead, thousands more injured and an angry electorate.
This much is true.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DeathStar1977
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 12:52am
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
350-700 billion dollars.
Thats a pretty wide range as an estimate.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 1:50am
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
|
I think the noneconomic costs will be really what gets us. Not only to you have the lives you mentioned, but you also have to factor in the loss to American power and prestige. Both in real terms like war readiness, and in America's standing with the world community. I do think Bush will be remembered as a disaster presidency, although not "Teh worst evar." I think for historians the real kick in the teeth will be the suspension of Habeaus Corpus. Truman made some unpopular, smart, long term stratigic choices. While it might be possible that somehow Islamic extremists go away soon and give Bush "Victory" that is so far out of the realm of possibility that it isn't worth considering. The one thing that I think could partly save the Bush Presidency will be a hasty undignified immediate pullout from Iraq leading to some very horrible large scale regional war. While such a thing should probably be laid at Bush's feet anyways, if the next president were to do something like that I think Bush in history could gain by being seen as holding out in Iraq as long as possible to fix a desperate situation, rather than the current focus on him not caring what the people think and doing whatever he wants. So unless the next guy (or gal) manages to screw up more than he did, I don't think there is much hope for him. And the only way I see that happening is for Ron Paul or that crazy liberal from Alaska getting to the White House.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 12:46pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
DeathStar1977 posted:
350-700 billion dollars.
Thats a pretty wide range as an estimate.
Because the range is determined by the assumptions that you make. The real number is probably on the order of 500 billion dollars.
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
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 3:10pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
The issue of ethnicity almost derailed this thread, so I'll touch briefly on that while making every attempt to stick with the thread topic.
Yes there is no question that "Gonzales-gate" could be simply the tip of the iceberg, and observers have already suggested that Bush's main reason for defending him no matter what is that, with him gone from the Justice Department, then all the heat (over all the possible and likely improprieties, obstruction of justice, etc. etc.) would almost immediately shift to the White House, i.e., Rove, Cheney, etc. And the next Attorney General would have to regain credibility for the DOJ by spearheading a thorough and non-partisan investigation.
Obviously, it is imperative that Alberto Gonzales be impeached. He just can't be impeached too soon, because if he got convicted while Bush was still in office, there can be no doubt that Bush would grant him a full pardon in exchange for his silence. So, it just becomes a matter of impeaching Gonzales shortly before Bush leaves office, so that there will be no possibility of the impeachment process ending before the end of the Bush presidency.
As for ethnicity -- it should play absolutely no part whatsoever. Anyone who had done such a horrible, dishonest job as AG and was still supported by a sitting president *should* be impeached by Congress, regardless of ethnicity.
Also let's not forget that demographic projections conclude that it is statistically impossible at this point that Latinos won't eventually be a majority in this country, given the higher birth rates of Latino families compared to non-Latino families. The projections have taken into account every possibility, no matter how far-fetched, including the nearly-impossible task of actually sealing the border. Even if the border were sealed, there are already enough Latinos in the U.S. (both legally and undocumented) that eventually they will be a majority. It may take 2-3 generations, but it *will* happen. And yes, the overwhelming majority of Latinos is and will likely continue to be of Mexican origin.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The U.S. resorted to any means it could to take away half of Mexico's territory in the 19th century. Now, just a few hundred years later, Mexicans are poised to effectively "take over" the U.S., from within. If 19th-century Americans could have foreseen these consequences, would they still have wanted Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California?
There is a saying in Mexico that, to the best of my knowledge, has no equivalent in the U.S. Roughly translated, it says, "There is no such thing as a small enemy. From the street will come he who will kick you out of your house." I think the U.S. should have thought twice before taking on Mexico, heh.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 11:08pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
I guess the point is that we should have taken over all of Mexico when we had the chance 150 years ago, because back then we worried that the influx of spanish speaking Mexicans would destory the country. But if we had, then we wouldn't have to worry about Mexican immigrants.
I don't really think most moderates are concerned about the race of the people comming here. If there was an effective effort to seal the border, I don't think people would really mind if we allowed a larger number of Mexicans to come. If we controlled their influx into the country to manageable numbers, they are very good at integrating compared to most groups and we would have a Mexican majority that spoke english and intermarried well with the rest of the white population If we fail to protect our borders then greater numbers than we can reasonably handle will probably enter and they will become a permanent underclass. I also think there is something morally bankrupt about letting only those poor people who can walk here in when we have millions of others who wait in line who probably need the opportunities our country provides much much more than the average Mexican campesino.
I wouldn't mind a latin wife, as long as she was throughly Americanized. I lived 24 hours a day with enough Dominican guys that I know I couldn't stand being married to one. And while I like speaking Spanish, at home I want to speak English.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 11:28pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Princess_Tina posted:
Also let's not forget that demographic projections conclude that it is statistically impossible at this point that Latinos won't eventually be a majority in this country, given the higher birth rates of Latino families compared to non-Latino families. The projections have taken into account every possibility, no matter how far-fetched, including the nearly-impossible task of actually sealing the border. Even if the border were sealed, there are already enough Latinos in the U.S. (both legally and undocumented) that eventually they will be a majority. It may take 2-3 generations, but it *will* happen. And yes, the overwhelming majority of Latinos is and will likely continue to be of Mexican origin.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The U.S. resorted to any means it could to take away half of Mexico's territory in the 19th century. Now, just a few hundred years later, Mexicans are poised to effectively "take over" the U.S., from within. If 19th-century Americans could have foreseen these consequences, would they still have wanted Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California?
Ok, first of all, could you please source that claim on the demographic projections? I'd like to see how the address the arguement that as a group rises in income, they wouldn't have the birth rates decline. I'd also like to know what it is that would make 2nd or 3rd generation (or more) Latinos count as some special catagory.
Further, I'd also strongly question that entire second paragraph, unless you're saying that Mexico should be returned to Spanish rule. Further, since you list both Texas and California, I'd also point out that Mexico only had control of these areas for a short time... California was only 25 years and 15 years for Texas.
Its not the best source for this bit, but Wikipedia puts it at 8000 families in the area that was gained by the Mexican-American War, with most staying in the U.S. when the U.S. gained the land. So this isn't people 'reclaiming' 'their' land.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DeathStar1977
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
8/5/07 11:48pm
Subject:
RE: Salvaging the Bush Presidency
|
Because the range is determined by the assumptions that you make.
Really? The range is determined by the assumptions that you make? Well, I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie, take the professor into the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
