RANKING THE PRESIDENTS: #16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “A Walker Along The Road Less Traveled”
By Corey Thompson, filed in Corey Thompson, Presidential Rankings on Jan.23, 2009
***(Editor’s Note: In conjunction with the Inauguration of America’s 44th President, “The Thirsty Quill” is publishing a series entitled “Ranking The Presidents.” There is no ‘exact science’ to these rankings other than personal opinion based on such factors as policy, performance, popularity, perseverance, integrity, and legacy. Aside from those Presidents ranked in the top 25% and the bottom 25%, there is a great deal of ‘wiggle room’ for discretionary placement and movement. These rankings are strictly the personal opinion of the Editor of ‘The Quill,’ and should not be regarded as an academic survey of any type. Debate of these rankings is highly encouraged and appreciated.)***
#16: George W. Bush (2001-2009)
I’m sure that I’m playing with fire here, so let the critics commence to throwing their stones. I’m ready…
I could write an entire book defending George W. Bush as a Top-20 President. Ironically, his critics claim that they could write one on him being one of the worst. I’m quite certain that the debate will spill out here over the next few days at ‘The Quill,’ as this will undoubtedly be regarded as one of my most controversial rankings.
That’s the thing about George W. Bush right now. People either love him, or they hate him; they applaud his policies and decision-making, or they claim that he was an incompetent leader; they say he was a man of conviction and principle, or that he broke the law and lied. Regardless, there is very little ‘middle ground’ or ‘wiggle room’ among the perceptions of his tenure.
So, let the ‘Tug o’ War’ between admiration and hate for “W” begin…
Let’s start with the 2000 Election. It was one of the most highly-contested and controversial elections in U.S. history. We all remember Bush and Gore going down to the wire, and the “hanging chads” fiasco in Florida. The controversy sparked public distrust for the political process, which I believe was provoked by a liberal media that was drooling over a good story. Motions were filed, and the case ultimately had to be settled by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in Bush’s favor, and the election was over.
There were accusations of cheating. There were public demonstrations. There were calls for an end to the Electoral College. I find it amazing that people think that the 2000 Election was the only time in American history that there was some controversy surrounding the Electoral and Popular vote. Little do most realize that 2000 was one of a handful of Presidential Elections in which the candidate who won the Popular vote lost the Electoral College. It was as if people expected the Constitution to be changed overnight, completely abolishing the process as set forth by those who had framed the document over 200 years before.
In the end, regardless of who won, the newly elected President was going to begin his tenure with a public that was skeptical of their victory. Not a good way to start for anyone, regardless of party affiliation.
People have debated with me on the issue of the 2000 Election, claiming that Bush “stole” Florida…and the victory. However, I have always been quick to point out one important factor that is often overlooked. The election only hinged on Florida because of the controversial ballots in a few precincts that dragged out for several weeks (long after other states had finished counting). Yet, most Democrats forget that Florida would have never mattered in the final results, had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee. Capturing Tennessee would have given Gore the necessary Electoral Votes to reach the 270 ‘threshold,’ thus securing the Presidency. Florida (and their controversial system with unreadable “punch cards”) would not have mattered. Gore could not win his home state. That is what cost him the Election of 2000, not a few thousand “punch cards.” Therefore it was Tennessee, and not Florida which carried the election for George W.
Before the dust had settled on the Election Controversy, America would be tested by the event that would shape and define Bush’s remaining years in the White House. Al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist organization under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, used hijacked commercial airliners to strike at targets representing America’s financial, military, and democratic strength. In the end, close to 3,000 innocent Americans had lost their lives in what would be one of the darkest days in our nation’s history.
At that moment, on that day, Bush’s legacy was sealed forever.
The remainder of his Presidency would be shaped by a necessity to deal with a new threat, one not seen at such magnitude in our past…by an enemy without flag, without uniform, and without any regard for their own lives. It was Jihad against the United States, and all other policy, domestic and foreign, would take a backseat to the protection of America from such an attack again.
Bush rallied America. You remember the time, and you remember the feeling. It was patriotism and nationalism like we had not felt or witnessed in 60 years (since Pearl Harbor in 1941). Suddenly, it was once again cool to stand with reverence during the National Anthem. The phrase “God Bless America” could be found on bumper stickers, billboards, and at the corner lemonade stand where your neighbor’s kids were raising money for the victims. There were American flags on every street, on every highway, and on every sports uniform across this great land. We were united by a common cause through an uncommon tragedy. And in the midst of our pain, it felt good to know where America stood.
President Bush’s approval ratings were in the neighborhood of 90% in the months that followed the attacks of 9/11. But oh, how we forget. We are such a fickle and spoiled nation…
America changed its stance. Under Bush’s leadership, we went on the offensive to go get the bad guys before they got us. As a nation, we applauded with rousing support. Red, white, and blue ran through our veins, across our TV screens, and throughout the airwaves. “Have you forgotten?”
There was Afghanistan and the hunt for the most elusive man in the world. We still haven’t found him, and the American public is dissatisfied. Yet, we don’t even have any evidence as to whether or not bin Laden is still alive. He is aging, and his health was deteriorating long before 9/11 (kidney ailment). Most grew weary of the search when we didn’t find him right away. It took the FBI over 5 years just to find the man who detonated a nail bomb at the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996…and he was hiding in the woods of North Carolina. It’s been a little over 7 years since we began searching for the world’s most notorious terrorist in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan.
But there has been progress. The Taliban has been toppled, there is a working Constitution, the people are experiencing freedom and democracy for the first time, and women are unafraid to have an opinion, along with their ability to vote. We cannot forget that.
We then turned our attention to Iraq, and began one of the most controversial military operations in American history. We had changed our stance on the bad guys, and Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in our side for over a decade. In fact, the world had been dealing with Hussein’s antics since it was discovered that he was killing his own people by the tens-of-thousands. The United States had marked Hussein as “dangerous” since he had wiped out an entire village of innocent men, women, and children by using chemical and biological weapons on them in the 1980s. The facts are there.
Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait at the beginning of the 1990s made him a global threat. Iraqi troops used their strong (at the time) military to roll over a defenseless Kuwait. These same troops tortured and murdered male Kuwaiti citizens, raped Kuwaiti women, and beat and deprived Kuwaiti children. Hussein was greedy for Kuwait’s vast natural resources (primarily its oil), and the defenseless and peaceful nation made for an easy target.
The world was outraged. A coalition of dozens of countries (under the leadership of the United States) gave Hussein an ultimatum: get out, or else. Saddam chose the “or else” option, thumbing his nose at the coalition and making threats about turning the United States into a “pile of ashes.” Our troops crushed the Iraqi military in a matter of hours, and turned their focus toward Baghdad and Hussein.
And then, for some reason that will be remembered as one of the biggest errors in world history, we stopped. Hussein apologized, agreed to adhere to United Nations resolutions, promised to dismantle and destroy any stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons plus halt his pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and ultimately “play nice.” We took him at his word. What fools we were to allow him to stay in power…
The elder George Bush should have pushed forward and taken out Hussein when we had the chance (and the evidence in hand) to do so. He didn’t. And when Bill Clinton defeated him in 1992, the “problem” that was Saddam Hussein was passed down to a new President.
When Saddam began to back away from his promises and pledges to conform, the United Nations was at a loss for how to deal with him. Hussein repeatedly kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out, and slowly began rebuilding his confidence to behave in ways that violated the resolutions by which he was bound. As a result, President Clinton was forced to order multiple military strikes against Iraq in an effort to get Hussein to comply. Nothing seemed to work. When Clinton became distracted by his own personal issues, Hussein disappeared from the spotlight and went back to business as usual. Just as Bush had done in ’92, Clinton left office with the Iraqi issue unresolved. I blame the elder George Bush, Bill Clinton, and the United Nations for the problems we have in Iraq today, not George W. Had the earlier leaders dealt with the problem when the evidence was ‘red hot,’ the need for entering Iraq after 9/11 would have never existed, and our men and women would already be back home.
No, Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq. No, Saddam Hussein didn’t help plot 9/11. I get that. However, when America changed its stance after 9/11, it once again thrust “problem” dictators and regimes that would do us harm back into the spotlight. Thus, we went after the “thorn” who had long since worn out our patience.
Likewise, President Clinton failed to deal with bin Laden after the first Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Yet no one seems to blame him for not “finding” bin Laden in the remaining 7 years of his administration. Al-Qaeda also bombed multiple embassies and the USS Cole under Clinton’s watch, but nobody remembers those. We have such a double-standard in our perceptions…
This is about the time that I began to realize that George W. Bush was going to spend his time in office picking up the pieces left behind from the elder President Bush and President Clinton.
Then, there was Hurricane Katrina and the accusations that President Bush neglected to deal with the disaster effectively. I will agree that mistakes were made, both before and after Katrina made landfall. Yet, I’m confused by the insinuations that the blame all rests at the feet of the President. No one knew just how devastating Katrina would be until hours before she hit. Both the Federal and State governments made dire warnings, insisting that people get out of its path, either on their own or by the transportation that was provided. The majority (not all) of the fatalities and tragedies that followed were among those who had refused to leave, despite the warnings and mandatory evacuations.
The follow-up response was pathetic at all levels. Aid and relief were slow and limited. I do blame the Federal, State, and local agencies for not acting quicker. Does Bush share some of the blame? Of course. But, can we honestly lay all of this at the feet of one man? No. There were many lessons to be learned in the wake of Katrina. Let us hope and pray that they are never realized again…for any President.
The issue of “rights” came up in the years that followed 9/11. The Patriot Act, wire-tapping, and torture seemed to anger many of Bush’s critics. We could debate the role of government in protecting its citizens vs. the rights of suspected enemy combatants and terrorists until we all passed out from huffing and puffing. It wouldn’t settle anything. I’ll leave this issue with a few thoughts and questions: 1) Bush made a pledge to protect our nation after 9/11, using all available resources and by whatever means necessary. 2) How do you define “torture,” especially against someone who is willing to kill innocent Americans? 3) What are the “rights” of a suspected terrorist who is not an American citizen? Are they afforded the same rights and protections as a U.S. citizen? 4) The U.S. experienced NO terrorist attacks on our soil for the remainder of Bush’s terms (’01-’09), despite attacks in London, Madrid, and at countless other locations around the globe. 5) Call it “torture” or a “violation of rights” all you want. I call it “success.”
The economy was the final stumbling block of Bush’s Presidency. Most are quick to blame the recession that has crippled our economy (since the last quarter of 2007) on him. I agree, our economy is in dire condition. Yet once again, we’ve allowed the last year to blind the full spectrum of his legacy. In the summer of 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked above 14,000. This was an all-time high, and came on the heels of an economic boom that had seen our market swell by nearly double since 2001…under George W. Bush. But I guess that doesn’t matter…
I place George W. Bush at a respectable #16 because he was faced with more trials and issues than most Presidents in our nation’s history. And while he wasn’t perfect, he did handle each and every one of these problems with conviction and leadership. He never cowered from making the tough decisions, even when they were going to be extremely unpopular.
He did all of this while watching his approval ratings fall from 90%, to close to 30% at one point. He did so despite a ravenous and unforgiving liberal media that was bent on his demise. Make no mistake, they wanted him to fail. They broadcast his failures and buried his victories like the underworld vermin that they are.
He pushed on despite a society that expected success in the War On Terror faster than we can download the latest song to our iPod, or send a text message on our cell phone. We are a society of short-term memory and spoiled ideology. We showed our asses by the way we treated the man who pledged to protect us…and backed it up…
He never wavered. Despite the polls and disrespect, he always held true to his convictions and never buckled. He made the tough calls and took every ounce of blame we could dish out.
Then, when it was time for him to go, he was above reproach and ever classy in the smooth transition of power, bowing out gracefully to a political adversary. He complimented the incoming President repeatedly, referring to him as “a great American” in what had been “a historic election.” There would be no missing keys from computer keyboards when Bush left office (you’ll have to ask Clinton staffers about that one).
As a student and teacher of America’s past, I realize that the History books will be much kinder to our 43rd President than we have been. They will one day remark about the strides made in some of the darkest spots on the globe…strides that have advanced the ideals of freedom and democracy to those who never knew them before. They will also dedicate a paragraph or page…no, better yet, at least a chapter…to how Americans were kept safe for the final 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. And they’ll marvel at how, despite growing criticism and a society that turned their back on him, he followed through with his promise to “never forget,” when so many others did…
Notable Quotations: “You know what’s so interesting about Washington? It’s the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature.”
“The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.”
“Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”
“Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -the greatest achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time- now depends on us. Our nation -this generation- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future…we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.”
PRESIDENTIAL RANKINGS SO FAR:
#16: George W. Bush (2001-2009)
#17: John Adams (1797-1801)
#18: William McKinley (1897-1901)
#19: William Taft (1909-1913)
#21/20: Grover Cleveland (1885-89/1893-97)
#22: George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
#23: Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
#24: Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
#25: John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
#26: Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
#27: Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
#28: Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
#29: Zachary Taylor (March 1849-July 1850)
#30: Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
#31: Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
#32: Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
#33: John Tyler (1841-1845)
#34: Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
#35: Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
#36: Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
#37: James Buchanan (1857-1861)
#38: Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
#39: Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
#40: Warren Harding (March 1921-August 1923)
#41: Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
#42*: James Garfield (March 1881-September 1881)
#43*: William Henry Harrison (March 1841-April 1841)





January 23rd, 2009 on 5:37 pm
Corey, I completely agree. In fact, I would venture to put “W” higher in the list. I think that throughout the last 8 years, Bush has an extremely bad break. He cleaned up the mess left over from the previous two presidents. Additionally, he provided more aid from the government’s budget to those in need in countries around the globe, particularly to Africa and India.
You also have to take into consideration he improved free trade like any other president before him. Bush encouraged the Chinese government to allow open and free markets.
January 23rd, 2009 on 5:43 pm
So, I get you’re a die-hard Conservative Republican and, up until I’ve respected your views presented from that perspective.
However, rating George W. Bush above the likes of Clinton (a man who balanced the budget and actually REDUCED the deficit in his time in office), Taft (helped build the railroad system we have today), and JQ Adams (HE WROTE THE MONROE DOCTRINE FOR GOD SAKES) is not only absurd, it’s just very factually wrong.
Your entire post about George W. was spent defending accusations about his poor performance in office and not once did I read any mention of tax reforms, social security reforms, health care reforms, financial reforms, fiscal prowess regarding the US budget, admirable foreign policy, admirable domestic policy. You know, things President’s are supposed to do.
In essence, your post summarily dismissed all the bad things people say about George W. Bush as untrue and, that because the terrorists attacked the US of A on his watch, he should get a free ride up the ranks of your list for being a “stand up guy” in dire and difficult circumstances.
The office is called the President of the United States. That title commands respect from every single individual on the planet, terrorist or housewife, not because the person serving in that office greets you with a quip and a smile and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when he gives interviews to the White House press corps. No, I’d say the title commands such respect because the job is hard. The hardest job a man or woman will ever do. A job so hard, with so much responsibility associated with it, a job so completely harrowing and thankless, that the only guys who want to do it, do so because they have a moral obligation to serve their country and assume the burden of the entire free world on their shoulders. Any man without that moral obligation should neither run for the office nor expect anything other ridicule and criticism if they do run for the office and shuffle that burden from their shoulders.
So, please don’t insult the rest of us with this he-went-through-hell crap. Plenty of better men before him have endured much worse circumstances (see: Gerald Ford, unelected, cleaning up Nixon’s mess, and still did a finer job that GWB) and dealt with those circumstances like they were the President of the United States — not the president of Bikini Car Wash.
January 23rd, 2009 on 11:41 pm
Shep,
Thanks for the comments.
I’ll keep this short, as my hand is already cramped from writing the novel (above) to which you were displeased.
You used Clinton, Taft, John Quincy Adams, and Ford in your response. I believe that I did, in fact, list the positives that each man brought to the table during their tenure.
* Clinton (#39) and the economy/budget, excellent speaker…I do believe the end of the Cold War and the subsequent military cutbacks aided the balancing of the budget.
* Taft (#19) and the Panama Canal, new states, US Supreme Court (Chief Justice, no less), and yes, his contributions to the RR system cannot be overlooked (although I failed to mention it)…
* John Quincy Adams (#25) and the Monroe Doctrine, Adams-Onis Treaty, and an expert diplomat…
* Gerald Ford (#27) and his dealing with the Watergate mess, war hero, and I even called him a “stud”…
Now, I hate to be nit-picky here, but let me make a few important points:
Clinton: 2 terms, impeached, perjury, no major world conflicts to deal with, scandalous affair with a White House intern in the Oval Office, Whitewater scandal, charged with Sexual Abuse/Harassment and admitted to numerous adulterous affairs, 1993 bombing of WTC by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, 2000 bombing of USS Cole by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, never dealt with Saddam Hussein…
Taft: 1 term…could not get re-elected by THE PEOPLE…
John Quincy Adams: 1 term…could not get re-elected by THE PEOPLE…
Ford: Finished Nixon’s term…could not get re-elected by THE PEOPLE…
George W. Bush: 2 terms as chosen by THE PEOPLE and under the process afforded by our Constitution (plus evidence mentioned above)…
I just find it hard to follow the rationale that we should believe that Taft, JQA, and Ford were all “better” than George W. Bush, when THE PEOPLE who were alive and voting did not even think they were worthy of a second term.
In Clinton’s case, he won two terms, but had his impeachment occurred during the first term, many scholars believe that he would have lost his re-election bid handily, even with the surging economy and his witty speeches.
Thanks again my friend.
January 23rd, 2009 on 11:44 pm
I have always been curious how they allowed all of the Bin Laden family (over 100) to be the only people who could fly our friendly skies on Sept 12th to get them out of the Country. No one ever refuted the charges of Michael Moore’s Fierenhieght 911. I know I know, it’s the liberal media, so there is no need to defend him from any allegations when you can use the get out of accountability free card. It’s like playing basketball and every time the ref blows his whistle someone can say, he’s a deranged old man who hates my team so he doesn’t count. To be offended by the sensationalism in our corporate media is fair but to suggest that reporting on Bush’s numerous shortcomings, lies, and down right embarrassing situations is ridiculous.
Like Shep, I see know validation of his ranking this high, I see a bunch of justification which is not what makes a legacy, it makes an informative public service announcement. “Don’t use bad intelligence” Cheney and Rumspfelt were both heavy into intel going back to before the Nixon administration and these guys who had been involved in this foreign policy for all these years can use the “We used bad intelligence” line? Come-on. The only people who can blame “bad intelligence” are the non Neo-Con Republicans who put this crummy administration up for another 4 years.
Excuses, ineptness, incompetent, conflicts of interest, liberty squelching, torture promoting, environment killing, operative outing, crony promoting, resignation accepting, arrogant abuses of power, these are the words I think of when looking back at the W years.
Don’t get me wrong, over the last few months I have seen a more humble side of W and even appreciated the way he Tee’d it up for President Obama in his final address. But I wont forget the low points over the last eight years and I wont give him a pass just because he’s likable.
I judge a President based on the conditions on the ground and the foreseeable future. Is the Country better after His administration or worse? Interesting strategy I know. It is easy to defend those we like but at some point it shreds a little bit of your credibility when you have nothing but your liking a guy, and using abstract interpretations of what he is made of to justify his greatness.
January 24th, 2009 on 12:03 am
I stand by my argument.
If there is any aspect of what I said above regarding the Election of 2000, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the economy, wire-tapping and torture, etc., I will gladly defend it again.
I’m not sure how providing evidence to support my OPINION can be translated into me ranking him really high because I “think he’s a likable guy.”
As for Michael Moore and “Freakenheight 911,” I think I saw copies of that thing on sale at the gas station last week, right in between “Waterworld” and the Slushie machine. Talk about credibility!
January 24th, 2009 on 12:08 am
By the way, I have left a “Ranking The Presidents” BOARD open over on the FORUMS page (”Dueling Quills”) for the past two weeks…
It’s there so that everybody can post their own rankings, and their reasons why.
As of tonight, not one ranking has been posted.
I hope folks are just waiting for me to finish my list before jumping in!
January 24th, 2009 on 12:31 am
I love ya Man! You are great. So are you willing to sit with me, watch Freakinfight 90210 and go tit for tat to at least disporve what the film states? And for the record Waterworld is an international treasure.
January 24th, 2009 on 5:08 pm
My, my, and I always thought “love was blind”. That was until I realized just how “BLIND” all the HATE for GWB is and has been.
Wow, Andy and Shep, take a chill pill, guys!!
One thing about it, we have not had another attack since 9/11, thanks to W. Maybe if Clinton had taken the trade center bombing more seriously “on his watch”, we wouldn’t have had another one! These people who hate us and want to do us harm are laughing their butts off over the liberal views in this country! They love every minute you trash W, they love every minute you can’t stomach the thoughts of torture, they love every minute you protest wire tapping their phones, they love every minute you talk bad about your government and your leaders, they love every minute of your weakness. While you ponder all the things they love about you, don’t forget all the things they hate about you.
And you call W an embarrassment? You talk about respect for the Office, moral obligations, and shouldering responsibility, somehow I just don’t see how Clinton qualifies for a higher ranking if that is your standards. And for the record, Michael Moore is a complete idiot, who in their right mind could take him seriously?
Sorry Corey, I used the word “butt”, is that a bad word?? Feel free to censor me!
January 24th, 2009 on 9:00 pm
Hello Brenda, your son is great guy and you deserve a lot of credit for raising such a fantastic young man. I am sure you are very proud.
I can’t speak for Shep but I know I was quite reserved in my comments. Also, I am at no level arrogant enough to think that my feelings register to the Saudi rebels who performed these attacks. HOLD IT…….
What?
Saudi, as in, Saudi Arabia?
Now there is a big slice of red meat to anyone who is serious about avenging the deaths of the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on 911.
How come no one from the Bush administration ever talked about the majority of the attackers being Saudi’s?
Oh yeah, anyone questioning these foreign policy geniuses is a traitor who’s motives must be that they hate the Country they live in. (I get it)
Arguing with conservatives about George Bush’s legacy is like telling my 87 year old grandmother that those two packs of Dorals a day are not safe. She may somewhere deep within herself agree with me but she is so set in her ways that the conversation is very close to pointless.
Lets face it, we live in a time where you can supply the validation you so desire from either side. (left or right) What I hope we can do at some point is get past the boring rhetoric that we have been saying for the last decade and move into a type of Tran partisan position, where we can disagree about cultural issues but rally together to face those who threaten our beloved Land and her ideals. The problem about arguing about our recent past is that there are so many sound bites and spliced information out there that if you look long enough you will find something that validates your position. No matter how distorted.
If you use my gage, the Country before and the Country after, I think he would be near the bottom of the list of great Presidents. If you gage it based on personal validation then I reckon he will always be somewhere in the middle. And don’t think I don’t acknowledge the horrible tragedy of 911. I, as much as any American do. But moments like that have opportunity tied to them. An opportunity, which this administration squandered when they chose to pull up on the reigns in Afghanistan and started to build the case for Iraq. No one can say that it wasn’t a distraction; no one can say we weren’t lied to. Not just about WMD’s (greeted as liberators, Oil for food program, war wasn’t going to cost us anything, Sunnis and Shea will get along) ect…. Mix in Katrina, Valorie Plane, Harriot Myers, Torture, Abughraib, Gitmo, and the most under reported topic of his presidency, Rolling back environmental regulations that un-did 30 years of environmental protection. Makes you wish that Enron remained the most controversial topic for the Bush administration (boy did that story go away after 911)
So over all it may be easier for all of us to just move on and not spend too much time focusing on all the Bush administration did poorly. In stead, lets focus on what we do going forward to make sure these things don’t happen again.
Corey knew what he was going to get when he set this pick, and if this was truly a tug of war I certainly havent felt much of a pull the other way.
January 27th, 2009 on 11:34 am
Corey, you made no mention of the absolute fiasco that was/is No Child Left Behind. This is a program that Bush proposed in 2001 as one of his first actions entering the Oval Office (literally, like 3 or 4 days after). It was a terrible idea then and an even worse idea now. The education in America has now been geared towards meeting end of grade test scores rather than teaching for true content knowledge. Corey, I know you have seen this firsthand and there is no way that you can see this as a “positive”.
January 27th, 2009 on 11:38 am
I would also agree with some of the above posters that George Bush has entrenched both political parties deeper in their ways. As Andy said, arguing with a conservative who defends Bush is pointless.
As for his election in 2001, Bush got a HUGE boost from the giant swing of Christian Conservatives who emerged strong after Clinton’s presidency. If Clinton didn’t do those things, or if they didn’t come out until after he exited his Presidency, I can promise that the 2001 election would have turned out differently. But they did and here we are 8 years later.
January 27th, 2009 on 9:40 pm
Steven,
Great points. I’ll do my best to provide a short response.
First, on the issue of Conservatives defending Bush, you are absolutely right. Without being too “tongue-in-cheek,” it reminds me of Liberals who defend Bill Clinton, Conservatives who defend Reagan, Liberals who defend Carter…and so on.
As I’ve argued countless times in the past, the biggest problem in politics these days is, well, politics. I wrote an article waaaay back in November on here titled “The Most Dangerous Letters.” I think you’d agree with my assessment. Go check it out. However, the long-and-short of it is that we are “the problem.” It’s NOT George W or “Slick Willie” (Clinton), it’s the divisiveness that the parties and the followers (us) throw into the system. Political icons/enemies have always been polarizing figures, that’s not a new concept. However, our willingness to build up more walls than we’re tearing down is the root of most of the problems plaguing our process.
Secondly, let me tackle your points on education…
Up front, I will agree with you on “No Child Left Behind.” It’s a busted system, as is the entire “teaching to the test” mentality. Coincidentally, “teaching to the test” is NOT a George W. Bush invention. It was crafted by education “experts” years ago in an effort to bridge the “gaps” in our classrooms and schools, thus ultimately eliminating a teacher’s ability to teach with any level of academic freedom or creativity.
I have long been against this program, and I even refer to it today under the more endearing title of “No Child Gets Ahead.” So yes, I agree with you here, and this Bush program is a total disaster.
However, I’m not sure if you noticed in my rankings, but I do my best to steer clear of placing any legitimate amounts of blame, shame, or acclaim on ANY president.
Here is my thinking…hang with me buddy…
I think that our system of education in this country (especially in the public ranks) has gradually declined over the past several decades. Not because this President did “this,” or another President did “that.” Remember, schools are PRIMARILY under the leadership and direction of the states, NOT the Federal Government, even despite their best efforts to institute big-dollar programs that are nothing more than band-aids being applied to cuts in need of stitches.
I believe that the decline in our schools is a direct reflection of our society, and runs parallel to the decline in our societal “yardsticks” (i.e.: crime rates, drug abuse, underage pregnancy, lack of morality, etc, etc, etc, etc…I could go on for hours).
As society goes, so go our schools. I don’t believe that can be pinned on any one, single President, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.
The problem has gradually gotten worse each and every decade since about the 1950s. So, to blame Bush, it would only be fair to also blame each and every President dating back to Eisenhower.
So, I’ve done my best to steer clear of the topic of education in regard to ALL of these guys, unless they were successful in some form, yet the statistics show that MOST of them were not.
So to conclude, yes, Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” was a failure. Now, I’ve just debunked your myth about “Conservatives defending Bush” as well. Haha, just a little humor there.
Excellent points my friend. Keep them coming!
January 27th, 2009 on 9:44 pm
That should be “blame, shame, or acclaim in regard to education.”
Sorry.
January 28th, 2009 on 1:00 am
I hear ya brother!
I think, more so than ever, that the average American has put too much emphasis on the American President as a figure with real, absolute power instead as a part of a system. It is very easy for someone to look at a myriad of different problems and immediately place blame on the figurehead of our country, whether he be Republican or Democrat.
This fact has polarized the two parties more than ever and I fear that it may be a while before we see some real progress towards an amicable existence. But, I think grassroot websites like this that look at both sides of our political system and compare the two in order to divine new thoughts, perspectives, and beliefs, are the beginning of breaking down the barriers that stand so stalwart between us.
Keep up the good work everybody! I am enjoying this site immensely!
January 28th, 2009 on 6:20 pm
Don’t forget, that even though Bush gets credit for the No Child Left Behind disaster, W actually gave the responsibility of overseeing that whole deal, to Teddy Kennedy.
January 28th, 2009 on 7:14 pm
That may have been true down the line, but Bush started the program 4 days after his inauguration. Bush had plenty of time to look over the deal, see if there were any problems, then advocate it during his campaign. NCLB was a terrible idea BEFORE Bush handed the “overseeing” to Kennedy.
If a new CEO was hired for McDonalds and made rules that everyone had to wear funny hats and the store managers had to enforce those rules and make sure they were being carried out, it would not be the fault of the managers for making their employees wearing funny hats.
It isn’t Kenndy’s fault he got put in charge of a broken system, but it is his responsibility to make it run as smoothly as possible.
January 29th, 2009 on 12:33 am
One flaw in your argument Steven.
If, at any time, the system was deemed to be “broken,” “busted,” or “insufficient,” the Congress had the authority to step in and halt it, fix it, and/or replace it.
They did nothing.
For the most part, it was a Democrat-led Congress that COULD have stepped in and regulated their on initiatives and legislation.
Nothing happened.
They had the checks and balances, but failed to act. So yes, Bush, Kennedy, and the whole lot of them all share the burden here my friend.
February 12th, 2009 on 11:48 pm
No hard feelings, there were some good moments.
http://www.cbs.com/late_show/video/video.php?cid=446418127&pid=KraIycIVStS_bP6AXqdGG_XJtNue_IHu&play=true&cc=1