http://www.cbs.com/late_show/video/video.php?cid=446418127&pid=KraIycIVStS_bP6AXqdGG_XJtNue_IHu&play=true&cc=1

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.

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.

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!

Sorry.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.