... history is still being written on GWB. Who CARES what these bored historians looking for a little recognition think? Not me! Didn't listen to what they had to say about Clinton either!
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Bush and history, not a good mix.
"Ever since 1948, when historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. first polled leading scholars and asked them to rank our presidents, updated polls have been released every few years. As a participant in the current poll, I spent several weeks thinking long and hard about the best and worst of our country's presidents -- and about President Bush's eventual place in history.
"As aides and supporters worry whether Bush's presidency can be "salvaged," I respectfully suggest the future of the country, rather than the president's legacy, is the topic more worth pondering. The forthcoming poll will be the first to include a preliminary ranking of this President Bush. So, here is my prediction:
"There is much agreement by scholars as to the greatest presidents; they are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, with Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson not far behind. These great leaders provide a standard by which all presidents are measured -- and clues as to how Bush measures up. From the great presidents we know that the country is well-served by leaders who exhibit the following traits:
* Humanity, compassion, and respect for others
* A governing style that unifies, not divides
* Rhetorical skills and the ability to communicate a clear, realistic vision {or in Bush's case to communicate at all}
* Willingness to listen to experts and the public
* Ability to admit error, accept criticism and be adaptable
* Engaged and inquisitive, with a sense of perspective and history
* Integrity, inspiring trust among the people
* Moral courage in not shrinking from challenges {or cheating on the Constitution he swore to defend and uphold and declaring himself above the law whenever convenient}
"Unfortunately, Bush's presidency has been the polar opposite of this list. This brings up the matter of who are our worst presidents. Again, scholars are in agreement, listing Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan."
Robert Watson, Ph.D., won the Distinguished Teacher of the Year Award this year at Florida Atlantic University and is the author or editor of 25 books on politics. He can be reached at www.thinkactlead.com.
Now knowing your deep contempt for academics and historians here, I was pretty certain that none of you had come across this. There are points not quoted here at which I disagree with Dr. Watson, but they are minor details compared to the overall analysis and accurate criticism. Talk about a tone-deaf, don't-give-a-$#!t President. He has made a mockery of the American people, the American political process as fair and democratic, the American image abroad, and finally of the Rule of Law, upon which all the rest are based, and is his worst sin of all.
"Bush will likely be remembered much as is Warren Harding, who was disinterested in policy details, brought a group of corrupt cronies to the White House and stumbled through one mishap after the other. He is remembered as something of a jovial but incompetent puppet for corporate interests, and for setting the nation on a course to the Great Depression." It remains to be seen what sort of economic repercussions Bush's contemptuous handling of the economy will have but a Depression wouldn't surprise me. And remember, historically it's Republicans who cause the depressions.
"But it is James Buchanan, president from 1857-1861, who often earns the dubious title of "worst president" because he lost the Union to civil war on his watch, and failed to change course until it was too late.
"When history renders its cold assessment of George W. Bush, I believe he will find himself alongside Harding and Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in American history. Bush's legacy will likely be that of death, deficits and deceit, and it could well take this nation a decade or more to recover from his presidency." In other words, for those of you who "don't know much about history" he's sandwiched between the two worst Presidents in history. Congratulations guys, you elected somebody worse than Warren G. Teapot Dome Harding. Twice. Or should that be once with a previous undeserved appointment? Yeah, let's make it once with an asterisk.
It is my profound hope that the response to this is an proper examination and reform of the electoral process that permitted the irregularities in Florida, and later in Ohio, that permits voting without an independent paper trail and the potential of an honest recount. That the President will be held accountable to the law of the land, and that the loathesome customs he has introduced like his own private off shore Gulags free of due process, imprisonment without trial and without end, "extraordinary rendition", and contempt for and ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be made impossible in the future.
There's something very wrong in Bush's America, and it must be rooted out or the America of the Constitution will cease to be. And every last supposed Constitution-loving, Bush-loving person here will be shown to be sliding down the razor blade of hypocrisy. You can't revere an Anti Constitutional President and revere the Constitution. And you've all made your choices clear already both in word and deed.
Rob
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 33 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Maybe he should try: http://teriskitchen.com/visitors/tmskewers.html
Evie 
- Collapse -
cohorts.
Practise for "ze little grey cells" is always welcome, but I abhor the fascist nature of this forum, the one opinion fits all-ism that is purveyed here. It's not just that you don't believe in honest disagreement, it's that you believe that disagreement should not be allowed, and not just here but outside the forum as well. Your response to Cindy Sheehan, and others opposed to the war has made that clear.
And then some of you turn around and lecture me on the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a laugh. You wouldn't understand free-speech if it were explained in words of one syllable, because it conflicts with your allegiance to the man. The entire point of a democracy is to separate policies and beliefs from the person who some here think embodies them. If you want a leader who embodies the policies and beliefs, then you want a King, an Emperor, a Tyrant, not a Democratically elected President.
EdH should be able to help in this regard, there was quite a lot of debate over what the nature of the Presidency should be, and whether George Washington should be King. I trust he is honest enough to discuss the issue clearly.
Rob
- Collapse -
... so as not to deprive the world of the next great literary talent! 
Evie
- Collapse -
sentence, the historian in question was just filling out the questionaire begun so many years ago by Theodore Schlesinger, and circulated each year among historians. That's why it came up. Now had it gone the other way, one of you guys would have been posting it and I would have been ignoring it as too early, but the critique is valid IMO since it makes use of those qualities exemplified by the high scorers, and so absent in the current incumbent.
Since a number of you are also die-hard Joseph McCarthy supporters it is unlikely that your opinions will change over time but the swing vote in the is already causing the ship of state to begin listing leftward. I give it 5 years before he's viewed as the total disaster he is, 3 if the economy he's so gravely damaged goes south. What price those tax cuts then? Hope you've got them invested somewhere the IRS can't get at them, because they're going to need an awful lot of money to pay for Bush's sell off of America's debt.
What you folks seem to forget is what was self evident 140+ years ago to the first Republican president, and should be evident to everyone who contemplates this regime in contrast to every other Presidency except Nixon's "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." It's not "of the rich, by the corrupt, for the benefit of the wealthiest 1% and for the corporations." That's what I don't understand about all your rhetoric about how government and taxation is theft, and that there should be little of the one and none of the other. That is a Pure Libertarian delusion as ludicrous as Pure Anarchy, or Pure Communism. They are all unrealistic ideals which take no notice of human nature, or the needs of the community as balanced against those of the community. You establish "The greatest good for the greatest number the way you establish or evaluate any piece of political thought or legislation, by having a free and fair vote on the subject (though free and fair is a subject few die-hard Bushies have the right to comment on).
Rob
- Collapse -
He tried to continue Lincoln's policy of "with malice towards none" when the Republicans were crying out for the vengeance they exacted under Grant, who's strangely missing from that list of worst Presidents.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Why don't you moderate?
Insult to members:
In other words, for those of you who "don't know much about history" he's sandwiched between the two worst Presidents in history. Congratulations guys, you elected somebody worse than Warren G. Teapot Dome Harding. Twice. Or should that be once with a previous undeserved appointment? Yeah, let's make it once with an asterisk.
Zinngers and insults:
It is my profound hope that the response to this is an proper examination and reform of the electoral process that permitted the irregularities in Florida, and later in Ohio, that permits voting without an independent paper trail and the potential of an honest recount. That the President will be held accountable to the law of the land, and that the loathesome customs he has introduced like his own private off shore Gulags free of due process, imprisonment without trial and without end, "extraordinary rendition", and contempt for and ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be made impossible in the future.
There's something very wrong in Bush's America, and it must be rooted out or the America of the Constitution will cease to be. And every last supposed Constitution-loving, Bush-loving person here will be shown to be sliding down the razor blade of hypocrisy. You can't revere an Anti Constitutional President and revere the Constitution. And you've all made your choices clear already both in word and deed.
I wonder at the double standard that allows this dreck through while edeleting innocuous posts.
- Collapse -
Rob
- Collapse -
question. Apparently, from what you say, only one person at SE is allowed to disagree with the received wisdom here at any one time. Anybody who in any way disagrees with what this corrupt and foolish President says or does is deemed wrong and a pariah. Opposition has a thousand faces, agreement only one. (And please understand that this is not an analogy, or a comparison, just an illustration of how agreement can look) Why do all the images of Nazi Germany give the same impression? There is strength in presenting a united face, but there is no freedom or democracy in it. You all seem to be fighting the Viet Nam War over again because the United States permitted disagreement at home, and that somehow made us "lose". We didn't lose, because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We shouldn't have been involved in a civil war in the first place, and the leaders of the US couldn't agree on a strategy brutal and vicious enough to win.
Of course Richard Nixon knew he could ride the war to two terms, and that's what he did. It was purely politics for him. "But don't you understand, David, I had to win." That was said to David Frost about his first Red Baiting campaign for Congress, and admitting that he made stuff up to accuse whats-her-name of. (I hate my memory these days.) Helen Gahagan Douglas, that's it. And it was true of his peace is at hand strategy as well.
Rob
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
Maybe we should just start hitting the snitch link every time and hang the consequences. I'm gettin' close to it...
- Collapse -
the person who most likely pushses the mod alerts the most. Or do you have a direct line to a mod to do your censuring for you ?
- Collapse -
Sorry guys; it's got nothing at all to do with free speech and everything to do with crappy Moderating and constanrt lies, slander and insults
Any point can be made without insulting, lying and slandering if you have the skill and inclination, so I have to assume these violations are deliberate.
- Collapse -
Maybe it should have said "because" of one person. But then thinking more of it, it is not just one, I forgot the enabler
- Collapse -
deja vu* all over again. *(french. feeling one has been in a place or a a specifici experience before)
link
- Collapse -
by the happenings of their time, and by irrational movements in their time, otherwise Woodrow Wilson might be better thought of too. But Isolationists (Republicans) crippled the League of Nations which might have moderated the disasters of the 30's, and hung Wilson out to dry. Of course I would have liked him to have adopted Votes for Women instead of opposing them, too.
Rob
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic