I couldn't have said it better myself.

As America staggers into its long season of choosing its next president, it's worth reviewing what has changed since almost half of the country's voters picked George W. Bush over Al Gore. It has been an enormously eventful seven years for the United States and for the world.

By and large, the changes have not been for the better. The United States is deeper in debt, politically polarized, militarily overextended and more deeply mistrusted around the world than it was when the president took office.

At the same time, its people aren't necessarily safer than when the Bush presidency began, despite a variety of wrenching political maneuvers conducted by the executive branch. The next president, whoever he or she is, will be preoccupied for a time with dealing with this president's messy legacy.

President Bush has succeeded in some areas. He and his conservative supporters have shifted the Supreme Court further to the right with the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. His No Child Left Behind Act, though flawed, was a useful effort to bring greater accountability to public education.

Recent steps have apparently reduced the North Korean threat, and the administration has re-started an Israeli-Palestinian peace dialogue, with an international conference including representatives from Syria and Saudi Arabia.

But the primary themes of this two-term presidency are opportunities lost and damage done.

The attacks of 9/11 revealed a grave new threat to American security, which quickly came to shape and define the Bush presidency. But from the moments when many voices in a shaken world declared "We are all Americans" and members of Congress sang "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps, the direction has been toward disunity and distrust.

We've reached this point through increasingly tortured discussions about "black sites," "secret renditions," habeas corpus, waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping, signing statements, secret logs, refusals to allow staffers to testify before Congress, unprecedented military rotations and overuse of the National Guard, mounting debts and misjudgments about many things, including, most tragically, a war in Iraq. The common thread has been the administration's apparent conviction that it alone has the wisdom to navigate the post-9/11 landscape, in defiance of history and disrespect for the Constitution.

Only in the past year has the president subdued the swagger that characterized so much of his presidency. This stubborn hubris led him to taunt terrorists by saying "Bring 'em on"; to declare after his narrow re-election that voters had handed him a mountain of political capital to spend; to put his faith in such dubious talents as Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales and Donald Rumsfeld; and to reject any input from dissenters, including anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, Gen. Eric Shinseki and Secretary of State Colin Powell, not to mention members of Congress.

From a terrible moment of unity more than six years ago, this president and his administration have effectively splintered the American public, damaged the military, frozen Congress into virtual ineffectiveness, left the next generation deeply indebted and alienated governments around the world. Whether it was willful ignorance or a lack of competence scarcely matters any more.

For America's sake, the next president must be a person more willing and capable than George Bush to make considered judgments based on more than the outlook of a band of ideologues.

-The O.

Um...The Supreme Court chose dubbya over Gore...not the people

Live and learn...didn't The Oregonian endorse Bush in each election?

They endorsed him in 2000, but not in 2004, if memory serves.

"Um...The Supreme Court chose dubbya over Gore...not the people".

I've got my issues with Bush too, but the Supreme Court stopped the "creative recounting" in Florida. You know, that's the logic of "they voted for Democrats elsewhere on the ballot, but left the President category blank- they must have wanted Gore." Wrong! Non-votes don't count as votes.

I believe you are right.

Their editorial succinctly summarizes Bush's legacy and all but led credence to the accusation that some are that he truly deserves being dubbed the "WPE".

Shane wrote:
I've got my issues with Bush too, but the Supreme Court stopped the "creative recounting" in Florida. You know, that's the logic of "they voted for Democrats elsewhere on the ballot, but left the President category blank- they must have wanted Gore." Wrong! Non-votes don't count as votes.

Of course, in Florida in 2000 there was no suggestion by anyone that ballots without anyone marked for president to be awarded to Gore.

It's really up to the states to decide how to count the votes. Every county in the US has a different ballot and voting system, so the idea that Florida's counting system wouldn't have an equal standard was pure bullshit. It never has an equal standard!

The Supreme Court's idea that Florida must stop counting the votes because of the potential harm to George W. Bush is preposterous. What about the harm to Al Gore? And of course, the decision claimed it wasn't a precedent and would apply only to this one case. In the annals of history, this Supreme Court decision will go down as one of the great howlers of all time, right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson.

Andrew

Oh please. "Stop counting votes"? You phrase that in a way to suggest that the court wouldn't let the initial count take place. They stopped the repeated RECOUNTS. Get it right. And there most certainly was talk about creatively interpreting ballots, and the Supreme Court put a stop to it. The bottom line is that neither side would accept either outcome when it was that close, so the court decided the results of the multiple counts would stand. What was the alternative? Allow recount after recount until enough of the pole workers determined the "hanging chads" were for Gore to make one recount come out in his favor? That would only drag the process out more, and still no one would agree.

BTW- do you think that problems with the voting system are unique to Florida, or do you think that the same issues exist elsewhere, but they are only an issue when the election is extraordinarily close, as it was in Florida in 2000?

Shane, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount, something that had not happened prior to their ruling. Prior to that, only a few counties had recounted. Later studies showed that by any standard applied, Gore would have won such a statewide recount.

There was NO serious suggestion that any ballot with no one marked for president would be awarded to Gore. Please stop making shit up.

Andrew

I'm not making anything up! If the "overvotes" had been counted as votes, Gore may have won. It was getting "creative". The Supreme Court ruled that Florida's recount method was unconstitutional, then voted to put an end to the nonsense. The highest court in the land didn't think people who felt as I do were "making shit up".

Thats not true, latter studies showed President Bush would have won, in nearly nearly all standards.

Nwokie writes:
Thats not true, latter studies showed President Bush would have won, in nearly nearly all standards.

Oh really?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Andrew

Mr. Bush will likely be remembered much like Mr. Nixon, though not as good and here's why:

With no dastardly commie Soviet Union and Red China to stare down, Mr. Bush did the best he could against black-hearted Taliban-esque terrorists. But it's just not the same.

Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Nixon were good in foreign affairs, but didn't get their due on the home front.

Herb

I know what you mean, and I agree some correct decisions have been made in the name of our safety, but I hope you realize you just opened a Pandora's Box of "things Bush has done wrong" lists. I'm sure the postings will begin shortly by the 90% of PDX posters who lean to the left...

Nope, been there done that.

For many years running, that list has been established, amended as current events dictate, and rarely, if ever refuted.

When these kinds of things have been refuted, it's been generally minor and or technical points, leaving the spirit of the harm largely intact.

No core point made here, regarding the harm this President has caused us, nor any core point made as to said harm lacking worth or justification, has been refuted.

That's none guys.

He sucks. Everybody knows it. The only real differentiator happens to be who is willing to accept that reality, and who isn't.

"But the primary themes of this two-term presidency are opportunities lost and damage done."

Pretty much sums it up right there. Any non-delusional person knows it. He blew an opportunity of a lifetime, and as a result, has caused a lot of damage.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

The PBS story is from April, 2001, but the November 2001 story (which was delayed due to the September 11 attacks) is based on a much more comprehensive study done by a consortium of members of the media.

Andrew

You're right, Nwokie - Bush has been GREAT!

Wow

After being royally hosed for 7 straight years it amazes me that there STILL are Americans who think it was the intent of the voters in Florida to elect George W Bush in 2000.

I'd like to get an adaptor for the Bush Hose and plug it directly up okies and shanes butt so the rest of us Americans can have a hosed free year until Bush returns to the Inbecle Ranch in 2009.

...and this doesn't even take into account the thousands of voters in predominantly black districts in Florida who were mysteriously removed from the registered voters rolls.

How many people would want 4 MORE YEARS!?

Simple question.

"Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Nixon were good in foreign affairs, but didn't get their due on the home front."

Umm I have to disagree, sir.

Nixon, even though he escalated Vietnam with the continuation of Rolling Thunder and forays into Cambodia, used diplomacy in establishing good solid relations with Red China and Brezhnev. His era marked probably the deepest thaw in the existence of the Cold War between the two sides.

Bush has done nothing of the sort. Instead of trying to help and placate to our NATO brethren and allies around the world by making it a safer place around here, Bush has done the exact opposite in invading Iraq, shutting out our allies and turning most of them against us, and turning the Middle East into a bigger mess than it was beforehand.

"Nixon...used diplomacy in establishing good solid relations with Red China and Brezhnev. His era marked probably the deepest thaw in the existence of the Cold War between the two sides."

Very good point. But one reason Mr. Nixon had such gravitas is because the commies knew he would follow through.

Mr. Bush's response from terrorists has been mixed. Libya's Khadaffi did surrender his weapons when he saw what we did in Iraq. However, I'm thinking that one needs to talk softly AND carry a big stick. Mr. Nixon did both well. Mr. Bush probably didn't tend to the home front as much as he could have, common when one is fighting a war.

I also think Mr. Nixon had a very capable staff, from 'Henry the K' on down. One could argue that while God bless Mr. Rumsfeld, and he is an honourable man, our former Defense Secretary perhaps didn't grasp the 'vision thing,' as President Bush #41 might have said.

Herb

"Could Have"???? "Should Have" you mean! That should be first and foremost on every Presidents mind.


Happy 08 Herb!

"That should be first and foremost on every Presidents mind."

Assuming he has one in the first place.

"I'm thinking that one needs to talk softly AND carry a big stick."

Unfortunately, George W. can't talk coherently and often trips over his stick while the rest of the world laughs.

CJ asks: How many people would want 4 MORE YEARS!?

I'd take a lifetime of Bush over 1 day of Hillary or Obama.

Simple answer!

Why?

One word, ChickenJuggler:

Terror.

Herb

We've had more terror under the watch of George W. Bush than any other president. This is a fact.

One word, ChickenJuggler:

SCAM.

Trixter

Then democrats must understand why the American voter usually votes for republicans when terror and defense are key issues. You don't have to like it, but you better deal with it or all it will take is a tad more sabre-rattling from dastardly, black-hearted evil-doers to ensure another republican victory. You guys need a Norman Schwartzkopf for VP. Problem is, few high-ranking retired military men would want to be seen on a democrat ticket. And there's a reason for that, as well.

Herb

Who says military men are correct?

Prattle on if you wish, but it still doesn't change the failed policies of Bush and his GOP brethren.

CJ, The main reason is their politics are 99.99% different from mine.

I don't agree 100% with Bush but I'd rather have him in there than ANY of the Democrats that are running (and some of the Republicans too!)

Wave away serious voter concern over terror at the peril of your own party's chances in November. If democrats had a credible spokesperson to fight terror...and they don't...you could rest easier.

Instead, democrats better keep their Roll-Aides on hand. All it will take is for someone like Kim Jong Il or Iran's madman to do something stupid and the left will get to enjoy another four years of republican control...or almost as good, gridlock.

Personally, as long as we continue adding more pro-life judges to the bench, I'm 'pleased as punch'....as Mr. Nixon used to say.

Herb

Terror or not Herb if YOUR EXTREME RIGHT talkers out there don't stop their trash and bash of Mrs. Clinton America is going to give the Republicans their worst defeat EVER! Just keep it up and you'll find out what 8 years of "THE BITCH" will really be like.
KEEP IT UP!
Meanwhile.... I'm starting to look for a place in Switzerland if the REICH doesn't tone down their SMEAR campaigns.

Thanks Skybill. Have you ever been pleasantly surprised with any results from any Democrat that held the office of President? Any policy that you were against, but it turned out to be good? Or the ability to implement a policy that you could get behind from the very beginning

Or have they all been just terrible on every level?

It's sad that the right has to count on terrorist acts in order to keep power. Unfortunately for the GOP, another major terrorist act would solidify what the majority of the country already knows: Bush's policies have made us less safe and we need change now more than ever.

Skeptical writes:
"After being royally hosed for 7 straight years it amazes me that there STILL are Americans who think it was the intent of the voters in Florida to elect George W Bush in 2000.

I'd like to get an adaptor for the Bush Hose and plug it directly up okies and shanes butt so the rest of us Americans can have a hosed free year until Bush returns to the Inbecle Ranch in 2009."

Even if I agreed we were getting "royally hosed", that would have nothing to do with what did or did not happen in Florida in 2000. What an illogical connection to make. And by the way, even if you might like it, you can't stick anything up my ass.

"Meanwhile.... I'm starting to look for a place in Switzerland..."

While you're there, you can visit Marc Rich, one of the world's biggest convicted tax cheats, pardoned by Mr. Clinton in the dark of night at the end of his administration. Mr. Rich's family also gave huge sums toward Mr. Clinton's library.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/10.html

Corruption goes both ways, guys.

Herb

CJ, I'm sure there have been, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. But to be fair, I can't think of any right off the bat that the Republicans did either.

I'd just like to see the politicians (both sides)do what's really best for the Country for once instead of "What can I do to fill my pockets"

Fair enough. That's understandable. Mitt Romney screams exactly what I want to avoid this next time around: " What can I do to fill my pockets."

He will say anything to get elected. I really have had enough of that.

Why bother discuss George Bush on this board?
LoL!

Thearapy Vern!

happy new year, BTW

@CJ Pegged him. That's it exactly with me. It's just right there, can't miss it.

@sky Maybe really get into the primary thing. If we can get more turnover, perhaps campaign reform can get done, and with that goes some of the money. Agreed tho.

CJ - I think that much of America (at least Iowa) is seeing through that smarmy grin of Romney's and his views that change with the wind direction, and are backing away quickly.

Huckabee at least sticks to his guns on his views and comes across as more sincere, to his credit. It seems to be working for him too.

It also seems like Kucinich might be throwing in the towel already, telling his delegates to vote for Obama if he can't pick up more support in Iowa.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7840906

"Former Utah governor and current Cabinet secretary Mike Leavitt sought to infuse the lessons of his religion into his inaugural address and into state policy, conducting a series of "Early Morning Seminary" classes in which he and top advisers discussed how to incorporate "just and holy" Mormon principles into his governance, archival records show.
The disclosure of those 1996 meetings, never before reported, comes at a time when the interface between God and government is dominating political dialogue and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been forced to take great pains to assure distrustful voters that his Mormon faith will not drive his policy decisions."

I'm less worried about Romney lining his pockets or his smarmy grin, and more worried about how he will use his cult values to shape policy. There is no room for hocus pocus when it comes to our government.

"And by the way, even if you might like it, you can't stick anything up my ass."

I know, I know, your head is in the way. That's whats great about our country, you can do what you want.

Anyone who thinks Bush is better than ANY Democrat is gonna have 2nd thoughts when that 1 trillion comes back and bites his butt. (And his children's butt, and their children's . . . God save the throughly hosed! )

Vitalogy said - " I'm less worried about Romney lining his pockets or his smarmy grin, and more worried about how he will use his cult values to shape policy. There is no room for hocus pocus when it comes to our government."

I weigh those two personality traits ( smarm/greed and " faith " ) equally. They both bug me. But your point isn't lost on me. Frankly, I think we need a break from people who claim they talk to God from running our country. Just a break. If we start to become too Godless or whatever, then we will have blown it and deserve to have it swing the other way. But THIS time, I believe we deserve a chance to do it better than anyone who feels the hand of God is personally forming policy. Strong ideology differences aside, it's gotten us into a HEAP of trouble recently and I'm not willing to support Romney for that and many other reasons. But that is a very big deal to me. And someone who is tempted to dismiss my concern should really be reminded of just how clear Bush was about why he has done what he has done.

There are very few things I feel THIS strongly about. But Romney + his faith + his penchant for greed = nothing good for anyone. In fact, in an odd way, because he is actually smarter than Bush, it could be even worse. I mean, he may actually do a BETTER job of screwing us over than Bush has. So let's be a little grateful that Bush, who I believe is borderline retarded, just wasn't smart enough to figure out how to do things as good as he thought he could. Shit, we may have Nukes flying right now if he had been smarter. Romney is a dangerous guy to me. We don't need a guy who wants power that bad in office right now. He wants it for HIM. Not us. He's a selfish liar who has an agenda that he keeps to himself. And if he got into office, it would be Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone - but with more blood on his hands.

That's how I feel and if anyone would like to challenge me on that, I welcome it. To quote Bush " Bring it on! "

I'm not a Romney guy.

Never have been.

That said, he's still probably more qualified than all the democrats, with one exception.

Except for his anti-life position, I'd consider voting for Mr. Richardson. He's a governor and he has international experience, having successfully negotiated with the dastardly Kim Jong Il. Other than not being pro-life, Mr. Richardson is not too shabby, for a democrat.

Herb

Thought you were a HUCKster fan Herb????

I am a big Huckabee fan.

If I wasn't voting for him, it'd be Mr. Keyes.

That said, I'm simply pointing out that except for his pro-abortion views, Mr. Richardson almost passes the smell test. And that's hard for a democrat to do. Mr. Biden has plenty of problems, as does Mrs. Clinton.

Herb

Well we all have our respective causes that are important to us, Herb. Some of mine don't even register with any current candidate. Pro-life / Pro-choice just isn't my issue. I have that one already solved within my own family.

There are others that flare up seemingly out of the blue. Romney gives me serious pause on WAY too many counts to wish him any success as a Presidental Candidtae. Way too many red flags. Doesn't offer any change that I can relate to. And I want some change this time around.

I think Mr. Romney is so driven, he appears insincere, or perhaps simply plastic. In that way, Mr. Romney and Mr. Edwards are the slicksters.

But unlike Mr. Edwards, Mr. Romney is seemingly accomplished. But the trust thing isn't there at this point.

Herb

Which brings me back to Bush's Legacy;

Not to oversimplify it, but on issues that matter to me today, Bush has ruined much of my ability to trust. And I judge him for that.

Now, really.

And Mr. Clinton's wagging his finger whilst lying to all of us, nor his perjury, didn't ruin your ability to trust?

If Mr. Bush ruined your ability to trust and Mr. Clinton didn't, that's seems a tad unfathomable.

Herb

Mitt Romney is worth $200 million, and has never existed in a life where he's an average person of average means. People like this should not be able to run. If you're not completely self made, then you should be banned from running.

"And Mr. Clinton's wagging his finger whilst lying to all of us, nor his perjury, didn't ruin your ability to trust?

If Mr. Bush ruined your ability to trust and Mr. Clinton didn't, that's seems a unfathomable."

I knew you'd say that. Clinton lying about that was MUCH less important and had MUCH less of an impact on my trust than Bush. Yes. And if you can't see why it had less of an impact by now, then I really don't have any inclination to explain it to you again. I mean, come on. Who do you champion with the caveat that " while he was flawed, I love him " all the time? I can't view Clinton getting a blow job as having less impact that Bush's blunders that will have a negative global effect for generations - but you can hold up Nixion as a bastion of trustworthiness? No way. Nixon and Bush get a free pass from you but CLINTON is a REALLY bad guy?

So there's your answer. It about scale to me. I've said many times how much I hate getting lied to. Never once have I defended Clinton's lies. Not once. But you pull that out as if I should give it equal weight? Why? It's NOT of equal weight. I have the ability to see it. Can you?

"scale"

Yeah, that's it for me, exactly. Great word. The Bush legacy then, is all about scale --effing up on a scale rarely, if ever, regularly seen.

And with that goes a lot of trust.

One thing that's gonna bleed over for at least one full presidential cycle, is that lack of trust, where all the other members of congress are concerned.

By percentage of members, it's pretty safe to say we don't have anybody fighting up there, and we should, and I've not been told the truth as to why. Where there is no truth, there can be no trust.

"..but you can hold up Nixion as a bastion of trustworthiness?"

Trustworthiness was definitely not Mr. Nixon's strong point. But like most presidents except perhaps Jimmy Carter, Mr. Nixon had some admirable strengths.

"Never once have I defended Clinton's lies. Not once."

I didn't say you defended him. But to focus on one at the exclusion of the other seems rather myopic.

Herb

No, it's just scale.

One one hand, we've a lie that was magnified way beyond it's actual significance.

On the other, we've got other lies, being marginalized as much as is possible. (didn't think it was that possible actually!)

What I find very interesting is that distortion of significance tends to make it easy for those wanting to support lies, in general, as being somehow "worth it", leading to an ends justify the means kind of rationale.

From what I read, CJ does not like lies period. If true, I would totally agree!

On that one point then, saying everybody lies, is a travesty leading to nothing rational.

Introducing SCALE, as in the significance of the lie, and the number of lies, then brings us to some place where we can be rational, and make solid value judgments from there.

Saying, "but Clinton lied too" really does not do much. (as there are always lies)

Looking at the hows and whys and results of the lies, then does do something. That's why "Clinton lied, but nobody died." packs a seriously greater punch!

Why?

BECAUSE THE LIES ARE SIMPLY NOT EQUAL! They are both lies, of course. They are equal on that basis. However, lying to start war is quite different from lying to avoid personal embarrassment.

Of course, working through these things are all possible without actually defending Clinton's lies!

Making the point that a given lie is not signficant, is not the same thing as defending the lie itself. Nobody is defending any lies, unless they themselves are liars!

That's the disconnect here, IMHO.

The title of this thread should be:

The Infamy of George W. Bush and Company

Naw.

The title should be 'more myopic democrat hand-wringing over a lame-duck president.'

The ironic part is that whilst democrats still attempt in vain at this late date to get their pound of flesh from Mr. Bush, the president continues to run the table.

Herb

The ironic part is that Herrbocrite (Yo! Pa Kettle!) still attempts in vain at this late date to get his pound of (penis)flesh from Clinton.

That shouldn't be hard (no pun intended) to get from Clinton. He seemed pretty eager to share and flaunt it! (With everybody but Hillary, but that's no surprise)

Well, it's more than Democrats. Look at the approval numbers! Plenty of dismay to go around, pick your party! So, that's out for a title, right?

Myopic was addressed above, so that's really out too, barring some greater support. Really, for myopic to play properly, there has to be a significant amount of good to be ignored, otherwise the word is not in context.

We've been over the question of good many times. There just isn't much there!

Remember this:

"What has this President done that makes all this crap worth it?"

Left on the table for years, and it remains standing with few solid answers!

No real good = no potential for myopia to exist in a rational sense.

Then we come to "hand-wringing". Ugh... Well, hand-wringing really speaks to futile complaining over things one has little control over. I suppose that's true, to a degree! And that truth is why I expressed my lack of trust extending to the greater congress in general.

Agreed with DT there. No question.

However, the greater picture does feature some control, and here is where the politics are.

We are stuck with this guy, for a lot of reasons. However, we are not stuck with the next guy! Given we've a fair number of potential replacements, willing to continue doing the same crap Bush did, and that supported him huge during this rubber stamp cycle, it's perfectly rational then to make sure we characterize them accordingly , to avoid a replacement that gets us no progress.

That's why they don't say his name anymore! They want to do the same kinds of things, but don't want the heat from the people not wanting those kinds of things being done!

That puts "get their pound of flesh" and "vain" as being just wrong. Looking to influence the coming change up, is not vain. And having an impact on said change up does involve "getting that pound of flesh", unless one wants to see the same old same old continue.

It's perfectly rational to not only understand the damage, but know and talk about the who, how and why surrounding it. We all live under a system of law that not only permits this, but encourages it for our own damn good.

So, yeah, "Bush sucks, the GOP sucks, a fair number of Democrats suck", they suck because:

[insert many years of discussion here].

The only people offended by this level of discourse, are those who prefer the suckage, for whatever reason. The rest of us do ourselves a dis-service every time we even consider buying into the idea that simple and rational recognition of the suckage is somehow futile, bad, counter-productive, anti-American, bashing, whatever trite and negative bit applies!

That brings "this late date" into play. Now is the time! Again, we are heading into a new cycle, where we will change up our leadership, then get a shot at congress. Working through the whole thing, or enough of it to matter, will take some time.

During that time, failure to recognize why the changes are important, is not rational. Only a fool would say, "well his time is up, let's just forget about him and move on." When somebody fucks you over, you tend to remember that and make future decisions accordingly.

Anything else, literally, is then madness!

Lastly, we've got "run the table". Ha!

The ultimate in obstructionist party leadership there. This is exactly why I'm not gonna vote GOP in any form, for a good long time.

It's also why I plan to support anybody running strong primary races to challenge most incumbant politicians at this time.

Bush is running the table, not because he is right, or that what he is doing is good for us, or even that we want it! He's doing it simply because he can, and that falls right square at the feet of Congress, which is why those ratings are in the dumps too.

The real irony is the sheer amount of spin present in nearly every word you choose to post here Herb. It's simply not possible to marginalize things to the level where you aim for, and remain rational.

Gotta go now, therapy session is over. Nice to have something to wake the brain up, and get moving on. Appreciated Herb.

Have a good day people!

"How many people would want 4 MORE YEARS!?"

About 23 percent of us!

"What has this President done..."

Low interest rates.
High employment.
No homeland terrorist attack for 6 years.

Not too shabby.

Herb

The title of the thread is about George W. Bush's legacy, and since his term is (thankfully) winding down, it's perfectly legitimate to review the past 7 years and assess how history will judge his time in office. Hand wringing? Nope! But, I suppose for those that still support the fool in office might consider it hang wringing. And, as the next year progresses and we start to look at what has happened since 2000, it will continue to get uglier as we compare where we were in 2000 to where we are today, so get used to it.

All I'm gonna say is those three have been refuted nicely, and REPEATEDLY.

Go to the archives man. All there for the reading.

Very quick summary:

Low interest rates: Response to banks over extending, devaluation of our dollar, prevention of bubble popping to sustain the illusion we have more buying power than we actually do.

High Employment: Yeah, the growth of shit jobs has been stellar.

Terror attack: No causality shown. We don't know we are safer, because of Bush, we only know nothing has happened!

Not too solid man. And not enough to even begin to check my post above.

Low rates are due to a poor economy. Watch what happens to the bond market when the word "recession" is put out there. Rates go down. Low rates do not exist in a booming economy.

Employment is good, but wage growth is stagnet or slightly lower.

No terror attack in the last 6 years? What about the last 7 years? Did you forget 9/11 with Bush reading "My Pet Goat"? (an aptly named title by the way)

Keep bashing a lame duck. It only takes your eye off the ball for what now matters, the 2008 election.

Herb

No, no, no!

It is on the ball. You see, this election matters a whole lot! Why does it matter so much?

BECAUSE WE GOT HOSED BIG.

The only way that's gonna change up is if the idea that we need a change up, trumps those ideas keeping the same old, same old relevant.

Everybody needs to consider all the issues, what matters what does not, what's been given some attention, too much attention, no attention, etc...

They also need to know who has been doing what and, most importantly, why?

From there, we look at our selections and.... here it comes --wait for it....

COMPARE!

Yes! We compare!

One cannot compare without having SOMETHING TO COMPARE TO, right?

You Herb, are in the position where the status quo is good! It's your thing, feeling good, etc... So, your best case strategy is to marginalize everything bad, leaving those things you like as good, and keep those out there, up front, as relevant as you can make them,

The GOP is behind you man. You are getting your dollars worth --every penny, and wanna know why?

BECAUSE IT'S THERE STRATEGY TOO!

That's why they don't say Bush much right now. They've gotta hide the President, then somehow convince people those same bad things are really good things, and that all we really need is a different guy to help us feel better about the hosing we are getting.

The majority of us are not in that same boat! We know we got hosed, don't like it, want to know why, and how, and look the new picks over so as to.... --wait for it!

CHANGE!

That's the theme here, big time. It's the whole frame, right there, one word, nice and simple.

CHANGE!

It is possible to protect us from terror, build jobs, get health care, etc.... and not get hosed.

Everybody knows this, a whole lot of us want this, need this, deserve this.

The only way it's gonna happen is CHANGE.

To get CHANGE, we need to COMPARE the potential against the known, and that's the whole election right there Herb.

It needs to be established, in as many minds as is possible, that Bush has not been a good President. (quite possibly the worst ever, but that's just for fun, not important in the scope of things) From there, it needs to be established as to who supported him, continues to support him and will support him going forward.

Couple that with CHANGE and now, we've got an election discussion happening!

It's simple really. It is a known and established fact that the GOP has done a lot of harm, while at the same time doing very little real good. There are moments, but the package as a whole is just not pretty.

So, looking at that rationally then, means moving toward more good and less bad and again, that's CHANGE. The core issue, for the majority.

I strongly suspect this is why Ron Paul continues to see *way* more grassroots support than anybody really expected. Change man. He's different --very differentiated from both the GOP front runners, and the Dem front runners.

That's catchy, but he comes with some baggage, so maybe not a winner, but totally representative of CHANGE being the number one, primary issue this election.

From there, we then get to talk about what should change and why. That's the issues, and those have just not been getting the big play they should.

I suspect this is because most of the corporate big money interests, who essentially own most of the media, don't want any CHANGE, because they are not getting HOSED!

I'm tired of getting HOSED, and want CHANGE. So, I need to know about the getting HOSED part, so that I can COMPARE it to the CHANGE part and see how much better my self-interests are served!

Again, that's the election right there.

" But to focus on one at the exclusion of the other seems rather myopic."

No it doesn't. It's sticking to the topic. What? I need to cover every President to have my point about Bush be validated by you?

( Geeze - that was uncalled for. Sorry about that ).

Chickenjuggler.

I appreciate and admire your restraint. You've elevated the dialogue beyond what I was able to contribute.

Just so you know, though my posts here weren't intended to antagonize or provoke in a mean-spirited manner, I'm sincerely sorry if they were perceived that way.

Thanks for the revision. You're the real deal.

Herb

Yeah well, I was in a stressed mood and lashed out like an idiot. It really bugged me. Thanks for the 8th chance.

Keep bashing a lame duck. It only takes your eye off the ball for what now matters, the 2008 election.

This is ALL YOUR EXTREME side did at the end of 2000! THAT'S ALL YOU GUYS DID!!!!!! Don't you remember anything Herb or is the past besides Dirty Nixon just a blur???

I pretty much stopped following politics between the Ford and Reagan administrations.

Herb

Herrbocrite!

Print your post above.
Tape it to your screen.
Refer to it often.
Post accordingly.

Keep bashing (insert any past president here).
It only takes your eye off the ball for what now matters, the 2008 election.

You said it.
Stick to it.

No. Re-read what I wrote.

In other words, I stopped following politics while Mr. Carter was in office.

Herb

Huh!?! Then what the %&*@ are you doing here?

(5350 posts prove otherwise)

While Mr. Carter was in office.

Not before. Not after.

While.

Herb

"In other words, I stopped following politics while Mr. Carter was in office."

And yet you claim to speak authoritatively about President Carter.
Even though it has been shown that your opinions on him are hopelessly erroneous.

I'm not big on taking failed presidents to task unless they're impeached. Then the gloves come off.

Herb

Unless they're Republican, then you give them a pass.

"I'm not big on taking failed presidents to task unless they're impeached."

Neither does it stop you from making up or repeating BS about them.

"Unless they're Republican, then you give them a pass."

Show me an impeached Republican in the last century, and I'll go after him, too. Admittedly, Andrew Johnson isn't too high on my list.

Herb

Well Johnson didn't stand a chance against the radical Republicans after Lincoln was killed. I think they were still miffed that Abe chose Andrew as VP in the first place.

Sadly, Bush Sr. was overall a decent president with only one term will not be remembered 50 to 100 years from now, but Bush Jr., with two terms of a war that might not even be over by then (we are still in Germany after 57 years after WWII), will be remembered only for that war.

Show me an IMPEACHED President period Herb....

EXONERATED BY THE SENATE DOESN'T COUNT!!!!

Your guy (DIRTY DICK) slipped out the BACKDOOR before he was given his walking papers. Slick Willy stayed and WAS EXONERATED!!!!!!!!!
Don't understand what that means Herb??? Check out the link below....

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Exonerated

Impeached means charged by the house, being found not guilty in the Senate does nor remove the label on being impeached.

EXONERATED means EXONERATED!
Sorry.... but that's what it means......
What DRITY DICK did was worse than anything SLICK Willy did in office. His keepers knew that if put on the stand DIRTY DICK would crack and DESTROY the Presidency.
EXONERATED means exactly what it means.
Cleared of ALL charges. Wasn't that why he was left in office? Dirty DICK slipped out the backdoor instead of IMPEACHMENT and jail time.

From Wikipedia

History of federal impeachment proceedings

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently President Clinton), and only the following 16 federal officers have been impeached:

* Two presidents:
o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate.
o Bill Clinton, the only elected president in the history of the United States to have been impeached, was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). President Clinton was acquitted of the Obstruction charge by a 50 to 50 vote in the Senate.
* One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
* One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
* Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804.
* Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from South Florida. Hastings' name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Clinton was not exonerated of all charges, the Senate decided not to punish him, he had already been impeached. The Senate decided not to remove him from office, but he was still impeached!

As for Nixon, he was never impeached, so couda, shuda wouda, whatever, he was not impeached!

Game point, Nwokie.
End of discussion.

And Bill Clinton was fined a hundred thousand dollars and disbarred for lying in a sexual harrasment trial.

And this punishment was from a judger he appointed.

Clinton was still a better president than what we got now.

Slam Dunk Taylor.

40 love Taylor.
Your serve Nwokie.

Clinton played to the masses, not what was best for the country.

Clinton felt being popular was more important than doing what was right.

President Bush takes the opposite tack, he does what is right for the country, and doesn't worry about personal popularity.

Sorry Nwokie, the first two sentences got you a tie, but the last one a penalty.

40-20 Taylor.

...maybe so, but he's not doing us any real good.

Sure he is, hes buyng the country time, to learn how to deal with terrorists, The US military was designed and trained to stop Soviet tanks coming down the fulda gap, not fight terrorists, and was woefully ilprepared for it.

Its taken a few commander changes, but we finally have a commander that knows what hes doing, and Iraq has a real shot at becoming a stable country. Afghanistan is now in the hands of Nato commanders.

Is the US safer today, than when President Bush took over, hard to say, but at least the terrorists don't have permanent protected by the government training bases. We no longer have to worry about a Saddam using the oil production in the middle east as a hostage. President Bush hasnt solved any of the problems, but he has given us a few years more to find answers be they with a sword or a pen.

blah, blah, blah...

Sorry man, I don't buy any of it. Doing real good means a net good. Given all the downsides, it's just a wash.

"Sure he is, hes buyng the country time, to learn how to deal with terrorists"

What a pantload.

"and doesn't worry about personal popularity."

He also doesn't give a shit load about what the American people want either. A close election doesn't equate to more political capitol. He just dumped his selfish load on the American public instead of using a bathroom.

Look, the whole impeachment thing is nothing but a partisan tactic against a marginalized opponent. I see impeachment as an accusation or a charge. The Senate then holds a trial and acts as a jury, albeit a very NON-impartial one, unlike a real jury trial. When someone is charged in our criminal system and is found not guilty, they are considered innocent by legal standards. If the Senate can't convict the impeached official, then they are considered innocent in my opinion. So, when someone says "well Clinton was impeached!" I say big deal. Nixon was going to not only be impeached, but he would be convicted and removed from office. That's why he resigned in disgrace. The impeachment of Clinton was a failure, because he remained in office.

I have to chime in. Not for any particular reason other than Nwokie's post at 3:38 made me think of this.

The guy in Chehalis that posts political statements on the billboard along I-5 once posted this:

“Clinton waffles so much he could be Aunt Jemima's spokesperson”!

"President Bush takes the opposite tack, he does what is right for the country"

Define "right."

Nwokie said>>>
Clinton played to the masses, not what was best for the country.

And DUHbya played to the asses and that is NEVER good for one's country. EVER!

Another take on the Clinton bit.

He did lie, it was a bummer, really nobody cared.

If they did, he wouldn't have been in office, would he?

I'll leave the difference between that and innocent to you guys. To me, it just does not matter, leaving the rest of it moot, particularly for comparisons / justifications to / for the current administration.

The Chehalis farmer was a true sad sack. NEVER a positive message posted unless it included the word God. A pathetic human being and an embarassment to the fine state of Washington.

Yes, the person behind those billboard sayings is a sad, pathetic human being.

What does it say for our judicial system, if someone can lie on a matter, because they don't agree with the law?

You mean our current administration right? (kidding)

If you are referring to Clinton, the lie is tied back to a PERSONAL matter. The scope is such that some judgment on his part is warranted.

eg: I get asked where I'm planning to travel by patrolman on a traffic stop. Personal matter. I get to tell him what I like. I can lie, or not, law or not.

So I lie.

Does that comply with the law?

No.

Does it matter to anybody but me, or family / friends?

Maybe!

If my travel plan is maybe to see my brother to watch a game, the answer is no. Maybe my brother has his own issues, maybe the cop knows him, maybe I just don't feel like sharing that day. Whatever. Maybe it's to see my mistress! That's really my deal, my vow, between me and my wife.

Adultery is in poor form --very poor form, but not illegal!

On the other hand, let's say I was going to meet some baddies to do some damage.

Scope is way different now! Others are potentially harmed and or lots of other laws come into play.

With Clinton, the scope was not such that it would impact anybody but those involved. He chose to lie, thinking perhaps a lot of time and money could be saved. Maybe he chose to try to avoid embarrassment, or his marriage, or any number of unpleasant personal things.

Bad call, IMHO, but also one that does not say very much about lies with scope outside ones own personal life, and that's really where the significance is.

Getting back to the example scenario then:

The first lie is one where I don't agree with the law, namely, where I plan to travel is my business in a free society. It's bad law, and sometimes people don't follow bad law. (or what they feel is bad law)

Another example of this kind of law would be jaywalking laws. There are times when we KNOW nothing is going to happen, the law means little, so we break it on a personal judgment. This is not a big deal and everybody does this every day.

The second lie, is one where it is in my best interests to break the law. Why? Because I plan to break a lot of other laws and do harm. It's also known something is gonna happen, so the same kind of warranted personal judgment is off the table. People will be harmed, period!

In that case, it would be bad people, breaking bad laws --or just laws! Does not matter. Scope is such that it's just not a personal thing anymore.

When we regulate ourselves, we employ 4 means:

law

money

physics

norms.

If I know the scope of my action is limited to my personal dealings, choosing to lie may well fall within social norms, is not likely to cost me money, is not easily prevented physically, and the law does not mean anything.

That equals little incentive to follow it.

The second case, is quite different! Lots of laws are in play, it could cost me lots of money, I might lose freedom, and the planned action is not among the norms!

Or, being a bad person, perhaps the norms I follow are questionable, and that's the core of it right there.

A great many people might engage in the same lie, for the same reasons as Clinton did.

Almost nobody is gonna engage in the lies seen in this administration. The norms are different, the risks are different, the MONEY is hugely different, physics remain largely the same.

Nwokie, it says what kind of person one is dealing with. To understand this, it must be put into full context. The mere act of the lie is simply not enough for solid judgment, and I articulated some of why that is.

DUHbya lies his ass off on a daily basis and has NEVER been called??? By now it really doesn't matter DUHbya's numbers are so low that WPE will stick with him until the day he dies.
Carter in the minds of most people (mine included) was a terrible Prez mainly because of the staff he has surrounding him but nowhere near the BLIND incompetence that the DUHbya Administration has shown the last 7 1/2 years.

Herb writes:

With no dastardly commie Soviet Union and Red China to stare down, Mr. Bush did the best he could against black-hearted Taliban-esque terrorists. But it's just not the same.


Yeah, gotta chase something to keep everyone scared don't we?

Naw, it's just that the currently nukeless Taliban, though evil and dastardly, is more rag-tag and less formidable than the Soviet Union ever was.

Herb

Sadly Herb that rag-tag evil Taliban or at least that rag-tag group associated with Bin Laden attacked us on our home turf. If it were a choice, and this is certainly not a good choice, I'll take Soviet's at this point.

This enemy has abilities that are far more tactical than what we went through with SU.

"...this is certainly not a good choice, I'll take Soviet's at this point."

You're right. That would not be a good choice. No, the Soviet Union had several hundred million enslaved under godless communism. People like Aleksandr Solzenheitzen were in labour camps. The dastardly communists were brutal, whilst enforcing an atheist agenda and denying their own people human rights.

The Taliban and its ilk got lucky on 9/11. A strong defense will help ensure that they don't repeat it.

Herb

Lucky, not really, don't understimate your enemy.

They have good planners, who studied our system, and found a weaknss. Plus it wasn't a coincidence they attacked after a change in administrations, they knew the changes at the top of all the departments, would leave gaps in the coordination of departments.

Expect another attack 6-12 months after our next change in administrations, regardless if the demos or repubs win. That is when we are most vulnerable.

Good points from both of you. I guess my point Herb was that this is a very different enemy. Unconventional, intelligent and opportunistic. Welcome to warfare 21st century style. God help us all.

The Taliban and its ilk got lucky on 9/11. A strong defense will help ensure that they don't repeat it.

A STRONG defense AT HOME will ensure that it DOESN'T happen again ALSO!!!!!!

A fortress USA, that won't work, they can stand back and keep lobbing attacks at us, they don't care if they lose 9 out of every 10. or even 99 out of 100.

The only way to stop it, is at the sources.

Nah. You warmongering conservatives are a bunch of whining cowards. DUI drivers kill more Americans than terrorists. So until the death tally reaches DUI levels y'all are just fraidy cats spreading baloney. Cluck cluck cluck is all you can do.

So, its ok with you if terrorists kill a few thousand every year.

Oh yeah . . . The George W. Bush Tombstone will read:

He hosed us completely and throughly.

We can go after known specific terrorists until we catch them . . . For example bin Laden.

Bush couldn't even complete this simple task correctly.

Instead he went off and spent nearly a trillion bucks capturing and killing Saddam Hussain a man who had no weapons of mass destruction. In the process destroyed an entire country and keaving the military short handed to deal with other crises.

So you fraidy cats should now stfu cuz you got your way and now look at the Mother of all Messes we're in.

Nwokie, I'm sure you would say that working with the terrorists in order to quell their anger toward us - and actually get them to stop attacking us - would be wimpy and defeatist. So, it sounds like the only way to beat these guys then would be to kill each and every one of them. Because, as we found out, even a group of 19 can wreak terrible destruction.

So that's when we'll know that the War on Terror is over - when they're all dead, right?

"The idea dies with the man" -- Planet of the Apes.

Kill them all, not necessarough and the right ones, , just kill enough to make them realize they are gonna lose.

Hunt down Bin Laden with conventional law enforcement, thats laughable, he has more firepower than any law enforcement organization.
Plus Bin laden is a figurehead, hes not the operations planner and money raiser.

Thats like saying after pearl harbor, lets arrest Tojo, that will fix everything.

So...... When the BULLY on the block continues to kick everyone's ass ALL THE TIME with BRUTE FORCE do you think the other people on the block are going to stand by and watch it happen FOREVER? Nope.... They band TOGETHER and KICK HIS ASS!
If YOU want to go around and bully everyone forever constantly flexing your muscles great. But they're going to take HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of our young men and women for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS........
If YOUR comfortable with that, wonderful! I for one cannot sleep well at night.
Defend your country from within or suffer the consequences in the end.
YOUR CHOICE....
The best offense is a GREAT defense.

Everyones ass? geeI didn't know we ahd invaded England, or Germany, or Russia, or even Mexico.

How about we're kicking the Taliban's butt.

ahd invaded England?????

That's the ONLY ass we should have kicked but YOUR Prez wanted REVENGE upon Sodomy and wasn't going to stop until the man that Uncle Ronnie gave mustard gas to, to kill the Kurds with was dead.

Good story, its not true, but the libs have never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

Same goes for YOUR EXTREME VIEWS and SCEWED thinking. I LOVE to listen to Plush and Insannity for the best STORIES OF THE DAY.

If anything I said above is false about Uncle Ronnies death squad or DUHbya's incompetent reason for going into Iraq prove me wrong. And EXTREME RIGHT web-pages full of EVANGELICAL non-sense don't count. Those are fairy tales written by small minded simpletons.

There were lots of reasons for taking out Saddam, but the main one, he refused to comply with the treaty ending the first gulf war.

okie sez: "just kill enough to make them realize they are gonna lose."

Oh yeah, suicide bombers are gonna have second thoughts.

Just face it okie, your method was tried and it FAILED! So unless you drum up a trillion bucks to replace OUR money we spent on your idea, GET LOST!

I think it's about oil, and Saddam getting ready to trade in Euros, as a direct threat to the petrodollar. IMHO, that's why "the regime is the weapon of mass destruction" scrolled by on that little news ticker at the bottom of the screen, during the first phases of the Iraq war.

Nah, the whole Iraq thing was planned way before 9/11 as a way for George Jr to show pops that he can outdo is old man. 9/11 made it easier to sell.

Interesting!

I'm not so sure I can disagree with that.