You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I always thought George H. Bush should get more respect. He was the guy when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Schwarzkopf wanted to invade Iraq during Desert Storm he said no. Huge.
Yeah that's true. I think the general public doesn't like long periods of one party rule. The recession wasn't that huge a crisis from what I recall but I think people just tired of the regime. Part of the reason Bush was able to defeat Gore, and why McCain faced an uphill battle (even though he wasn't connected to Bush's Presidency, by being the same party he was by default).
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I always thought George H. Bush should get more respect. He was the guy when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Schwarzkopf wanted to invade Iraq during Desert Storm he said no. Huge.
It also kind of pisses me off that all the Regan revisionist have pretty much brainwashed everyone into forgetting about the recession, massive debt, and general fuck up he caused that made Bush have to raise taxes breaking his "read my lips" promise. Bush just got caught holding the bag, imo.
And I'd much rather hang with Clinton than Dubya.
Actually, lately Clinton & Dubya have been hanging out alot after the Haiti thing...
Can you imagine those fuckin' parties? Clinton & Dubya must be channeling Queen. 
When looking at the Bush legacy, you also have to take into account he wasn't a real president. He was a virtual puppet for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. This isn't conspiracy crap. Go read the manifesto 'Project for a New American Century' written in the 90s. Those psychos followed that like it was the Bible, and we're actually lucky they even left after two terms.
I'm not going to deny that almost ALL foreign policy was being decided by Cheney & Rumsfeld. I don't think "puppet" is the word, I think Bush himself allowed far too much power for those guys. I'm all for the Chuck Norris way of handeling things, but sometimes you do need a bit of diplomacy. Cheney & Rumsfeld just never held back. They wanted to rule the world imo.
Reagan never wanted that. He just wanted the world to prioritize American interests and play ball. Totally different than coming in with absolute domination. On this aspect, Bush became the face of this facist argument, when in fact, Cheney & Rumsfeld were the trigger men. Bush was simply the getaway driver.
Also. he was a terrible communicator, and its laughable he called himself a "uniter, not a divider". In crisis, Reagan(and even Clinton) were able to console the entire country through tough times. This guy stood up there with a smirk on his face during times of trouble.
I will agree that Bush had poor communication skills. But i've never found that to be the requirement of a good president. In fact communication skills are overrated. You need decision makers surrounding you. Thankfully Clinton had Hilary, who really does seem to have a natural gift at the political game. Far more so than her husband. Obama seems to have that gift to communicate well, but surrounds himself with idiots. Bush unfortunately was a poor communicator, and surrounded himself with idiots, which didn't play well for him. It also says alot that Colin Powell bowed out after only one term, but it was made very clear that almost ALL conflict in the Bush White House was because of Cheney.
I did read a book once, that said Rumsfeld was forced out in an effort to bring BACK Powell to the administration. Powell I thought was also quoted as saying that by the time he reached the end of his tenure in the Bush administration, that Cheney was running around and forcing almost everyone, including the secretarys to communicate ONLY with him, and doing everything he could to make sure no one talked to Bush.
This book also claimed witnesses on several occasions Cheney talking down to Bush, and walking around the oval office, sitting in the chair, and pretending as if he were president.
Ironically, despite everything that Bush was labeled with being a nazi, the irony was when Bush was there, he was the peace keeper. The passive, easy to get along with guy. Everyone seemed to hate Cheney's guts.
He should have been impeached for his handling of the Katrina crisis. Not likely as I'm unsure what incompetence would fall under in the constitution, but he showed during that crisis that he was never fit to even stand in the Oval Office.
Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. It's not up to the United States of America to handle disaster situations. Hasn't been in my lifetime. Not sure about before that. Handeling of disaster issues is a STATES issue. That's what the Republicans want. That's how Reagan would've wanted it, and did.
It is up to a STATE to inform the Feds that they are in a state of emergency, and need their assistance. Both the Louisana Governor, and New Orleans Mayor had incompetant, and flawed plans in place. They also were delayed in contacting F.E.M.A. requesting assistance.
Sure, you could sit back and say, "well, Bush saw CNN... he saw Fox News... he didn't see what the rest of us did?" Yes, you would be right. Bush should've stepped in. BUT, Bush was following the guidelines that have always been in place.
"Well why was there trucks at the ready at the Florida state line during Hurricane Charley a year earlier?" Because Jeb Bush was SMART ENOUGH, not the DUMBASS Louisana Governor, to go ahead and declare a state of emergency, and get the ball rolling, DAYS before the storm was to arrive.
I wanted to crawl through the fucking TV during Katrina. 1) I wanted to help those people in NO, and 2) I wanted to kick everyone's ass who was blaming Bush.
You can't have this shit of "we don't want government in our lives. Small government, small government, free market, etc."... oh, but when a hurricane comes and rips us apart, we want big government then...
MAKE YOUR CHOICE. You either want government in your lives, or states rights. Well, that's states rights. THEY decide when the government comes in and helps. That's why Katrina was the clusterfuck of all time.
Having said all this, I don't think W was as intellectually inferior as people like to claim. He was governor of Texas and spoke fairly well during that period, and I also remember him on ESPN on Roy Firestone's show(this was before he was in politics) and he was doing an interview fishing and showing Roy various areas of Texas. He actually came across as a really cool guy, and was always surprised this footage was never used by his campaign during elections.
I think he tried to emulate Reagan with the "common man" thing so the country could relate to him, but he failed on many levels. Clinton did this as well, but it worked because he was very intelligent and also naturally likable.
Maybe, but that common man shit is so stupid. None of these guys are a common man. A poor, commom man has never been elected, and never will be.
And Bush was also intelligent. None of these guys get that far, without having some book smarts AT LEAST. What buried Bush on that aspect, was he was a poor communicator, and had a lack of self-respect. He seemed to be a people pleaser, and entrusted his decision making to ALL the WRONG people.
"Unintelligent", "moron"... no. And i'm sure that Queen of England story happens more than you think. Hell, people lambasted Michelle Obama not long ago, simply because "the dummy" hugged the Queen. HUGGED THE QUEEN. The Queen didn't have a problem with it, Michelle didn't, and it was made into a big deal by both the English & American press. Like it was a "fuck you" or something.
So any situation like that could be easily taken out of context.
i would probably love to hang out with W, smoke, drink, and do some lines. Probably a really cool, funny guy. Actually seems like he would be. But president? Not so much.
Probably the most accurate, bottom line post in here.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
The irony is, once again, like I said about the Senate, they were the exact people in the mid-2000's screaming about "we need to get people into homes, RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS, WE HAVE TO DO THIS"... so they rushed it. What did they get? Massive foreclosures which destroyed the economy, and we still haven't recovered.
And by the way - Democrats were pushing that one, with Barney Frank leading the brigade.
The minority party was unable to "push" anything at that time. Bush was president and had a GOP Congress. If they didn't like something all they had to do was say no to it.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
True, but saying no to homes for the disadvantaged, is like robbing someone at gunpoint in politics.
There are issues you never go up against, even if you are the majority in the Congress. The poor, the young, the minorities, and the education system. Never ever fight any bill in those categories, because the shit storm that will rain down on you will be epic.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
misterID wrote:I always thought George H. Bush should get more respect. He was the guy when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Schwarzkopf wanted to invade Iraq during Desert Storm he said no. Huge.
Yeah that's true. I think the general public doesn't like long periods of one party rule. The recession wasn't that huge a crisis from what I recall but I think people just tired of the regime. Part of the reason Bush was able to defeat Gore, and why McCain faced an uphill battle (even though he wasn't connected to Bush's Presidency, by being the same party he was by default).
The Recession was THE issue back in 1992. It's what caused Clinton to win and Bush to lose. The debt was also a big deal and almost got Perot elected... Before the ninjas showed up on his front lawn
You know, thinking back, I think the recession was an even bigger issue back then than what our recession is now.
I still say that Gore lost (:ummm:) because of Lieberman. A lot of liberals stayed home and a lot of let wing indy's voted for Bush, even though they won't admit it. I didn't vote specifically because of Lieberman and how awful I thought a Gore/Lieberman white House would be. I didn't really like Gore either. When Bill Bradley lost the primary I stayed home. And McCain. I liked him back then.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
PaSnow wrote:misterID wrote:I always thought George H. Bush should get more respect. He was the guy when Cheney, Rumsfeld and Schwarzkopf wanted to invade Iraq during Desert Storm he said no. Huge.
Yeah that's true. I think the general public doesn't like long periods of one party rule. The recession wasn't that huge a crisis from what I recall but I think people just tired of the regime. Part of the reason Bush was able to defeat Gore, and why McCain faced an uphill battle (even though he wasn't connected to Bush's Presidency, by being the same party he was by default).
The Recession was THE issue back in 1992. It's what caused Clinton to win and Bush to lose. The debt was also a big deal and almost got Perot elected... Before the ninjas showed up on his front lawn
You know, thinking back, I think the recession was an even bigger issue back then than what our recession is now.
I meant the recession wasn't that bad, as in compared to the current one (stock market, unemployment, global reach etc). Yeah, it was a big issue though.
You're right about Lieberman, geeez what an awful pick. Al Gore was known to be a bit boring, so they pick some old boring guy to run with him.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
Gore lost in 2000, because of Lieberman, a slew of bad campaign choices in his camp, and WAY OVER CONFIDENCE.
I might not of been able to vote in 2000, but I followed that election quite closely, and they just assumed Gore had it in the bag - even Gore. In the weeks leading up to the election, they just phoned it in, seemed to kick up their heels, while Bush was pushing hard. Hell, even on the night of the election, everyone was declaring Gore the winner across the board, despite on 1% reporting, because they just assumed he'd win. Dewey/Truman revisited.
Bush also knew to win the "right" states, and not the overall country. It got him elected, simple as that. Gore also didn't impress in the debates, because he assumed he was going up against some dumb Texas oilman. What resulted was a robotic, stiff, borderline condescending image of Gore, and despite Bush's lack of communication skills, a more laid back, down to earth guy in Bush, who Gore seemingly just tossed gopher balls to, and Bush kept slamming them. Image got Gore buried. Image is everything. Got Bush elected in 2000. Got Kennedy elected in '60 too, also despite not winning the popular vote.
Bush single-handedly won in 2004, on image alone. The guy was the most hated man in America by that point, and practically walked across the finish line. Why? Because Kerry had to be the most goddamn laughable choice since Dukakis.
Finally with Obama, the Democrats finally got on board, really got what they had to sell. Great image, great speaker, down to earth, intelligent, young/vibrant, moderate Democrat... the whole package. I don't see Jesus Christ himself winning in 2012.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
It also kind of pisses me off that all the Regan revisionist have pretty much brainwashed everyone into forgetting about the recession, massive debt, and general fuck up he caused
WHAT? Who forgot about the recession? He got us out of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Technically he got us out of two recessions. Had Carter won a second term, we'd all be speaking Russian or Chinese right now.
The massive debt(3 trillion) on Reagan's watch is forgivable simply because the majority of it went towards defense in the final days of the Cold War. His strategy was to outspend them and negotiate while holding ALL the cards. That took money, and LOTS of it.
Take away his defense spending, the country would have pretty much been running surpluses after 83. The booming economy allowed for the debt and deficits to continue without consequence.
That 3 trillion dollar war machine that Bush and Clinton got to play around with while strutting on the world stage was Reagan's war machine. Hell, it's still Reagan's as the majority of its high tech weapons systems were created on his watch.
If any revisionism goes on, its downplaying his achievements.
Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. It's not up to the United States of America to handle disaster situations. Hasn't been in my lifetime. Not sure about before that. Handeling of disaster issues is a STATES issue. That's what the Republicans want. That's how Reagan would've wanted it, and did.
So you're telling me that Reagan would have twiddled his thumbs while thousands of Americans were drowning, starving, dying of thirst, and bodies piling up in the Superdome? 
Yeah...sure. He invaded a sovereign nation to rescue a handful of Americans defying several global laws but would let a disaster of biblical proportions take place on his own soil.
You should go read a book or two on the man(specifically his own biography). You obviously don't realize how patriotic this man was to think he would allow something of that magnitude to occur on his watch.
Yeah he was a huge proponent of "states rights", but he most certainly would have declared it a national emergency and went in there immediately.
You can't have this shit of "we don't want government in our lives. Small government, small government, free market, etc."... oh, but when a hurricane comes and rips us apart, we want big government then...
MAKE YOUR CHOICE. You either want government in your lives, or states rights. Well, that's states rights. THEY decide when the government comes in and helps. That's why Katrina was the clusterfuck of all time.
What does "big government" have to do with massive disasters? The government had record expansion under Bush.
Bush had MANY reasons to go in there. Fuck states rights in this case. Gas immediately shot up to 4 bucks a gallon risking a catastrophic collapse of the economy due to the oil industry in the region. That is a national problem, not a state problem. The fishing industry almost went belly up. That's a national problem, not a state problem.
So even if you take away all the deaths, he still had reasons to go in there even before Katrina hit.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I'm not blaming Bush or Reagan. I'm blaming you, the other guy down the street, the Tea Party member, the guy saying Bush is a "moron" or "Bush doesn't care about black people", or the people calling Obama a "socialist" or a "nazi", etc.
Everyone wants small government, until their ass needs bailing out. Suddenly they want big government. All i'm saying is Bush simply followed procedure - which he did. He's not a moron, he followed the rules that were in place. If anyone were morons, it was the LA Governor & NO Mayor. They were the morons, and every American citizen blaming Bush that had no clue how it works.
I'm not saying Bush didn't have reasons to go in there. I would never be dumb enough to think that. Bush had EVERY reason to go in there, and he dropped the ball on that. But being a moron, or a racist or not caring... no. Bush made an error in judgment, but he was reason #637 down the list on the reasons Katrina was the biggest clusterfuck of national disasters in the history of this country.
I'm also not saying Reagan would've done the same. Reagan would've had all hands on deck from the fuckin' get go. I believe that, because I do know Reagan, and I do know Reagan's history. I actually like(d) the guy.
But I also know that Reagan's own Republican, small government, less inteference, power to the states philosophies can be blamed for the rules that were in place that CAUSED Katrina to be the clusterfuck it was.
All national disasters, in any state in the U.S. SHOULD be handled by the U.S. government. Don't even fuckin' worry about what the state wants to do. Fuck 'em. Go in there, because that's American soil.
Bush was dealing with lots of unnecesary red tape in 2005.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I certainly remember the idiocy surrounding that disaster. The mayor of New Orleans is lucky he wasn't lynched. Had this happened in the 1800s, he would have been swinging from a tree in the french quarter.
Its times like that where the country is supposed to stand together and face the crisis at hand. We didn't. Once again, this goes back to his lack of skills at communicating. That mayor had the audacity to declare martial law. Bush should have flown in there and slapped him in the face.
When incidents like Katrina, 9/11, OKC Bombing, Challenger disaster,etc. happen, last thing on our minds should be the size of the government, regardless of which side of the aisle everyone is on.
