The Bush Legacy (1 Viewer)

[impervious182]

Technically there should be a middle choice, so that all of you people could have chosen 'Ok' or 'Alright' instead of 'Bad'... The poll... well.... polarised them.


* Yes I know. The irony of a Bush supporter complaining about the validity of voting results.

 

[impervious182]

Well it would've been Gore.

I highly doubt Gore would've invaded Iraq.

Also Gore definitely would have taken global warming seriously and done something to address that more immediately, rather than Bush's refusal to recognise it for much of his presidency.

True. But Gore is a hypocritical idiot who speaks through his ass... so that kind of counted him out of the race pretty quickly.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

how could anyone say anything other than awful?

 

[Lentern]

I know he is extremely unpopular but let's not remember if you asked Australians whom their favourite PM's are you'd probably find both Chifley and Whitlam in the top five despite them being swept out of government after very short premierships. By contrast Fraser who was much more successfull in the polls will probably be nowhere near the top in most peoples lists. Admittedly Menzies will probably come in first.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm sorry but I don't get your point.

 

[chicky_pie]

The Bush Legacy:

2 wars
1 preparing a war (Iran)
cold war tensions (Russia)
debt
job loses
mortgage crisis
inflations

 

[spiny norman]

I'm sorry but I don't get your point.

I think he's saying that Bush may be unpopular now, but in the long term this doesn't necessarily mean he'll be viewed so poorly in the future (for perhaps a more apt example and an American one, think Harry Truman).

He's also wrong, though. Bush's legacy will ultimately be what's happened in the Middle East. If, in the future, peace comes to the Middle East and the roots of that can be traced to what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, his standing could be rehabilitated like Truman's. But I sincerely think it's highly unlikely that happens to him, and it's far more likely he'll be remembered one of the great failures.

 

[reh]

correction:

it's far more likely he'll be remembered as the greatest failure.

 

[Rafy]

Nah, he's down there, but there are worse.

 

[Lentern]

I think he's saying that Bush may be unpopular now, but in the long term this doesn't necessarily mean he'll be viewed so poorly in the future (for perhaps a more apt example and an American one, think Harry Truman).

He's also wrong, though. Bush's legacy will ultimately be what's happened in the Middle East. If, in the future, peace comes to the Middle East and the roots of that can be traced to what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, his standing could be rehabilitated like Truman's. But I sincerely think it's highly unlikely that happens to him, and it's far more likely he'll be remembered one of the great failures.

I can't imagine how he'd go down in history as a icon like Whitlam and Chifley but it's funny how these things pan out, I don't really understand it myself. My logic says that his presidency should be viewed as a blot, but he was re-elected, was his second term drastically different from his first? I know there was 9.11 but was he a drastically different character? If peoples opinion of a s, tatesman at the time of their departure means anything than for my money Gough should be close to our least popular pm, Truman is a good example. Clinton should be a revered figure, instead Obama has distanced himself from him. Legacies I think are a bewildering thing.

 

[Trefoil]

Dude, Truman's situation was nothing like Bush's (except that they both had the highest and lowest approval ratings on record).

I don't really think there's much comparable to Bush's situation, actually.

The most positive image people will have of Bush in 10 years time is likely as a happy simpleton far out of his depth. Hmm, now who else does that remind me of?

Clinton should be a revered figure, instead Obama has distanced himself from him.

No he hasn't. And even if he had of, it would have been because of Hillary, not Clinton's presidency (which, from memory, Obama has repeatedly praised as an exemplar of how Democrats can properly handle the country and economy).

 

[incentivation]

The most positive image people will have of Bush in 10 years time is likely as a happy simpleton far out of his depth. Hmm, now who else does that remind me of?

Please enlighten us.

 

[Trefoil]

Please enlighten us.

Sarah Palin.

 

[incentivation]

Sarah Palin.

Fair comparison in terms of intellect.

 

[Trefoil]

Oh, I get it. You thought I was going to say Howard.

No, I think Howard is actually a good example of somebody who will be somewhat fondly remembered in years to come.

 

[Lentern]

Dude, Truman's situation was nothing like Bush's (except that they both had the highest and lowest approval ratings on record).

I don't really think there's much comparable to Bush's situation, actually.

The most positive image people will have of Bush in 10 years time is likely as a happy simpleton far out of his depth. Hmm, now who else does that remind me of?



No he hasn't. And even if he had of, it would have been because of Hillary, not Clinton's presidency (which, from memory, Obama has repeatedly praised as an exemplar of how Democrats can properly handle the country and economy).

You know I respect your politics, I'm a Brown/Nader fan too but by jinko's try once in a blue moon looking at things from the centre. You're perenial undermining of the contemporary rights political abilities, as opposed to governing abilities which are a different concept all together are getting old. At the moment life is hard for America's and they direct their revenge at the Tsar. But when the dust has settled I reckon a portion will begin to revere him as the man who wouldn't let the arabs get away with anything, whom stood up to the Russians and whom had to take the tough decisions etc, a conviction politician. I doubt he'll crack the JFK, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman class but I reckon he'll go down as a greater figure than Ford, Carter, LBJ or his father.

 

[Trefoil]

You know I respect your politics, I'm a Brown/Nader fan too but by jinko's try once in a blue moon looking at things from the centre. You're perenial undermining of the contemporary rights political abilities, as opposed to governing abilities which are a different concept all together are getting old. At the moment life is hard for America's and they direct their revenge at the Tsar. But when the dust has settled I reckon a portion will begin to revere him as the man who wouldn't let the arabs get away with anything, whom stood up to the Russians and whom had to take the tough decisions etc, a conviction politician. I doubt he'll crack the JFK, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman class but I reckon he'll go down as a greater figure than Ford, Carter, LBJ or his father.

I'm not really a Nader or Brown fan and just because I vote for Greens doesn't make me a fucking leftie you silly billy. I doubt you've got a clue what me stance is.

Don't talk to me about "perenially undermining" the political abilities of the right when I can barely post something critical of Howard without feeling somewhat guilty or admiring the man in some way.

But Bush is not Howard (Reagan or Truman or Bush Sr.) and no matter how much you try to paint a positive caricature of him in the future, there's just little evidence at all that's how he'll actually be perceived.

He does not even have a legacy in the Middle East to stand the test of time: public opinion is that he botched the job, and if anybody actually finishes it, it's looking likely to be the Democrats (unless it lasts another 4 years). Who do you think history will look kindly upon? The guy who started the war, or the guy who ended it?

 

[spiny norman]

I doubt he'll crack the JFK, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman class but I reckon he'll go down as a greater figure than Ford, Carter, LBJ or his father.

Truman > Lincoln > Lyndon Johnson > Kennedy > Ford > Carter > H.W. Bush > Reagan > W. Bush.

Fact.

 

[bshoc]

Somewhere between good and bad.

 

[Trefoil]

Truman > Lincoln > Lyndon Johnson > Kennedy > Ford > Carter > H.W. Bush > Reagan > W. Bush.

Fact.

Sounds right.

"The underlying differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties boils down to a very simple thing. The Republicans believe that the power of the Government should be used, first of all, to help the rich and privileged people of this country. With them property comes first. The Democrats believe that the powers of the Government should be used to give the common man some protection, and a chance to make a decent living. With the Democrats the people come first.

The Democratic Party is a political organization that has a heart--it cares about the people--it cares about all the people, rich and poor alike. The Republican Party is ruled by a little group of men who have calculating machines where their hearts ought to be.

Sometimes the Republicans aid their clientele by special favors--like the rich man's tax cut bill which was passed by the 80th Congress over my veto--or like their attempts to give away the Nation's oil resources to all the big oil interests.

Sometimes the Republicans aid their special friends by doing nothing--by a philosophy of each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. That's why they've fought such measures as minimum wage laws, social security, and the protection of the right of labor unions to organize. All these things and others like them have been opposed by the Republicans."

---Harry S Truman
October 6, 1952

Some things never change.