The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

[Danno 1,228]

Yea right wingers claim that Obama is treated favorably by the media & guess what... they are right. However it's kind of like a parent (the media) who favors a child (Obama) who gets straight A's in school while their other kid (Bush) gets D'd and F's, starts fights for no reason & is a general screw up. Can you really blame the parent or should the screw up clean up his act?

"straight A's"?

At least you have a sense of humor...... or were you serious?

If so, perhaps you would list some of the "A"s Obama

has scored that would inspire such love and devotion from an other wise impartial media?

(Can't wait to see this long list)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - a bad analogy.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[DeadPoolX 9]

I disagree... maybe not a totally accurate analogy, but not a bad one. The media is everyone's punching bag, especially the right. The problem is that the media is right more than they are wrong & generally when someone screws up the media bashing is just a form of denial. As for Bush the media & 70% of the American population are hard on him because he's an awful President... it has very little to do with bias.

The funny thing about "great" and "awful" presidents is that opinion and outlook change over time. Abraham Lincoln is one such president. He was virulently despised by both the North and the South (Lincoln wasn't even on most ballots in the southern states) and the only reason he won the presidency was due to the Democratic ticket being split. He suspended many rights during his tenure and cared little about slavery. The only reason Lincoln campaigned so hard against slavery is because it gained him popularity and antagonized the South. In truth, the "Emancipation Proclamation" did little (if anything) to "free" slaves. It was a decree in the North and the South was not going to listen.

The reason I mention Lincoln is because he was hated in the 1860s. If you asked someone's opinion back then about Lincoln, I'm sure you'd find a very different picture than what we have today. The same might be true of Bush. Perhaps the change in opinion might take over a century, but it's very possible some may view Bush as a great (or at least, decent) president in the future. Only time will tell, of course.

Yea right wingers claim that Obama is treated favorably by the media & guess what... they are right. However it's kind of like a parent (the media) who favors a child (Obama) who gets straight A's in school while their other kid (Bush) gets D'd and F's, starts fights for no reason & is a general screw up. Can you really blame the parent or should the screw up clean up his act?

"straight A's"?

At least you have a sense of humor...... or were you serious?

If so, perhaps you would list some of the "A"s Obama

has scored that would inspire such love and devotion from an other wise impartial media?

(Can't wait to see this long list)

There's simply no way Obama could be given "straight A" marks. He's the president-elect right now and hasn't spent one day in office as the president. Because of this, he has yet to do anything on a national or international scale. Let's wait and see how well Obama does before we praise him for his fantastic grades.

Edited December 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[DeadPoolX 9]

There's simply no way Obama could be given "straight A" marks. He's the president-elect right now and hasn't spent one day in office as the president. Because of this, he has yet to do anything on a national or international scale. Let's wait and see how well Obama does before we praise him for his fantastic grades.

Or condemn him.

Good point.

[nowhereman 1]

Yea right wingers claim that Obama is treated favorably by the media & guess what... they are right. However it's kind of like a parent (the media) who favors a child (Obama) who gets straight A's in school while their other kid (Bush) gets D'd and F's, starts fights for no reason & is a general screw up. Can you really blame the parent or should the screw up clean up his act?

"straight A's"?

At least you have a sense of humor...... or were you serious?

If so, perhaps you would list some of the "A"s Obama

has scored that would inspire such love and devotion from an other wise impartial media?

(Can't wait to see this long list)

The analogy was a bit of an exaggeration, but point here is that Bush has been an awful President, he has never accepted responsibility for his mistakes & right wingers like yourself will blindly support incompetent Republicans out of misguided loyalty (in the business world people like yourself are called "yes men"). As for the long list I won't waste my time trying to make one... done that here before & all I got was nonsensical replies. Example: I've tried a few times to get a decent dialogue going about the Bush doctrine & it was like trying to teach math to a monkey... the right wingers here are generally incapable of substantive discussions.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Yea right wingers claim that Obama is treated favorably by the media & guess what... they are right. However it's kind of like a parent (the media) who favors a child (Obama) who gets straight A's in school while their other kid (Bush) gets D'd and F's, starts fights for no reason & is a general screw up. Can you really blame the parent or should the screw up clean up his act?

"straight A's"?

At least you have a sense of humor...... or were you serious?

If so, perhaps you would list some of the "A"s Obama

has scored that would inspire such love and devotion from an other wise impartial media?

(Can't wait to see this long list)

The analogy was a bit of an exaggeration, but point here is that Bush has been an awful President, he has never accepted responsibility for his mistakes & right wingers like yourself will blindly support incompetent Republicans out of misguided loyalty (in the business world people like yourself are called "yes men"). As for the long list I won't waste my time trying to make one... done that here before & all I got was nonsensical replies. Example: I've tried a few times to get a decent dialogue going about the Bush doctrine & it was like trying to teach math to a monkey... the right wingers here are generally incapable of substantive discussions.

You're on VJ. Nonsensical replies -- whether from the Right or the Left -- is par for the course.

[nowhereman 1]

I disagree... maybe not a totally accurate analogy, but not a bad one. The media is everyone's punching bag, especially the right. The problem is that the media is right more than they are wrong & generally when someone screws up the media bashing is just a form of denial. As for Bush the media & 70% of the American population are hard on him because he's an awful President... it has very little to do with bias.

The funny thing about "great" and "awful" presidents is that opinion and outlook change over time. Abraham Lincoln is one such president. He was virulently despised by both the North and the South (Lincoln wasn't even on most ballots in the southern states) and the only reason he won the presidency was due to the Democratic ticket being split. He suspended many rights during his tenure and cared little about slavery. The only reason Lincoln campaigned so hard against slavery is because it gained him popularity and antagonized the South. In truth, the "Emancipation Proclamation" did little (if anything) to "free" slaves. It was a decree in the North and the South was not going to listen.

The reason I mention Lincoln is because he was hated in the 1860s. If you asked someone's opinion back then about Lincoln, I'm sure you'd find a very different picture than what we have today. The same might be true of Bush. Perhaps the change in opinion might take over a century, but it's very possible some may view Bush as a great (or at least, decent) president in the future. Only time will tell, of course.

Fans of Bush often use historical examples to argue that history will look more favorably upon his Presidency & like you said only time will tell, but I just can't imagine it applying with him. You used Lincoln as an example & his decisions were very unpopular to some, but ultimately most were the right decision. Bush has simply made very bad decisions... they are unpopular because they are awful.

Edited December 30, 2008 by nowhereman

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[HAL 9000 96]

There's simply no way Obama could be given "straight A" marks. He's the president-elect right now and hasn't spent one day in office as the president. Because of this, he has yet to do anything on a national or international scale. Let's wait and see how well Obama does before we praise him for his fantastic grades.

Or condemn him.

Well... we know already that biases are biases. Even those preconditioned to such foolishness.

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

But that will be remembered in another light in the future, apparently.

I say that his 'contribution' to our society will be duly noted and ridiculed even further down the time line.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick of "success" for previous presidents seems to be about whether they left the country in as good or better position than they found it.

As far as Bush goes... it really speaks for itself.

9/11, Destruction of New Orleans, Two ongoing and expensive wars and most recently - a burgeoning economic collapse.

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Well... it isn't. Obviously. But the disaster is remembered for the collective failure of State and Federal Government to respond to the crisis.

[DeadPoolX 9]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

Edited December 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Ban Hammer 14,611]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

the state and local level falls on it's face, and that's overlooked.

[HAL 9000 96]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

I'm sure a disaster zone is a perfect example of where Federal intervention is most needed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How is the destruction of New Orleans the fault of Bush? What did he do? Command nature to create a hurricane?

Come on, don't play dumb. Even Republicans admit his handling of that disaster was...well, a disaster.

What was he supposed to do? By letting Louisiana handle it, he "made a mess of things." If he had the federal government take it upon itself to do everything, he would have been criticized for "overstepping his bounds and usurping control from the Louisiana state government."

As usual, it was a lose-lose situation.

And yet historians will look at Bush's presidency in a new light?

Perhaps some of his policies will be re-evaluated in time, but its rather difficult to see how his administration will be exonerated for what are quite obvious failures.