Rank Bush's Presidency.

renrich · 10-06-2008, 09:41 AM

How about anglo-celts also? Bush did warn many times about problems with FNMA, etc, but was ignored. The GOP senators in 2006 on the banking commitee tried to address the lending standards problem and were blocked by dimocrats. I have a copy of an article in the NYT in 1999 which discusses the situation with FNMA and the efforts to make loans available to lower income borrowers. Don't know how to get it to this forum. Just reread the article and it is scary to see how the Clinton administration and Franklin Raines, head of FNMA, were pushing to get loans for otherwise unqualified borrowers. Several critics of the lowering of lending standards were quoted as saying that, in an economic downturn, the federal government might have to come in and rescue FNMA just like they did in the 1980s with the thrifts. Of course they were ignored by the dimocrats who were intent on getting votes from minorities and lower income families who were the beneficiaries of these efforts.

Amsel · 10-06-2008, 10:13 AM

Is there no category for Anglo-Saxon American?

If there isn't there should be.

ccheese · 10-06-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

World opinion of the US is at an all time low, and the dollar is in the crapper.

Amen to that. I rated him 'bad'. But I really wanted to go lower....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

He was a noble, sincere, hard working, compassionate, honorable President

Are we talking about the same George W. Bush ????

Charles

Messy1 · 10-06-2008, 12:08 PM

I think Bush unfairly gets the blame for most of the problems we are facing now, he has become the scapegoat for all that's wrong with the government. Bush is only one man, he has made mistakes, but every bill or measure he has put through has had to be voted on by every member of the H.o.R, and the Senate to be passed. There are many Dems in the Senate who promised to clean up the mess the Republicans have made, and so far have done even less, and who's approval rating is far below his! I think the whole government is screwed up, and finger pointing at Bush is the easy way out for too many in Washington! Bush will never be thought of as a intellectual, or will not be confused with Washington, Lincoln, etc. but he has had a ton of help getting us into this mess, and equal credit needs to be applied where it is deserved!

Bluehawk · 10-06-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccheese

Are we talking about the same George W. Bush ????

Charles

Yes...

The fact that such a man was able to be elected by our vote is, possibly, a greater question to be asked and answered. Given the electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries, 2-party system, Election Commission, and sovereign immunity it is a true miracle that we are still able, just barely, to elect anyone to the Presidency!

Considering the hysterical opposition he faced from BOTH sides of the aisle all along the way, it is a wonder his hair has not turned 100% white by this time.

But, as for his performance in office, he did extremely well with what he had available, and I'm very proud of his service.

ccheese · 10-06-2008, 04:55 PM

If my memory serves me right, he was only elected thru the
grace of the Florida courts. Remember "the hanging chad episode" ?
[Wasn't his brother Gov. of Florida at the time ?]

Didn't Gore win by the popular vote ?

However, he who is in charge takes the responsibility, and the blame, for
all that occurs while he has the helm. In my opinion he is the worst president I've seen in my 74 years. And that's considering the Nixon, Ford,
Carter eras, too.

Charles

Messy1 · 10-06-2008, 05:16 PM

I just am not willing to blame everything on Bush. Our whole government has failed us, and most of the American people have let our Senators, Representatives, and Presidents get away with it for far too long. Bush has done his fair share of damage, but he needed the help of Congress to pass his plans and agenda! Can't be mad at one with out being mad at the other.

renrich · 10-06-2008, 06:08 PM

It would be interesting to have those who criticise the president so heavily enumerate the things you think he did wrong. I enumerated the things IMO he did right. Yes, Bush in the first election did not win the popular vote. However he won the electoral colloege vote and later recounts proved he had enough votes in Florida to win that state. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections. The only reason he got into office was Ross Perot.

Bluehawk · 10-06-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccheese

If my memory serves me right, he was only elected thru the grace of the Florida courts. Remember "the hanging chad episode" ?
[Wasn't his brother Gov. of Florida at the time ?]

Yes, Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida at the time, but he had zero to do with the election issues of the day. His Secretary of State was in charge of deciding how to handle things, and their own Supreme Court backed her up.

It was none other than Al Gore himself who forced an emergency legal case with the American Supreme Court!

That case too was decided in favor of the decision made by the lower court, on a 7 to 2 vote (hardly a "close call")... namely, that George Bush had gotten more votes than Gore, and was therefore entitled to the electoral college votes.

The voting anomalies which were said to have occurred in Florida and Ohio that year are anomalies that happen throughout the nation, every single time there is an election.

I feel safe in being comfortable that HAD there been some sort of hanky panky with the votes or voters in that case, then given all the time and attention that has passed since the election surely any number of legal cases brought to remedy the situation would have been proven in favor of Gore by now. None have, to my knowledge.

So, end of story - even though Democrats and sore losers all over the MSM and among the population have been beating that dead horse for almost 8 years.

comiso90 · 10-06-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

It would be interesting to have those who criticise the president so heavily enumerate the things you think he did wrong.

Besides the fact he is an utter buffoon, Iraq and the current financial meltdown are enough reasons. The National Debt clock has been spinning out of control for years and "Einstein" gives "economic stimulus packages" and wages an unwinnable war.

Yes, I do blame Bush for the meltdown. I think being in charge for two terms qualifies him for a large measure of culpability.

He had a vastly oversimplified view of the Gulf 2. The Iraqis are too fragmented into different sects and clans for his model to work. The prosecution of the war was the work of a megalomaniac with a nothing more then a lot of hyperbole laden blustering to back him up!

.

FLYBOYJ · 10-06-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comiso90

Yes, I do blame Bush for the meltdown. I think being in charge for two terms qualifies him for a large measure of culpability.

This meltdown would of happened regardless, look whats happening in Europe as we speak - borrowing money to run a war didn't make things better - Bush was just one of the problems, lack of oversight of Fannie and Freddie and an idiotic mortgage policy along with greedy lenders and moronic buyers that didn't help matters. I do however agree with Charles - the buck stops with the CoC and the measure of the effectiveness of the presidency should be measured as such.

Bluehawk · 10-06-2008, 08:09 PM

Would that we judged ourselves by the standards we expect of a President...

FLYBOYJ · 10-06-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

Would that we judged ourselves by the standards we expect of a President...

............

JoeB · 10-06-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

Would that we judged ourselves by the standards we expect of a President...

Very good.

Everyone knows the history of, for example, WWII: great sacrifice, and blunders and unpreparedness that cost plenty of extra US lives. But they also know in hindsight it came out OK. And even in case of the much more controversial Vietnam War, the war was part of an overall policy of containing Communism, which we now know succeeded overall. We don't know the longterm effect of Bush's Iraq policy either in Iraq itself or more broadly. But, predictably, if a war isn't easy and apparently quickly successful at the time, it's going to be unpopular.

On fin crisis, in most of Bush's term the economy was doing only so-so, no particular fault of Bush's IMO. But the housing sector, and rapid house price increases, were an apparent bright spot. And Americans expect the economy to be humming along at all times. There wasn't political will for drastic actions to deflate that housing bubble, ie. slow down that bright spot, and the house price bubble was a lot of the reason people on various sides made unwise decisions about mortgages. Also the policy issues there are complicated, include the Fed (Bush re-appointed Greenspan but the whole idea is that the Fed Chairman be basically independent), Congressional and Excecutive actions before Bush, and the private market. Also we don't know yet if the fin. crisis will mark a major point in overall US history; it's possible we're overestimating it in the heat of the moment.

Another big unknown is why Al Qaeda hasn't seriously struck in the US since 9/11: Bush admin actions or other reasons?

Still, I voted 'underperform' based on what's known now.

Joe

comiso90 · 10-06-2008, 10:55 PM