I wonder what Clintons ratings were...

I need to start selling drugs because it looks like crack is back.

Trickle-down does have some benefits. However if you aren't controlling spending at the same time, you accomplish very little. I have no problem with tax cuts as long as they are part of a balanced budget. Let's face it, if business is doing the spending instead of government (outside of essential services), it will be more efficient. It appears from the outside that the current US government is pissing away dollars on pork barrel projects instead of focusing on appropriate government services.

From the Wall Street Journal using the Harris poll, here is how the last 5 two term presidents have compared at this time in their presidency:


hxxp://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113216347138199155-5Z1Ri_om8ITUbV_jD2bx6maguMY_20061116.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Wrong:




Wrong:




I'm pretty sure that Alan Greenspan is on record as saying that no one is really responsible for affecting the economy. If I remember correctly, it's one of his central beliefs. But maybe you know better.

Better than Bush's.

32 yes votes now, and I'm still waiting for a single one of their casters to respond to these earlier posts.

Let me get this right, you think there actualy IS a better reason for their votes that the "balance" argument?

Come on now, thats just silly.....

Heh. :)

Guess I'm just looking for someone to either justify their vote or feel bad for lying.

The Davos President in full swing! Bush defends 'outsourcing', even though he acknowledges 'pain' to some workers! Hey, 1 billion new workers at $2.00 an hour can't be wrong, right! Story is on Drudge, among other places...link wouldn't take.

Oh yeah, one surprise...India has many barriers to us selling them stuff, but they should be able to flood our markets freely, right? After all, the Chinese get that deal, and fair is fair! Don't be a bigot!

A-Husker-4-Life, NoMyths & Daimyo. Let me try. I do want to support my 'yes' decision for GWB. Can we agree to isolate our discussion of pros-and-cons to a specific list of issues?

I am proposing a top-5 list of pros-for-GB and I am requesting you create a top-5 list of cons-for-GB. After these lists have been established, I think the discussion will be more cogent, otherwise the 'yes' folks (ex. me) will be chasing 'what about this' forever.

Here is my pro-list

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.
(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

I did not add the economy (or tax policy) because (a) it was bad first term (b) it is good second term (c) there are alot of factors about the economy that a president cannot influence (d) if the experts can't agree, how can we?

Also, I do have my own top-5 con list, but I'll let you guys set it up.

Not to undercut your defense any, but you can't limit your choices when it comes to wether the president is doing a good job, you have to look at the entire term.

As for your list, 1 and 2 are certainly not positives. he's bungled them as badly as any president could have in regards to management and public relations for the events. The abortion issue? how is that a positive? he's done nothing about it, nothing. He has waved his hands and smiled and taken the republican line on teh conservative side of the issue, but that isn't doing anything, that's protecting his slowly dying christian vote.

Not sure about #4, can you show me something he's actually done or promoted to cause this? I don't see much that has changed in 20+ years. He brought in Rice and Powell, but its not as if they were historic steps forward.

As for the 5th, yay, oorah or whatever that is supposed to represent. Its still not anything I've seen in this presidents statements or actions to be honest.

His first term was bad, his second term is worse based on the economy, not sure where your "good" is coming from there, and yes I agree the president doesn't have a huge affect on the economy either way.

as for D) you're dead on right ;)

Just my response...take what you can from that nickel.

RendeR. I stand by my proposal, otherwise I'll be chasing 'what about this' forever. The 'no' crowd should be able to select 5 to start this discussion.

The problem with your list, though, is that 4 of the items can be on someone else's con list (increased diversity probably wouldn't appear on most people's con list, but I guess it could fit as well). If someone's con list starts with the "war in iraq" (which is pretty likely), exactly what purpose does your proposal serve?

Ignoring what I just said, here is an easy list of 5 (in no particular order):

1) War in Iraq
2) Handling of Katrina
3) Politicization of Science
4) Erosion of Civil Liberties through the War on Terror
5) Corruption

To what purpose?

I mean, seriously, would any effort do anything except push this thread toward an all-out flame fest?

(FTR, I don't even think I've voted on the poll, mostly because there wasn't an option for "Yes and No -- Yes, better than any alternative I can think of AND No, not nearly as good as I would like" )

John Galt. Thank you. I'll give NoMyths & Daimyo a chance to create their list and try to consolodate all the 'no' lists into 1 set of 5. Just trying to bring some structure here.

It obvious the 'no' are in the large majority and I know I cannot answer all of their 'what about this' properly so I believe it is best to work off a short list. Thanks again.

I'll give this a shot.

1) Failing to change course/adjust to facts on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Keeping staff on board even though they have been consistently wrong

3) Pursuing tax and spending policies that are completely unsustainable

4) Obsessive control of information (science, torture, Congressional briefings, etc.)

5) Lack of intellectual curiousity and inability to learn from past mistakes

I tried to leave out individual events and focus on major problems. If I had some more numbers I'd add facilitation/encouragement of corruption of the government contracting process and politicizing the war on terror to the detriment of actual progress.

Con-List:

1. Invading Iraq
2. Reckless Spending
3. Unconstitutional and quite possibly illegal attempted expansion of Executive Branch powers
4. Culture of irresponsibilty in White House (i.e. "buck doesn't stop here, c.f. Katrina)
5. Erosion of civil liberties
5a. "nukular" ;)

Exactly. I've long wondered why people even bother to ask questions like that. Nine times out of ten (if not more), they don't to engage in any meaningful conversation. They know they won't change anyone's mind, and I seriously doubt they'd allow theirs to be changed. So what's the point? Typically, it's to either mock someone or just get enraged, two things I think people on this board enjoy doing far too often.

But then again, maybe I'm just jaded. :D

JPhillips. Thanks. I'll let NoMyths & Daimyo consolodate the list, I guess it won't be fair for me to do the 5-cons.

Being jaded doesn't automatically make you wrong, and damn sure not in this instance.

Thing is, my enjoyment of those two instances has become less & less.

Finding people to mock here is, well, too damned easy. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't warranted or earned, but it's just too easy.

And I really don't need a message board to provide just cause for rage, all I have to do is go outside for a couple of minutes, read the newspaper, or pretty much interact with the world outside my f'n house. Any/all of those give me more than enough to work with.

1, 3, 4 (changed to Downing Street, the GB equivalent) 5 are major problems over here as well with Blair.

'All' you need to add in are education failures, increased crime/reduction of personal security, signing away our soveriegnty to Europe without telling anyone, diminishment of public services, the 'jobs for the boys' mentality, and bare-faced lying of the government and you've got the start of a critique of Blair and his cronies over here.

Right. I feel the same way, which is why I really don't understand the reasoning.

I mean, let's be honest. NoMyths is a sharp fellow. I disagree with him quite often, but he's clearly an intelligent individual. When he asks someone, "Please explain where you're coming from. I want to hear your opinion," it seems a bit disingenuous. He doesn't actually need to hear the other side. He already knows it. He just disagrees with it.

What comes of rehashing it all again other than bitterness and/or denigration? It seems like it's happened so many times on this board, I've lost count. Sometimes, FOFC is nothing if not recycled.

It's the rare moments of novelty, though, (almost never political in nature) that keep me coming back. ;)

'nukular' is actually how the military pronounces the word. It's not a mistake on his (and Carter's) part, but a deliberate attempt to sound more military.

Cuckoo, JonInMiddleGA. I don't know about anyone else but I believe (okay hope) that we can have a reasoned discussion about these 5 pros and 5 cons. True they may be rehashed stuff, but I didn't participate back then and this gives me a chance to share my point of view.

Fair enough. Just don't say I didn't warn you... :D

Yeah... I feel bad for what I said to Dutch. :(

I am sorry, Dutch, old man. Didn't mean it to be a personal attack or the like.

What a joke, if you think any of this is true then you must be smoking something!!!

(1) Never caught Osama...enemy #1!!!
(2) Created a war because good old DICK cheney told it was a good idea
(3) Abortion...what a joke! Bush has set America back 40 years...congrats!
(4) Minorities...are you kidding me! He won't even admit the disgraceful lack of action that took place with Katrina! Empty promises made to the poor minorities that suffered in New Orleans.
(5) bootstraps!!! give me a break, bush has done nothing but divide this country. After 9/11 this country should have been united for years to come, instead we argue over everything. Thank George you have done a hell of a job!!!

Not sure what military experiene you've had but this is absolute hogwash. I've worked and supervised 2 NuCLear reactors on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and no one, including the fleet command group ever used the term "nukular" in relation to our engines, weapons or activities in any fashion.

Your statement is incorrect. Bush, as it has been reported on both CNN and MSNBC, simply can't pronounce the word properly, it always comes out wrong.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Edward64. I don't have as much time to respond in detail to each of the points on my list as I'd like, but I'll try to do so if any need clarification.

1) Eroding of U.S. reputation overseas, particularly amongst Muslims, due to clumsy and bullying foreign policy.

2) The invasion of Iraq and the handling of post-war operations.

3) Supporting and promoting an administration that embraces illegal wiretapping, anti-Constitutional imprisonment, torture, the leaking of top-secret information, cronyism, and human rights abuses, thus illustrating an anti-American philosophy and policy.

4) The fiscal stewardship of America.

5) The handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.


While I appreciate some of what you've said, I'd clarify one thing: I actually am interested in hearing thoughtfulness and reason from "the other side". I've spent so much time over the past six years listening to bad logic and lies that I enjoy and respect the times the discussion is elevated. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my conclusions if they have good reasons -- if they're good enough, I'll change my point of view. Lord knows that's happened throughout my life, and I hope it continues to happen. If I simply ignore the voices of those who come at the issues from a different angle, I'm shutting myself off to the possibility for education, and that's antithetical to my philosophy. While I can certainly anticipate the easy, familiar arguments from "the other side", I always look forward to the more thoughtful, unexpected aspects that I haven't previously considered, and treat those with the respect they deserve. It's posts like Edward64's that make me glad for the political discussions in this forum.

It's always funny how people drop completely out of threads when you prove their bluster so outrageously wrong. :)

Fair enough. My point is that 9 times out of 10, you're going to consider any argument from the other side "bad logic" and "lies" because you disagree with it. You're smart enough to know that there are shades of gray, different interpretations of the same information, and most importantly, different priorities by those offering their opinions.

One person says "the invasion of Iraq." Another says "the emancipation of the Iraqi people." Which is right? Probably a bit of neither and a bit of both.

The truth is I share your desire for reasoned, thought-provoking debate on issues. It just seems like it always turns into a mess around here, nothing but name-calling and grandstanding (sometimes subtle, sometimes outrageous).

Like I said before, maybe I've just become jaded, and I certainly don't mean to sell you short. I just honestly cannot possibly see anyone ever making an argument here that will make you change your mind. The reason with you is that you have likely already considered most alternative arguments and come upon your conclusion of opinion. The reason with some others is that their ignorance and stubbornness anchors them into variations on the same "talking points." Either way, it just always seems to be a recipe in futility to me.

Edit: I should also point out that I don't consider you, NoMyths, to be one of the people that contributes to the climate I'm describing. In fact, I believe you when you say your motives of discussion are pure. I think the only difference between you and I (aside from obvious political differences) is that the need to tune out the "garbage" doesn't prevent you from attempting the debate. The "garbage" so irritates me in each discussion that I don't even try anymore, which is too bad because occasionally there's a nice dialogue here. :)

1. In hind sight it could have been handled better, with a better post invasion lpan. But it was the right thing to do. Sadaam was toying with a UN directive and someone had to step up and enforce it.

2. More so than what administration?

3. More so than what administration? Also, funny how you have applauded judges in the past for their liberal interpretation of laws that is equal to legislating from the bench. I guess this arguement about a branch of the government stepping out only works when it's in your favor.

4. WTF are you talking about? Bush is responsible for Katrina now? Can you reach a little farther?

5. Just what has eroded in your liberties? I guarantee that there is not one person on this board who has a legitimate example of something that has changed for them? Of course, I know I can find a pro gun control stance by you on this board somewhere and that is a liberty guaranteed in the constitution so I guess this is one of those otehr arguements that is only made when it "fits" your ideas.

5a. I know this can't be a serious ons eo I won't comment. If it was serious, than I say this, are we feraking in grade school? Plus it's been described as a possible military pronunciation and has been used by others in the past and present.

Some of you think that the Legislative Branch does not exist.

Pros:
My life is just as good if not better than when Clinton was President. Therefore, he has done a good job for me.

FTR, since I was one of the ones who made the original comment about "balancing the vote," I'll give my reasons.

First, it was largely meant in jest, hence my Mr. Green smiley.

But there is a bit of truth to it, and I suppose the best way to explain it is this. When considering every facet of his presidency, there are many who think he should receive a 0. Therefore, in their mind, this poll should read 100% "No." I personally think it should read about what it currently reads. For the most part, he has not done a good job. But I don't think it's nearly as bad as others do (the extremists that make ridiculous comments about him), so I vote "Yes" to help the results end up toward my true opinion of his presidency.

The reason for that is a "Yes" or "No" vote is too restrictive a method of expressing my opinion on Bush's presidency. That makes me have to base my decision on 1. whether there are more pros or more cons for his terms or 2. whether I think the alternative would have been better. Since I have no desire nor the time to make a list of everything I think he's done well or poorly, I went with number 2. In my humble opinion, the alternative would have been worse.

All of that said, I am no fan of Bush. In fact, I consider myself to be let down by him, almost "betrayed" to use the hyperbolic language of politics. I was for the original decision to go into Iraq but am disgusted by the way it has turned out. I am a huge opponent of the kind of spending that has gone on in the legislature, that he has continued to allow and even encourage. Although I am a fan of the tax cuts he put through, any intelligent person will tell you that tax cuts in conjunction with increased spending is pretty much a recipe for disaster.

All in all, I give him about a 30-40% on his job effectiveness to date. I think I've rambled quite a bit, but maybe that gives some indication of where I was coming from.

There, I'm doing my part to attempt to foster meaningful discussion. :)

Weren't you in grade school when Clinton was in office? :)

I think it's important here to understand what the difference is between disagreeing on the analysis of the facts and just sheer idiocy.

For example, let's take Iraq and the difference between my viewpoint and Dutch's viewpoint.

Dutch has, in the past, posted that he agrees with invading Iraq because it is consistent with his view of what needs to be done vis-a-vis the Middle East and Radical Islam in the near, middle and long-term.

I, obviously, disagree with this in that I think it's unlikely in the extreme that invading Iraq will prove to be advantageous for us in dealing with these "problems" in the intervening years.

However, I can respect Dutch's opinion a hell of a lot more than I can respect the bullshit "WMD-Bad! Saddam-Bad!" political posturing that's passed off as debate too often in this country. In fact, I believe Dutch has even posted in the past (and correct me if I'm wrong) that he'd be happier if Bush just articulated his rationale for invading Iraq along these lines from the start, instead of hiding behind political weasel words.


Now, for a change, let's take a look at someone who doesn't get it:


UN directives get toyed with all the time without ramifications. Hell, even the United States does it at times. Try again.

Plus, it's all well and good that things "could have been handled better", but when the result of "was handled poorly" is a sectarian civil war and a rise in the power of islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East couldn't we say, perchance, that it was a bad idea?


More spending than any administration since World War II. Look it up. While you're at it, look up the current debt, deficit and trade deficit levels.


Link to where I "applauded judges in the past for their liberal interpretation of laws". I'll wait.


Yeah, that's exactly what I said.... Can you brush up on your reading comprehension just a little more? KTHX.


Please re-write this so it makes some actual sense, thanks.


I'm glad to hear it, especially since I used the ;) smiley. You know, if everyone...


Oh, I guess you had to comment, then.

I've seen no proof of this "military pronunciation". You have some proof of this? Tell you what, though, I can guarantee you that no one in my brother's National Guard Unit mispronounces it that way.

On this con-side of the ring is ...

NoMyths, Render, John Galt, JPhillips, flere-imsaho, Jari, TwinCitiesFan

with their ...

5-Cons.

1) Eroding of U.S. reputation overseas, particularly amongst Muslims, due to clumsy and bullying foreign policy.
2) The invasion of Iraq and the handling of post-war operations.
3) Supporting and promoting an administration that embraces illegal wiretapping, anti-Constitutional imprisonment, torture, the leaking of top-secret information, cronyism, and human rights abuses, thus illustrating an anti-American philosophy and policy.
4) The fiscal stewardship of America.
5) The handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

On the other pro-side of the ring

Edward64 (with EagleFan, Cuckoo, Buccaneer invited if they choose to participate?)

with his/their ...

5-Pros.

(1) Military intervention in Afghanistan.
(2) Military intervention in Iraq.
(3) Anti-abortion stance.
(4) Much wider acceptance of minorities (African Americans notwithstanding ... but that might be self-imposed as they tend to be anti-Republican, not just pro-Democrat)
(5) More of 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' attitude (ooops, sorry if you get left behind), which I agree with (ex. for the most part, but there should be some exceptions).

....Both side have agreed to keep this a clean fight and to the Points listed.

If you're referring to James Lee Witt, then you're absolutely wrong. He was well qualified for the job, and he received praise from republicans and democrats for his solid management of FEMA.

Here's where I'm coming from. The title of the poll 'is Bush doing a good job as president'. We are doing a subjective rating of his presidency. The general framework I use to grade Bush (and will use in this discussion with you guys) are:

Premise #1. I don't do an assessment whether Bush is better than Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter etc. I do an assessment whether Bush is better than what Gore/Kerry would have done. It is easy to point out the bad points, but we have to ask ourselves if anyone else (ex. Gore/Kerry) could have done better based on the then-and-there situation that was presented to Bush? This of course presents other challenges, how can we know what Gore/Kerry would have done ... don't know for sure, but (thats what makes this fun and) its definitely more fair to grade Bush against those 2 during/for the same time period.

This is not to say I will not refer back to past acts as examples and indicators of their actions (ex. Gore), however my grading system is what would the other guy have done.

Premise #2. I don't blame everything that went wrong in the execution and maintenance to Bush. The cliche is the bucks stops here, but under most conditions people tend to state (ex. specific Abu Grahib acts, levee's) I just don't agree with. You cannot blame the CEO of a multi-national, $x trillion dollar conglomerate for "details" that go wrong.

So talk to me about policy, the strategic elements ... that's where he holds the blame (possibly with Congress and the Judiciary branches).

(to the specific points later, when I get more time...)

Finally to the guys. I am pretty sure I'll get overwhelmed even with these 10 issues unless I get some help. So if you would, any point you consider a must-respond-to or a key gotcha, please highlight or list as bullet points.

Things I like about Bush:

1. He signed the Do-Not-Call-List bill

I can't think of anymore

Not sure about the US, but over here (and hence part of the reason I find Bush's trying to wriggle out of the Katrina political after-effects unbelievable) CEOs of large companies are held responsible under law - company directors have been tried and convicted for corporate manslaughter (for deaths in the workplace), although it is fair to say that many of the cases do not end in convictions (e.g. Railtrack & Balfour Beatty directors after the Hatfield Rail Disaster)

But the principle that the head man should be legally responsible for the actions/inaction of those below is written in law here, and that is why I feel that by taking the stance he has over Katrina, Bush deserves a great deal of criticism.

Edward: But you absolutely can hold him responsible for hiring the wrong people and putting loyalty above competence. The only people that have been dismissed have been those that have publicly disagreed with assertions by the White House. Numerous persons who have proven to be wrong almost 100% of the time are retained and given medals. It is the CEO's job to make sure the right people are on the job and here Bush has been a major failure.

I also don't think it makes any sense to compare Bush to Gore/Kerry. We don't have any idea what they would have done differently or how well run their admins may have been. I'm willing to stipulate that they could have been worse, but we have no way of knowing. Applying a hypothetical view of things that didn't happen doesn't lead us anywhere.

All we can do is judge the actions that have taken place. My complaints about Bush are based on what he did given the facts at hand. I don't look at what Gore or Kerry would have done differently because I have no way of knowing that. What I can judge is what has happened not conterfactual arguments based on political biases.

Bubba - maybe I'm nuts here - when did you turn on Bush?

This is a good point. I love that thing. I have slapped down 2 frequent callers to my old house by threatening to report them to the FTC. It's the only time I have ever pulled the "I'm an attorney" line. It worked like a charm. Never heard from either company again.

My military experience is nearly 6 years in special forces, and I have a hard time saying the word the right way. "Nukular" was about the only way I heard it pronounced in that time. I have heard Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter pronounce the word "nukular" as well. Having said that, it is possible that Bush is simply incapable of pronouncing it correctly. I think it's more likely that it's a form of macho posturing.

What we need is a strong, intelligent President with principles - not a "macho" cowboy.

That's asking for the near-impossible. The last time we had one of those, the Boston Pilgrims baseball team was in the World Series.