Is this the worst administration ever?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Don't panic, Apr 7, 2004.

  1. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #1
    Is the Bush administration the worst in American history?
    If not, why? Who has performed worse?

    This is my take.
    GWB (or whoever is in charge) stepped into the job without the majority of the popular vote and with a shaky mandate (and let’s leave it at that) which should have called for a cautious, bipartisan approach (remember the “uniter”?). Instead we have a country more bitterly divided than any time I can think of.

    He ran on a small government, minimal international involvement, compassionate conservatism platform and proceeded with a 180 on every single subject.

    Civil liberties have been significantly eroded all around, people are held captive with no rights and no possibilities to defend themselves, secrecy is a pervasive characteristic of this administration’s MO, constitutional amendments have been proposed that would limit civil rights.

    This administration inherited a period of great prosperity and the largest fiscal surplus in history, and has basically looted it, leading the country into the largest deficit and probably the highest number of jobs lost since the great depression, compromising social security and medicare in the way. Education policies have been a failure, environment policies have been rolled back years and religious ideology has replaced science in a number of instances.

    Without assessing whether or not he can be held responsible for not preventing 9-11 (likely not, but the Iraqi obsession didn’t help either), he happily proceeded in squandering the huge capital of world sympathy toward the US in the aftermath of the attack (even in places where they don’t typically like us), by launching in a blatant neo-imperialistic policy that morphed this country into the entity that the soviet propaganda was depicting during the cold war.

    Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan and than seriously addressing the real middle east issues (mainly the Israeli-palestinian problem) thus pre-emptying the recruiting grounds, he validated BinLaden’s BS by becoming exactly the crusading invaders BL had been preaching against, alienating masses of muslims (and not) around the world, and turning the war on terror on a devastating propaganda debacle.

    The unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country undoes the “good guys” image the US has been building since WWI, and, coupled with the endorsement of murder as a means of dealing with political and police issues (missiles in yemen, support of Sharon and so on) will undermine US credibility and support in international law forums for years.

    Even assuming that the yet unstated reasons to invade Iraq are valid, we went there unprepared and without any long term or exit strategy. We are right now involved in a bloody civil war that will cost many lives and may even end up handing the country to Islamic fundamentalists. Talk about a safe heaven for terrorists.

    The Bush administration tactics have precipitated the world in a climate of hate and fear, and anti-americanism has grown (even among our traditional friends), to levels never reached before. Again, insulting our allies basically for being right all along (read France) didn’t help either.

    All this while lying their ass off on matters of national security (WMD anybody?).
    The damage this administration has already done has been pervasive, capillary and probably long-lasting. Can we, and the world, take four more years of this?

    Sorry for the long tirade. I realize that I might not 100% objective here and I am coming in with a slightly liberal bias, but I meditated a lot about this and I cannot come up with anything that has improved during GWB administration, other than GWB’s friends bottom lines. Not one thing. Does anybody? Am I blind? Please enlighten me.

    I would imagine that some of the many conservative macrumors denizens hold diverging views. So I would like to know, whatever you think of Kerry, why would you give your vote to this people again? It’s beyond me that half of the people in the country still supports Bush. I just don’t get it. Why?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    The whole world is asking precisely that question.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    harding was pretty bad, too.

    anyone want one of these t-shirts? they're silk-screened. $12 + shipping
     

    Attached Files:

  4. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #4
    Bush joins a long line of one term bad presidents.

    The worst string of them were before the Civil War:
    James Polk (1845-49); followed by Zachery Taylor (1849-1850 -- died in office); followed by Milliard Fillmore (1850-1853); followed by Franklin Pierce (1853-1857); followed by James Buchanan (1857-1861).

    These one-termers were followed by Abraham Lincoln -- who looks a lot like John Kerry. Strange.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Oh heresy! Are you suggesting Honest Abe looked French? :D
     
  6. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #6
    While I am not jumping head over heels for Kerry, I do think he will make a decent prez as compared to the worse-ever one we have in office now. I think you're analysis is spot on.

    I suppose being a moderate I'll never get a candidate I can really be behind.
     
  7. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #7
    Do they have a picture of GW on them, or is it just the text?

    And who's the girl?!
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Yeah, does she come with? :)
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    just the text. the girl is a friend of mine. (ex-, actually)

    and IJR -- no, she does not come with :)
     
  10. Don't panic thread starter macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #10
    I don't know about the Kerry-Lincoln similarities, but I would agree on the preceding presidents being bad, especially Pierce and Buchanan (less so Taylor and Fillmore), as they paved the road for the civil war, but Polk was of a different mold, and, if not great, probably has been a good president.
    The major fault of all of them, from Polk to Buchanan, was failing to recognize/address/solve the slavery issue. But I guess that then the question was less clearcut than it looks now.

    the problem whit the current president is that he is actively screwing up the nation on a EVERY possible issue I can think of.

    Even the arguably most reviled president so far, Harding, had an half decent foreign policy, and his bad press is mostly due to the corruption of his cronies, not of the man himself.
    BTW, Dubbya has that corner covered too (Enron, Hulliburton and so on).
     
  11. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #11
    The best US President is the one that gets inaugurated in Washington DC, goes back home to his/her home state, and manages to never set foot in Washington, DC again, up until his next inauguration. :D :D :D
     
  12. Don't panic thread starter macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #12
    So you're basically suggesting that the Union be dissolved in favor of fully independent States. Interesting concept.
     
  13. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    Lets see... low budgets, law enforcement can pretty much run on auto-pilot, its mostly done by the states anyway, new laws would have to be via a veto-proof majority. Whats not to like?

    People's tax burden would be pretty stable. Business climate would be stable.

    Maybe I would add the same thing to Congresscritters and Senators.

    You know, if we gave $1 billion a year to each Congresscritter and Senator for them to stay at home and never convene a quorum, you know how much taxes that would save every year? :D

    If we did that, everyone except millionaires would not have to pay taxes. Each of the 435 billionaires would pay, of course. :eek: :D
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    Wow. Sounds like a... Confederation. If you write up some basic outline of what such a loose collection of states would be, why, you'd have some articles.

    We could then call them the Articles of Confederation!

    Genuis! Why hasn't this been thought of before!?
     
  15. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #15
    this is certainly the worst administration in my lifetime.

    what's going on now makes nixon look like a dimestore hoodlum.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    ...and Reagan like an intellectual, and Clinton like a saint.
     
  17. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #17
    didn't Polk take us into war with Mexico based on "misleading" information?

    It is quite remarkable how similar the situation is. Polk claimed Mexico attacked us. Untrue.

    ------------
    link

    Lincoln opposed the war not because he was "pro Mexican" but because he believed the war was wrong for America. The President's stated reasons for the war were, Lincoln said, a pack of lies, and the war itself a violation of American principles and the Constitution itself.

    Lincoln began by tackling the issue of criticizing an war already in progress:

    What compelled Lincoln to speak, he said, was President Polk's mis-statement of of the support the war received in the House. According to Lincoln, Polk had taken a vote in the House for war supplies to be an endorsement of the war itself.

    So, Lincoln said, the support for the war in Congress was not as strong as Polk made it out to be, and Lincoln would not stand idly by and be misrepresented.

    I don't want to go into details about the issues of the Mexican War ... well, no, in fact I do, but I recognize that most readers are not history geeks, as I am, so I'll refrain. The point is that President Polk had not made a case for the Mexican War that satisfied Congressman Lincoln:

    Indeed, Lincoln suspected Polk's motives:

    Finally, please take these words of Lincoln and visualize Bush instead of Polk:

     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    As GWPolk might say:"The trouble with the French is they have no phrase for "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"......
     
  19. uvex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    #19
    no the worst was the one previous to the current administration. The one where someone got impeached
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Is this a serious contribution? You are equating an illegal war costing the deaths of thousands to a blow-job?
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    It was the blow-job heard 'round the world. Many people died and more suffered on account of it, and it gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    "oh, the humanity!"
     
  24. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #24
    You beat me to it. Actually I was just going to single out Polk and Buchanan, but these were all losers.

    Also, Ulysses S. Grant was a pretty lousy president. Too easily swayed by crooks into sanctioning their schemes.

    I don't like GW, but he's not the worst we've ever had. He might be the worst in our lifetime, though.

    History and voters tend to soft-pedal presidents who are in office when the country is under attack because any action is seen as "responsive" and "decisive" and crap like that. The merits of those responses and decisions will of course be debated by those of different ideologies, so there won't be much consensus for a while. But I think eventually it will be plain to all that the Bush Doctrine—"if you're not with us, you're against us"—is woefully inflammatory and unwise, not to mention it opens up many opportunities for hypocrisy (ever heard of North Korea?).
     
  25. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #25
    To be fair, Clinton wasn't the only president to be impeached, but he WAS the only one to be impeached for such an inane reason. You could have at least picked one of the justified impeachments to make your case. Of course, the most recent of those was a republican, so maybe that's not a case you'd like to make.
     

Share This Page