Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;328456]Same goes for all presidents in the modern era of media. I think the only president in that history to be considered nearly perfect was Kennedy and only because people feel bad for picking on a president that was assassinated.[/QUOTE]

On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

I tend to side with Bush when it comes to many points of view. I think his political tactics suck and curse him every day for how he sold this war, and now how he has managed it. On a personal level I really think the George W Bush is a good guy. I really think he is trying to do the right things. In the end though I hope to God he is looked at as the worst president ever.

If so it would most likely mean:

That he was wrong about the threats that he sees.
That he was wrong about taking to the fight to them on their land.
That he was wrong that knocking down tyranny and building democracy in the middle east will straighten it out.

Really I feel that the only way Bush is looked at as a good President is if the next few Presidents roll back his policies and we end up getting mauled by terrorists due to that. He can only be looked at positively if it is proven that that he was right. I don't want him to ever be proven right. I'd rather us be totally safe and him looked at as terrible.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;328458]I am not a Bush basher but I am going to respond to some of these:

Yeah so he has exactly zero control over this. Giving him credit is silly. He has absolutely no impact on interest rates. Totally market and Federla Reserve driven.

Presidents get too much credit for this both ways, good and bad. The first Pres Bush got too much heat for the bad economy and Cliton and Bush both get too much credit for the good. Presidents have very little effect. Bush maybe more than others because of the tax cuts but that is debateable.


Well yes unemployemt is lower. See above. Same thing. As for lowering taxes, that is a weird one. Yes he lowered taxes and yes he lowered taxes mostly for rich people. That is because rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. He didn't really lower much in taxes for poor people because they don't pay much to begin with.[/quote]

I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.

[quote]All by himself?[/quote]

Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.

[quote]Al Queda is as strong as ever. There's not much he could have done either way. To destroy terrorists group like that will take decades at least.[/QUOTE]

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;328463]On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?[/QUOTE]


well, there is no way of knowing. I feel that Reagan's legacy would have been tarnished cause the economy had no real structure to it...the booming 80's were bound to crash and daddy bush took the blame. Ike, I'm not so sure...we could have benefited from another term of his I would imagine. Clinton most certainly would not get this high praise cause 9/11 would have happened under his tenure then all the information about him helping terrorism and ignoring intelligence about terrorism would have surfaced and killed any positive notions about him.
But you're right...who knows. Anything could have happened.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

If we're going to give him credit for low unemployment and interest rate are we going to give him credit for mortgaging the future for temporary high? To be reduced to [URL="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/"]borrowing[/URL] from the Chinese is an absolute low.

I'm interested to know who in here manages their personal finances the way the U.S. manages it's finances.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

History cites Harding as a particularly bad President... not so much individually, but he couldn't control the scandals within his administration. Also, "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here" is not a reassuring line from the leader of the free world.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan;328496]Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[/QUOTE]

I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=Sammy Baugh Fan;328496]Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[/quote]


Actually, this discussion has been going pretty well. A lot of good perspectives.

As for me in judging his legacy, I can honestly say that I have experienced no change in my quality of life since Bush took over. The same can be said of my life during the Clinton era as well. Neither president caused me any degree of suffering due to whatever various policies were implemented. This is why I don't vote and I probably never will. I really could care less who's in charge as long as it's not a merciless overlord that enslaves us all to do his/her bidding.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=saden1;328479]If we're going to give him credit for low unemployment and interest rate are we going to give him credit for mortgaging the future for temporary high? To be reduced to [URL="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/"]borrowing[/URL] from the Chinese is an absolute low.

I'm interested to know who in here manages their personal finances the way the U.S. manages it's finances.[/QUOTE]

I tell you what...you show me how this is affect me you and the country as a whole, then that post will be of significance to me. Cause right now, it's just a number with no repercussions. Has been so for decades and decades and decades.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;328499]I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.[/QUOTE]

I think one of his points is that it's all been said before. Which it has. Although SBF, I seem to be the only one defending the president, I need some help. COME BACK!!!

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;328504]I really could care less who's in charge as long as it's not a merciless overlord that enslaves us all to do his/her bidding.[/QUOTE]

Well let's just hope no mods from Tampa Bay Bucs boards run for President

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;328499]I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.[/QUOTE]

You ASSUME far too much there big boy.

I read the threads.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan;328513]You ASSUME far too much there big boy.

I read the threads.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was[/QUOTE]

Well if you've read the posts and still want to generalize this as a typical liberal warpath (whatever that means) thread, then I really can't help you.

There is no one on this thread who has posted any nonsensical W beats his wife and shoots up with his daughters posts

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;328514]...W beats his wife and shoots up with his daughters..[/quote]

Film at Eleven.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;328519]Film at Eleven.[/QUOTE]

lol
And the thread is still young.

It'll happen and I'll bet my right leg on it.

Watch

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

i think Bush came to office with a very hard time. namely 9/11. he dealt with it pretty well in the beginning and i think the job is not finished. terrorism is still bad.

if you kill one, there is always another to take their place

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=jsarno;328506]I tell you what...you show me how this is affect me you and the country as a whole, then that post will be of significance to me. Cause right now, it's just a number with no repercussions. Has been so for decades and decades and decades.[/quote]

In the words of the venerable Rick James "I'm rich, bitch!" :) At least I'd like to be. I'm a bit concerned about inflation and U.S. economy tanking as it is the core engine that drives the world economy.

Enough about me and on to the real issue. The issue is whether we should concern ourselves with the future of the generations that will follow and whether we want to leave them in a financial hole.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=saden1;328526]In the words of the venerable Rick James "I'm rich, bitch!" :) At least I'd like to be. I'm a bit concerned about inflation and U.S. economy tanking as it is the core engine that drives the world economy.

Enough about me and on to the real issue. The issue is whether we should concern ourselves with the future of the generations that will follow and whether we want to leave them in a financial hole.[/quote]


The U.S economy will tank but probably not before 2009. Have fun Hillary!

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan;328496]Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you [I][B]ASSUME[/B][/I] that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

I'm liberal and damn proud of it, so it's hardly an insult to be called liberal. Nice try though SBF. If you haven't learned by now this is a message board where we engage in discussion, but maybe taking a page from your book I should cry and stomp my feet and tell you to get off MY THREAD if you don't agree with me. But I won't, because I am indeed an open minded liberal who is willing to at least listen to opposing view points and discuss them in a mature and civil manner.

Bush is in my opinion a joke of a president, but I think most people know my opinion on that. As I said I wasn't looking to bash here, that's far too easy and has been done many times over. I'm actually interested in hearing some views on what he's done well and how he might go down in history.

Thank you and good night.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=ArtMonkDrillz;328537]Are you trying to turn a civil/insightful/well thought out thread into yet another pissing match?
You've added nothing to the thread with this post just because you [I][B]ASSUME[/B][/I] that it's going to turn into a Bush bashing session. Good work.[/QUOTE]

Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;328475]I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.
[/quote]
Use what? Huh? All I said was Presidents don't have much of an impact on the economy. End of story. Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is uninformed or just playing politics. The vast majority of Aemricans do not understand this, which is why administrations take as much cerdit as they can when it is good. But in the end our economy is a free market economy which is by defintion free of influence as much as possible. To say he helped is to give an opinion on the effectiveness of tax cuts as a economic stimulus. This is a highly debateable subject and by no means a fact. I tend to think tax cuts at any level do spur economic growth but that is simply a position. At the end of it there simply isn't any evidence past or present to suggest otherwise.

[quote]
Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.
[/quote]
won't argue

[quote]
Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.[/QUOTE]
Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan;328545]Yeah dewd it's all about me. Make it so if you wish. My comment was just like others but I see you quoted me. That's ok.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Don't like the message shoot the messanger.[/QUOTE]
When you say "others" do you mean jsarno? Because he was the only one that said anything even remotely close to "liberal blah blah blah," but then he got the idea of the thread and posted some well thought out arguments. On the other hand, you just guessed that this thread would be a bashing session, as opposed to a real debate, and you posted accordingly. I feel like you do that all the time and I just wanted to know if you wanted to turn it into another pissing match because you couldn't actually think of a good answer to the question about Bush's legacy. Frankly, I think you lied when you said that you read through the entire thread before posting your initial useless comment.

As far as shooting the messenger: what is that even supposed to mean in this context? What are you the messenger for? Do you even know what that phrase means?

Ok, I'm going out for the night, so feel free to respond and I guess I will read it later. I just hope the people that actually have real opinions that will add to this thread will continue to debate because while I tend to not post in political threads I do enjoy reading them.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;328475]Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html]Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com[/url]

^^^This sort of thing has been the top political news story all week long.

[QUOTE]This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that /topics/al_qaeda" class="cnnInlineTopic">al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Watch Chertoff explain his "gut feeling" »

Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."

Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."
[/QUOTE]

The interesting thing is that we're not actually going into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda (which I'd probably be for); I wonder if it's because they have nukes and it might piss them off if we stormed in there, guns blazing. I really can't say, but I think something more needs to be done about there presence there.

Ok, now I really have to go.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;328546]And don't forget when you point fingers your thumb is pointed right back at ya. Same as it ever was indeed.[/QUOTE]


The Thumb is pointing upwards and the fingers pointing left is the Talking Heads hand movements. Yes, you again stand corrected.

~same as it ever was, same as it ever was

peace

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;328509]Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.[/QUOTE]

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;328557]As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.[/quote]

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=saden1;328526]In the words of the venerable Rick James "I'm rich, bitch!" :) At least I'd like to be. I'm a bit concerned about inflation and U.S. economy tanking as it is the core engine that drives the world economy.

Enough about me and on to the real issue. The issue is whether we should concern ourselves with the future of the generations that will follow and whether we want to leave them in a financial hole.[/QUOTE]

Well, I do understand where you're coming from, however, this has been something our great greandparents gave to us and we have yet to be truely hit with it. We always hear about the deficit, but no one knows how it affects us.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;328549]

Here you are clearly misinformed. Numerous recent reports show that Al Qaeda is still very strong.[/QUOTE]

Woh, I didn't say it wasn't strong. I said it's getting weaker, and since Bush has gone after terrorism, there is generally no debate that Al Qaeda has gotten weaker. How can it not with all the terrorists that the Bush administration has aprehended?

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;328451]On the flipside what do you think he's done poorly?[/QUOTE]

[quote]Well, I am supposed to be the pro side, you're supposed to be the con side. There are enough people here to give the negatives that I don't need to...but since someone is going to bring it up anyway, I will say this one thing:
I am not thrilled with his lack of support for alternative fuels. In fact, if I remember correctly he took away 50% of the funding to research. I firmly feel that oil is America's downfall, and if we rely on corn for our fuel, we'd have the market cornered. We are the #1 producer of corn in the world, and we could have the other countries by the balls, but Bush has too much loyalty to the oil companies.

OK, Since I gave a con of Bush in good faith, Matty, what do you think Bush has done correctly.[/QUOTE]

OK Matty, still waiting for you here. I was good enough to post 10 things Bush has done right by your asking, you made no comment about them...then you asked for the bad things...which I did in good faith and asked you what you think Bush has done correctly and I still have not seen any response. I thought we were having good banter, but you didn't respond to my comments.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;328571]Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.[/QUOTE]

It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

Well..just to play devil's advocate:
Bush owes all of his success to his daddy, his daddy's friends, trust funds, legacy admissions, the National Guard, the Supreme Court, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and AA. He takes pride that he doesn't read the newspaper, clears a lot of brush, drives a big ole truck, dresses like one of the village people when "off duty", is a huge country fan...unfortunately that country is Saudi Arabia, supports laws against gay marriage and then holds hands with Saudi men (Cmon, George... being in bed with the Saudi's is just an expression), refuses to accept any responsibility for anything that's been fucked up, has said that Osama "can run but he can't hide" but ..boy can he hide..We can't find him with missles, satellites, million dollar bribes..hey..since you can't find Bin Laden, at least you could finish ONE thing you started..reading "My Pet Goat" - which will be the one book in YOUR presidential library.
Ok. NOW it has turned into a Bush Bash.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

i think this administrations biggest problems are the arrogance they possess, and their lack of being able to adapt if one of their plans fail. too many life long politicians hands in the cookie jar. they have made mistakes, as anyone will, but will NEVER admit to being wrong. i cant believe the the far right isn't screaming about Bush's manipulation of the Constitution, and how they are stripping Americans of their rights. the patriot act was good in thought, but bad in the way it is being executed.Bush's appointees have been nothing but dads friends, and contributors to his career. alot of bad decisions were made here. and smooty, whats up with all the Buchanan bashing? my boy lived right down the road from me

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;328618]It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.[/quote]

There are always votes that get tossed out because they are improperly cast. For Gore to say, "those were votes for me, and I'm the winner" is unreasonable. It may be that his voters were less competent and more likely to have cast an overvote or an undervote but there is no way to know that. The best indication of what Gore was up to is the fact that he tried to exclude those absentee votes from mostly military people. At that point it should have been obvious that he didn't really believe he had won, but was rather trying to steal the thing.

I think what confused some people was the fact that the exit polling incorrectly predicted Gore to be the winner. That caused TV to give him the state (at about 8:45 PM EST, before all the polls in the state were closed, amazingly) and when they realized their mistake and changed their prediction it seemed as though there were some shenanigans when it was really just TV and the people they hire to do those exit polls making a mistake. Exit polls have become worthless as have polls generally, IMO, because conservatives will often tell a pollster to go eff himself. With caller ID, I think the polls that we see touted on TV are extremely suspect. Nobody with a life is going to talk to them.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=dmek25;328673]i think this administrations biggest problems are the arrogance they possess, and their lack of being able to adapt if one of their plans fail. too many life long politicians hands in the cookie jar. they have made mistakes, as anyone will, but will NEVER admit to being wrong. i cant believe the the far right isn't screaming about Bush's manipulation of the Constitution, and how they are stripping Americans of their rights. the patriot act was good in thought, but bad in the way it is being executed.Bush's appointees have been nothing but dads friends, and contributors to his career. alot of bad decisions were made here. and smooty, whats up with all the Buchanan bashing? my boy lived right down the road from me[/quote]

This is typically superficial analysis from the Left: Don't forget to mention Dad! And just so you know, Dad's advisors were people like Brent Skowcroft and James Baker whose views have nothing in common with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. 41 was what is referred to as a foreign policy "realist" and 43 is more of an "idealist".

And don't forget to mention Katrina and Big Oil next time.

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=70Chip;328682]This is typically superficial analysis from the Left: Don't forget to mention Dad! And just so you know, Dad's advisors were people like Brent Skowcroft and James Baker whose views have nothing in common with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. 41 was what is referred to as a foreign policy "realist" and 43 is more of an "idealist".

[B]And don't forget to mention Katrina and Big Oil next time[/B].[/quote]
this is a given. Katrina will help define Bush's legacy as a bumbling idiot, that freezes in adversity. remember Bush's reaction to the 9-11 bombing? he kept on reading to school kids. and i forgot. every fallacy, and mistake, and screw up that occurred during this administration is somehow directly bill Clinton's fault. 41 understood what politics is about. 43 does not. he stands as the leader of the free world, as a big bully telling people what we are going to do. thats why the rest of the world hates us right now. please explain to me what an idealist is? i look at president bush as his own man, responsible for everything, but not yet responsible for anything

Re: The legacy of 'W'?
 

[quote=jsarno;328611]OK Matty, still waiting for you here. I was good enough to post 10 things Bush has done right by your asking, you made no comment about them...then you asked for the bad things...which I did in good faith and asked you what you think Bush has done correctly and I still have not seen any response. I thought we were having good banter, but you didn't respond to my comments.[/quote]

Sorry I got sidetracked by that little distraction.

Honestly I don't think he's done anything very well. I think he's been a complete disaster between 9/11, the war, the economy ( gas prices through the roof), and Katrina, just to name the major issues.