George W. Bush's Presidency - One of the toughest tenures ever?

[footballhenry]

Oh, and again. We are NOT debating policy decision-making, or philosophical debates, etc. Simply on terms of what "one" man has to deal with, and endure.

[Crazyhorse1]

Im sure Im missing some, but thats all I can think of right now. Whereas Clinton had a very 'easy' presidency (not much happened honestly, imho, well he did have that Jones thing, and that Lewinksy thing, lol). :2cents:

Whacko post. Which of Bush's wounds were not, at least in part, self afflicted?

911: Asleep at the wheel. He and Condi were warned it was coming

Recession: Cynical tax cuts for the rich that worked for the rich

Economy: Hurrah for outsourcing, more tax cuts for the rich, wars, gambling on the absense of hurricanes, price gouging from oil people *his people"

CIA Leak: His team engineered the leak

Katrina: Cut money for levee repair, crippled FEMA deliberately

Iraq War: Started it deliberately

North Korea: Refused to negotiate except finally when he needed good press

2000 soldiers dead: His fault

Miers: His choice for Supreme Court

Abu Ghraib: He accepted torture as viable policy

Civil War: He was fully informed civil war would begin in Iraq if we invaded

Halliburton Scandal: He chose Cheney, Halliburton exec, as VP

Indictments: Earned by his henchmen in his behalf

Im sure Im missing some, but thats all I can think of right now. Whereas Clinton had a very 'easy' presidency (not much happened honestly, imho, well he did have that Jones thing, and that Lewinksy thing, lol). :2cents:

Clinton had an easy presidency because he wasn't an idiot except in relation to his private life. Bush is a moron in every capacity.

The only catastrophy of his life that he hasn't caused was God's choice of Barabara as his mother.

Bush can screw up half a dozen times or more just by passing the salt.

Cheney to Bush: George, I see in the paper two Brazilians have died in a landside.

Bush: My God! That's horrible, horrible. I can't believe it.

Cheney to Bush: Well, it's upsetting George, but I'm surprised you're taking it so hard.

Bush: How many's a Brazilian.

Clinton had an easy presidency because he wasn't an idiot except in relation to his private life. Bush is a moron in every capacity.

The only catastrophy of his life that he hasn't caused was God's choice of Barabara as his mother.

Bush can screw up half a dozen times or more just by passing the salt.

Cheney to Bush: George, I see in the paper two Brazilians have died in a landside.

Bush: My God! That's horrible, horrible. I can't believe it.

Cheney to Bush: Well, it's upsetting George, but I'm surprised you're taking it so hard.

Bush: How many's a Brazilian.

[Crazyhorse1]

Bush Toast

[Ax]

History might be the only fair judge a President gets, and even then it's not a certainty.

I'm sure if we could take any past Presidency and redo it through the eyes and ears of todays politically charged...gotcha...(create instead of report) news media...conspiracy theorist-LSD burnout-internet know it alls, they would ALL wind up in the same boat.

FDR is still accused by some of knowing Pearl Harbor was coming. Sound familiar?

Being President is one of the toughest jobs there is. Always has been.

And it's only getting harder. High risk, low reward.

Being a monday morning quarterback is the easist thing in the world to be. That's why everbody takes a shot at it.

Zero risk, self gratification as it's own reward.

[jrockster21]

you're kidding, right?

people blame Bush for the Federal response, not that a Hurricane HAPPENED.

Just like people praise Bush for the post-9/11 response. But, considering a few interesting Memo's before it happened. I won't say people don't blame him for it happening.

Look, considering how modern we are....how intergrated we are.....how EVERYBODY took hits from 9/11 and Katrina. This wasn't just a Bush thing. This was an America thing. He can't take all the credit, and doesn't deserve all the blame.

Past Presidents had world's where it took days to learn what was happening somewhere else. Where they had to make the smart choices of who they hired for key spots because those people made the final calls when on the other side of the planet.

Saying that its tough because a 24/7 news cycle is Short Bus talk. That President with the 24/7 news cycle can also video conference with Generals around the world, get up to the second information, and hopefully with the better information, make an easier and smarter choice.

:laugh: He said short-bus talk!!! :laugh:

I think its safe to say football henry and jbooma got :owned: in this thread. To even compare Dubya's presidency to some of the great ones is an insult to them, and really, an insult to our country. Bush is a complete and total failure as our president. If the Dems had nominated a half-way competent challenger, Bush would not be in office right now. Hopefully McCain will take over and make things right (I'm a democrat, I just don't think Hillary is the answer right now).

Please fh, stop trying to impress the masses with these "brilliant" and "insightful" political posts; you only make yourself look bad. And jbooma -- Bufford said you ride the short-bus!! :laugh: At least Liberty hasn't chimed in on this thread...that would make it worst thread ever.

[Burgold]

Originally Posted by DjTj

I can't believe nobody's tried to make a list yet in this thread...

Toughest Presidential tenures:

10. George W. Bush

9. Andrew Jackson

8. Andrew Johnson

7. JFK

6. Wilson

5. LBJ

4. Truman

3. Madison

2. FDR

1. Lincoln

Thats a fair list. Wasn't the worst president in history (scholarly wise, I read a couple books and they all had him in last) was Andrew Jackson? The president after Lincoln was assasinated...

Using the list that you accepted more than 20% of US Presidents have had had tougher tenures than George W. Bush. To say he had one of the toughest presidencies when 1/5 had a harder circumstances is a little easy a standard. The new criteria that he has it tough because he has to listen to constant 24-7 media criticism I would not even put in the list of toughest situations dealt with by US Presidents. Presidents have had to deal with Hurricanes, Forest Fires, Major Earthquakes, Famines, Droughts, Wars, Economic crashes, major civil uprisings. Heck, I think Nixon should be added to that list before Bush. Dealing with the civil unrest of the Vietnam War movement, the Civil Rights Movement, managing a war in Vietnam while keeping the Soviet Union and China placated, and of course the toughness created by Watergate places him up there, I think. If we can include Nixon, then W. Bush isn't even top ten out of 42.

I might even put Washington in there just because we barely had a country back then and it could have all easily fallen apart and the US could have become thirteen seperate nations, plus he had to deal with the aftermath of the Revolution, and running a Government that had no money and tremendous debts. Just keeping the country together and laying the foundations and battling all the individual interests without money, without an army, without many carrots at all was quite a fete and pretty tough.

[Chief skin]

Bush will go down in history as the worse President the country has ever had

[footballhenry]

:laugh: He said short-bus talk!!! :laugh:

I think its safe to say football henry and jbooma got :owned: in this thread. To even compare Dubya's presidency to some of the great ones is an insult to them, and really, an insult to our country. Bush is a complete and total failure as our president. If the Dems had nominated a half-way competent challenger, Bush would not be in office right now. Hopefully McCain will take over and make things right (I'm a democrat, I just don't think Hillary is the answer right now).

Please fh, stop trying to impress the masses with these "brilliant" and "insightful" political posts; you only make yourself look bad. And jbooma -- Bufford said you ride the short-bus!! :laugh: At least Liberty hasn't chimed in on this thread...that would make it worst thread ever.

Wow, I am amazed that so many do not understand the meaning of this thread. I figured it would turn in to another Bush-bashing contest but I was hoping for higher more civil debate. Again, in terms of toughness on one human being, one man, one president. I just do not get what is so difficult about this. Carter, a man that I thought was horrible as president (probably how many of you feel about Bush) had an EXTREMELY TOUGH presidency. Probably near the top, in all honesty. What's so difficult about this? Why does it always turn in to a 'everything is Bushs' fault' and 'Bush is the worst president ever' rambling? Its IRRELEVANT on HOW you personally view the man in this thread, but rather you objectively look at what one man endures and measure the toughness of the time(s) hes going through, self-inflicted or not.

Drug addicts self-inflict themselves to pain and suffering, does that mean that its not tough for them to deal with then? Wake up people.

And as far as being "owned", well I don't think so because while I have read some excellent posts on here, the majority has been Bush-Bash drivel, not exactly debatable material. (i.e. CrazyHorse1's post, not even touching that one, doesn't deserve it, too much hatred in it. Anyone that believes ALL those things are bc of one man just isn't worth discussing with, imho).

I was not trying to incite people or get blood boiled over Bush in this thread, I thought it was a fairly simple topic to discuss. The reason? MANY liberals that oppose Bush have wondered how the man can go through all that he does, it really interests me. Of course anyone can believe anything they want, to each his own. It is just the "reasons" given in so many of these posts, just seem that their being given because of a personal hatred/disgust or disfavorment of Bush.

[Prosperity]

Football Henry, if you post something so obviously wrong then maybe you should expect someone calling you out on it.

[footballhenry]

Football Henry, if you post something so obviously wrong then maybe you should expect someone calling you out on it.

Wrong? OBVIOUSLY wrong? WTF?

I didn't realize this was factual information, last time I checked we are each entitled to our own opinion.

[@DCGoldPants]

#1. It appears that if you don't believe most people are getting the "point" of this thread. You should try again.

#2. You are trying to incite.

#3. Considering the President's early (and proud of it) bedtimes...and his shielding from opposing views. I wonder how "tough" things really can be.

[Burgold]

Additionally, how can this be the one of the toughest presidencies ever when the President has logged in more vacation time than any other sitting President. I mean really, if things were that tough, wouldn't he want to be where the action is and rallying and commanding on the front line... not from a golf course or chopping wood? He can't consider things too tough if he feels at liberty to be away from the office so often. From a morale standpoint and a getting things moving there's nothing like being there

[Kilmer17]

good grief. That's such a lame argument.

Do you honestly think that he takes a "vacation"?

cmon,

[Burgold]

see edit. For the sake of morale and mobilizing the troops, there is nothing like being there getting your hands dirty. It's pathetic that you justify as irrelevent the ammount of time he sees not overseeing his staff.

[Kilmer17]

No, what's pathetic is the lefts attempt at every turn to marginalize and minimalize this President. From his mis-speaks, to his days not in the Oval. It's 24/7 attack with you all.

Do you think it's possible that his staff travels with him? Or comes in when needed?

Or are you honestly saying that the girl who runs the copy room works better if W is in DC rather than Crawford?

[Burgold]

No, I don't think it's possible that his whole staff travels with him and I think that a 6 hour, 12 hour or 24 hour delay to get someone there is sometimes very meaningful and can lead to circumstances getting worse than they need to be. In addition, there are certain papers which probably shouldn't travel, be faxed, or emailed which he and his staff would not have access to in Crawford Texas, for example because I also don't think that he brings every topic secret, confidential file covering every contingency with him that he might need to fully understand a situation and I do think that imprecise briefings or incomplete information can lead to poor decision making. Finally, I do think that people at all levels perform differently when the boss is watching them. Whether it's a staffer, a researcher, a FEMA Director or the copy girl. I think that sometimes when things are dark and the days are very long it's good for morale to see the boss with his sleeves rolled up pulling the same hours you are or is there to give the troops a kind word. I'm sure that as the owner of a business you know that your employees would perform equally well whether you were in Florida or Jamica. You know that some would, but others would take advantage. Government employees are the same way.

[Duckus]

All Presidents have a hard time – they are the most powerful people in the entire world. Things happen around the world every day – and in four years a president is bound to have to deal with a huge event/disaster at one point or another. No one is saying Bush has had an easy time – that would be a stupid statement because of course things have been hard. However, all Presidents have had hard times so its hard to say if Bush’s were any harder.

[Kilmer17]

No, I don't think it's possible that his whole staff travels with him and I think that a 6 hour, 12 hour or 24 hour delay to get someone there is sometimes very meaningful and can lead to circumstances getting worse than they need to be. In addition, there are certain papers which probably shouldn't travel, be faxed, or emailed which he and his staff would not have access to in Crawford Texas, for example because I also don't think that he brings every topic secret, confidential file covering every contingency with him that he might need to fully understand a situation and I do think that imprecise briefings or incomplete information can lead to poor decision making. Finally, I do think that people at all levels perform differently when the boss is watching them. Whether it's a staffer, a researcher, a FEMA Director or the copy girl. I think that sometimes when things are dark and the days are very long it's good for morale to see the boss with his sleeves rolled up pulling the same hours you are or is there to give the troops a kind word. I'm sure that as the owner of a business you know that your employees would perform equally well whether you were in Florida or Jamica. You know that some would, but others would take advantage. Government employees are the same way.

For historical context. Carter was villified for staying in the White House too much.

In todays age of technology, actually being in the White House isnt a necessity.

But let's cut to the chase. Do you think that the President should stay in DC during his entire term? If not, what is an acceptable time away in your eyes?

And the difference between my vacations and the Pres is simple. I actually go on vacation and dont take work with me. The Pres (regardless of who it is) doesnt have that luxury.

Whether he's in DC or in Crawford, he still get's the same briefings, the same updates and still meets with Cabinet heads if needed.

[Prosperity]

Wrong? OBVIOUSLY wrong? WTF?

I didn't realize this was factual information, last time I checked we are each entitled to our own opinion.

Then my opinion is that you are horribly, obviously, and consistently wrong.

[Prosperity]

No, what's pathetic is the lefts attempt at every turn to marginalize and minimalize this President. From his mis-speaks, to his days not in the Oval. It's 24/7 attack with you all.

Do you think it's possible that his staff travels with him? Or comes in when needed?

Or are you honestly saying that the girl who runs the copy room works better if W is in DC rather than Crawford?

Personal presence does matter, that is why we have stronger relationships with people we see rather than people we send messages to on the internet.

[Burgold]

I don't know what the proper proportion of time would be. Maybe it's a hangover of the Moore movie, but I still remember something about being on "vacation" nearly 1/3 of his tenure as President.

Obviously, I wouldn't say that the Pres. shouldn't visit the troops in Iraq or go to Lousianna and Florida. But for the same reason that there was a value of him going to Ground Zero, it is useful for him to be in the office at critical times. There is a symbolic message that gets said when we see the President in the Oval Office. It is a different message than when he is wearing flannel and out in the woods. For the country's morale it is good for him to be where we've elected him to be especially in times of crisis. Do you elect him to spend three months a year on "vacation?" In no part of you mind do you say... Gosh, that's a lot of time where his sole focus isn't on the problems of terrorism, border control, defecit, medical care, social security, etc. Do you think that he can honestly deal best with all the problems of the country on the road? Do you truly think there is no difference?

[Kilmer17]

I guess I just dont see it as "vacation".

I think he can make the decisions on issues from anywhere.

You do bring up a great point, and one I totally agree with in fact.

The time and energy spent on "photo ops" for all politicians is a waste. It's a play for the media and nothing more. I dont like or dislike Bush because I see him riding a bike with Lance Armstrong. I didnt like or dislike Kerry anymore because of the pics of him on a snowboard. They all seem staged and phony.

But that's the fault of the media (both left and right) for forcing people to form opinions on appearance and likeability rather than issues and agendas.

[Riggo-toni]

To date? Not even close. Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, Hoover come to mind.

Lincoln, definitely. FDR, I'd agree.

LBJ and Hoover's problems came largely of their own making, though JFK already put troops in place, and sanctioned the coup that LBJ opposed that de-stabilized South 'Nam.

[@DCGoldPants]

I guess I just dont see it as "vacation".

I think he can make the decisions on issues from anywhere.

You do bring up a great point, and one I totally agree with in fact.

The time and energy spent on "photo ops" for all politicians is a waste. It's a play for the media and nothing more. I dont like or dislike Bush because I see him riding a bike with Lance Armstrong. I didnt like or dislike Kerry anymore because of the pics of him on a snowboard. They all seem staged and phony.

But that's the fault of the media (both left and right) for forcing people to form opinions on appearance and likeability rather than issues and agendas.

I'd agree now about the vacations. But the way he had to get back to Washington for the Hurricane Katrina situation, but didn't during flare-ups in Iraq, suggest that there are things he can't do while on vacation..... like give off the picture that he's running the show instead of his VP who's back in D.C. or at his ranch in Montana (or wherever).

[The Fox]

Of course we all have debated Bush and his policies ad nauseum here. I wanted to try to take a different perspective for debate. Especially Bush-hater here, try to abandon your critiques for just a moment. Purely on what kind of hand Bush has been dealt in his 4+ years as president, do you think he has been given one of the toughest presidencies to handle to date? Of course this can be difficult to answer because some of you may conclude that Bush got himself into alot of this mess, but thats irrelavant as well. Purely on merits of how 'tough' its been for the man. For example Carter, while I thought he was a horrible president, was dealt an extremely tough hand (i.e. Oil Shock, Iran takes U.S. hostages, USSR invades Afghanistan, etc.)

Bush: Inherits a recession, September 11th Terrorist attacks, CIA leak, Katrina (among numerous natural disasters), Afghanistan and Iraq Wars (over 2,000 soldiers dead), Iran and North Korea nuclear threats, etc.

Im sure Im missing some, but thats all I can think of right now. Whereas Clinton had a very 'easy' presidency (not much happened honestly, imho, well he did have that Jones thing, and that Lewinksy thing, lol). :2cents:

I agree with you, and don't forget the Florida vote count that set the left off and the news media off to get Bush at all costs so any misscue or what others think is a blunder, gets an overreaction from the media. They just keep piling on. Like this so called leak, Two years ago when I was living in Washington, everone in her neighborhood knew Valorie Plame worked in the CIA and wonderd what the so called leak was about. Just one example.