President Bush Leaving Office More Unpoular Than Nixon

[Lemur]

Ouch, just ouch.

With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the *****,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

[rasoforos]

Nixon was just a crook.

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Nixon was corrupt and had a greek vice-president and that is a recipe for disaster :P

But Dubya, being closely associated with the likes of Henry Kissinger who is considered a criminal and personna non grata in most of the planet didnt help either.


Simply put, the problem is that noone really believed Nixon. But people believed Dubya and he used Patriotism and God to make em believe. So it stands to reason that he is disliked more than Nixon to me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Lord knows I hold no candle for the Bush administration, but I don't think President Bush can be accused of purposeful immorality.

I think the president is a decent man whose belief system brooked no internal reflection or personal challenge. He was maintained in this rigid thought by more manipulative people around him. It should be remembered that on the day after 9-11, pretty much his entire constituency was baying for blood and revenge. It takes a strong man to resist that siren call yet still take effective action.

From that moment, he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation. He was facilitated in this by a compliant and equally unthinking Congress.

Nonetheless, one has to remember always that he firmly believed that he was protecting the American people - which is his first duty as president.

He can be accused of rigid certainty and lack of empathy - a huge failing in any leader - but personal, purposeful, immorality is, I think, an imputation too far.

Nixon however, was indeed a crook and knew it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

Nice try (and I agree with a number of your points) You are wasting your time.

Nixon is history, and therefore not so bad (but he was a crook, and knew it/considered himself above the law).

Bush is current, and therefore the acme of evil (i.e. only that which I personally have experience with can be viewed as the "best" or "worst," it is impossible that the best or worst preceded me).

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

[Martok]

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

Sigged.

[Samurai Waki]

Well, all in all the Galactic Empire wasn't so bad, after all, they did end slavery which had been a part of the Republic for millenia. OTOH, it did cost a few planets and billions of lives...

nvm.

[Strike For The South]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

Romney you fool! You had your shot!

Giuliani will never run for president again, I'll put money on it. His showing was embarrassing and he sealed his fate; to be NY/Tri-State elected only.

Romney may go again in 2012, Palin would be smart to run in 2016 after two terms in the Governorship. If she could get a half term in as Senator that would be good too.

Jindal may go for it in 2012. Paul Ryan may be a Senator by then. Eric Cantor seems to have ambition. I wouldn't be suprised to see Chuck Hagel come back - he is interesting. I hope Huckabee stays on his talk show.

Rick Perry may run after the nation forgets about Texas Republicans, Crist might not be bad as long as he doesn't have a white-haired running mate or a boyfriend. Pawlenty would make a good run. Sanford, Hutchison etc.

Republicans have a bunch of bright and well educated guys and gals climbing the ranks. Some are in the House and may pick up a Senate seat, others will have aged by 2012 and 2016. The funny thing is that they don't all sound like hicks and can answer abstract questions. THe echelon that took legitimate offense to the GOP beign thought of as dumb and hillbilly is now gaining years in office.

We need to not run anyone like McCain or Dole again. If they are old they have to seem young or no ball.

[AlexanderSextus]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

PAUL!!!!!

[CountArach]

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

You mean there are other reasons?

[Jolt]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

[drone]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.

[LittleGrizzly]

If you look at various ratings like presidential ratings and the like, it seems bush/republicans managed to hold up just about enough support to get through 2004 election, not long after bush approval rating dropped into the zone which probably would have seen him lose the election...

[Martok]

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.

Unfortunately, drone is correct: Bush won because the Dems, in their infinite stupidity, nominated the weakest possible candidate. Had Edwards or even Dean gotten the nomination, they probably would've won.

[Devastatin Dave]

he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation.

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

[KarlXII]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

You mean your lovers?

[Devastatin Dave]

You mean your lovers?

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

[KarlXII]

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

You can't blame a man for being ronery.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives?

Well, Dave, yes indeed. But then I use the word "conservative" not as a battle flag, but in its intended meaning - one who conserves the status quo, is interested in traditional values and is cautious of change or innovation.

Of your list, only Che would not have fitted the description once they had imposed their revolutions (and no doubt, had he lived, he would have ended up a conservative too). The dark soul of conservatives I was describing is the urge to rely on law to control, not to trust people to behave, to impose the (often nostalgic and fantastical) tried and trusted, and restrict freedoms. Just as the dark soul of the liberal is too much trust, carelessness of people's fears, and a wanton disregard for the law and precedent if the law is perceived not to fit their current needs.

Each of the men noted by you created deeply conservative regimes, terrified of thought and change and characterised by rigid controls, false patriotism and the demonisation of an "Other".

I compare none of them to President Bush, save in noting the continuum. I also note that each of them started their political careers as revolutionary liberals - showing in the most extreme form, that we are all liberals when young, and all conservative when old.

To provide you with further LOLs, I consider myself a conservative, and recognise the dark soul of which I speak in my own political reactions. Not only am I quite a traditionalist, I am keen on fiscal responsibility. I am a strong advocate of the rule of law - which is why I devote myself to the cause of human rights and the respect for a system of international law.

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree.

[Devastatin Dave]

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree.

Then you have my respect sir, and as a token of my apreciation for a fellow conservative, I'm sending you a case of fresh newborn Cuban babies for your consumption.