The Treatment of a President

StorminNorman

Avenger
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
30,513
Reaction score
2
Points
33
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace


What must our enemies be thinking?

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html
 
George W. Bush deserves all of the criticism that he has gotten, and will get. I agree with Jman, history will not be kind to him.
 
Bush will not get the Jimmy Carter Treatment, that's for sure.
 
I believe as Iraq continues to improve - history will show favor on Bush's term.

I am confused about Evil's comment since I don't think anyone considers Carter to be a better President now then they did in 80.
 
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace



What must our enemies be thinking?

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html


Well Bush was the laughing stock of the world, so I dont know what his trying to say. So people shouldnt have critised Bush for the bad decisions he made, after all he was commander and chief so the final say lay with him.
 
I highly doubt history will be kind to Bush.


In time people will forget, sure people are angry and remember now but down the line people will remembr 9/11 and say Bush went about things the right way.
 
Bush will not get the Jimmy Carter Treatment, that's for sure.

He'll get the Herbert Hoover treatment.

Bush showed great leadership in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think many can argue that point. However, what came afterward was a travesty to this country. The war in Iraq was grossly mismanaged, the suspension of Constitutional rights and liberties which many Americans suffered under as a result of this "war on terror," his decision to ignore important issues in regards to domestic and foreign policy to focus on unimportant Constitutional Amendments which would ban flag burning and gay marriage, and his inability to govern effectively during his last two years of his presidency have all contributed to one of the biggest stains ever seen on a presidential resume.

At least Truman managed to get things done when he was in office, and at least his perceived failures eventually ended in success. Bush may not have that luxury.
 
In time people will forget, sure people are angry and remember now but down the line people will remembr 9/11 and say Bush went about things the right way.

Just like we remember the Civil War and rank Ulysses S. Grant at the top of our presidential lists these days :o
 
I believe as Iraq continues to improve - history will show favor on Bush's term.

I am confused about Evil's comment since I don't think anyone considers Carter to be a better President now then they did in 80.

Jimmy Carter is much more beloved by the American people since he left office then when he was when he was in office, due to his Humanitarian Work.

Hence "Jimmy Carter Treatment."

I doubt Bush will be treated like that in 5-10 years.
 
He'll get the Herbert Hoover treatment.

Bush showed great leadership in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think many can argue that point. However, what came afterward was a travesty to this country. The war in Iraq was grossly mismanaged, the suspension of Constitutional rights and liberties which many Americans suffered under as a result of this "war on terror," his decision to ignore important issues in regards to domestic and foreign policy to focus on unimportant Constitutional Amendments which would ban flag burning and gay marriage, and his inability to govern effectively during his last two years of his presidency have all contributed to one of the biggest stains ever seen on a presidential resume.

At least Truman managed to get things done when he was in office, and at least his perceived failures eventually ended in success. Bush may not have that luxury.

Lincoln did more harm to the Constitution than Bush did - those truly hurt by the Patriot Act and Guantanamo were not American citizens which will be important in how American's and American history looks on Bush's Presidency.

You are right - Truman's perceived failures became successes which is why I believe Bush's legacy depends on Iraq's success post-W.
 
He'll get the Herbert Hoover treatment.

Bush showed great leadership in the wake of 9/11, and I don't think many can argue that point. However, what came afterward was a travesty to this country. The war in Iraq was grossly mismanaged, the suspension of Constitutional rights and liberties which many Americans suffered under as a result of this "war on terror," his decision to ignore important issues in regards to domestic and foreign policy to focus on unimportant Constitutional Amendments which would ban flag burning and gay marriage, and his inability to govern effectively during his last two years of his presidency have all contributed to one of the biggest stains ever seen on a presidential resume.

At least Truman managed to get things done when he was in office, and at least his perceived failures eventually ended in success. Bush may not have that luxury.
How does the Country remember Woodrow Wilson? He is the one that passed the Sedition Act of 1918. He helped form the American Protective League and the Strike Breakers. Yeah, I bet History will look unfavorably to President Bush, but only because the Liberals write the History Books.
 
Jimmy Carter is much more beloved by the American people since he left office then when he was when he was in office, due to his Humanitarian Work.

Hence "Jimmy Carter Treatment."

I doubt Bush will be treated like that in 5-10 years.

People prefer Carter the HUMANITARIAN but still consider Carter the PRESIDENT a dismal failure.

Also I think Carter has lost a lot of his humanitarian cred with his actions in the past few years.
 
How does the Country remember Woodrow Wilson? He is the one that passed the Sedition Act of 1918. He helped form the American Protective League and the Strike Breakers. Yeah, I bet History will look unfavorably to President Bush, but only because the Liberals write the History Books.

Woodrow Wilson is ranked between 14-17 on Wikipedia's crosstab of historical presidential rankings. And your claim makes me chuckle a little bit, considering the top ten presidents listed in scholarly presidential rankings consist of more Republicans than Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Woodrow Wilson is ranked somewhere in the middle, when it comes to scholarly presidential rankings. And your claim makes me chuckle a little bit, considering the top ten presidents listed in scholarly presidential rankings consist of more Republicans than Democrats.
Wilson did more to damage this country in his years as President than Bush ever did. People talk about the Patriot Act as if it's a detrimental Act. Many of the things Wilson did are far worse than the things current liberals claim Bush did.
 
I believe as Iraq continues to improve - history will show favor on Bush's term.

I am confused about Evil's comment since I don't think anyone considers Carter to be a better President now then they did in 80.

I think history will be kinder to Bush than we have been, but not much. And I don't believe that makes anything that's ever been done or said to or about him by most rational people to be out of line. Is it out of line to say that he should be tried for war crimes? Maybe. I'm really on the fence about that one. But I'm going to say that President Obama will do his best to make sure we put this in the past and will do his best Gerald Ford impersonation in that sense.
 
I highly doubt history will be kind to Bush.

I doubt it, too but it's difficult to make that statement in 2008. For example, Truman was very unpopular when he left office but the perception of him has changed very much over the years. Most historians do not examine a presidency until many years after to see how their impact has held up.
 
I doubt it, too but it's difficult to make that statement in 2008. For example, Truman was very unpopular when he left office but the perception of him has changed very much over the years. Most historians do not examine a presidency until many years after to see how their impact has held up.
I agree, I believe History will be kinder, it will take a generation to tell.
 
Wilson did more to damage this country in his years as President than Bush ever did. People talk about the Patriot Act as if it's a detrimental Act. Many of the things Wilson did are far worse than the things current liberals claim Bush did.

I'm not denying that. Yet, you are comparing two completely different historical time periods. And you should be happy that Wilson ranks fairly high on the list, considering Wilson is actually considered a CONSERVATIVE president (you seem to forget that Wilson's presidency occurred before the political parties realigned). Also,Thomas Jefferson continued to be an advocate for slavery well into his presidency, yet he is usually considered one of the best presidents. The ranking of a president's successes are relative to the time period they governed in.

And again, to claim that "those who write the history books" are biased towards liberals is downright ridiculous, considering Ronald Reagan is often in the top fifteen, when I and most other liberals personally consider him to be one of the most overrated presidents of all time.
 
I'm not denying that. Yet, you are comparing two completely different historical time periods. And you should be happy that Wilson ranks fairly high on the list, considering Wilson is actually considered a CONSERVATIVE president (you seem to forget that Wilson's presidency occurred before the political parties realigned). Also,Thomas Jefferson continued to be an advocate for slavery well into his presidency, yet he is usually considered one of the best presidents. The ranking of a president's successes are relative to the time period they governed in.

And again, to claim that "those who write the history books" are biased towards liberals is downright ridiculous, considering Ronald Reagan is often in the top fifteen, when I and most other liberals personally consider him to be one of the most overrated presidents of all time.
Who considers Wilson a Conservative? He was a Fascist.
 
Wilson pioneered the idiotic "spreading" democracy approach. Something the Neocons take a lot from. A much more idealistic approach to I.R. which I don't subscribe to as a realist. It treads too much on the good intents with negative consequences.
 
I would say that most often it seems like people remember the way a President WENT OUT best... people will remember Barack Obama as a president swept into office by the failure of the previous president, and likely remember Bush as a failure simply through the prism. At least, that's how I see it happening if we looked at FDR's success.
 
I believe as Iraq continues to improve - history will show favor on Bush's term.

What about the econmic collapse, the FEMA thing, the massive debt, the expansion of government power and the fact the reasons for going to Iraq were ultimately proven false? Is all of that irrelevant if Iraq turns out okay?:whatever:

People are harsh on Bush because he did a did bad job and I doubt history will be kind to him. Has history been kind to Nixon? No, and he only had one or two major screw ups. Presidents have earn respect, they shouldn't just be given it and Bush never earned it.
 
I think overall....Bush will have a bad review....
not the worst....but bad.
43 presidents to rate with him in it...I would imagine him in the 30's somewhere...
 
Some of the meat of this article is hollow garbage.


the part about bush being bi-partisian is not just laughable because reality rails against it, but the way the author tries to pull it off is stunning. really... because he said he needed help from those who voted against him? that qualifies as a bi-partisian effort?

and the supreme court appointments? Harriet miers pissed off EVERYONE. not just the right... and then bush shifted to a less ridiculous choice that didnt actually piss off the left to a scorching degree. What the hell is this guy talking about?

DID the auther then just seriously say that the politics were too divisive for bush to get anything done?!?

Really?

i seem to remember a **** load of cow-towing to the right by the democrats for the iraq war and post 9/11 legislation. so much so that many in the left were RAGING MAD


History will be gentler to this poor man, but not by much. he will be a low rated president even if Iraq pans out. we went in there for the wrong reasons, and we were given the wrong reasons. thats just one. we could be here all day about many things... History will bare it out,

Bush was more of a disgrace then the treatment he got from the public. Criticism of your leaders is one of the most american things out there.

this author is a joke
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"