posted
Say you were trying to prove that historians would remember the Bush administration more favorably than the Clinton one. What would you say for Bush? (note-more favorably as in having done a better job, not more favorably as in having had historic events like 9/11 and the war with iraq in it)
I've tried, and I can't think what I'd say. But I don't like Bush, I'm obviously less able to come up with stuff. For those who do-what would you say?
No, not for school. Just me obsessing about a debate topic and wondering what people would have said for Bush.
posted
A lot of my problem is lack of knowledge. I'm looking stuff up now about Clinton. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just asking what good things have been done by Bush.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Clinton allowed a genocide on his watch, but so is Bush. (This might be a negative for Bush because he a) had Clinton's experience and b) said that "we" should do everything we can to prevent a repeat of it. While it's a negative for Clinton, Bush doesn't gain any ground because he's allowing the same thing to happen.) So basically, I'm not helping you.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Its too early to judge Bush. What if within four years there is a Palestinian state at peace with Israel? What will happen in Iraq? What if there isn't another major terrorist attack on American soil for at least decades? What if he sucessfully reforms the tax code (in a way that makes the vast majority of Americans happy)? What if he "saves" social security? What if he cuts the deficit in half? What if the economy experiences its best four years ever? What if he successfully reforms the intelligence community? What if..?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More Wars. History likes a good war, have you seen the History Channel? The deficit isn't going to be kind to him, though. 1) I don't think he is going to cut it, 2) the interest payments are just going to get more ridiculous as time goes on.
posted
Didn't Bush do something re: lots of funding to help fight AIDS and its societal consequences (orphaned kids, etc.) in Africa? I'll see if I can find details later, I don't remember exactly what they were.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami: I know this is off topic, but I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I think "Frimpong" is the coolest word I've ever heard.
posted
I have some serious doubts history will remember Bush fondly, at least for his first term.
America will end up with equal rights for homosexual, its just a matter of time. Bush will be remembered as the president who tried to pass an amendment banning gay marriages. I think when we are in a more liberal time, that will be seen as homophobic and discriminitory, just as the Jim Crow laws are now seen as racist and barbaric.
For those social conservatives, maybe you doubt that such a day will come, but I would bet my life it does. Progress does not go backwards. Conservatives in history probably hoped there would not be a day when women could vote, or that african americans would be treated fairly, but it was inevitable. So too are homosexual rights.
As far as the war in Iraq goes, since Bush was re-elected, he can no longer be blamed alone. The American people have affirmed what he has done. Whether history looks back kindly at the war probably has a lot to do with the outcome. If we can somehow establish a free Iraq without it being anarchy, and without too much more bloodshed, then it could still be seen favorably.
Other than that, we had the biggest surplus in american history under Clinton, and now we have the biggest deficit under Bush. I can't see how that will be anything but a strike against Bush. I have no idea how economically conservatives can support one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history.
Still, I sincerely hope that he can do great things with this second term. I think hes been a terrible president so far, but it only takes one truly great accomplishment to turn that around.
posted
"Didn't Bush do something re: lots of funding to help fight AIDS and its societal consequences (orphaned kids, etc.) in Africa?"
Well, it depends on how you define "lots" of funding, and whether you think his refusal to provide that funding without strings cheapens the "gift" any.
But, yeah, I'm willing to put that down as a slight positive. He needs some.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he deserves a lot of the credit for the record numbers of new voter registrations, along with the record voter turnout in the 2004 election. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this thread request is that no matter how good something is that someone has done, there is someone who will declare reasons why it's not good.
Some people think that Bush's signing of the bill against partial birth abortion is a good thing. Some people think that prescription coverage for seniors -- a benefit that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that increased federal spending for education -- another thing that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that taking a pro-active approach toward terrorism is a good thing. Some people think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Some people think that the faith based initiative is a good thing. Some people think that abstinence training and strategies as a primary focus for sex education is a good thing. Some people really kind of like the tax cuts that have come from Bush's tenure in office. Some people even think they are good for the country.
But like I said...nothing is so good that someone somewhere will not state what's not good about it.
posted
You know, Afghanistan went really well. But that was like a whole two or three years ago, so it probably doesn't count Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I would say that nothing that a government ever does is good. Good in this context meaning one of the best solutions. Reasons are:
1) short time view (within four years) because of election spans 2) mostly the solution is a compromise that is sub-optimal 3) counter effects and side effects have not or only partially been foreseen
In my opinion the best solutions for a countrys economy are those who have been found by economists, not those politicians come up with.
Posts: 1247 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I can think of is his plans to go to Mars. Although I am hazy on what he has actually done.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, does something have to be over to go well?
EDIT: I mean, seriously, are we not allowed to be glad about successful early phases of an operation just because there are future phases left to be completed? Was the quick and effective conquest of a territory that has been considered unconquerable for centuries, the ousting of an evil and oppressive government, and the restoration of basic human rights to a nationful of women a worthless achievement because there are still a few problems left to be solved?
Guess what, Afghanistan will never be "over". Countries don't "end". They have a long road ahead of them, and to some degree or another, we will be involved as a friend and ally to the Afghani people. Let's celebrate our successes as we achieve them, rather than viewing our very involvement with them as an automatic dismal failure.
[ November 09, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, my personal impression is that suggesting that Afghanistan "went well" implies that we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, and/or have made significant progress towards doing so. Would you say this has happened, or is happening?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's fair to assume that the whole "Mission to Mars" talk was just a lot of BS to get the intellectuials off his sorry @$$ for a few months.
Congress rejected the request from NASA for increased funding. Don'tcha know--there's a war on?
He also cut funds to that liberal boondoggle called "Head Start"! Who needs it anyway?! Screw those kids! It's not like Bush showed up at some news conference and praised it all to high heaven just a week or so before he cut the fundi...wait, sorry, he did.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I'd point out that none of the three accomplishments you laid out are actually accomplished:
1) Afghanistan has actually been conquered successfully several times. What it has not been is held, and we have not demonstrated that we can hold it. In fact, we've pretty much announced that we cannot, and have no intention of trying.
2) While we removed the despotic government from the capital city, the rest of the country is ruled by tribal warlords and/or representatives of the same despotic government we meant to kick out. Still, I'd give them a "B" for effort on this one.
3) Rights for women in Afghanistan are not going particularly well. They are, indeed, slightly better off than they were, but all indications suggest that this initially positive trend is reversing even as we speak, since American attention is elsewhere. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, don't forget: we've achieved our primary goal in the War On Terror. We've captured or killed Osama Bin Laden.
What you say?
We haven't?
But it's been three years! What the hell else have we been doing? That was like the A #1 goal! I heard Bush say it himself!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, he deserves a lot of the credit for the record numbers of new voter registrations, along with the record voter turnout in the 2004 election.
Dude, I think you're getting your W. Bushes and P. Diddys mixed up.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, welcome to the real world. I honestly don't know what some people would consider to be a "successful" operation in a foreign country. What, the Taliban didn't just disappear? What, changing the way the populace views human rights is difficult? Huh, a country that has never been completely united under a central government has trouble doing so? What a shocking failure! How could we have been so incompetent?
I don't know, maybe I'm just in a better mood than you or something, but I can look at a situation like the one in Afghanistan, see the problems, and still think we're doing well, and that we have accomplished many of our short-term goals.
There are people who look at America and think we're the most horrible country in the world because all they can see are the problems. I think they need to step back a bit and get some perspective. Most of the things that America believes in and stands for are very new ideas on the historical scale, and making them work perfectly for everyone all the time is an impossible dream, at least right now. But it's a noble dream, and I think that every step that brings us closer to that dream is worth celebrating.
The fact that reality doesn't just roll over and reshape itself to match our fondest hopes does not mean that the accomplishments we do make suddenly become reclassified as failures.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've captured or killed Osama Bin Laden. What you say? We haven't? But it's been three years! What the hell else have we been doing? That was like the A #1 goal! I heard Bush say it himself!
Funny how people remember history differently. I recall that three years ago, Bush said capturing or not capturing Osama Bin Laden wouldn't make or break the War on Terrorism. Al Qaeda can function without him, and Al Qaeda is the enemy.
Bin Laden is certainly our number 1 target, as far as individuals go, but our number 1 goal is to end the use of terrorism against the United States by Muslim fanatics. That involves far more than capturing Bin Laden, and can be accomplished without him.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom just hates Bush, and as a result, can't see anything he's responsible for as good. <pokes tom> Lighten up man.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Bush's credit, he's done more than most presidents to protect us from our civil liberties.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom just hates Bush, and as a result, can't see anything he's responsible for as good."
No, no, see, you've got that backwards. I hate Bush because I can't see anything he's been responsible for as good.
------
"The fact that reality doesn't just roll over and reshape itself to match our fondest hopes does not mean that the accomplishments we do make suddenly become reclassified as failures."
Geoff, I was pointing out that the accomplishments you listed were not in fact "made." They may be "in progress," although I would submit that things in Afghanistan do not appear to be going so well as all that.
I didn't expect Afghanistan to turn into a garden of happy liberal latte-drinkers overnight. But it would have been nice to see us pay some attention to the country after we located the six piles of rubble they had and blew them back up.
posted
I couldn't resist my above post. It was a cheap shot, I know, but I just liked the phrasing too much to not post it after it occurred to me. As pennance, I'm going to come up with something positive for which I think Bush will be remembered by history.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, no, seriously, I've only jumped on the Afghanistan thing because I figured that Geoff and I shared roughly the same goals for Afghanistan and thus it was mystifying to me that he might feel we had "done well" -- past tense -- since we almost certainly share the same criteria on that one.
I know I don't apply the same criteria to tax cuts as a Bush supporter might, which is why I haven't bothered to address those -- or other issues like 'em.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some people think that Bush's signing of the bill against partial birth abortion is a good thing. Some people think that prescription coverage for seniors -- a benefit that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing.
Fair enough, Jeni. ---------------
quote:
Some people think that increased federal spending for education -- another thing that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that taking a pro-active approach toward terrorism is a good thing.
I'm wondering about this increased funding, I know money has been shuffled around in the education budget, including cutting a teacher bonus that was awarded for becoming nationally certified. I wonder how much of the money is being eaten up by admin costs for NCLB. It may be a modest portion, but if the money is going to all these places that don't need it, *shrugs*.
quote: Some people think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Some people think that the faith based initiative is a good thing. Some people think that abstinence training and strategies as a primary focus for sex education is a good thing. Some people really kind of like the tax cuts that have come from Bush's tenure in office. Some people even think they are good for the country.
It's what you do, and it's how you do it. I think that's why we have so many laws on the books allowing abortion in the case of rape. You have a tax cut and we dethroned Saddam, but looking at how we went to war and the deficit-- how do you countenance a tax cut staring in the face of a deficit, and yes, he took money out of the social security "lock box," Osama bin Laden making movies, and our commitment to Iraq right now, why is it the case there is a reason why I don't think these things are good.
I'm not so sure that being a President is about producing effects. I know being a CEO is. But a President of a nation of people, it's more than that. And everytime he behaves in a manner I wouldn't want schoolyard children to behave, then something is wrong.
posted
It's not that I think anyone's misbehaved in this thread. I just strikes me as a rather pointless exercise for the reasons you gave in the tax cut example.
quote:Most of the things that America believes in and stands for are very new ideas on the historical scale, and making them work perfectly for everyone all the time is an impossible dream, at least right now. But it's a noble dream, and I think that every step that brings us closer to that dream is worth celebrating.
Just what are those noble things that the US beleives in and stands for? The sense I get is that we're not only not exporting them abroad, but we're also losing them at home.
I'm, of course, thinking about civil liberties. I'm thinking of a reasonable judicial system and application of accepted international laws--like the Geneva Convention.
I'm thinking of the beauty of not killing 100,000 civilians in a unilaterally declared war.
Of course, others may be thinking about the exportation of US restrictions against legal abortions, discussions about the use of contraception, and general family planning, and those people should be quite happy.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everytime Bush makes stupidness, laziness, or revenge cool, he makes my life harder and more dangerous. Everytime he brags about not reading the paper or taking the low road with the NAACP, it's work I have to do. These are the intangibles. Clinton made marriages uncool, Bush makes thinking uncool. In my esteem, these are both atrocities, but I guess we can pick our poisons.
posted
It is kind of funny how with all the Afghanistan arguing, no one has mentioned how it has just gone right back to pre-Taliban structure. Many leaders in the Northern Alliance are rattling sabres over the past election, and I'll be surprised if the whole northern region doesn't continue to have the instability it's had even since we've been there for years to come.
But Kabul is nice. Check that off as a complete win, I guess.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said it before the invasion and I'll say it again - invading Afghanistan was a mistake. It galvanized opposition in the Muslim world and (predictably) led to the further invasion of Iraq. And what have we gained from it? Al Qaeda, the prime target, was not destroyed. All signs point to it being as capable of attacks as it ever has been, if not more so. Bin Laden was not captured. The country itself is not orderly or peaceful. It shows no signs of long-term stability. The only good news is that, contrary to what I thought, the Pakistani government came down on our side to help.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It galvanized opposition in the Muslim world and (predictably) led to the further invasion of Iraq."
A reasonable person could support the invasion of Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq would be the logical next step.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To somewhat reiterate my first post, how can we judge an eight year presidency after less than four years? Especially with Iraq and Afgahnistan we're going to need years after the Bush presidency to tell if they were a success.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, thanks for responding to my post. My point was that it's very much the way you choose to look at things. Very little in this world is 100% good. Pretty much everything comes at a cost. Everyone weighs the good returned against the cost, and we all have differing standards of balance.
I listed a number of things that many people see are good about Bush's time in office. I see that none of those things are painted thick with 100% Good varnish. The partial birth abortion bill has problems as I understand it, in that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. Further, for Pro-Lifers, the bill is almost worthless in that it seeks to prevent a miniscule percentage of the abortions performed in this country. Prescription drug benefits for seniors could be seen as yet another government funded entitlement. Some people do not believe that increased spending in education is a good thing, but that public education requires wholesale reform. Some people view a so called pro-active approach toward terrorism as simple international bullying and fear that it will only give us what we deserve: more terrorism close to home.
For me, Bush has balanced enough on the Good side of issues for me that he got my vote and continues to enjoy my support. I don't think he's ever done a perfect thing. I also do not believe he's a complete incompetent. He's a man performing an exceptionally difficult job to the best of his abilities. He is trustworthy, IMO. I trust him to be a good leader. I think he's done a good job so far. The war in Iraq is hardly a failure to me, in that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and the loss of life has been so little by comparison to other wars. We've accomplished great good for an acceptable cost. (Please, please don't romanticize about how even the loss of one life could be considered "acceptable". The cost of the Civil War was unthinkably high, and yet, it was worth the cost, IMO. I fear that if we were presented with the same imperative today, we would not go to war.) I don't understand the timing of the Iraq war, but I don't particularly believe I need to -- I assume that Bush and his advisors know some things I don't. I consciously try not to fall into the trap of post-Vietnam public philosophy: that because a commander-in-chief's lips are moving, he must be lying.
I don't like the huge deficit we're facing -- but Kerry could not offer me a smaller one, and promised to raise my taxes. Social security is a mess that started being a mess a very long time ago. Bush didn't start it, and I have little hope that he'll make it much better. I think the only solution for it is to grunt our way through.
So you may call Bad what I call Good, and that's okay. Undoubtedly some of what you call Good, I call Bad, and there, I think balance is acheived.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A reasonable person could support the invasion of Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq would be the logical next step.
But they'd have been wrong, no? Once we invaded one country that hadn't attacked us, it opened the door wide open to invading others - particularly in the minds of the American people.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afghanistan was harboring Osama bin Laden. Iraq was not. It is a pretty clear distinction supported by logic and the findings of the 911 Commission.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'd like to say a few things about no child left behind, just because it's come up a couple times and deserves more discussion. no child left behind is a disaster, there's really no other way to put it.
the first problem, which is open for debate, is that it assumes that testing children to death will make them better educated, when in fact it will (obviously) make them better at passing tests. this means that we are handing control of our educational system to test-writers.
the second problem, which is also open to debate, is that adam smith really shouldn't be applied to education. the idea that teachers should be held accountable is great - the idea that school funding should be cut if the school isn't performing adeqately is rediculous. in a perfect world, children would be able to leave under-performing schools and go to better ones, establishing a competitve marketplace for education. unfortunately this isn't how it works. due to various problems: bussing, uninvolved parents, local beauracracy etc, what happens is that students in under-performing schools stay in those schools and because they're under-performing they loose funding. which obviously isn't a very good way to fix their performance issues. on top of all this, teachers get bonuses for teaching students which perform well (read: affluent well-educated kids with parents who participate in their schooling), encouraging the good teachers to leave the schools which need the most help to move to the ones that need the least. the bottom line here is that "accountability" is doing nothing to imrove the education of underprivlidged students and is in fact diverting resources from those students to higher-performing ones.
the third problem is that there is practically no funding for the program. teachers recieve bonuses for performing well, but the bonuses are way to small to really motivate anyone (my girlfriend is a teacher). on top of this, there is little or no funding to cover the added mandates which the program imposes, which means that the end result is that anything which is not directly related to testing gets cut. not entirely cut, but seriously de-emphasized.
the program is referred to in the educational system as the "no school left standing" program.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To somewhat reiterate my first post, how can we judge an eight year presidency after less than four years?
Nothing personal (really: I mean it!), but this quote reminds me of the phrase "Doesn't know XXXX from shinola on two tastes."
I know it's going to be a bad 8 years becasue it's been a lousy 4 years, and now he not only thinks he has a mandate, but there's no "next election" to worry about!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
