New Rolling Stone article-beware

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

Read and discuss.  Between this dude and Neil Young, I can't tell who is more articulate on this subject.

[Mr. T.]

Electing Bush was an error from the start. too bad nobody, not even historians, had the capacity and the means to look into the future.

Historians shouldn't just be pointing out what has been going wrong, but they should educate the people, to prevent them from letting an other "Bush-like" president into the White House.

"The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation." Those are wise words, but I believe they are as true for President Bush as they are for the public who gave him the oportunity the be a president.

Let me finish with some words by Phil Ochs:

It's not enough to know
the world's absurd
and restrict yourself
merely to pointing out
that fact...
It's wrong to expect
a reward for your struggles.
The reward is the act of
struggle itself,
not what you win.
Even though you can't
expect to defeat the
absurdity of the world,
you must make the attempt.
That's morality, that's religion,
that's art, that's live

(october 1965)

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Electing Bush was an error from the start. too bad nobody, not even historians, had the capacity and the means to look into the future.

Malarkey.  A lot of people could see what kind of president he would become, but unfortunately we were outnumbered.  We are doomed to repeat this mistake over and over again, as our culture is incapable of learning from its own mistakes.  The fact that we've elected Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Hoover, Johnson, Polk, etc. says it all about our society-we often choose leaders so similiar in their leadership styles that we've become accustomed to failure.
 

[ycartrob]

part of the problem is the choices we had other than Bush. AL Gore? John Kerry?

Seems every year, the lesser of two evils is getting greater and greater.

It's time for a third party folks.

As for the Rolling Stone article, I simply love it when someone, in their effort to bash Bush, states: Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes."

Yes, that slave owner Andrew Jackson; that guy who believed it was his moral and ethical right (and legal) to own another human being, that's who you're comparing GW to. I love how with put our slave owning forefathers up on this untouchable pedestal.

right.

[ratsprayer]

It's time for a third party folks.

'nuff said.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

part of the problem is the choices we had other than Bush. AL Gore? John Kerry?

Seems every year, the lesser of two evils is getting greater and greater.

It's time for a third party folks

Oh yeah...these guys would have been mediocre presidents at worst, so they were somehow a worse choice than W? Puh-lease.

The basis for that argument is that if somehow a great candidate emerges that isn't the lesser of two evils, all of history will forget that our country chose the worse of two evils?  I don't think it washes.  John Kerry would've been a fine president-no JFK, mind you-but certainly more apt at fixing the morass we're in now.

Now, for the business of a "third party".    Every third party candidate has been a novelty, IMHO, and incapable of winning the election, but rather losing it for one side or another.  John Anderson had no chance of winning in 1980, but certainly aided in Jimmy Carter's demise.  It's simple mathematics-same goes for Al Gore in 2000.  Our country needs more than just one alternative to the two parties-how about three, or four?  And how about (gasp) those parties cooperating as a coalition to ensure that a candidate of similiar interests will win, instead of sabotaging each others interests?  Al Gore ain't no Ralph Nader, but both are more similiar (politically) than Ralph Nader and W.

A third party is a good start, but mainstream it so it has a chance of capturing popular vote, not just ensuring campus hippies have something to bitch about at the Quad for four more years.   Do the math-there just isn't enough young, politically involved, left leaning people in the US to EVER win the presidential race.  To dream about such a thing is folly.  A third party would have to unite such disparate parties as senior citizens, Hispanics, African Americans, white liberals, Unions, military families, AND the aforementioned campus hippies to mount such a challenge.  So far, all I see is internet bitching about "let's form a third party".  Well,  where the hell is it?  It's been 6 years since 2000...who is running for President in 2008?
 

[marktwain]

Yes, that slave owner Andrew Jackson; that guy who believed it was his moral and ethical right (and legal) to own another human being, that's who you're comparing GW to. I love how with put our slave owning forefathers up on this untouchable pedestal.

Not to mention the Cherokee Trail of Tears.

[ycartrob]

Oh yeah...these guys would have been mediocre presidents at worst, so they were somehow a worse choice than W? Puh-lease.

The basis for that argument is that if somehow a great candidate emerges that isn't the lesser of two evils, all of history will forget that our country chose the worse of two evils?  I don't think it washes.  John Kerry would've been a fine president-no JFK, mind you-but certainly more apt at fixing the morass we're in now.

Now, for the business of a "third party".    Every third party candidate has been a novelty, IMHO, and incapable of winning the election, but rather losing it for one side or another.  John Anderson had no chance of winning in 1980, but certainly aided in Jimmy Carter's demise.  It's simple mathematics-same goes for Al Gore in 2000.  Our country needs more than just one alternative to the two parties-how about three, or four?  And how about (gasp) those parties cooperating as a coalition to ensure that a candidate of similiar interests will win, instead of sabotaging each others interests?  Al Gore ain't no Ralph Nader, but both are more similiar (politically) than Ralph Nader and W.

A third party is a good start, but mainstream it so it has a chance of capturing popular vote, not just ensuring campus hippies have something to bitch about at the Quad for four more years.   Do the math-there just isn't enough young, politically involved, left leaning people in the US to EVER win the presidential race.  To dream about such a thing is folly.  A third party would have to unite such disparate parties as senior citizens, Hispanics, African Americans, white liberals, Unions, military families, AND the aforementioned campus hippies to mount such a challenge.  So far, all I see is internet bitching about "let's form a third party".  Well,  where the hell is it?  It's been 6 years since 2000...who is running for President in 2008?

I actually voted for Nader in 2000, that's a little more than "internet bitching". He got nearly 3% of the 5% he needed to qualify for federally matching funds for 2004. That's a little more than folly and dreaming. Many (at least 2%)thought they'd be throwing their vote away on Nader (ie, he couldn't win) and weren't educated enough to realize the 5% needed for matched federal funds, so they voted for Bush or Gore.

It won't happen in 2008, not with the middle east stuff going down, and it will never happen if people think it's a foolish dream.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ~ Margaret Mead
                  

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

I actually voted for Nader in 2000, that's a little more than "internet bitching". He got nearly 3% of the 5% he needed to qualify for federally matching funds for 2004. That's a little more than folly and dreaming. Many (at least 2%)thought they'd be throwing their vote away on Nader (ie, he couldn't win) and weren't educated enough to realize the 5% needed for matched federal funds, so they voted for Bush or Gore.  

It won't happen in 2008, not with the middle east stuff going down, and it will never happen if people think it's a foolish dream.

WTF does federal matching funds have to do with winning the election?  Neither Gore or Nader won, and we're stuck with Bush...I fail to see your point.   What difference did that make in the world?

It is a foolish dream to keep thinking that somehow the magic number of 5% to achieve federal matching funds is a goal to achieve.  The goal is to win the presidency, if I'm not mistaken, getting someone in office we think is more qualified than the Woody the Woodpecker we've got minding the store now.  I fail to see how Nader's candidacy did anything more than inspire the left to be neatly divided into two camps-playing right into the hands of the right, whose weak candidate couldn't have won without this division.  Just ask Bush Sr. about Ross Perot.  Exact same thing.

So you voted for Nader-congratulations.  Now, where's this viable, gonna-win-it-all candidate this so called third party has you speak of?
 

[ycartrob]

WTF does federal matching funds have to do with winning the election?  Neither Gore or Nader won, and we're stuck with Bush...I fail to see your point.   What difference did that make in the world?

It is a foolish dream to keep thinking that somehow the magic number of 5% to achieve federal matching funds is a goal to achieve.  The goal is to win the presidency, if I'm not mistaken, getting someone in office we think is more qualified than the Woody the Woodpecker we've got minding the store now.  I fail to see how Nader's candidacy did anything more than inspire the left to be neatly divided into two camps-playing right into the hands of the right, whose weak candidate couldn't have won without this division.  Just ask Bush Sr. about Ross Perot.  Exact same thing.

So you voted for Nader-congratulations.  Now, where's this viable, gonna-win-it-all candidate this so called third party has you speak of?

wow. Like I said, it won't happen in 2008, too much unrest. It's going to take a little more time, I'm afraid.

As far as the 5% goes, that's the START, not the end all, be all. This will take time, if it happens.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Well, at any case, I'm just cynical as it's been all this time, and there's no declared candidate, no public fundraising that the mainstream is reporting on, and no grassroots movement that has struck a chord with the public.  There just isn't enough "time" to build all that-so, back to the beginning-why can't we find a candidate that can win?

[ratsprayer]

well part of the problem is the election system.  see, believe it or not, we did what we needed to do in 2004.  kerry won, flat out.  its a statistical improbability for bush to have won all those states with such a difference compared to the exit polls.  it was impossible for it to happen in one state, let alone the 5 or 6 where it became something like a 5 or 6 percentage point difference.  i live in ohio, which was the florida of last election.  the facts are out there, diebold gave bush the election.  you can have all the parties youd like, but when the winner is decided by other means, instead of who we the people actually vote for, well you're left a bit perplexed as to what to do.  

[wellfleet]

maybe...
it's all because the majority of americans are uneducated about politics, geopolitics, geography and foreign relations. this doesn't make anyone a bad, or lesser person. but it does make one perfect prey for a campaign of steady, malicious and false fear-mongering by an upper-class, wealthy and powerful ruling party.
those so-called security moms, clueless housewives (and there is nothing wrong with being a housewife ever) who are terrified of mustafah going in and blowing up their church sewing circle... they are easy prety for someone who tells them that mustafah is coming, and he's bringing friends. because they just don't know any better.
i am so against the war in Iraq and i get accused of not supporting our troops. i love our troops. my dad and grandpa were both military. i love them so much i want every one of them to be home. i see the casualties on tv, 20 year-old private, 23... all younger than me, all dead, all unprepared for THAT. what do you know at 20? you're not even trusted with a bottle of beer. what do you know of this world to be ready to defend your life and snuff out others? those poor men and women...
and yet people in my town believe that they are out there fighting for our freedom. they're not. their presence there makes us less secure, more hated, more feared, and more fearful...
a third of american high school students don't graduate high school these days. many lack basic skills of reading and writing... these kids, in turn, become prey to those who tell them they know better...
it makes me so sad because americans, as a whole, are a bunch of good, nice, friendly people who *try* to do the right thing in most situations. andthe rich and powerful are fucking with those people, telling them doom is imminent...

maybe john kerry isn't exciting, maybe he doesn't play the sax, maybe he's not young and sexy... he's not supposed to be. he's supposed to be the president. i read a thing where americans want to vote for someone they can have a beer with. not me! i want my president to be a hundred million times smarter than me, more experienced, wiser, calmer...

it's time to change horses in mid-stream. it's better than drowning.

[wellfleet]

well part of the problem is the election system.  see, believe it or not, we did what we needed to do in 2004.  kerry won, flat out.  its a statistical improbability for bush to have won all those states with such a difference compared to the exit polls.  it was impossible for it to happen in one state, let alone the 5 or 6 where it became something like a 5 or 6 percentage point difference.  i live in ohio, which was the florida of last election.  the facts are out there, diebold gave bush the election.  you can have all the parties youd like, but when the winner is decided by other means, instead of who we the people actually vote for, well you're left a bit perplexed as to what to do.  

*resignation*
and that, too...

[Angry Ewok]

I've spoken with several Historians who agree that in our time, we will likely see this two-party system give way to a third party, because of people like some of us.

Personally, I'm almost as sick of of people looking around like a crazed squirrel, asking "Why, O Why was Bush elected?! Is everyone here stupid?!" as I am of seeing Bush talk about terrorism.

Bush won tons and tons of people over because of his crusade against terrorists. Everywhere you look, we're under attack by terrorists. Those mexicans wanting to persue the American Dream without paying taxes? Terrorists. Thankfully we have a Paranoia Color Wheel, so that with the click of a button we can figure out just how paranoid we should be today...



In case you're wondering, we're at ELEVATED!!!

Bush won some people over because Kerry totally turned off hunters and 2nd Amend'ters. Bush won some people over because the murky water of Kerry and Vietnam. I can go on and on as to "WHY?!!" Bush won...

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

sorry, but no dice.  "in our time"?  what, does it take an entire lifetime to create this so called third party?  

It's been a two party system for quite some time.  There have been 3rd and even 4th party challenges along the way, but none have captured the elections...why?  Is this new third party going to supplant the left and become the mainstream party for that side...capable of winning presidential elections?  What good can come of creating another party if it cannot win elections?  are you saying that in our lifetimes, this will happen?

I just don't understand how this will help anyone except the inflated egos of the people involved.  Until there's a mainstream party capable of winning it all, this 3rd party will lie on the fringes.

[Jellyfish]

The problem is that neither the Dems or Repubs voters can think for themselves...they just agree with what their side says and nod their heads and reach for the Kool-aid.

I urge you all to think for yourselves and not be a party voter.These politicians will lie to you to get your vote...on both sides.Research and make up your own mind about things.

[SmoothOprtr]

John,

As a former history teacher I was saddened to see you include Polk on your list off flawed ex-Presidents... I think he is likely the greatest U.S. President of all time.  Regardless of my opinion of Bush, I see no similarities between him and Polk other than both being war time Presidents....  would you care to clarify this for me...  :)

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

heya, I didn't write the article, but can you name something great Polk did?   ;D

[SmoothOprtr]

We'll I'm glad you ask!

I think Polk was the best U.S. President for a simple reason- he did exactly what he set out, and advertised to do when he ran.  When I talked to students (and some adults) about the democratic process many are often apathetic because they feel it doesn't matter who they vote for, because all politicians are dishonest and will do (or try to do) whatever they want once they're elected anyway.

Polk, who was a major underdog to Henry Clay when he ran, said he wanted to do 4 things- settle the Oregon dispute, lower tariffs, set up an independent treasury, and annex Texas.  He was elected, he accomplished all 4, and then became the first President to not try for a second term.

If a candidate reveals what he wants to do while he is running, the voters elect him based on what his planks are, and then he accomplishes all of them, how could he NOT be considered great?

Of course their is the more controversial issue of the Mexican War...one could argue the point that the US provoked the war, but regardless, I think this is still a feather in Polk's cap... the mood of the country at the time was one of expansion.... Polk was known as an "expasionist" which was one of the reasons he was elected. (and he acquired more US land than any President including Jefferson).  The will of the majority supported the expansion of the US into formally Mexican terriories... comparing the Mexican War to Iraq is tough because the large majority are against the war and have been from the start... I'll maintain if Polk was elected because people wanted expansion and we went to war with Mexico (basically over their failure to recognize Texas) - to the victor go the spoils!