POLITICS: POLL: 80% of Historians see Bush as Failure

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
What I find interesting and somewhat telling after reading the posts in reply to this news report is no one has vigorously denied the charge of Bush’s incompetence as President-


An outstanding point of debate, but it stems from a serious misunderstanding. You seem to assume that one is either on the left or on the right at all times, and that there is no middle ground before decisions are made. For democrats, who can take much of their constituency for granted as a function of class warfare, this is true. For republicans, who more often have to earn votes on the issues (owing to the greater likelilood of republican voters crossing party lines on certain issues) there is in fact middle ground.
We are not vehemently pro-bush no matter what happens. This may sound strange to those who supported Clinton no matter what, but if Bush can't produce results, he won't have our support. Many believe that Bush has done an acceptable job in many ways, and just as many would likely say that there are key issues which much still be addressed.
OF COURSE we aren't insisting that Bush is a great leader yet... because so far he hasn't proved to be. That does not make him a bad one either. If one were to watch some of the greatest victories of some of the greatest generals as they unfolded, you would be certain that the victor was mad until the closing moments, when the plan finally succeeded. We're watching Bush fight his battle right now, and we think in the closing moments his victory will become clear, but if it doesn't we're going to abandon him.

So, for your benefit: I will deny Bush's supposed incompetence. There is nothing yet to suggest that Bush is incompetent. Although his greatness is hardly established at this point, his administration has modernized the special forces, renewed American ties with two major potential oil suppliers, and recently (without getting much attention) potentially brokered an end to a 21 year civil war in the Sudan. Oh, and in just 4 years his administration has seen missile defense programs advance by leaps and bounds.

The word is not incompetent: it's controversial. Like Ronald Reagan, democrats will probably refuse to so much as shake his hand, but also like Ronald Reagan, he will also become an icon of sorts perhaps.




posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Future predicting historians? Unbelievable. I would rather ask Miss Cleo what future generations will think of the current administration.

A poll taken??

Dogs know what to do with polls......




posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
you guys think you have a point, but in 20-30 years (or even 1-3) its not going to matter then that people are losing their jobs. it IS going to matter that kids dont have access to good schools, nor are they offered. In 20-30 years all the kids who will then be adults, who at some point will have a say on political matters, this will be a country full of bumbling morons more so than it is now. this is because the president terrorist is spending all this *cha ching* on killing people in a place that is *defenseless*. they make use of suicide bombers because that IS their ONLY defense. this is deeply affecting people NOW!! he IS a miserable failure and i think everyone knows it, but most of you are unwilling to recognize failure when its in front of you. can anyone really come up with any good things president terrorist has done in his *paid for in $$ and favors* term?



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by insanenay
you guys think you have a point, but in 20-30 years (or even 1-3) its not going to matter then that people are losing their jobs.


Actually, we do have a point: and that point is that historians cannot predict the future. The history is still being written.

And I say that not as a Bush fan.





 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join