jeffs, why did LBJ, as senate majority leader, water down the civil rights act of 1957, when a republican was president? Was he really interested in civil rights or just in playing politics?
LBJ can't compare to Ronald Reagan, the best president of the 20th century.
2007-03-08 03:30:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by dsl67 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Its likely history will see Bush as the sitting President when the 9/11 attacks occured, and, as of yet, hard to know what will happen with the long term opinion about Iraq. I suspect it means more to us now, then, in the distant future. History might smile, but only dimly, at George W.
2007-03-08 11:26:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
good question.
really, i can't think of any strong domestic achievements of the bush administration. and definitely nothing that could compare to the civil and voting rights acts.
i have a feeling that history will be very hard on bush.
2007-03-08 11:30:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. O 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think LBJ was one of the best modern presidents in in American history. His escalation in Vietnam was a blight on his contributions but he decreased poverty dramatically and forced the nation to accept equality without wide-spread bloodshed.
George Bush is not in his class... but for that matter, no one is since him.
2007-03-08 11:22:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Someone who calls himself a true patriot might think that the madman people are free from was in the Middle East. No, he's much closer to home.
2007-03-08 11:27:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't think of any....
"No Child Left behind" will be terminated about five minutes after Bush leaves.
No just doom gloom and misery, how's that for legacy
2007-03-08 11:22:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rick 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Good economy, freedom of people under a madman.
2007-03-08 11:20:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by True Patriot 3
·
1⤊
1⤋