English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Lets face it...both Bush and Johnson increased the size of government massively (both expanded Medicare for example),

Both got the US stuck in foriegn wars.

Both didn't listen to what the majority of the American people wanted.

Then again, Johnson never had an approval rating near 30%, and Johnson redeemed himself on civil rights issues.

Maybe history is repeating itself after 40 years?

(BTW, my belief is Hillary Clinton will win in 2008, and will be similiar to Nixon in a number of ways.)

2007-06-09 05:51:41 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

It's just you.

;-)

Johnson actually cared about people.

He was devestated by the suffering the war caused.

He wanted to make things better for all Americans -- Bush wants to make things better for his friends, and doesn't care how much damage he causes to do so.

Johnson didn't violate his oath of office.

Johnson wasn't a moron.

Johnson inherited his war, and, although it was mistaken, he didn't wage it for petty reasons.

Johnson didn't order torture as policy.

Johnson didn't hate America.

No, they really aren't alike.

2007-06-09 09:33:23 · answer #1 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0 0

Bush = Nixon

BTW, Hillary won't win in 2008. In the Democratic party, frontrunners in June won't make the nomination next July. Think Paul Tsongas and Howard Dean.

2007-06-09 06:28:57 · answer #2 · answered by BrianC2008 3 · 1 0

Do you mean when you say that Hilary Clinton will be similar to Nixon in a number of ways that She will resign after being involved in a cover up? Well if she does get elected, then I pray you are right.

2007-06-09 06:11:29 · answer #3 · answered by Wyco 5 · 0 0

that is totally unlucky whilst it form of feels that politicians do not examine their historic past books. although, the justifications for Bush and Johnson getting into into conflict have been completely different. it incredibly is basically in the quagmire effect that this conflict is resembling Vietnam. We entered into Vietnam partly because of the Truman doctrine, which stated that we would bypass to conflict to avert the unfold of communism. Secondly, because of the fact we are allied with the French and that they asked for our help. besides, Kennedy, earlier his assassination, had already laid the beginning place for Johnson to stroll on... our boys have been in Vietnam earlier he replaced into even assassinated. We entered into the Iraq conflict below the Bush Doctrine, a doctrine of pre-emption. we are the time-honored NATO power in this conflict, and have been from the very initiating. the subject that's such as Vietnam is the certainty that our administration keeps sending over extra boys to die whilst it incredibly is sparkling that what we are doing isn't working. besides, as you pronounced, the commonly used public has grew to become by contrast conflict. the reason Bush won't end that's with the aid of the fact his administration feels that they are going to be seen as larger failures for pulling out (Now, even i'm not stupid adequate to think of we could consistently basically pull out as we talk... individually i think of we could consistently partition the government into 3 components: mostly Sunni, mostly shite, mostly Kurdish... and that we could consistently be working in direction of getting our boys and ladies out in the subsequent couple of years). The Bush administration does not prefer to concede defeat. that is an comprehensible emotion, yet because of the fact the chief of the "loose international", one has to place delight aside and make judgements based on certainty. very sturdy questions, inspite of the shown fact that. i individually do not think of politicians will ever study... they have made the comparable blunders lower back and lower back lower back for 1000's of years, and could proceed to achieve this. the explanation why is delight. each of them are confident that their particular challenge is unique and different.

2016-11-09 22:09:42 · answer #4 · answered by mcmillian 4 · 0 0

well BTW i dont think hillary clinton will even get the nomination, BUT if she does she WILL LOSE! and Bushie boy is arrogant, of course he wasnt going to listen to what the majority of Americans wanted!

2007-06-09 06:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by boricua_lilly 3 · 1 1

wow...lots of nancy pelosi press releases went into this one didnt they...
1. Eisnenhower, NOT johnson got us into that war.
2. Approval publicly does NOT mean correct policy in the job and given the publics blindside with clinton...

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

one could successfully argue that the publics favor could in fact create real damage to the office as well.

Bush listened quite well to the american people

I spent my tax cut check, but im sure you sent yours, being the good liberal you are, back to the government...lmfao.

This idea that you "want" another eight years of the Clintons is truly scary. I think after
travelgate, filegate, whitewater, the cattle futures fiasco, the vince foster coverup, the largest tax increase in us history, the tie breaking vote to tax social security breaking a fifty year promise to the nations elderly, jennifer, paula , monica, what is...is...you should know better.
APPARENTLY THATS THE TRUE HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF.....

2007-06-09 06:03:30 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0 3

I've been saying that ever since he entered office. You are exactly right.

2007-06-09 06:04:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If you believe Hillary will win, well that says it all. good luck with that.

2007-06-09 05:58:37 · answer #8 · answered by Working Stiff 3 · 1 1

No. There was a draft back then. Well,that's typical dems for ya.

Hillary will not win. Case closed.

2007-06-09 05:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

It's just you. No similarities at all.

2007-06-09 05:55:14 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers