2007-08-23 07:51:34 · 25 answers · asked by Michael3 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
If you had paid attention whatsoever you might have noticed that this question has asked again and again. It was stupid originally, why would it be any better now?
2007-08-23 08:11:16 · answer #1 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, but he doesn't deserve ALL the blame
the real question is, are we too fat, dumb and happy to bother?
Yes, I think we're at a crisis point. Taking away basic civil liberties is a serious matter, because once taken away, it's almost impossible to get them back. As a rule, they don't get taken away by dramatic strokes, but rather eaten away, eroded. That's what Bush and company (read Cheney) are doing. The difficulty is that a lot of people simply don't care, either because they approve of harsh treatment of people they perceive as enemies, or because they simply use all their energy just getting through the day.
The hope is the peculiar genius of a democratic form of government. Over time it tends to balance itself, to correct wild swings that result from crises and reach a stable point. It remains to be seen whether we can do that under the current stresses. Winston Churchill said that democracy is a very poor form of government --- but it's better than any other form we have been able to come up with.
The people at the controls right now are ideologues, and if they have their way we will end up with some kind of unholy alliance of big business and Christian conservatism. Military-industrial theocracy isn't something I would like to live under. I used to vote Republican. I won't anymore. I didn't leave the GOP; they left me. But the Dems aren't much better. A viable Independent Party might be the answer, but the pols on both sides of the aisle will do their level best to stop that from happening, because it threatens their grip on power. Yeah, I'd call that a crisis. W will go down, I am confident, as the worst President we have ever had, against some stiff competition (e.g., Harding). The damage he has done -- diplomatic, social, financial, military -- will take generations to correct. He richly deserves to be impeached, or even tried as a war criminal. But I don't think we are up to that, for reasons cited above.
2007-08-23 15:04:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on how you define "worst". It's all relative, so you must quantify what measurements you wish to use to that point.
Are you talking about defiance of the Constitution? Then I would say no, that would be FDR with the New Deal and attempted Court Packing or Wilson with the passing of the income tax and the Federal Reserve.
Are you talking about going to war undeclared? If so, then once again, no. Clinton performed "military actions" upon several countries during his time, and through his presidency we did not have a single month were we weren't bombing someone some were.
Are you talking economic performance? If so, once again I'd have to say no. This huge bubble started during Clinton, and Carter and LBJ had the worst inflation/unemployment numbers of modern times outside the Great Depression.
Are you talking about general displeasure with the populace? Once again, no. That would be Andrew Johnson.
Bush isn't a great president, but he's far from the worst we've ever survived.
2007-08-23 15:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan S 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not the worst, but in the top 5 worst Presidents for sure.
James Buchanon did little to stop the Civil War. A war which 400,000 Americans died fighting.
Herbert Hoover: Great Depression, 'nuff said.
So Bush is not THE worst, but he is the worst of my 30+ years of life.
2007-08-23 15:01:14 · answer #4 · answered by Ray G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How can that guy say Clinton was a worse president?
Look at what other countries think of Bush. He was elected and did not have the popular vote. His popularity now is at an all time low. His policies are a step backwards in many movements.
Oh and this war we are in for what reason again??
Bush is by far the worse one in recent history.
2007-08-23 14:56:36 · answer #5 · answered by ItsMeTrev 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
He just might be, another slip up and yes. The only presidents with lower approval ratings than Bush, were Truman, and Nixon.
2007-08-23 14:58:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
During the almost 50 years I've been alive, he's the hands down winner.
2007-08-23 16:21:48 · answer #7 · answered by jmf931 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even close. If you notice the economy is near full employment and inflation expectations are well contained. It was comical to hear Jimmy Carter state that Bush was the worst president ever--under his term inflation and unemployment were in double digits.
2007-08-23 14:57:00 · answer #8 · answered by Crookedlettaman 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I would say he's on par with Jimmy Carter, and in the bottom 10.
2007-08-23 14:58:05 · answer #9 · answered by Stephen L 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Miloshevich, Castro, Stalin were(are) worse. They were(are) presidents too....
2007-08-23 15:03:47 · answer #10 · answered by xxxxx 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋