Queen of diamonds.

Look for him to do something to get back at the conservatives and Republicans who "betrayed" him before the term is over.  

That really shoots to hell any theory that there really is somebody else pulling the strings behind the scenes, doesn't it? I mean, honestly, GWB putting a revenge plot in motion??? Filling out all those nomination papers and making those policy decisions are something too complicated to be within the realm of a C- intellect as some have claimed in the past.

Who is it who would be pulling Bush's strings? The Illuminati?

 

Ehh, you know. The usual commentary about how the real power behind the throne is in the hands of "The Chainsaw" Cheney, or some other random buisness executive, or whatever it is people say.

    There are still those who would say this president isn't in the discussion for "worst president ever."

    Amazing but true.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Worst is fuzzy, but as far as destructiveness goes he would be third behind FDR and LBJ (excluding pre-20th century Presidents, for simplicity). Special mention should go to Ted Kennedy, who was instrumental in the first big immigration "reform", making him the most destructinve Senator ever.

FDR and LBJ, because they're at the crux of why I wonder why more conservatives aren't pissed off at W than there are*. After the debacle that was Nixon, conservatism in general and Republicans in particular were at their lowest ebb in quite some time. Thanks to the diligent efforts of some true believers, and heaps upon heaps of corporate sponsorship (for think tanks in particular), the political landscape reversed in 1994, and gained steam most of the next decade. There was even some (idiotic) talk in 2004 about a permanent Republican majority-- "permanent" was dumb, but "for the foreseeable future" was easy to see.
    For the first time since the 40s, Republicans and conservatives had both the elected majorities and the apparent direction in the electorate to take a chance and finally dismantle the programs that had driven them bonkers for decades: Social Security, and the remaining elements of the Great Society programs that were still around after Gingrich. It's one thing to lose majority status for enacting something you think is right (like the Voting Rights Act), and quite another to lose your majority for . . well, nothing in particular. Or maybe even worse than nothing.
    Which is where conservatives are now. Social Security reform went nowhere, thanks either to lack of interest or downright neglect. Homeland Security, a government agency "made by lobbyists, for lobbyists" not only came to be, but swallowed up agencies like the Coast Guard that worked fairly well alone. The interjection of John Birch Society political rhetoric into conservative bestsellers- a key to Bush's re-election in 2004- alienated the minority party, while the president did little or nothing to stir his own parties legislators into action. Republicans are facing the distinct possibility of a clean sweep in 2008, something that was NOT inevitable in 2002 or 2004. Three decades of hard work, and what's to show for it? Some tax cuts that could probably have gotten passed no matter what, and a foreign occupation that was badly managed, if not necessarily abroad then assuredly at home~. And the man who masterminded 9/11 is at serious risk of dying in bed of old age, a little bit of garnish on a rather large shit sandwich.
    Is squandered potential worse than actual actions? (To anticipate one rebuttal.) Well, consider Neville Chamberlin, who has been mocked for decades for failing to confront the pressing issue of his day. The next five years may vindicate this administration yet, say by a president McCain actually pushing through a decent SS reform-- but that's not a bet I'd lay a dime on at this point. Republicans and conservatives are copying the Democrats highly effective strategy of demonizing the House majority leader, and Bush has decided to throw more political capital behind an issue that angers the party base than anything since the tax cuts of 2001. At this point, an impeachment would actually be a good thing, because it might distract conservatives from remembering just what's been lost after January, 2009 . . .
    That's why I took my turn at a little trolling.  The whole thing has provided me no end of amusement over the last couple years, and the next two promise to be even more entertainment.

    *I'm not even going to mention liberal objections, in part because they're less interesting, and mainly because I know you don't care.
    ~If for no other reason that expanding Executive power was also a plank in the conservative agenda for a long time. Other examples available on demand.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

"Thanks to the diligent efforts of some true believers, and heaps upon heaps of corporate sponsorship (for think tanks in particular), the political landscape reversed"

Don't discount the extent Americans have rejected liberal policies. It's why after regaining the House and Senate Democrats aren't doing anything - just because people are mad at Republicans, doesn't mean they wan't liberal programs like government funded sex change operations.

"It's one thing to lose majority status for enacting something you think is right (like the Voting Rights Act), "

Can we put that to rest? Let's not pretend that nothing happened between 1964 and 1994 that cost Democrats to lose support.

"Social Security reform went nowhere, thanks either to lack of interest or downright neglect."

Political philosophy aside, as a practical matter I think that unfortunate, but it looks like nothing will be done until things get bad.

"The interjection of John Birch Society political rhetoric into conservative bestsellers- a key to Bush's re-election in 2004"

What?

"Three decades of hard work, and what's to show for it? "

A handful of dust. This is not something conservatives need to be "distracted" from, it's openly discussed (in print see Chronicles or The American Conservative). Republicans still haven't seemed to notice. But most Republicans never really agreed with conservatives anyway.

"And the man who masterminded 9/11 is at serious risk of dying in bed of old age"

I'm willing to bet Bin Laden's dead. But you never know.

Three decades of hard work, and what's to show for it?

Well, the SCOTUS is in nice shape....

I think it's difficult to include any President from pre-20th century because the stakes were so low. I might try to include Andrew Jackson because of the destruction his policies wrought so mercilessly on both the native peoples and the buffalo but he also did quite a bit to protect and expand the country so his tenure likely evens out from the perspective of "good for America." Other than that, there simply wasn't all that much to screw up after Washington, Jefferson and Madison nailed it.

In the 20th century, it's hard not to discount the reckless Republican policies of Harding and Coolidge because we now see that nearly every new market-economy goes through an early period of irrational exuberance and breakdown. FDR is our only four-term President and so well regarded by history that you can't really even troll on him. That leaves the dangerous escapades of Kennedy versus the failure to exhibit leadership where needed in LBJ and Carter (LBJ did a lot of good but at the expense of ignoring things less important to him but not less important to the country), versus the massive deficits of Reagan and Jr. Bush. Pick your poison.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

...the massive deficits of Reagan...

I think it's safe to say that whatever damage was caused by Reagan's budget deficits was rather limited in scope. But it seems almost incomprehensible that you would cite deficit spending while wholly ignoring Reagan's more lasting accomplishments.

I agree, Jackson was an a-hole.

There was nothing wrong with the policies of Harding and Coolidge. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve (which was established in 1913 when Wilson was President - I forgot about him, but he should be in the mix).

FDR permanently detached the government from its constitutional moorings, and his running for 4 terms is one of the things to hold against him.

"The massive deficits of Reagan "

Those worked out just fine.

FDR permanently detached the government from its constitutional moorings, and his running for 4 terms is one of the things to hold against him.

Its hard to understate how dangerous and destructive his court packing policy was.  Had he succeeded, he would have destroyed the judiciary as an independent branch of government.  The democratic senators who turned against him and torpedoed the plan were the greatest legislative heroes of the twentieth century.

I wonder how those who are so enthralled by FDR would feel if Bush had been able to follow FDR's plan appoint three or four additional Scalia type judges between 2002 and 2006 in order to ensure that the Bush administration's objectives were achieved.  

I'd also love to know which specific policies of either Coolidge or Harding caused the great depression.   If anything, Harding's handling of the post war recession provided a model for Harding and Roosevelt to follow.  Instead, Hoover and Roosevelt's refusal to let market correct itself turned what should have been a brief, sharp recession into a decade long economic nightmare.  

Well said. The the threat of court packing managed to intimidate the courts. Since FDR we've been under a different constiutional order.  

Those worked out just fine.

Thanks to the...Federal Reserve established by Woodrow Wilson (an unabashed idealist whose concepts all struggled in the short term but succeeded in the face of history) which is all but single-handedly responsible for guiding the US economy out of the bathtub in which Reagan tried to drown it and maintaining unprecedented levels of economic prosperity over the two decades since October 19, 1987.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

Reagan supported the efforts of the Federal Reserve to turn around the inflation of the 70's. As Alan Greenspan observed:

"My predecessor at the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, embarked in the fall of 1979 on an aggressive monetary tightening that attempted to arrest a dangerously accumulating set of inflationary forces. Presidential candidate Reagan also perceived inflation as a danger, and, then as President, afforded Volcker the political support that is so essential to a central bank when its pursuit of long-term stability risks some worsening in near-term economic activity. That support began the process that has led today to the virtual elimination of inflation from the U.S. economy. "

And the fact that the Federal Reserve pursues sensible monetary policy now does not excuse its pursuing disastorous monetary policies in the past. As for "drowning the economy in a bathtub", as Greenspan also notes:

"A second key support to today's flexible markets has been the bipartisan deregulation initiatives that began in the Ford and Carter years and were extended by Ronald Reagan. In January 1981, disregarding warnings that the action might renew upward pressures on inflation, President Reagan dismantled the remaining controls that had debilitated our oil markets. By 1986, crude oil prices had reached their lowest levels in real terms since 1973. Deregulation in finance, trade, and transportation was pressed forward.

But perhaps the most important, and then highly controversial, domestic initiative was the firing of the air traffic controllers in August 1981. The President invoked the law that striking government employees forfeit their jobs, an action that unsettled those who cynically believed no President would ever uphold that law. President Reagan prevailed, as you know, but far more importantly his action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers. There was great consternation among those who feared that an increased ability to lay off workers would raise the level of unemployment and amplify the sense of job insecurity.

It turned out that with greater freedom to fire, the risks of hiring declined. This increased flexibility contributed to the ability of the economy to operate with both low unemployment and low inflation. Whether the average level of job insecurity has risen is difficult to judge, but, if so, some offset to that concern should come from a diminished long-term average unemployment rate."