Do you have what it takes to be President?

[Michael Ernest]

Compare yourself to this record:
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Arrested in 1976 in Kennebunkport, ME, for DUI. Pled guilty and fined. Driver's license suspended for 30 days. Texas driving record has been
"lost" and is not available.
MILITARY:
Joined the Texas Air National Guard; went AWOL, but managed to avoid combat duty in Vietnam. Refused a drug test; refused to answer any questions about drug use.
COLLEGE:
Graduated from Yale University. Participated as a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
Ran for US Congress and lost.
Started in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. Bought an
oil company; could not find oil in Texas. Sold stock before company declared bankruptcy.
Bought the Texas Rangers, including land leveraged using taxpayer money.
Elected Governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
Changed Texas pollution laws; made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
Cut taxes; bankrupted the Texas treasury, adding billions of loan debt.
Set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American
history.
Lost 2000 presidential election by 500,000 popular votes; became President of United States.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
Invaded and occupied two countries at a ongoing cost of a billion dollars or more per week.
Spent the US surplus; effectively bankrupted the US Treasury. Shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
Set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.
Set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US
stock market.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal
record.
Set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year
period.
Presided over the worst security failure in U.S.history.
Supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," deemed a
WMD by other internationa leaders.
Lied about reasons for attacking Iraq in State of the Union address; blamed the UK government.
Set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a US president.
In first year of office, over 2-million Americans lost their jobs; trend continues every month.
Set the all-time record for foreclosures in a 12-month period.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
other president in US history.
Set record for fewest press conferences of any president
since the advent of television.
Presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history; declined to
intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history.
Cut health care benefits for war veterans; support a cut in
duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.
Set all-time record for most people protesting against in public venues (15 million people); shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
Have broken more international treaties than any president in US history.
Appointed the richest Cabinet membership of any administration in US history. The "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her.
First US president to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. Ignored the will of the United Nations, the majority of US citizens, and the world community.
Created the single largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government (Ministry of Homeland Security).
Presided as the United Nations removed the US from the Human Rights Commission.
Withdrew the US from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war
("detainees"); refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
First US president to refuse United Nations election inspectors (2002).
All-time US and world record-holder for most corporate campaign donations.
Largest lifetime campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay, Enron CEO, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud case in US history. Party used private jets and corporate attorneys to argue before the US Supreme Court during my election decision.
Protected friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation
and prosecution. More time and money spent investigating the Monica
Lewinsky affair than on investigating Enron.
Garnered the most sympathy for the US after the World Trade Center
attacks; managed to make the US one of the most hated countries
in the world, creating the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
First American to have most Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
Changed US policy prohibit convicted criminals from receiving government
contracts.
Failed to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
Records of tenure as Governor of Texas are now sealed in the private collection of George H. W. Bush and unavailable for public view.
Records of SEC investigations into insider trading activity and company bankruptcies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

[Joe Pluta]

Yeah, I've heard all of this stuff. I guess I don't find it so astonishing that political candidates have skeletons. I in fact don't usually like either of my Presidential choices - politics by definition attracts people who shouldn't be elected, and our two-party system makes it almost a certainty that the President will be a party hack. In fact, I can't think of a "clean" candidate in the last 20 years who actually had a shot at the Oval Office.
Which President can you name without some sort of smirch? The last president who didn't have a pretty shadowy background was Jimmy Carter, and while I love the man dearly, he wasn't exactly Presidential caliber. Well, except perhaps for the giant rabbit that attacked him...
And to be multinational about it, who's the last leader of any nation who doesn't have some sort of scandal attached to him or her?
Yeah, it's fun to drag up all this stuff. It makes a cute book report. But really, who can we find in the 20th century as "Emperor Without Stain"?
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

So you're saying Clinton's indiscretions didn't bother you either?

[Richard Hawkes]

I've got baby-skin boots, a smack habit big enough to float the Afghan economy and I can suck a golfball through a hosepipe. I reckon I got what it takes to be the next Prime Minister

[Jason Menard]

Hmm, a lot of those comments are very petty, mean-spirited, and childish, not to mention trying to lead the reader to unsupported conclusions. Hell, much of it is just plain idiotic. Typical baseless liberal attacks to be quite honest.
While this is far more blatant trolling than I'll usually bother to answer, let me address just a few of the intellectual gems in this document:
Refused a drug test; refused to answer any questions about drug use.
Therefore the right-thinking reader can only draw the conclusion that he was on drugs. :roll:
Ran for US Congress and lost.
I can't even begin to guess the significance of this. I guess everybody who runs for congress and loses is just forever tarnished with the stigma.
Set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American
history.
Is this a bad thing?
Lost 2000 presidential election by 500,000 popular votes; became President of United States.
Written by somebody lacking understanding of our electoral college system. Time to go back to highschool methinks.
And at this point I just get too bored. I was going to address some stuff in the "ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT" section, but the text in that section shows such a clear lack of grasp on reality that i won't even bother. If anyone would like to actually, I don't know, make an argument or something on any of these points, I would be happy to tear it to shreds calmly debate it.
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American
history.
Is this a bad thing?

Yes yes yes yes. How many other civilised 1st world countries execute as many, if any, people as America?

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Lost 2000 presidential election by 500,000 popular votes; became President of United States.
Written by somebody lacking understanding of our electoral college system. Time to go back to highschool methinks.

I don't know if the original claim was true or not, but if so, this shows a serious flaw in the democratic system in America. Not being totally sure of it, can some one clarify... are votes in one state "worth more" than votes in another state? Why aren't all votes counted nationally rather than in states? Surely you are one country, and should all vote together.....

Perhaps you should also have instructions IN NICE BIG LETTERS on all of the voting cards, so people dont get confused (how hard can it be to vote?!), and there isn't any excuse for having a court case in your brother's state to decide the presendency

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Joe King:

I don't know if the original claim was true or not, but if so, this shows a serious flaw in the democratic system in America. Not being totally sure of it, can some one clarify... are votes in one state "worth more" than votes in another state? Why aren't all votes counted nationally rather than in states? Surely you are one country, and should all vote together.....

Perhaps you should also have instructions IN NICE BIG LETTERS on all of the voting cards, so people dont get confused (how hard can it be to vote?!), and there isn't any excuse for having a court case in your brother's state to decide the presendency

The fact that his brother was/is governor of Florida had nothing to do with the issue, unless you believe the Gore/Liebermann conspiracy theories that the entire elections were a ploy against them and the American people.
The Florida courts decided the GOP win was according to the law, a decision which was upheld by the US suppreme court (which incidentally was appointed in majority by opponents of the GOP).
In fact, no recount or courtcase was needed at all. Gore held a pressconference admitting defeat and congratulating Bush on his victory, and only later withdrew that admission when he saw that he might be able to manipulate the outcome because it was closer than originally thought (the electoral comittees in the counties that held recounts were completely controlled by Gore supporters who did whatever they could to count votes for Gore, leading many invalid votes to be counted for Gore instead of being discarded).

[Thomas Paul]

I'm not going to bother going through the whole thing but this is a lie:
"Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war ("detainees"); refused to abide by the Geneva Convention."
The ICRC has visited the prisoners many times and has reported that they are all in good health and being well taken care of. Bush has refused to recognize them as being protected by the Geneva Convention because they are not legal combatants. However, if Michael would like to put a few of them up in his apartment for a few days perhaps that can be arranged.
For those like Michael who aren't capable of using google:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/951C74F20D2A2148C1256D8D002CA8DC

[Michael Ernest]

Refused a drug test; refused to answer any questions about drug use.
JM: Therefore the right-thinking reader can only draw the conclusion that he was on drugs.
ME: Right-thinking readers are usually conservative Republicans. So the point is, how can a right-thinking conservative turn away when their leaders of choice don't meet their own criteria for moral behavior?
Ran for US Congress and lost.
JM: I can't even begin to guess the significance of this. I guess everybody who runs for congress and loses is just forever tarnished with the stigma.
ME: I think it's a personal problem, Jason, to have to impute significance to this fact. Worrying out loud that other people will think "incorrectly" about this fact is probably the least flattering part of this oh-so-predictable exercise in eye-rolling as a reponse.
Set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American
history.
JM: Is this a bad thing?
ME: Imagine the day in your life when you said to yourself, "If only we could put more people to death for their crimes in this country." You'll be able to answer that question for yourself straight away.
Lost 2000 presidential election by 500,000 popular votes; became President of United States.
JM: Written by somebody lacking understanding of our electoral college system. Time to go back to highschool methinks.
ME: Demeaning the speaker is not exactly principled debate; maybe a high school civics lesson would do you some good as well.
JM: I was going to address some stuff in the "ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT" section, but the text in that section shows such a clear lack of grasp on reality that i won't even bother.
ME: Proof by.....oh, help me out here, people, which fallacy is this again?
JM: If anyone would like to actually, I don't know, make an argument or something on any of these points, I would be happy to tear it to shreds calmly debate it.
ME: Dispute any fact you see before you, just like Thomas.

[fred rosenberger]

this shows a serious flaw in the democratic system in America

this has been a known fact for years. What most people don't realize is that you don't vote for the president, you vote for someone who will vote for the president (the electoral college). Each state has the same number of electoral college members as it has senators and representatives combined. so, California has 54 electoral votes (which might have changed with the 2000 census), while Alaska has 3.
to become president, you need 270 to win. in any given state (i think by law), all the votes go to the same person. so, if in california, one candiate gets 17,500,000 votes, and the other gets 17,500,001 votes, candidate B wins all 54 electoral college votes.
in 2000, it was possible to win by only carrying 12 states (CA, FL, NY, TX, IL, OH, PN, GA, MI, ME, MD, MN). if a candidate carries each of these states by 1 popular vote, he is ahead by 12 total popular votes. if in the other 38 states, he gets NO votes, he could conceivably loose the popular vote by millions.
granted this is unlikely, but it is possible, and something like this has happened twice (i think) in american history.
it's just a quirk of how the system was set up. every year i hear talk after an election (especially a close one) about changing it, but it never happens - the outrage and furor dies out after about a week.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: fred rosenberger ]

[Joe Pluta]

So you're saying Clinton's indiscretions didn't bother you either?
Am I astonished by it, or even surprised? No. Depending on your predilections, a common answer to "the best President of the second half of the 20th century" is often a pick between Kennedy and Reagan. Neither gentleman was without pecadilloes.
How about answering the question? Who do you nominate for "World Leader Without Blemish"? Or is this just a pure bashing thread? If so, who's your favorite President? Perhaps others can take a few shots.
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

This is an interesting one:
Presided as the United Nations removed the US from the Human Rights Commission.
Do you think this is the fault of the president or the UN? And since this occurred in May 2001, wouldn't this actually be the fault of the prior administration since we were voted out for our support of Israel in the prior 10 years?
But I get the impression that Michael has no interest in debating anything. He is merely posting something he found on the internet without bothering to check any of the facts. Michael, since you claim Bush refused a drug test why not tell us exactly when this happened and under what circumstances?

[Paul Stevens]

ME: Demeaning the speaker is not exactly principled debate; maybe a high school civics lesson would do you some good as well.
ME: I think it's a personal problem, Jason, to have to impute significance to this fact. Worrying out loud that other people will think "incorrectly" about this fact is probably the least flattering part of this oh-so-predictable exercise in eye-rolling as a reponse.
ME: Imagine the day in your life when you said to yourself, "If only we could put more people to death for their crimes in this country." You'll be able to answer that question for yourself straight away.

Pot calling the kettle black. Do exactly what you accuse your opponent of doing. Then act as if you didn't.

[Frank Silbermann]

I have been told that before the election, Gore was concerned that _he_ might win on electoral votes but lose the popular vote. He was said to have phoned Bush get an agreement that "We're going to play by the rules, and not make a fuss if something like that happens to either of us."
The possiblility of winning on electoral votes while losing the popular vote has always been a possibility, and indeed, has happened before. If the Democrats considered that unfair, they had all the time in the world _before_ the election to make that point. But they didn't, until after it went against them. They are like a child who agrees to a decision by flipping a coin, and then when it goes against him protests that it really should have been a coin of a different denomination and therefore must be redone -- and has a trantrum when is demand is refused.
It is for this reason that I hold people who condemn the "false election" of Bush in deepest contempt. They have no sense of sportsmanship or fair play; no intellectual integrity. They are cheaters.

[R K Singh]

Have you seen the google adv.
Become president ..

[Frank Silbermann]

Did anyone else watch the PBS special on "The Kennedys" last night? One thing that impressed me was that J.F.K. was a real lightweight of a person, whose political career was largely purchased by the wealth and clever scheming of his fascist bootlegger father.
And yet, JFK was not a bad president. (In my opinion, JFK and RKF were the only two decent Kennedy politicians to have come from that family.)
And I could have forgiven William Jefferson Clinton for his JFK-like sexual addiction, his sexual harassment of Paula Jones, or even his rape of Katherine Wiley (I _think_ she was the one he raped), if it weren't for his revisionist, counter-revolutionary desire to return the American people to serfdom via gun control.

[fred rosenberger]

I think the Gore camp DID play by the rules of the electoral college. Bush got more of those votes, so he's president. That wasn't the issue. What was the issue was how to decide where those votes in one state went.
I will admit i could be wrong, but i thought the court case was about how to count the ballots, and which votes should count. The whole "hanging chad" and "pregnant chad" issue. Should you count a ballot with no actual hole, but there is a "bump" on the chad... like the voter didn't push the pin all the way through. or count a vote where the piece that's supposed to be removed is still hanging by one of the perferations...
I don't know what the answer should be - should you count what a voter INTENDED or INDICATED they wanted or not.
I think i saw a study once that said that if you folled the guidlines set up by Gore's camp on what to count, Bush one the popular vote, but if you use the guidelines the Bush camp wanted, Gore won the popular vote.
I'm not trying to debate over who should have won, or who i wanted to win. I just think you're mis-representing what the case was about. Sure, they agreed to abide by a coin toss, but after the coin was used, there was debate about whether the coin was fair. an independant body (the supreme court) decided it was, and both sides then lived with that decision.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
And I could have forgiven William Jefferson Clinton for his JFK-like sexual addiction, his sexual harassment of Paula Jones, or even his rape of Katherine Wiley (I _think_ she was the one he raped), if it weren't for his revisionist, counter-revolutionary desire to return the American people to serfdom via gun control.

A few of my biggest problems with Clinton were the gutting of the US military under his watch, his handling of Somalia, and that he stared straight into the camera and stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Lewinsky".
He certainly wasn't a favorite of mine, but I certainly harbored no hatred towards the man. He was my commander-in-chief and I served under him for eight years, giving him my full support despite the issues I had with his Presidency. Once the election is over, he's the President and deserved the full support of the country, regardless of party affiliation. The anti-Bush types in America don't seem particularly interested in what's good for the country as a whole though.
Politically, Clinton was fairly moderate. It was a smart move for the Democratic Party to move closer towards the center like they did in the Clinton era. Unfortunately, they've taken a sharp left turn and so far away from center that they will have an extremely tough time appealing to the average voter. If Howard Dean manages to get the Democratic Party nomination, the Dems can pretty much kiss off any hopes they have for 2004.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
And I could have forgiven William Jefferson Clinton for his JFK-like sexual addiction, his sexual harassment of Paula Jones, or even his rape of Katherine Wiley (I _think_ she was the one he raped), if it weren't for his revisionist, counter-revolutionary desire to return the American people to serfdom via gun control.

Frank, a woman named Juanita Broderick claimed that Clinton had raped her many years ago. I think while he was attorney-general of Arkansas. Katherine Wiley never claimed rape, and I'm unaware of any other allegations of rape against Clinton.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[HS Thomas]

JFK had a record that rivalled if not exceeded Clinton's. And if archive footage is to be believed (we get a regular dose of that) he was the public's most beloved President. I'm not sure what he actually did for America.

[Paul Stevens]

That is correct. Kathleen claimed she was groped.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

The possiblility of winning on electoral votes while losing the popular vote has always been a possibility, and indeed, has happened before.

Grover Cleveland versus Benjamin Harrison, election of 1888 (I think). Cleveland won the popular vote by at least 51-49, but lost in the electoral college. Cleveland come back four years later and beat Harrison.

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
It is for this reason that I hold people who condemn the "false election" of Bush in deepest contempt. They have no sense of sportsmanship or fair play; no intellectual integrity. They are cheaters.

Failed cheaters at best, Frank.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
JFK had a record that rivalled if not exceeded Clinton's. And if archive footage is to be believed (we get a regular dose of that) he was the public's most beloved President. I'm not sure what he actually did for America.

Exceeded Clinton's in what respect, HS? Fornication? Preparation? JFK's daddy put him in the White House, Clinton did it on his own.
I don't believe it! He's got me defending Clinton......
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[HS Thomas]

Well, JFK did have a reputation with the ladies. The footage didn't show any filing of suits. Lets face it JFK was an icon of the 60s world wide.
Hell, if it wasn't for JFK we'd have had Charles as King by now. If Charles had been born a decade earlier we might even have had Charles as Emperor had he become what JFK was in the 60s. I am just going by archive footage, mind you. (Only joking! No need to roll out the guillotine).
Oh !, do they still hang 'em in Texas ?
regards
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

(Only joking! No need to roll out the guillotine).

It's my impression that they have that in mind for the next time Bush visits Paris.... In the middle of the Place de la Concorde, no doubt....

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Oh !, do they still hang 'em in Texas ?

Nope. Texans are humanitarians. Lethal injection....

[Al Newman]

Let's look at the resumes of two other well-regarded Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman.
Lincoln (along with Bush very poorly-regarded in London and Paris):
Highest office held: One-term in House of Representatives. Member Illinois State Legislature.
Losing campaigns: US Senate, Illinois, 1858
Business experience: Failed at a shopkeeping venture
Formal Education: One or two years at a frontier school
Military experience: Militia captain during short-lived (and genocidal) Sauk War during 1830s.
Nickname: The Baboon
Truman:
Highest executive office held: Magistrate, Jackson County, Missouri
Highest office: US Senator 1937-1944
Business experience: Failed Haberdasher, failed or succeeded indifferently at a number of other ventures
Formal education: High School
Military experience: Captain of Artillery in WWI, Army reserves 1917-1945
Truman was known as the 'Senator from Prendergast' after his political mentor and supporter, Thomans Prendergast and the Prendergast organization. The Prendergasts ran the US most notorious political machine during the 30's, and Thomas Prendergast died in jail after being convicted of a list of offenses including fraud and bribery. Prendergast was instrumental in Truman's election(s) to the Jackson County magistracy (like a county executive in modern terms) and to the US Senate in 1936.
Note that this is not a complete biography of either Lincoln or Truman, just as the original post consists of carefully-selected biographical snippets from the Bush career slanted against him. Both Truman and Lincoln had a reputation for honesty in business. Lincoln was an extremely successful private lawyer and Truman a highly competent and honest county administrator who paved the roads in Jackson county without allowing graft as well as the distinguished chairman of the 'Truman Commission' while in the Senate.
But there can be little doubt that Bush's formal qualifications and experience for the US Presidency exceed those of either Lincoln or Truman. Many others were also formally better-prepared, including Clinton, Carter, Nixon, and Hoover. This is not to argue that these men were superior Presidents in office however.
If the resume was the complete story, Herbert Hoover would undoubtably be the greatest President of US History rather than the complete disaster he actually was....
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

How about answering the question? Who do you nominate for "World Leader Without Blemish"? Or is this just a pure bashing thread? If so, who's your favorite President? Perhaps others can take a few shots.

I'm sorry, I thought the question was rhetorical. I have no nominee. But if you mean to imply that we can't find any better material for president than what our current president has to offer -- well, let's just say you'd have to be a whole lot more cynical than I am.
That said, I think you can look at the entire list of elements presented for our current President, and assess for yourself whether you'd vote for anyone with that kind of track record.
I don't know what would inspire anyone to have a favorite President. I do have ones I generally disliked but I'll admit to their successes, depending on the company. There are Presidents I have liked but have few problems seeing their shortcomings, depending on the company. Given the nature and mess of politics, though, makes sense to me to admire actions taken by their intent, results, or both. Then you add them up and see what you've got.

[Al Newman]

What about Herbert Hoover, Michael? Hoover's career reminds me what Livy wrote about the Emperor Galba (Nero's first successor). Paraphrased, it was roughly Universally accaimed as fit to be Emperor - had he not been emperor!.
Lincoln's and Truman's backgrounds were not at all impressive, in contrast, yet Lincoln is clearly one of the two best Presidents in history, and Truman clearly in the top ten.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Joe Pluta]

You'll post some second-hand comments skewering the choice of roughly half the voters in America, but you don't have anyone better to propose, nor can you point to any better who have been elected.
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

Presided as the United Nations removed the US from the Human Rights Commission.
TP: Do you think this is the fault of the president or the UN? And since this occurred in May 2001, wouldn't this actually be the fault of the prior administration since we were voted out for our support of Israel in the prior 10 years?
ME: I figure in any administration, you get some wins from "prior administrations," for which the present administration can absolutely be expected to claim for itself, especially when the previous administration comes from another political party. And it stands to reason there is some baggage, for which the previous administration can absolutely be expected to take the blame, especially when the previous administration comes from another political party.
So the notion of presiding over these events is exactly that. Whatever caused it, that president was there when it happened. And, if you're feeling particularly cold, I suppose you could add "and the current President did nothing to stop it when given the chance." That goes on ad infinitum in politics.
TP: But I get the impression that Michael has no interest in debating anything. He is merely posting something he found on the internet without bothering to check any of the facts.
ME: I could check them out myself, or I could wait for Bush loyalists to rebut them. My way is less work, more information.
I spent my time in gradute school and corporate America; I know how to get others to do my work for me.
TP: Michael, since you claim Bush refused a drug test why not tell us exactly when this happened and under what circumstances?
ME: I could disclose my sources to you, but then I'd have to kill you.

[Michael Ernest]

AN: What about Herbert Hoover, Michael? Hoover's career reminds me what Livy wrote about the Emperor Galba (Nero's first successor). Paraphrased, it was roughly Universally accaimed as fit to be Emperor - had he not been emperor!.
ME: Herbert Hoover?? My problems are today, man. In 1994 I was tired of academia, and I went looking and bam! I found work in another industry. I grew; my salary grew. I had multiple job opportunities every time I looked. By 2000 I was running a successful business of my own.
Since then? Hey, take a look for yourself. We can each argue who's really to blame if we want. But I'm asking if we're better off now than we were 4 years ago. If your answer is like mine -- no -- you start looking to your leadership. What I may have looked past in a Clinton has everything to do with the fact that I was doing just fine. Do I admire the man for his strength of personal character? Please. Did I enjoy a growing economy and a chance to do better over those same years? Absolutely.
AN: Lincoln's and Truman's backgrounds were not at all impressive, in contrast, yet Lincoln is clearly one of the two best Presidents in history, and Truman clearly in the top ten.
ME: George W. Bush was born into a well-heeled, politically powerful and societally well-connected family. His father went to Yale, was a war hero, and served as President of the United States. He went to Yale, shirked active military duty, got into alcohol and drugs, never ran a successful business, has managed to seal or hide records of his past businesses (publicly-traded ones, mind you) AND many records surrounding his gubernatorial tenure.
We're not talking about an "unimpressive past" here, Alfred, we're talking about one that is suspect. It's hard to ask the question "why are things the way they are now?" and not look to the current administration as a cause rather than an entity beset with a host of inherited problems.
The election of a George W. Bush, and the reasons why, are open to interpretation as well. But it's easy enough to smirk at a party so enamored of moral outrage as a political weapon to find itself championing a man who couldn't possibly meet their implied standards -- unless their man is elected, and the moral outrage is in fact just that -- a means to an end.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Frank Silbermann]

I think Bush's qualification for President was that he was a very popular two-term governor of a large and powerful state. He won the support of many people from the opposition party while keeping the support of people in his own party.
So he didn't have _many_ qualifications, but that one was a biggie. And yeah, he was a bad boy as a youth. But unlike JFK and Clinton, he seems to have stopped all that before beginning his political career. As the rabbis say, "A Bal Techuva (one who gives up a sinful life to become righteous) has achieved more than the Tzaddik (a saintly man who has never tasted sin)."
As for the economy, I look at it this way. I had some friends with only moderate Java/Corba experience who were recruited for high paying jobs at Cysco in early December 2000. The week they were hired, Cysco announced a hiring freeze, and _very_ shortly thereafter announced that they would be cutting 20% of their workforce. Overnight the Java world changed, and Bush hadn't even become President yet, for all practical purposes.
I don't credit Clinton with the boom years (for some reason, nobody credits the 1994 Republican Congress for the boom economy), and I don't blame Bush for the bust. Neither Clinton nor Bush taught schemers that this was how they should get rich:
(1) Get a pile of venture capital,
(2) Hire a bunch of new Java programmers right out of college for unbelievable salaries,
(3) Create an unsellable product,
(4) Go IPO (initial public offering) to pay off the venture capitalists,
(5) Sell your personal shares in your secretly worthless company to people captivated by the latest version of the Dutch Tulip Bulb craze, thereby replacing the brick-'n-morter stocks that previously filled out their 401k retirement portfolios,
(6) Get out rich.
What, exactly, do you think Bush should have done to keep this idiocy going, or that could have saved the country from facing the consequences of so many bad decisions?

[Michael Ernest]

JM: The anti-Bush types in America don't seem particularly interested in what's good for the country as a whole though.
I'm sure that observation gets made by no small number of people at any time. Just replace "Bush" with whomever.

[Michael Ernest]

FS: I think Bush's qualification for President was that he was a very popular two-term governor of a large and powerful state. He won the support of many people from the opposition party while keeping the support of people in his own party.
ME: I wouldn't call that a "qualification" so much as means to achieve national exposure. As to the second sentence, it's a throwaway cliche.
FS: As the rabbis say, "A Bal Techuva (one who gives up a sinful life to become righteous) has achieved more than the Tzaddik (a saintly man who has never tasted sin)."
ME: Does one who hides his own personal, business, and civic shortcomings to pursue a political career achieve more than one who doesn't?
FS: For some reason, nobody credits the 1994 Republican Congress for the boom economy.
ME: Does the 1994 "Republican Congress" credit itself for the boom economy? Or are you saying it really is Republicans we can blame for setting up the structure that deregulated utilities on the premise that states like California would see fierce competition for their energy business?
FS: Neither Clinton nor Bush taught schemers that this was how they should get rich:
(Usual fingerpointing at the IPO craze)
ME: I have to agree. I don't think Kenneth Lay has learned a thing from George W. Bush. Bush, however, does seem to have learned when to keep his eyes shut and his mouth closed if Lay is talking. Meanwhile Enron's customers, competitors, employees and their pension plans are soaked for everything. That's a lesson in maximizing returns right there.
Who are you thinking of in the wild-and-woolly VC/IPO world that set the economy on its heels? Those upstarts at WorldCom? The brat pack at Arthur Andersen? Those youthful upstarts at Tyco, or Bear Stearns? Maybe it's those imps at Enron? Y'know, fresh out of college, full of barnyard vitality and ready to teach world markets a lesson with their own impetuous brand of mucking about?
FS: What, exactly, do you think Bush should have done to keep this idiocy going
ME: I think he did all he could, and it collapsed anyway. Yet another Bush success story!
FS: or that could have saved the country from facing the consequences of so many bad decisions?
ME: You mean his own, right? He could have resigned by now -- that would help.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Paul Stevens]

Such a hypocrite.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
But I'm asking if we're better off now than we were 4 years ago. If your answer is like mine -- no -- you start looking to your leadership.

So I guess you would have voted against FDR in 1944 and against Lincoln in 1864.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

So I guess you would have voted against FDR in 1944 and against Lincoln in 1864.

And I would have kicked it clean through the uprights to win Super Bowl XXV.
Like I said above, my problems are today. You and I both inherited the America FDR and Lincoln left behind, Thomas. And the one left behind by Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...you get the idea. There's no one thing in the past that's worth second-guessing because there's no one past.
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Such a hypocrite.

Not the most compelling rebuttal ever, Paul. The good news is you're spending a lot less time on this than I am....at least I hope that's the case.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Like I said above, my problems are today.

Yep, your problems are definitely today. Fortunately, there are medications that can help you.

[Michael Ernest]

JP: You'll post some second-hand comments skewering the choice of roughly half the voters in America,
ME: You can "skewer the choice of roughly half the voters in America" if that's what you want to say, Joe; this is America. Elsewhere you seemed quite pleased to point how great it is that we have that liberty.
JP: but you don't have anyone better to propose
ME: for a new President? You didn't ask me that before. Tom Daschle and Rudy Giuliani come immediately to mind.
JP: nor can you point to any better who have been elected.
ME: You didn't ask me that either, Joe. You asked me if I had a "favorite." Better presidents than GWB, in my opinion? Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt (even in 1944!)...tell you what. Why don't you name ten presidents you think Bush II clearly is better than?