This is not in praise or condemnation of President Bush or any member of his administration.

Now that the disclaimer is in place, let's take a look at the "8 years of damage..."

1. The last time before 9/11 there was an attack on US soil was in the 1940's. Prior to that time the US was neutral regarding the Axis initiatives in Europe and Asia. Once the attack on US soil the sitting president (a Democrat, no less) committed the military and Congress affirmed. The result in the eyes of some back then was only that there were 292,000 US killed-in-action and a staggering debt -to be paid by their grandchildren-. Was the Democratic president correct, and how infallible was the intelligence information given him, especially since the US did not have anything like the US Intelligence Community of today? And the Intelligence Community of today, now headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a far sight better funded and organized now compared to the semi-dismantled state prior to the Year 2000 - meaning that the next President will have a better picture of the world and its innerworkings than the current President had inherited.

2. The mortgage crisis centers around an overtly-inflated housing market of 2004 and the 99% 3- and 5-year balloon-payment mortgages people took on those homes. I bought-and-sold houses in 2004, and one of those houses has a 5-year balloon-payment mortgage (but not anywhere near that 99% then-value). That purchase was a personal financial decision knowing full-well that markets go up-and-down. Why should all of us, as we are the government, become the aftereffect insurer for those who made risky business deals? The Executive Branch does not have any authority to commit public funds for a post-act insurance payoff (that's Congress' sole domain).

3. NAFTA first got life during President G.H.W Bush, but was fought for by President Clinton and signed by him after passage by a Republican-majority Congress (the Democratic vote was split). For those who are anti-NAFTA, you can blame them all, Republican and Democrat of that era. The current administration has to live with NAFTA being the law of the land and insure it is being followed as written - not a very popular job to inherit.

The bottom line is - we have a President who heads the Executive Branch of the government. S/he does not head the Legislative or Judicial Branch. As a result, we do not have an ersatz king or dictator who "rules" the populace. Yet, it seems like there is a perception that the next President will be an economic, military and diplomatic Pied Piper, able to lead away the rats of the world by playing a pretty tune and making the town merry again.

Personally, I hope the next President is a tough, well-tested, mean SOB (or DOB?) able to alley-fight with the best of them, while at the same time having the managerial skill to keep a 2.5Million employee workforce running on-time and within-budget. Snappy catch-phrases are Pied Piper tunes, and end up sounding hollow in the end.

So, when I look at the three Senators who look to be on the ballot, I ask myself who's the meanest, smartest, toughest, most-experienced and least-naive. Luckily, I still have a few months to make up my mind.

Steve, given your criteria, sounds like Hillary is your (wo)man. No question the woman is tough and can be downright mean. There's also no question she is smart and I doubt she has a naive bone in her body -- Bill made sure of that with his behavior through the years. Obama would have to be out of the picture given the fact he's not shown himself to be mean, just smart.

McCain was tough enough to survive a POW camp, but I'm not convinced he has the political toughness this job requires -- he seems to have won the Republican nomination more by default or the lesser of evil choices than by showing any real strength IMO. Could be wrong on that one. To me, he's kinda a nice guy who won't finish last but probably won't finish first. He's been a political creature too long to be naive. I think he's intelligent but I do believe Hillary has him seriously beat in the brains department. Guess he does win in the most experienced department, unless you count the years Hillary served as Bill's second-in-command.

And, no, I'm not advocating HRC as the next Prez. I'm still on the fence. I like Obama's words but I doubt he would get my vote -- just not enough experience to make me comfortable and I'm not convinced I would be thrilled with his choice of advisors.

For me, the deciding factor is who will be the advisors, the Cabinet and will the President listen to the advisors yet be strong enough to say, "No, this is my decision and it stands, right or wrong." after listening to all the facts and weighing them well and honestly. I would also expect the President to be able to say, "You're right, I hadn't considered that aspect. We'll either go your way or shelve the idea for now." I don't want a bully for President. I also don't want a milquetoast.

While I have some definite ideas about who should be the next President of the U.S., I see little need to post a message here that can be categorized as "Bush-bashing".

On the other hand, I feel that I must respond when some post equally narrow and unbalanced opinion complementing the current administration for doing a good job while in office.

I think maybe a reasonable way to assess what is really correct is to simply answer a few questions. Following may not be the most complete list of questions one might ask about the political leadership of the last eight years, but it might offer a good start.

• Does the American public feel good about their current situation and their future?
• Is there a general feeling of confidence in the leadership being provided by the President and the Congress?
• Is there broad support for remaining in the longest war in U.S. history?
• Does it now appear that the loss of more than 4,000 American lives and what now appears to be more than $1 trillion in U.S. treasure will result in resolution of the unsettled political and religious situation in the Middle East? Or has our involvement there made the situation worse?
• The current administration ran on a platform of high moral standards. Yet over 5% of the Congress--mostly from the President's own political party--have been indicted, convicted, or are currently under federal investigation. As recently as today, a member of the President's cabinet had to resign under the cloud of pending prosecution. That's the second member of the cabinet to join several other senior members of the executive branch in resigning in shame. Has the morality claimed as a platform by this President been upheld?
• In only eight years our country has become the greatest debtor nation in world history. The annual federal deficit has gone from a positive $400 billion to a negative $700 billion with a total deficit now nearing $1 trillion. Has this administration governed with a responsible fiscal policy?
• The number of Americans without access to healthcare has increased in eight years. Both the Social Security trust fund and particularly Medicare are now within a few years of insolvency. Has the administration lead responsibly on these subjects?
• The negative imbalance of our international trade with other countries continues to increase in spite of the fact that we have permitted the value of the U.S. dollar decline to the lowest level in history. We no longer actually manufacture any of the important products that our economy was previously known for. Our gross domestic product is now comprised of profits from financial trading, software, retail sales of imported goods and services. Our largest single export item is scrap metal. Has the administration provided economic leadership in the least eight years?
• Our children now rank below the top 25 countries in the world in standardized test scores at the high school level. U.S. employers regularly complain that they cannot find competent, trained people to fill their jobs. They move offshore to get competent employees at a reasonable price and are castigated for doing so. Who is really at fault for this problem?
• There is repeated and clear evidence that our elected representatives are willingly and enthusiastically beholden to special interest lobbyists. Yet no particular leadership has been provided to reverse the influence of special interests. Should we expect more from both the President and members of Congress?
• Anyone who has studied the operation of the U.S. government says that the polarity between the major political parties is worse than at any time in memory. Has any leadership been exhibited that would reduce this problem and permit governance to proceed under more statesmanlike conditions? Or have actions by this President actually made the problem worse?
• Our economy is almost certainly now in recession. When this President took office, economic growth and stability and consumer confidence were at decade-long highs. The economic decline from where we were at the beginning of the first term of the current President and where we are today is unprecedented. Should the President be complemented for his economic leadership?
• The reputation of the U.S. among the world of nations has declined to disappointing lows. Americans are so hated and disrespected in many parts of the world that it is unsafe for us to travel there. Almost all learned observers say that we have squandered our moral leadership in the world of nations. That was almost certainly not the case during the administration of the previous President. Can the situation be reversed with a new administration beginning in 2009?

---------------------------------------------

I hope this note isn't categorized as "Bush bashing". What I do hope is that people think about some of these issues--maybe even ALL of these issues--as they prepare to select the candidate they will support in the November Presidential Election.

:bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup: Great post Kahuna!

Kahuna,
Thank You!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Villages Kahuna!!!!
You said it all extremely well.





P.S. I wish we could clone you and vote your clone into office!

Very well said, Kahuna. Add another thank you to the mix!

KAHUNA I TOTALY AGREE And I Can't see how anybody can disagree
:hot: :hot: :beer2: :hot:

Kahuna,

While I may question a couple of the points, the bottom line is that you are "on the money" when it comes to the fact that Americans need to really review all of the issues important to them and vote in the same manner as if they were hiring an employee who will have "signature authority" for them on many financial and safety issues.

Your points were well articulated, and it would sure be nice if any of the candidates provide substance in how they would make life better, or solve specific problems, or resolve issues, as opposed to the finger-pointing, catch-phrasing BS that has predominated the campaigns so far.

The "I have a plan, but I can't tell you what it is..." tactic really turns me off. That's just a political tease. It sort of like someone offering to sell you a house, but you can't look inside it, count the number of rooms, or even flip a light switch until the papers have passed.

The dialogue on this board has been great - and my thanks to all on it, even if our opinions are different. That's what makes it great, and the sharing of thoughts helps us all to learn and understand more.

...and Red - Hillary's claim of being "experienced" rings hollow to me. A couple years as a Senator (no different than Sen. Obama) and 8 years of sideline-watching as First Lady (no different than other First Ladies who may have had influence, but no authority or responsibility) doesn't equate as 'experience' to be a Chief Executive. I will grant you that she is tough in a Margaret Thatcher way. Now, if she came forth with specifics instead of sound-bites on "solutions" rather than "complaints," I could still be swayed....

Now I have to defend my girl Hillary ;D When she was First Lady, every single day in the media we heard that she was too involved with making White House Decisions. Now, it doesn't count as experience! You can't have it both ways. As for laying out plans, I don't know what everyone else is hearing because it baffles me that they keep saying no solutions are being given. In every debate and on every talk show, from both Hillary and Obama, I hear "This is my plan and this is how I plan to do it or pay for it." and then they proceed to lay it out. This "no solutions" BS has been buzzing around from both sides and I just simply don't understand it. Open your ears, open your minds and listen. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

...When she was First Lady, every single day in the media we heard that she was too involved with making White House Decisions. Now, it doesn't count as experience! You can't have it both ways.

Sorry, but "experience" happens when you have authority AND responsibility. She had neither as spouse of the President. I have yet to hear President Clinton say or admit that his spouse actually made any decision or was involved in any way other than as an "interested party."

As far as the press is concerned, the Fourth Estate's record for accuracy is not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

My ears are open, as well as my mind, and I don't rely on the Fourth Estate as my sole body of information.

As far as 'plans' are concerned, the candidates (all three of them!) have been slim on specifics, and instead have at best stated 'goals' they would like to attain. Actual 'plans' on how to attain those 'goals' have been invisible. Again, that's true for all of them.

Perhaps, when it becomes a two-person race the specifics on some 'goals' will be presented if for no other reason than the competition for votes may demand it. Until then, it's still a beauty pageant.

How can you even say he is the worst when you were alive for the worst president of all time - Jimmy Carter? Well, maybe Hoover was worse.
I think you guys are way to hard on Bush - never mind he inherited a recession and gave us 6 years of good times - now things are slowing down a bit and everybody jumps on the poor dude - none of you in TV seem to be suffering much.

Here are the presidents I lived through and my grades-
Kennedy - way overated, but had good vision - ended up NOT getting us all killed, last of the conservative tax cutting dems - B

Johnson - Civil rights gives him a boost, plus a pretty solid economy - C+

Nixon - man, talk about a guy who go a raw deal, if he would have been a dem, would never have left office - good on foreign policy, not great on economics - remember price controls?? yikes - C-

Jimmy Carter - when you invent a new economic term, you are really doing bad - and his foreign policy was horrid - remember the daily count of Iran and the prisoners - almost destroyed this country single handedly - F-

Ronald Reagan - Thank God you came along, rest in peace. Anybody that even tries to argue that Reagan and Volker did not save this country from the abyss has absolutely no economics training (I do by the way, and teach economics as an adjunct at the local college). 30 years of prosperity and kids who don't really know what a bad economy even looks like, and won the cold war for a sideshow. The only blemish is not standing up to congress and getting a balanced budget - still give him an A - look at the competition.

Bush 1 - Raised taxes - stupid and ended up with a mild recession which cost him a second term. Wimpy too, and should have gone on to Baghdad back then - C

Clinton - First term - Democrat - F, Second Term - turned into a conservitive - NAFTA and welfare reform - I think the Republicans should have backed off on the impeachment, it was a wast of time, although he SHOULD have been impeached for the felony of lying under oath - if he had an R behind his name, he would have resigned in his 6th year..oh well - I still give him a B in his second term despite being asleep at the switch on terrorism - a C overall

Bush 2 - another Democrat with an R behind his name - the guy is more liberal than Clinton is some ways - Medicare Drugs???? No Child left behind?? That is liberalism with a capital L. Offset with an overall good economy(have to judge 8 years guys), no attacks after 9/11, good judge picks and tax cuts. More negatives is how the war went for far too long, and immigration - why can't we seal the darn borders? I give him a C also.


Pretty bad that in 44 years we have only had one guy that was a standout - and we may not have another in my lifetime at the rate we are going. I hope Johnny M is elected and proves me wrong, but we don't have a great track record do we....

The worst part is that Congress is WORSE....

Reagan took over the country with the economy in a shambles, growing federal deficits, high interest rates and lousy consumer confidence. He both dramatically cut federal spending and at the same time got limited tax cuts passed. He was the first President in decades who told both the politicians and the public that you can't spend what you don't have...and made it stick! He was a superb communicator and had enough ability as a statesman to bring the farthest left and right factions together. And even though he came to office with limited foreign policy experience, he was soon respected around the world (remember, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!")

It's too bad he didn't serve one six-year term instead of two fours, because some of his subordinates (one being the well-known Daily Sun columnist, Olliver North) got his legs chopped out from under even though he may not have been culpable.

Having said that I agree with you on Ronnie doesn't mean I necessarily agree on some of the others. Sticking with the current resident of the White House, he took over with a mild recession but with a federal surplus being generated to the tune of about $400 billion a year. He turned that into the largest deficit in history with our country being the largest debtor in world history. He was and is an idealogue of the first order, running the country (into the ground, some say) seeking the counsel of almost no one but himself. He presided over a political constituency who became increasingly emboldened in feeding at the trough of the federal treasury. He has dragged both our national reputation as well as our financial strength and independence into a rat hole. He selected and supported apointees to his administration who demonstrated ghastly flaws in chaacter. And then there's the war. No, I can't give Dubya a C...not even close. He's in a tight race with Jimmy Carter as far as I'm concerned, except Carter is a more worthwhile and respectable human being.

But enough Bush-bashing...and my tirade immediately above was a bash, although it wasn't planned and came from the heart. More important than the bash, who have we got running for the job beginning in 2009 and what might they do? Do any of them have the cajones to force the Congress and cajole the public that we must return to pay-as-you-go? Do any of them have the potential to quickly return our country to one which is respected thruout the world? Do any of them have to potential to re-direct the world towards peace? Do any of them communicate well enough to convince America that we can and must change our ways? Will any of them "throw the money changers" out of Washington so that true "government by the people" can return? Will any of them stop the spending on unnecessaries and begin to expend our tax dollars in a way that will improve the lot of both Americans as well as other citizens of the world?

There's a couple of the candidates who have that potential, I think. I have a favorite, but I would gladly vote for the other as well.

Kahuna!

Kahuna, I overall like your style - but I have to disagree on a few things -

1. The war - you will find I am not going to back down on speaking my mind. Although I am not going to stand up for how he "conducted" the war, I will not stand by and let people just act like he went in alone. The Dems and everyone else voted for the war, and now want to go back and whine that it is all Bushes fault. The reality is that he did not lie, and nobody whined until it got a little hard. It is not like he was over there collecting intelligence - he and all the members of congress believed the intelligence. The reality is, the thing that should really scare us the most is "WHERE IS ALL THAT STUFF NOW???". We know it existed, so where did it go? He gassed the kurds with it, killing thousands, and where is it now? I pray it does not end up in an American city someday.

Of course, this will not matter until the next attack - do me a favor - print out this post and tack it to a bullitin board somewhere so when the next attack occurs, you can check it out.

2. I think you are Bashing when you say that Carter was more respectable, yada yada yada. I think Jimmy Carter was a wonderful person and a lousy president. Letting the hostages in Iran for 444 days is inexcusable, and worse than what we did in Iraq, sorry. I would rather be disliked by some than be the laughingstock of the world for 444 days. Jimmy Carter was a good person no doubt, I don't think GWB has done anything to make us think any different of him. All the junk about lying about WMD and all that is a bunch of malarchy(keeping it clean here :#1

Clinton on the other hand - scumbag extraordinaire - interns in the office? The guy ranks with the dude dating the pages in the senate.

3. The economy - I have to tell you, I am actually IN the economy every day (ok, I envy all you retired guys, big time). The media is overhyping just about everything. Our biggest concerns should be INFLATION and not a recession. Yes, we may end up with a mild recession on paper - but the job market is still incredibly strong (it surprises me, that is for sure, lots of jobs, no qualified people to fill them). Everything is going up in price - everything from China is up 30%, Steel is up 40%, Aluminum is up 25%, paper is up, plastics are up - and this is all in the last year. Demand is decent, and for many items it is actually strong (you can't sustain price increases without demand). A lot of this is the weak dollar, and that had to happen due to the trade deficit(which Bush did not create by the way, Americans did). Imports are fading and Exports are climbing - John Deere, Caterpillar, Bucyrus, P&H, Manitowoc Crane, Harley Davidson are all running at capacity to satisfy the export markets - the only issues are that many companies need to build a foreign sales force to take care of their new competitiveness. If the dollars stays low(It almost has too), this will correct itself and exports will continue to climb.

Although Credit is tight due to the subprime mess, it seems to be loosening up lately and I am sure will be back to normal in 6 months to a year.

My message is not to overreact about the economy. The media will be screaming how bad it is in an attempt to get Obama elected, just like they did in 2004 - when we were in the middle of a boom! Some people will believe it and most of us will continue to go to work everyday, and in a year we will look up and the stock market will be up 15% from current levels, GDP will be at 3% and unemployement around 5% - my only concern is that price levels will be up 5-10% at the same time - and that should be the concern of all of you who are living on a fixed income, NOT a recession.


Bottom line for me is that Bush will go down as another in a line of Mediocre presidents, not great, not bad, about the same as Clinton.

We won't really know for about 20 or more years until we have a little more objectivity, and see the results longer term of Iraq, etc.

Carter was long enough ago to really Judge - I can't for the life of me think of one thing good that came out of his presidency, except the election of Ronald Reagan.

Ed