I would say (a) except that it cannot be said his presidency was right or proper, in that it has caused (directly and indirectly) the death and misery of untold numbers.
also, I fear that his failures will go unnoticed by future generations, his fabricated victories celebrated by a new generation of glib-minded patriots: the Ronald Reagan of Generation Z. What is it that motivates so many to wilfully ignore this man's obvious deficiencies? To secure what they believe to be self-interest? But his policies make us all poorer, in all senses of the term.
I fear we are in the opening chapters of a long, shameful period. Nobody remembers how shitty Tiberius was; Caligula came right after.
Regarding (a), when's the last time a president was less well-regarded after his term in office than he was during it? It seems like we remember the successes and forget the failures.
JFK it seems to me has seen his reputation steadily fall since his interrupted time in office, defenders of Camelot notwithstanding.
It might seem impossible that Lyndon Johnson's reputation could sink further than it was in 1968, but I'd now say that it has. Yeah, sure, there's been a reappreciation of his evil genius as a political operator, but not only has he managed to retain a lion's share of the blame for Vietnam, but also most of the Great Society's programs have been repudiated not just by Goldwater conservatives but by the political mainstream, even many liberals.
Ike is a wash, reputation-wise: probably has had a slight rise in his rep.
Truman, as we all know, has seen a major improvement in his reputation over his time in office.
Nixon, I dunno, but at least you could say he's not any worse off in reputational terms.
Reagan has come up even among some of his strongest enemies given how mild some of his Administration seems compared to recent events.
Carter, a wash. People who kind of liked him then like him much more now, people who hated him then hate him more now, and people who were not even born then have been taught by their elders to do one or the other.
Ford? Who's that?
Bush the Elder? Does he actually have a reputation that can meaningfully rise or fall?
teh Greeks also had a term meaning "wide asshole" which was generally used in the situations where we would use "jerk." I wish that one had evolved into something we now use, but it didn't. Them Greeks.
Bush isn't singularly bad. He's a dull mediocrity who has failed upward all the way to the highest seat of power on Earth. I would feel oddly comforted were he some sort of Nixonian evil genius, but he so obviously isn't. He's just terminally incurious, simplistic, and stubborn.
So for me, its b and c. But c makes me see red much more quickly.
"The survey also found that Americans were sharply divided over the performance of Bush and local, state and federal governments in the aftermath of Monday's storm. Slightly less than half -- 46 percent -- approve of the way Bush has handled relief efforts while 47 percent disapprove, a result that might offer some cheer to beleaguered White House staffers who feared a stronger negative reaction."
Re: 20 and 21: It was in poor taste but it's plenty accurate. Bush's approval rating has dipped to the low 40s plenty of times, and it's become clear that this is less a sign of his political weakness than it is the sign of the mindless fervor of his base: he's got a good 40% that will support him no matter what he does in Iraq, no matter what he does to the Court, no matter how he fucks this country today, tomorrow, or the next week. It's the hacks and the sycophants that piss me off the most, because they're his accomplices in all of this.
Would it be worth it to demand Bush's resignation? I'm inclined to say that the answer is no, but, God, I wish that it were otherwise. Sorry to be--slightly--off topic.
I don't know -- demand it. I've been picking up talk of that, here and there. Gross neglect of the duties of the office has always been mentioned as an impeachable offense. There's the problem that Republicans control congress, and there aren't many principled ones left. But what harm could such talk do? I think we are past the point of worrying about scaring moderates -- there aren't any.
DOn't you both think that if we could get Bush out, we'd get rid of Cheney too. Now, I don't much like the idea of President Hastert, but still. (I'd be much happier with President Pelosi.)
I often say that if we had tape of Bush raping kidnapped Filipino boys, his supporters would see it as outreach to both the gay and Asian communities, so I think your example was kind of classy. The larger problem is that his supporters get to vote even after he leaves office; we could be screwed for a very, very long time.
Right now, a lot of us are comparing Bush's response with what we would expect from Clinton. For me, the salient point on this is as follows. Clinton was able to effectively govern the nation *while receiving a blow job*. Bush can't even manage to both govern and deal with the brush problem on his ranch. I hate him so much I can't stand it.
If I'm not mistaken, the CNN crawl just said that Brown and Bush both said it was difficult to prepare for a disaster that spread across several states. I don't think it's too much to suggest that they seek less demanding work.
Tim: LBJ? Really? From where I sit he gets most of the credit for the civil rights movement, now that people realize it was him and not JFK who did most of the work.
A mix of (b) and (c), I think. As regards to (a), he could have just stayed in Texas and screwed that place up, and gone down in more local infamy.
And (d) because he doesn't care about black people.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 6:47 PM
I should be accurate, and say he could have screwed Texas up even more than he already had.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 6:48 PM
I would say (a) except that it cannot be said his presidency was right or proper, in that it has caused (directly and indirectly) the death and misery of untold numbers.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 7:52 PM
also, I fear that his failures will go unnoticed by future generations, his fabricated victories celebrated by a new generation of glib-minded patriots: the Ronald Reagan of Generation Z. What is it that motivates so many to wilfully ignore this man's obvious deficiencies? To secure what they believe to be self-interest? But his policies make us all poorer, in all senses of the term.
I fear we are in the opening chapters of a long, shameful period. Nobody remembers how shitty Tiberius was; Caligula came right after.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 8:09 PM
cocks and titties! cocks and titties!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 8:19 PM
My understanding was that sycophant came from "fig-shower," i.e., one whose scrotum (the fig) is showing as one bends over, presenting one's ass.
Posted by dj moonbat | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 8:22 PM
Regarding (a), when's the last time a president was less well-regarded after his term in office than he was during it? It seems like we remember the successes and forget the failures.
Posted by Duvall | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 8:24 PM
JFK it seems to me has seen his reputation steadily fall since his interrupted time in office, defenders of Camelot notwithstanding.
It might seem impossible that Lyndon Johnson's reputation could sink further than it was in 1968, but I'd now say that it has. Yeah, sure, there's been a reappreciation of his evil genius as a political operator, but not only has he managed to retain a lion's share of the blame for Vietnam, but also most of the Great Society's programs have been repudiated not just by Goldwater conservatives but by the political mainstream, even many liberals.
Ike is a wash, reputation-wise: probably has had a slight rise in his rep.
Truman, as we all know, has seen a major improvement in his reputation over his time in office.
Nixon, I dunno, but at least you could say he's not any worse off in reputational terms.
Reagan has come up even among some of his strongest enemies given how mild some of his Administration seems compared to recent events.
Carter, a wash. People who kind of liked him then like him much more now, people who hated him then hate him more now, and people who were not even born then have been taught by their elders to do one or the other.
Ford? Who's that?
Bush the Elder? Does he actually have a reputation that can meaningfully rise or fall?
Clinton, too early to say.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 9:02 PM
Rehnquist is dead.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 9:24 PM
Re: 9: we're fucked. Tapped is saying it'll be Gonzales. Wave goodbye to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 9:47 PM
this is not a good week.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 9:52 PM
teh Greeks also had a term meaning "wide asshole" which was generally used in the situations where we would use "jerk." I wish that one had evolved into something we now use, but it didn't. Them Greeks.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 9:56 PM
What's so great about the 5th amendment?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:08 PM
Rehnquist is dead.
Boy, but Congress is going to be busy.
Bush isn't singularly bad. He's a dull mediocrity who has failed upward all the way to the highest seat of power on Earth. I would feel oddly comforted were he some sort of Nixonian evil genius, but he so obviously isn't. He's just terminally incurious, simplistic, and stubborn.
So for me, its b and c. But c makes me see red much more quickly.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:13 PM
I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.
Damn.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:24 PM
there is also an ancient Greek term, "he who is fucked by the Gods," that was often used, and now universally applicable.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:31 PM
who would have thought a bunch of liberals would be mourning Rehnquist? I liked him though.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:33 PM
And they still love him:
"The survey also found that Americans were sharply divided over the performance of Bush and local, state and federal governments in the aftermath of Monday's storm. Slightly less than half -- 46 percent -- approve of the way Bush has handled relief efforts while 47 percent disapprove, a result that might offer some cheer to beleaguered White House staffers who feared a stronger negative reaction."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 10:49 PM
Maybe this time it'll be Clement? Appoint a woman, but don't appear to care about gender balance to maintain your anti-political correctness creds.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 11:02 PM
I really think Bush could eat a starving baby on television and obtain approval from at least 40% of the voting populace for the act.
I mean, we went through all of this last November.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 11:13 PM
that comment was in poor taste. apologies.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 11:15 PM
Re: 20 and 21: It was in poor taste but it's plenty accurate. Bush's approval rating has dipped to the low 40s plenty of times, and it's become clear that this is less a sign of his political weakness than it is the sign of the mindless fervor of his base: he's got a good 40% that will support him no matter what he does in Iraq, no matter what he does to the Court, no matter how he fucks this country today, tomorrow, or the next week. It's the hacks and the sycophants that piss me off the most, because they're his accomplices in all of this.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 09- 3-05 11:58 PM
Would it be worth it to demand Bush's resignation? I'm inclined to say that the answer is no, but, God, I wish that it were otherwise. Sorry to be--slightly--off topic.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 12:22 AM
I don't know -- demand it. I've been picking up talk of that, here and there. Gross neglect of the duties of the office has always been mentioned as an impeachable offense. There's the problem that Republicans control congress, and there aren't many principled ones left. But what harm could such talk do? I think we are past the point of worrying about scaring moderates -- there aren't any.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 12:42 AM
Would it be worth it to have a de jure instead of just a de facto President Cheney? Eh, what would be the point.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 1:13 AM
there's that.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 1:19 AM
DOn't you both think that if we could get Bush out, we'd get rid of Cheney too. Now, I don't much like the idea of President Hastert, but still. (I'd be much happier with President Pelosi.)
Damn, we are so fucked.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 1:28 AM
So, will Mike Brown just end up with a Presidential Medal of Freedom, or will Bush toss him the Rehnquist seat?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 7:10 AM
text:
I often say that if we had tape of Bush raping kidnapped Filipino boys, his supporters would see it as outreach to both the gay and Asian communities, so I think your example was kind of classy. The larger problem is that his supporters get to vote even after he leaves office; we could be screwed for a very, very long time.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 9:02 AM
speaking of, any chance whatsoever that Michael Brown can be prosecuted on criminal negligence charges?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 10:22 AM
AFAIK, all officials are essentially immune for any decision they make qua official. There may well be exceptions to this which I am not aware of.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 10:38 AM
Right now, a lot of us are comparing Bush's response with what we would expect from Clinton. For me, the salient point on this is as follows. Clinton was able to effectively govern the nation *while receiving a blow job*. Bush can't even manage to both govern and deal with the brush problem on his ranch. I hate him so much I can't stand it.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 11:52 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the CNN crawl just said that Brown and Bush both said it was difficult to prepare for a disaster that spread across several states. I don't think it's too much to suggest that they seek less demanding work.
Tim: LBJ? Really? From where I sit he gets most of the credit for the civil rights movement, now that people realize it was him and not JFK who did most of the work.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 12:52 PM
It's because he's president -- otherwise, he would just be the guy you avoid at parties.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09- 4-05 1:07 PM