Because even 12 year olds have computer access, I think it is important for me to point out what a great president is and what a miserable failure really is. If you don’t know why I am doing this, check here and here.
Reader Interactions
37Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Okay, I’ll Play
John Cole informs us:Because even 12 year olds have computer access, I think it is important for me to point out what a great president is and what a miserable failure really is. If you don’t know why I am…
-
GREAT PRESIDENT OR MISERABLE FAILURE
There is a movement afoot to link the words “miserable failure” to George W. Bush. I think it is kinda strange for a group of people to want to do something like this. But it is happening, and it is,…
-
Joining the Googlebomb brigade
I’ve decided to enlist in the Miserable Failure counteroffensive in my own particular way. The site will return to normal after a few days of Google indexing. (Yes, it’s childish. But they started it. So there.) Hat tip: fellow enlistee…
-
Of failures and presidents
Sometimes, in the history of the English language, certain words change definition, and it becomes a miserable failure for a lot of people to try and comprehend why… or even worse, it becomes a miserable failure for them to stop the turning tide of r…
-
Counter-Insurgency
Josh at bushblog is a little peeved that some anti-Bush lefties are Googlebombing President Bush’s biography and suggests emailing Google…
Steve Malynn
John you truely are a man of the people. Heh.
John Cole
Isn’t it absurd?
cameron
Well, 2 wrongs dont make a right, but if you take those 2 wrongs, add a maybe, divide that by 32, then take that total and subtract that from the number of planets in the solar system, and take the square root of that…then you have your right.
Which is what I think we have here.
Ralph Gizzip
You’re right, Cameron. Two wrongs DON’T make a right. But three lefts do.
mark
it is semantics I am sure, but put this on the site as another example of a great president in your lifetime.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html
Ken Hahn
Actually it’s pretty telling that the Democrats are devoted to winning the Google vote, Republicans prefer people. Of course in Chicago, St. Louis and other Democratic strongholds those 12 year olds may be voting, so we do need to defend the truth.
greg
Don’t forget Philadelphia, Ken. Twelve year olds, dead people, and family pets vote here, always for the Dem.
CadillaqJaq
Family ‘pets’ can’t vote in Boulder, CO… the liberal Mecca of the Front Range. The Boulder City Commisson earlier chose to outlaw the word ‘pet.’
Now your animal of choice is your ‘companion’ with the same legal rights as anyone else in your household.
(Realizing that this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I felt compelled to add it in an attempt to show how ‘out-of-it’ some liberal policies are.)
Kimmitt
I’m not sure that happening to be in office when September 11th happened precisely qualifies this President as being “great.”
wallster
Wow. That Hobbs guy is even more irritatingly ignorant than this blog. What a wacko!
Steve Malynn
Kimmitt, Mark probably has a better link for historical accuracy (RR), Bush 43 is a work in progress.
Wallster, remember Hobbs simply acted in defense to counter a rabid internet google. Who knew googles got rabid?
HH
Of course according to the left, a great president would have rushed to negotiate with the Taliban, Saddam, etc.
drew
What makes GWB great? Is it his poor post war planning skills? Is it his fiscal irresponsibility? His phony cowboy dress up? What is it I’m at a loss here?
This Democrat wants to know?
HH-
More great insight from you, and btw I personally wouldn’t want to negoitate with Saddam, but I would like some better diplomacy so we can have a great coalition like Gulf War 1.
HH
Well, let’s see he cut taxes and surprise! the economy’s coming back strong. He needs to cut spending of course big-time but 1 out of 2 ain’t bad.
Thus far we have liberated millions and Dems are still at a loss because “He has no plan!!!!!” Ho-hum.
HH
By the way, what was the “great coalition” we had when Billy Jeff bombed Iraq? Germany. That’s the only notable difference between then and now.
Kimmitt
“Well, let’s see he cut taxes and surprise! the economy’s coming back strong.”
If George W. Bush had literally done nothing over the course of his entire Presdency except have astounding, passionate sex with his lovely wife, the economy would eventually have come back. It’s called the business cycle, and you don’t need to borrow 3% of GDP a year for it to function.
Dean
Kimmitt:
Talk about disingenuous. I recall EARLIER THIS YEAR you talking about how bad a President Dubya was because of the recession that occurred on his watch.
Now, if you’re going to take this line, then when the economy swings up, you’re hardly in a position to claim that he had nothing to do with it.
Uh-uh.
Slartibartfast
I’m confident Kimmitt’s been active over at Brad DeLong’s site, defending Bush’s economic policies by saying in effect that the cycle is going to do its thing regardless of what Bush does.
CadillaqJaq
I wasn’t around here when we enjoyed the Clinton “boom years.’ Did Kimmet post the same things then? Or is this merely another self serving hypocritical way to defame GWB?
Curious about how the liberal mind functions…
Dean
CadillaqJag:
Wow! For a five-year old (since you weren’t around during the Clinton “boom years”), you show a remarkable facility with both keyboards and sentence-construction!
;-P
[That was meant as humor, FYI.]
Slartibartfast
To be fair, many Conservative minds function the same way. I think it goes along with being human, as opposed to having a particular political viewpoint.
I’d be the last to lay claim to logical impeccability. But I do try, and I try to know what the rules are.
Steve Malynn
Drew, Ronald Reagan was great for winning the Cold War, ask millions in the former Warsaw Pact Countries now free.
Bush, 41, is good for freeing Panama and Kuwait, but he let greatness slip away (failing to free Iraq, Bosnia, mixed results in Somalia – change of admin before anything could really be accomplished).
Bush, 43, freed millions of Iraqiis and Afganiis, and is still going. Seems a good start.
Compare Clinton and Carter – foreign policy failures.
Ford, a placekeeper who caved in to congressional cowardice.
Nixon, like Clinton could have been great but was merely coarse (economically a failure, good environmentally but gets no credit from the greens).
Johnson, the Civil Rights act of 1964 probably makes him great, but the “Great Society” was socialist failure, and he was inept in foreign policy.
Kennedy, made us feel good, and is considered great. Recovered from his Cuba blunders by facing down the Soviets.
Eisenhower, made us rich suburbanites, created the “car culture” by creating the interstate road system (he was amazed by German roads, and felt the US could do better). Often underestimated, probably the best ex-General President, except George Washington. [Jackson also has a claim as #2 General-President, but he was not as nice a man, and probably a genocide, twice – Seminole and Cherokee]
Ok, there is the list in my lifetime [not Washington or Jackson].
Dean
To give Clinton his due, in the area of international ECONOMIC policy, he wasn’t bad.
If only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only Clinton could get the Dems to go along w/ NAFTA and WTO.
The same way that Jimmy Carter might’ve been an okay Ambassador to the UN (say what you want, but it’s irrelevant), Bill Clinton might well make an excellent Secretary of Commerce.
But when it comes to security-related foreign policy, yeah, neither was anything to write home about.
Emperor Misha I
When we have a recession with a Republican office, he’s the larger-than-life magician that we can pin all blame on.
When the economy picks up again, he had nothing to do with it and it’s only the business cycle doing its thing.
Kimmitt: You’re so predictable that I could write your posts for you. Of course, being a capitalist, I’d demand a fee, but I’m sure we can work something out.
Kimmitt
“I recall EARLIER THIS YEAR you talking about how bad a President Dubya was because of the recession that occurred on his watch.”
Yeah, well, I recall that you’re A GIANT CHICKEN. And since neither of us have cites, both statements are equally credible.
(Since my position has generally been that Presidents can’t make the economy better, only worse, it is more than likely that I said something to the extent that Bush’s economic foolishness probably made the recession worse than it would otherwise have been. But that’s just not at all what you’re claiming I said.)
Slartibartfast
Heh. Hehe. BWAHAHA.
So, Bush has only the power to do evil. How…convenient.
Dorian
I’ve been suspicious of Google’s political “neutrality” for a while now. Have you noticed that the top billed sources they use in their “News” are invariably critical of the administration.
Someone should gather statistics on this
Dean
Hmm. Was it Tim Blair who said that, on the blogosphere one can track what people said?
From: https://balloon-juice.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=3344, which is dated November 4, the VERY FIRST COMMENT:
Some of Bush’s economic failures are technocratic; his Treasury Secretaries, in particular, have engaged in basically incompetent behavior. I’ll be honest — I only mostly understand why they screwed up in many cases, but a lot of people much farther along than me are quite livid.
Others are more straightforward — when you want to increase Aggregate Supply, you cut taxes to the wealthy to stimulate investment. When you want to increase Aggregate Demand (which is what we want now), you cut taxes to the relatively less wealthy to stimulate consumption. Bush’s tax cuts had nothing to do with the economy, though; they were faith-based, rather than theory-based.
Posted by: Kimmitt on November 5, 2003 01:07 AM
So, this President’s very policies are the cause of the economic disaster?
Or how about this comment, from this October 31 thread:
https://balloon-juice.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=3323
It is entirely appropriate to call a single quarter of anomalously good economic performance a “Bush boom;” I hope that the phrase enters the economics parlance in general.
Posted by: Kimmitt on October 31, 2003 12:39 AM
I thought Presidents couldn’t make economies better? But maybe just for one quarter?
Followed by this one:
“And a lot more people have jobs now than when Bush took office. There are a lot more people in the workforce now. ”
This is false; Bush is still on track to be the only President since Hoover with fewer Americans employed at the outset of his Presidency than at the conclusion of his term.
Posted by: Kimmitt on October 31, 2003 10:08 PM (posted twice, isn’t that nice?)
That one sure sounds like anomalous growth DOES get credited to the President.
Followed by another comment three days later.
Please note that this is not entirely Bush’s fault — he took office toward the end of the Clinton boom, and January 2001 was a pretty good month for a variety of reasons. That said, he hasn’t done a particularly good job of managing the economy, and this is an example of such.
Posted by: Kimmitt on November 3, 2003 08:36 PM
Then, there was this rather laudatory comment about the Clinton tax hikes, which would again suggest that Presidents CAN INDEED positively influence economies (but perhaps only Dem Presidents can?):
In particular, the Clinton boom years, which produced economic growth and employment levels not believed physically possible in the US economy, followed significant tax increases in 1991 and 1993. Since one cannot have the Fed run large budget deficits indefinitely (which could, I grant, provide fiscal stimulus), tax cuts come hand-in-hand with service cuts, which tends to balance everything out.
Posted by: Kimmitt on August 31, 2003 12:49 PM
That’s from this thread:
https://balloon-juice.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=3051
But I think we get the drift, Kimmitt.
Haven’t checked to see if you called me a Giant Chicken, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either.
Kimmitt
None of those quotes support your point, and all of them support mine. I invite anyone reading them to check out the links provided and read the entire context.
“So, Bush has only the power to do evil. How…convenient.”
Not just Bush — Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, (hopefully) Dean, et cetera. Presidents can only improve the economy in the long term, by heading off crises that might show up five or ten years later, or doing intelligent things like investing heavily in education.
Now, the budget deficit is a different creature, much more under the President’s control. But the economy? We have a basically capitalist economy whose business cycle swings are somewhat dampened by Federal Reserve monetary policy. It’s too big and too complex to really improve; all you can really do is screw it up by not being a good steward.
Kimmitt
“Kimmitt: You’re so predictable that I could write your posts for you. Of course, being a capitalist, I’d demand a fee, but I’m sure we can work something out.”
The problem, of course, being that the only thing I would ever conceivably pay you to do is go away.
Actually, come to think of it, I think I could start a non-profit for the purpose of paying your moving expenses to any location on earth which lacks reliable internet access. Let me know if you’re interested — Atrios is good at raising money for worthy causes, and I think we have a winner here.
Slartibartfast
I’d pay good money to perform a similar service for Atrios. Are you collecting for that cause as well?
Kimmitt
Do your own organizing.