Bush: The Stupidest Modern President?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

If you define stupid as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,” then good-ole G.W. definitely rises to the top of the heap.

I’ve seen bloggers call him “the village idiot” and “the brain cell,” and I couldn’t agree more. He’s never run a business that didn’t tank horribly and has always been bailed out by Daddy and his ultra-rich buddies.

This man doesn’t have the brain power to run a corner lemonade stand, and people RE-elected him to run the country. Unbelievable. After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.

22

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Top of my list is LBJ. He’s the guy to blame for Viet Nam. He’s the guy to blame for the Great Society. I happen to think that he is the guy to talk to about JFK’s little accident.

LBJ sucked worse than any President in the last century - with the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson. [/quote]

And he knew it, which is why he chose not to run for re-election.

But Nixon definitely tops LBJ. He lied and lied and lied again. We are just now finding out the depths of his deceit.

I’m not a fan of Bush but I think Cheney has definitey been studying Nixon’s playbook.

23

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself. [/quote]

Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.

Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority.

24

So, Bush is the dumbest of the dumb, but he’s smart enough to concoct a grand conspiracy that fools all the democrats (or most) in to going to war! LMAO.

Carter lacked the will and drive to re-assert American power after the 'Nam. Let’s simply dismiss him. Clinton had a sign on his office door saying “All Employees MUST wash Hands Before Returning to Work.” Smart, but a scumbag.

LBJ was probably evil. He hated Kennedy and was thrilled when Sam (Mooney) Giancana decided to end JFK. Did he have a hand in it? His minions chose the route for JFK’s motorcade. Hmmm…

All things considered, I’d give Bush pretty high marks, compared to all but Reagan.

25

[quote]gojira wrote:
But Nixon definitely tops LBJ. He lied and lied and lied again. We are just now finding out the depths of his deceit.
[/quote]

I don’t think Nixon lied more than anyone else - he just got caught more than anyone else, and had an unhealthy fascination with tape recorders.

The SNL sketch where Dan Akroyd(sp?) plays Nixon in the Oval Office with a tape recorder was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

Come to think of it - if were are supposed to be listing the dumbest presidents of all time - I agree that Tricky Dick should be on the short list.

But I really don’t think Nixon was as bad as a lot of folks make him out to be.

26

[quote]derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.

Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.

Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority. [/quote]

Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.

27

[quote]derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.

Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.

Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority. [/quote]

What makes the Daily Mirror worse then any other Newspaper?

28

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.[/quote]

So were you one of the 56 millioon morons that voted for an even bigger idiot? Or one of the 3 or 4 million that pissed their vote away on a 3rd party candidate? Or were you one of the 60 million dill holes that didn’t even bother to go to the polls?

And I keep getting confused - Are Bush supporters morons, or part of the vast right wing conspiracy? I really don’t think you can do both.

29

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
derek wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
After the 2004 election, the London Daily Mirror ran a headline titled “How can 58 million people be so stupid?” I wonder the same thing myself.

Not only did you READ this publication, but you committed it to memory? How utterly wasteful.

Well at least there’s solace in knowing that you are among the minority.

Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.[/quote]

Im assuming you voted for Kerry, right? What makes him so different than Bush? The electorate essentially had a choice between two douche bags. When faced with the coice, I think most people vote for the douche bag who they disagree with the least…and Bush was that man.

However, I dont think that makes them morons. Now if only people would start voting for third parties more often…

30

[quote]fahd wrote:

What makes the Daily Mirror worse then any other Newspaper?
[/quote]

One thing… liberal bias.

58 Million Bush-votong morons, huh?

I’d like to hear what the Kerry supporters would be called.

Ummmm, let me take a stab at it…

Progressive?
Open-minded?
Enlightened?

How about desperate?

And to think, Republicans are labeled “morons” yet all Dems could muster come election time was Kerry (and you almost had to choke down DEAN)? It makes me smile just remembering it.

31

Let’s modify this thread a bit, if anyone’s game. For those of you who think “Bush is smart” or “Bush is doing a good job”, I’d like to hear SPECIFIC reasons why you think so. I hear a lot of “ra ra ra” but very little substance.

Why is that? And, by the way, “the world changed after 9/11” is old and dead as an excuse for anything anymore.

One previous post suggested his craftiness in getting the Dems to vote for war. I would suggest that particular situation involves the gullibility/stupidity of the Dems as well as their fear of political reprisal by appearing “weak” on “terrorism.”

The White House political machine - aka Karl Rove - knew that and took advantage of it. G.W. himself isn’t capable of such deviousness and foresight.

32

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Now if only people would start voting for third parties more often…
[/quote]

Republicans for Lieberman!

A prominent Democrat talks about Iraq.

"I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the
Middle East will be lost if [American and Allied] forces are withdrawn
faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this… The question is
whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress
from both parties understand this.

I am disappointed by Democrats who are
more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost
three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years
ahead…

What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

-Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who spent hanksgiving with our troops in Iraq

33

I by no means read the daily mirror but I read the guardian. Every newspaper is somewhat biased politically; to discredit a particular newspaper simply beacuse of its political tendencies is simply ignorant.

Like Irish said yesterday, America doesn’t have a true two party system, both candidates (Bush and Kery) were both pretty disagreable to the left.

34

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
Actually, I saw the headline posted on a blog. But, yes, I am proud to say that I’m not one of the 58 million morons.

So were you one of the 56 millioon morons that voted for an even bigger idiot? Or one of the 3 or 4 million that pissed their vote away on a 3rd party candidate? Or were you one of the 60 million dill holes that didn’t even bother to go to the polls?

And I keep getting confused - Are Bush supporters morons, or part of the vast right wing conspiracy? I really don’t think you can do both.
[/quote]

Let me guess — Kerry is an idiot becuase he’s a “flip flopper.” Everyone who bought into that tripe never took the time to figure out where that came from.

And, yes, I voted for Kerry. The lesser of two evils, basically. My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.

All he had to do was show up once a month and fly a friggin plane for about 5 hours. Tough duty I might say. Having served in the Air Force and the Marines, I felt that at least Kerry knew what it was like to have bullets whizzing over his head without his Daddy there to throw in the towel.

I only thought Kerry was better by a few degrees, but better. They’re all in it for themselves, after all.

As far as Bush supporters are concerned, I’d like to ask you this. After all of the blunders and fuck-ups, is there any situation in which you guys wouldn’t support Bush?

I have a real problem with unconditional, blind support of any political figure. Not one of his “true” dyed-in-the-wool supporters is even willing to admit that this guy has made one single mistake. Could that be the definition of “moron?” Perhaps…

35

[quote]derek wrote:
fahd wrote:

What makes the Daily Mirror worse then any other Newspaper?

One thing… liberal bias.

58 Million Bush-votong morons, huh?

I’d like to hear what the Kerry supporters would be called.

Ummmm, let me take a stab at it…

Progressive?
Open-minded?
Enlightened?

How about desperate?

And to think, Republicans are labeled “morons” yet all Dems could muster come election time was Kerry (and you almost had to choke down DEAN)? It makes me smile just remembering it.
[/quote]

I love to hear people scream about liberal bias in the media. I defy anyone to name a newspaper or news channel that wasn’t beating the war drums back in 2003 or was questioning the reasons for war at all. Anyone? So much for liberal bias in the media, then.

Anyone watched Fox (faux) News lately? That channel is so biased (to the right) that I’m willing to bet they get their “news” straight from the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (propaganda).

There’s enough bias on both sides that one could make the argument that so-called “journalists” are no more. They’re all just whores to the people who ultimately pay the bills.

36

I think Bush is stupid for trying to eradicate a psychotic, mass-murdering dictator, his two equally evil sons and releasing hundreds of thousdands from a tyranical, homocidal regime. What a moron!

But ONE smart thing he was able to do was invade an otherwise innocent, unassuming Iraq and confiscate one of the worlds largest supplies of crude oil and distribute it among the only true “Evil Epire”, (we Americans)in order to bring our gas prices down. Pure genius.

37

Doubtful that anyone in this country is going to vote for third parties much. That’s just not how our system’s set up. But it would be nice if their were some quality candidates in either party; quality candidates that were backed by the central leadership, that is.

38

And just to clear things up here — using the “morons” quote may seem like a personal attack on those who like/voted for Bush. Even if that’s what the Mirror intended, I do not. I consider it a statement of the political situation in this country.

Bush and Company used 9/11 to launch a political agenda that would never have been given a chance without 9/11. Everyone got behind him chanting “ra ra ra” and never considered that he might not be worthy of everyone’s undying loyalty.

I don’t question anyone’s patriotism or intelligence, but their judgment. Why does Bush being a “wartime President” give him absolute power to flush this country down the drain without anyone questioning his ability or motives. It’s not the fact that you guys ask questions and then just give him a pass on the answers.

You never even think to ask the question, cuz “we’re at war.” That my friends is a dangerous way to run a country.

39

[quote]Jeff_with_a_G wrote:
My issue is this…Kerry, at the very least, volunteered to go to Vietnam and actually got shot at. Bush used Daddy’s political pull to join the Air Guard and then couldn’t manage to do his time without asking for exemption after exemption.

[/quote]

After Bush’s second race for the Senate, President Nixon appointed him U.S. delegate to the United Nations and he later became Republican National Committee chairman. He headed the U.S. liaison office in Beijing before becoming Director of Central Intelligence.

I believe with his Dad the Diector of the CIA, G.W. would not be allowed to be overseas during any conflict because the riskes were too great. If he were captured, it would certainly give the enemy a distinct advantage… just imagine the consequences.

I’d like to see what you have to say about this possible twist in your logic.

40

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Doubtful that anyone in this country is going to vote for third parties much. That’s just not how our system’s set up. But it would be nice if their were some quality candidates in either party; quality candidates that were backed by the central leadership, that is.[/quote]

You’re absolutely right. Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate who was even considered legitimate, much less given 19% of the vote. Saying he was “quirky” was an understatement, but I thought the fact that he had his own money, and thus beholden to no one (theoretically), was enough to give him a shot.

Also, the fact that the other two parties tried their best to crucify the guy gave him credibility in my mind. They were afraid of him for very good reasons.