On a scale of one to ten , how would you rate Bush ?

[sonorakitch]

Brennan---good list there.

He gets a 6 from me using The Brennan List of Leadership Rating.

EDIT: Notice the other scores...obviously people don't have a clue what a really bad leader is. Try sleeping in your comfy beds people with Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin on the loose. Bush a 1? Idiotic. Brennan's List is a better way to measure.

 

[Souron]

I'd voted 3. On brennan's scale I'd vote 5. But I would consider "Unmemorable." to be the half way point, not Poor/Bad.

I'm also ranking 1 to be "among the worst presidents in us history", not "among the worst leaders in world history"

 

[JollyRoger]

Brennan---good list there.

He gets a 6 from me using The Brennan List of Leadership Rating.

EDIT: Notice the other scores...obviously people don't have a clue what a really bad leader is. Try sleeping in your comfy beds people with Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin on the loose. Bush a 1? Idiotic. Brennan's List is a better way to measure.

On Brennan's scale, I would give him a 5 or 6. However, when I think of a scale of 1-10, I think of 5 and 6 as average, not poor.

 

[downtown]

^^ I agree with the two posters above me as well.

 

[Mise]

Try sleeping in your comfy beds people with Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin on the loose.

"Bush: Better than Pol Pot."


Anyway, I didn't compare him to Pol Pot or Stalin. I didn't compare him to Blair, or Schroeder, or even Clinton. I compared him to what I would have done, if I had been in his shoes, in issues that matter to me. And on that scale, he scored a 1. I didn't compare him to the worst possible President imaginable (e.g. a President that gets his country invaded, or causes economic meltdown) because such a President doesn't exist, at least not in the USA.

Blair gets a 6 or 7 on my scale, btw, in that I agree with 55-75% of the stuff he did.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't compare him to the worst possible President imaginable (e.g. a President that gets his country invaded, or causes economic meltdown) because such a President doesn't exist, at least not in the USA.

But such a president did indeed exist in the USA. James Madison pushed congress to declare war upon Britain which resulted in the war of 1812 - which also resulted in the USA being re-invaded and even the White House being burned to the ground.

 

[Tycoon101]

I'm trying to think what sort of scenarios 1-10 could represent:

10) Terriffic leadership, country leaps ahead economically and in International standing.
9) Strong leadership, economy and international relations progress.
8) Solid. Good points outweigh the bad.
7) Mediocre. Unmemorable.
6) Poor. Remembered more for bad policies than good.
5) Bad. Economy stagnates, international relations damaged.
4) Drives the economy into the ground, ruins the country's international standing, suffers sanctions etc.
3) Policies so bad they result in the country being attacked.
2) As above + gets invaded
1) Gets their country invaded and loses.

Bush gets a 5 from me.

Lincoln would get a 2 on that scale. Revise it.

 

[Ecofarm]

Bush is awesome. He may be the best president ever (I'm waiting for the release of secret documents in a decade or two).

Cue the internet-sheeple dogpile. Prepare for Puffington, mediamatters and moveon (the Bibles of internet sheeple) onslaught. Clear the streets, the cows are coming! I can already hear their battle cry: moooo000OOOOOve on dot org! All bow to Soros, the old, rich white overlord.

 

[Tycoon101]

Bush is awesome. He may be the best president ever (I'm waiting for the release of secret documents in a decade or two).

Cue the internet-sheeple dogpile. Prepare for Puffington, mediamatters and moveon (the Bibles of internet sheeple) onslaught. Clear the streets, the cows are coming!

Sorry, that place is reserved solely for Buchanan. amirite?

 

[Mise]

But such a president did indeed exist in the USA. James Madison pushed congress to declare war upon Britain which resulted in the war of 1812 - which also resulted in the USA being re-invaded and even the White House being burned to the ground.

Did, not does. I explained that I'm comparing his policies with what my policies would have been if I'd been Pres.

 

[Harbringer]

I'm sixteen, so quite honestly I don't pay attention to presidential policies, partly because I have no care for politics, and it seems the only real "major" things presidents do are start wars or stop them. But I do pay attention to Iraq and Afghanistan, because I have an interest in the politics and war, and the tactics and such(one of those armchair commanders if you will) and considering that I think although war is a necessary evil, its still a thing of fools and the wrong men fight it, especially wars I would consider pointless. So judging from that alone, I will fairly give him a five, putting him at the base. Because I don't know the specifics of his other policies, but I consider the war a huge huge black mark on his run.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm sixteen, so quite honestly I don't pay attention to presidential policies, partly because I have no care for politics, and it seems the only real "major" things presidents do are start wars or stop them.

Actually that would be congress. If not via directly declaring war, but authorizing the funding for it. The president is not even on the appropriations committee, let alone has control of it.

 

[bhsup]

I gave him a 4.

 

[Harbringer]

Actually that would be congress. If not via directly declaring war, but authorizing the funding for it.

Well yes, I understand that, but I more thing of the president as a collective rather than the actual man. Im not sure how it all works, like I said, I don't really care ATM, but aren't all policies passed by congress first?

I also would like to take the time to point out that while I blame our heads of state for the war, I also partly blame the U.N. There wasn't much they cold honestly do to stop us, but the whole point of the formation was to stop these kinds of things from happening I thought. And if a member can just ignore the U.N it just brings it one step closer to the L.O.N.

 

[downtown]

Actually that would be congress. If not via directly declaring war, but authorizing the funding for it. The president is not even on the appropriations committee, let alone has control of it.

The current Bush legal team advised the president that he does not need congressional permission to go to war. The vote, according to them, was mearly a formality.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

I voted eight.

 

[JollyRoger]

Cue the internet-sheeple dogpile. Prepare for Puffington, mediamatters and moveon (the Bibles of internet sheeple) onslaught. Clear the streets, the cows are coming! I can already hear their battle cry: moooo000OOOOOve on dot org! All bow to Soros, the old, rich white overlord.

Funny thing is that you seem to make Soros more of a God to bow down to or fear than your imagined sheep and cattle.

 

[Thyrfingzorz]

Ignore him.
Unless there is some medical condition present, the only rational way to explain his never-ending drivel is that he is some sort of agent provocateur. The poor creature can't even refrain from trolling in his sig.

As for the poll, I give mr.Bush a 9 ( yes, you read correctly, this is not a typo).

I agree. Even Colbert agrees, in one of his quotes: " Bush: great president or greatest president?

 

[Ecofarm]

The current Bush legal team advised the president that he does not need congressional permission to go to war. The vote, according to them, was mearly a formality.

1) Congress approved military action. Call it a formality if you want, but I do not think the president tells congress what to do.

2) Congress funds the war. Bush does not control the appropriations committee.

Without funding, the war is over.

C'mon, DT. You're not that ignorant about US political procedures. I hardly think that you believe that Bush's advisors are the end-all-be-all of congressional law. They advised as they did because we are talking about ending a cease-fire, not declaring war. Is this technicality completely lost on you?

And you wonder where young people get the wrong idea that the president has the power to declare and continue wars? You're not helping. Set your Bush-bashing aside for a second and tell the truth.

 

[downtown]

1) Congress approved military action. Call it a formality if you want, but I do not think the president tells congress what to do.

2) Congress funds the war.

Without funding, the war is over.

C'mon, DT. You're not that ignorant about US political procedures.

I know how its supposed to work. My concern is that the Bush legal team is so hell bent on expanding executive power that they're trying to squeeze the legislative branch's authority on matters of war.

Arimage (or however you spell that), Yoo, Cheney and the others felt that the War Powers act was unconstitutional, and that the President has the sole power to decide when, where and how to go to war. Its part of something called the Unitary Executive Theory, and it scares the crap out of me. Why do you think Cheney went to court over who met with him setting energy policy? Is it because the infomation was scandalous? Nope. It was because he's trying to set more and more precident for expanded executive power.

I could go further into detail, citing specific cases, but my law notes aren't with me at the office.