whitesoxfan101 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (edited) I'm not going to deny it's level of accuracy (Bush isn't THE worst IMO, but he's in the discussion) but damn that is harsh! Edited April 20, 2006 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 This was discussed in here a while back. As many people said then, I think its WAY too early to assess Bush's presidency from the broad historical perspective. While I am fairly certain he won't rank among the best, and I definitely disagree with many of his policies, I think we need to wait until one or two more Presidents have passed before having a solid idea on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Of course he's the worst president today, if only because he IS the president today. And that's pretty much where these articles fall short. People have very short attention spans and memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) Of course he's the worst president today, if only because he IS the president today. And that's pretty much where these articles fall short. People have very short attention spans and memories. Wait, wait, what RS cover is this? Historians are the exception to the rule about people having very short attention spans and memories. The article does a really good job of pointing out how careful historians are by nature in weighing their answers with the proper context and perspective. Certainly in time we will come to understand more about this presedency and its repercussions, and I think the author of the RS oiece would be the first to agree with that statement. Edited April 20, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 No liberal media bias there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 At least Pearl Jam's album sounds pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) Wait, wait, what RS cover is this? Historians are the exception to the rule about people having very short attention spans and memories. The article does a really good job of pointing out how careful historians are by nature in weighing their answers with the proper context and perspective. Certainly in time we will come to understand more about this presedency and its repercussions, and I think the author of the RS oiece would be the first to agree with that statement. I didn't read this particular article - I was generalizing. This may be well written, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) No liberal media bias there. Rolling Stone is of course going to lean decidedly to the left in what it runs politically. And historians tend to be more left-leaning on average than the common man, the piece states as much. But it's not a news story written by a news media outlet. It's an essay penned by an academic scholar and written for a general readership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) Rolling Stone is of course going to lean decidedly to the left in what it runs politically. And historians tend to be more left-leaning on average than the common man, the piece states as much. But it's not a news story written by a news media outlet. It's an essay penned by an academic scholar and written for a general readership. Do most people see this difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) Do most people see this difference? A valid question, and I'd hope the answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 As my high school US History teacher said...you can't truly judge a president for a good generation or two, if only because the programs put in don't truly take effect until it has been around for awhile. There are always immediate repercussions, but the long term effects are what a president should be judged on... That being said, the great thing about this country is that there is freedom of the press...left, right, center...doesn't matter. Oh yeah, and I do think he's the worst president ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 09:31 AM) No liberal media bias there. So if he was the worse, it is possible for anyone to call him that and be true, and not just media bias? Seriously YAS, is it possible for Republicans to screw up? Is it possible for the media to report on it and have it not be media bias? How the hell would you know the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 I was going to comment further on this, but since I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to the Republican party since Watergate, I can't really give an unbiased opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) So if he was the worse, it is possible for anyone to call him that and be true, and not just media bias? Seriously YAS, is it possible for Republicans to screw up? Is it possible for the media to report on it and have it not be media bias? How the hell would you know the difference? It's not about whether or not they can screw up. I'll admit right here that they can. I'm talking about the cartoon portrayal of Bush as a dunce. With the liberal media, he's either a dunce or he's so diabolical as to be Hitleresque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) It's not about whether or not they can screw up. I'll admit right here that they can. I'm talking about the cartoon portrayal of Bush as a dunce. With the liberal media, he's either a dunce or he's so diabolical as to be Hitleresque. The media exagerrate everything - liberal or otherwise. Especially nowadays, its all about sound bites and the spectacular. Make it as edgey as possible. Its only "liberal" bias in this case because the Prez is anything but. And besides, we are talking about Rolling Stone here (they did the cover), who I agree will be even more liberal than the MSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) The media exagerrate everything - liberal or otherwise. Especially nowadays, its all about sound bites and the spectacular. Make it as edgey as possible. Its only "liberal" bias in this case because the Prez is anything but. And besides, we are talking about Rolling Stone here (they did the cover), who I agree will be even more liberal than the MSM. Yeah, the media exaggerates EVERYTHING. I mean I would think anybody with a brain would admit that the whole Clinton thing was overblown quite a bit too. Was cheating on his wife wrong? Yes, but the whole thing played out in a public forum when really the only thing that meant anything in terms of Clinton and his presidency was the perjury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) A valid question, and I'd hope the answer is yes. I think you over-estimate the intelligence of the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) It's not about whether or not they can screw up. I'll admit right here that they can. I'm talking about the cartoon portrayal of Bush as a dunce. With the liberal media, he's either a dunce or he's so diabolical as to be Hitleresque. And with the conservative media he's god-like, omniscient, with the ability to see WMD where there are none, and Clinton was a walking hard-on who didn't predict the future and stop Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) And with the conservative media he's god-like, omniscient, with the ability to see WMD where there are none, and Clinton was a walking hard-on who didn't predict the future and stop Bin Laden. Of course, according to that Fox poll, less than 70% of GOP'ers support Bush now. Not very good for your core party. Laughably, Fox News attributed that to Republicans worrying about the November midterms. While that may be true for some, I think its more a simple matter that many Republicans no longer like what they see from Bush. I said this before the Nov elections in 2004 - Bush talks like a conservative, but doesn't end up pushing that agenda very hard in reality. He and Rove got the GOP conservative base machine behind him in two elections, and has done very little of what they wanted from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Somehow we've been neutering Presidents for a couple decades. I think Katrina did him in. This should have been a (no pun intended) high water mark of his second term, and he totally fumbled the PR and then the government fumbled the response. I was expecting another "bull horn" moment. An alter speech for the ages. A rallying of the American spirit in the face of a natural disaster. Perhaps I was expecting too much, but he seriously missed the PR moment of his second term. If he had rode in on his horse, comforted the masses, he'd have seized the momentum to carry him through. This also would have given him more political capital to spend on some of his policies. But we've cut off the last two presidents at the nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) But we've cut off the last two presidents at the nuts. Some would say they both cut themselves off there. One more figuratively than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Rolling stone sucks, their music articles are horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxhawks Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 You cannot say that any president is the worst ever, because I do not believe anyone is still alive from the Van Buren era, so there is no way to compare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 QUOTE(soxhawks @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 06:26 PM) You cannot say that any president is the worst ever, because I do not believe anyone is still alive from the Van Buren era, so there is no way to compare And by extension, nobody can say the famine years in Ireland were all that bad, or the plague years of Europe were that bed because nobody is alive now to compare, right?? That line of reasoning is all kinds of stupid, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts