Bush – The Dynamics of a Failed Presidency

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060414_bush__96_the_dynamics_.htm


Bush – The Dynamics of a Failed Presidency
There is a lot to learn from such an awful administration
by Steven Leser


http://www.opednews.com

Those who follow my writing will note that I have not written an article in about two weeks. I do not like to write articles that just rehash what everyone else is talking about unless I have what I think is a new angle to present on it. In a way, it is getting boring to continue to list all the failures of the Bush administration. Everyone but the hardcore Republican base knows he is a complete failure on everything he and his administration have touched. He failed on the Iraq war, Katrina, the Economy, immigration, etc. We all know that. In the vernacular it is perhaps summed up best, “He sucks”. Fine, again, we all get it. There is no need to write an article about it.

What is starting to be more interesting to me is the act of stepping back and examining this administration from a statistical and historical perspective. For instance, most historians choose as the worst six Presidents, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, William Henry Harrison and Ulysses S. Grant in that order. If Bush continues on his present path, where would he fit in that hierarchy if anywhere? My opinion is that he would displace Ulysses S. Grant as sixth worst. He is almost automatically ahead of the first five because none of them were able to win re-election, but Grant WAS a two term President. In fact, since the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting Presidents to two terms was not ratified until 1951, Grant’s name was bandied about again for the Republican nomination several years after his exit from the Presidency. Reading up again on Grant, his Presidency and Bush’s seem to have a lot in common. Grant was a Republican, his tenure was marked by vicious partisanship, and a nation polarized along political lines. Several members of his administration were implicated in corruption and graft scandals. His administration passed much legislation that many saw as pandering to commercial and industrial interests. Where Grant clearly bests Bush, however, is that Grant was viewed as scoring several diplomatic successes where Bush has turned most of the world’s opinion against us. Grant was viewed as such a great diplomat outside of the US that the first two years of his retirement was spent touring the world to universal accolades. Somehow, I think that most of Bush’s post President Years will be spent either in Crawford, Texas, if he is lucky, or in Leavenworth, Kansas. What might be curious is for people to ponder what would have to happen to worsen Bush’s performance enough to overcome any of the five who did not win re-election. If the continuing investigation into Leak-Gate culminates with either Rove or Cheney or perhaps even Bush indicted and/or impeached and removed, we might have to consider Bush for one of the worst five spots.

The bad showing of this administration is also useful for plotting the political strength of the parties. We can see from recent polling the percentage range of the Republican Base. My favorite polling website is http://pollingreport.com and Bush’s current polling numbers can be seen at http://www.pollingreport.com/bushjob.htm . From these results, and knowing that anyone with even a slightly open mind feels that this administration is a failure (i.e. leaving only Republican stalwarts) we can see that the Republican base is somewhere between 33% and 39% of the population. Let us pick the midpoint and set the Republican base at 36%. Several polls show that on average, the Democratic Base is 5% higher than the Republican Base. So, the Democratic base is 41%. No party affiliations, moderates and third parties of various stripes are then 23%. This information has all sorts of applications for the upcoming 2006 elections and other uses. If I were Howard Dean, I would certainly have to believe that the only thing Democrats have to fear at this point in history is fear itself. We should put forth a bold and detailed plan for this country’s future. The only thing people seem to say about Democrats these days that gives them any potential reluctance to vote for us is the alleged absence of a plan on the major issues. We ought to make it clear that we have a plan and that plan is considerably better than the disaster the GOP have foisted upon us.

So, to sum up, Bush sucks, we all know it and I’m only going to write on new stuff about him that comes up. GOP Base=36%, Democratic Base=41%, Bush fifth on worst all time Presidents list surpassing Ulysses S Grant and Bush is working on passing the last five, and Howard Dean, please, please, please put out a detailed plan!



p.s. Feel free to write to me if you would like to see an article on a particular topic. I’ll next write an article on immigration that will concentrate on the plight of immigrant children in Florida and I will be sharing the byline with my wonderful 12 year old daughter.



Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by actual interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties. Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

[cliss]

1. Very nice article.

I agree: I think everyone now has reached a consensus: Bush is a complete and total failure. I can't think of anything good he's done during his reign, other than motivate other countries to unite and work together against this usurper.

Now, as far as Bush being the worst in a small group of "worsts", I would venture to say that Bush needs to be in a category all his own. There needs to be a category of "Most damaging to the most number of people" around the world. Bush would hold the undisputed Blue-Ribbon Champion title to that category.


The presidents on this "worst" list had their tenure quite a while ago. The world was not as globalized as it is today. If these men goofed up, chances are the problems were mostly domestic. Now, that's not to minimize the amount of damage these men did to Americans, and I'm sure there were other categories that were hurt, like maybe foreign trade or some diplomatic issues.

But NOTHING like the power Bush holds today. And that's the reason why you have demonstrations all over the world against Bush, like the ones marching downtown London holding signs "The world's biggest terrorist: George Bush".

Bush's reach goes farther than any other past "loser" president.

And that's exactly what makes him so dangerous.

Thanks for posting.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Welcome to DU, Mr. Leser

I agree, it gets a bit boring rehashing the same old, same old.

For worst presidents, I think it is unfair to include the first Harrison. He was president for thirty days, most of which he spent in bed dying. He didn't really accumulate any kind of record at all and therefore shouldn't count at all. Beyond that little nit, Bush should take his place at the head of the class -- or rather in the corner the dunce cap, as the case may be. The fact that the other fellows couldn't win re-election means nothing as far as I am concerned. Besides, it can be disputed that Bush really won a first term. The reason Bush gets to go straight to the rear is that, in addition to all his other failures, he brazenly lied his way into a war. Saddam's WMDs were the Tonkin Gulf incident on steroids. We don't have to impeach him; its a fact as firmly established as the world is round.

[stevenleser]

5. Thanks for making me feel welcome!

I was surprised about Harrison being listed on C-SPAN's list---> http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html as well, but if you look at any 5 lists you are going to get a lot of different information. Had I had a little more time to think about it, I would have deleted Harrison and added Hoover.

Agreed about the elections. DUers should google my name + Ohio Recount for some of my opinions on that score! (It's too much to list and includes a lot of interviews of the major players)

[scarletlib]

7. I think it is a proven fact he did not win the first term. he stole it

with the help of a corrupt supreme court. when all is said and done (research is ongoing)we may all find out he did not win a second term either. As far as I am concerned he is #1 on the lists of the worst. He has done more to destroy this country than the others could have ever thought of doing.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Agreed.

The election of 2000 was stolen in Florida. Anybody who says otherwise may as well say the earth is flat.

Bush may have actually recieved more votes than Kerry in 2004, but there was a great deal of voter intimidation in Florida and unequal supply and staffing of polling places in Ohio that caused voters in Democratic precincts to wait for hours to vote while those in GOP precincts had no trouble. The election in neither state was free nor fair.

Having said that, we can start questioning how accurately Diebold machines recorded votes in Ohio.

[stevenleser]

9. I'll never forget Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004

I lived in St. Petersburg FL through the 2000 debacle and was an observer for the FL Democratic Party at the Pinellas County Recounts. I'll never forget how Democracy was kicked in the shorts one day. I went to lunch, came back, and a building that had been bustling and busy was deserted with the Supreme Court's decision nailed to the door.

I'll also never forget election night 2000 when the head of the FL state Gore campaign called the head of the Pinellas County effort and said "I dont understand, our exit polls show Gore 3% ahead in the state. Rent a hotel room with some of your folks and hunker down and stay awake and alert. I dont know where this is going". I never used so many explitives in a 6 hour period as I did that night. People who know me would say I rarely curse.

And if you read my Ohio articles, you know how I feel about that one.

[Olney Blue]

3. Kicked and recommended.

And welcome to DU.

:kick:

[bvar22]

4. I agree, a BOLD, well defined "Issues Oriented" campaign...

..will get Democrats elected.

Others agree. The following is slighted dated, but applies.

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:

"Over 3 surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national survey show (that)...By a 20 point margin (56 to 36 percent), voters think the country is seriously off on the wrong track.

<snip>

But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats gains in in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiments about the Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats can achieve major gains, however, if the party moves
decisively to a new stage of engagement. They must poise sharp choices- ones that define the Democrats, not just the Republicans and ones that, in every battle, make the the instrument for reforming and changing Washington"

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html
2005-2006
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis (link here)

The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!

[eridani]

6. Not a failure at all to his Pioneer Club backers

He's only a failure to the rest of us poor saps who just live here.