Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Biggest Loser

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 5, 2007
nixonbush
edbatista.typepad.com/lowculture.com

Striking similarities:  Richard Nixon (left) and George Bush could be cut from the same presidential cloth, according to the author.

By Bill Boyarsky

In the contest for Worst President Ever, who’s the winner—Richard M. Nixon or George W. Bush? It’s a depressing question but relevant now that we are picking Bush’s replacement.  For Nixon had, just as Bush does, qualities to be avoided at all costs.

I know that the game of picking worst presidents is fruitless.  There are elderly Republicans alive who still maintain that the now-revered Harry Truman was the worst.  My wife, Nancy, and I continue to argue about LBJ, she unable to tolerate the thought of him while I see some good points.

There is no doubt in my mind about Bush and Nixon being on the top of the list.

I knew Nixon slightly because I covered some of his campaigns. In fact,  I was one of the many reporters conned by the “New Nixon” image sold to Americans in 1968 and bringing him at last into the White House.  All through that year, Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, which dragged on for five more years.  I knew people on his enemies list.  There were the wiretaps, the burglaries and the Watergate cover-up.

I was at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, pad and pen in hand, the day Nixon, just resigned from the presidency, landed to begin his exile.  A large crowd of loyalists stood behind ropes.  Nixon walked toward them.  His manner was odd.  He seemed disoriented.  Aides took his arm and he went to a waiting car.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
I saw Nixon and his strange gait again just last month in the play “Frost/Nixon” on Broadway. It is the story of David Frost’s 1977 interviews with the disgraced Nixon, a contest between two men in search of a comeback.  The famed television interviewer and host had suffered a professional decline and was counting on the Nixon interview to reclaim his career.  Nixon, who resigned the presidency in 1974, was seeking redemption.

Frank Langella makes a great Nixon: brooding, physically clumsy, socially inept, scheming, sophisticated, unrelentingly competitive and highly intelligent.  As Richard Reeves writes in his book “President Nixon: Alone in the White House”: “He was not born for the job [of president]; he sometimes described himself, quite accurately, as an introvert in an extrovert’s business. ... He was always a man alone. A strange man of uncomfortable shyness.”

In other words, Nixon would not have made it through the front door of the Deke house at Yale when George W.  Bush was rush chairman and chapter president.

But George Bush wouldn’t have made it through the front door of the White House when Nixon was president.  You had to be smart to work there.  Evil maybe, amoral certainly.  But smart.  In that White House, the incompetence of the Watergate burglary was unusual for a gang of connivers who did their work—fair and foul—in a competent manner.

Brownie of Hurricane Katrina wouldn’t have found a place in the Nixon administration.  The awful but brilliant Kissinger wouldn’t have allowed loudmouth Rumsfeld to send a small and inadequately armed force to Iraq.  Nixon didn’t talk to his vice president, much less let him run the government.  The pragmatic and cynical Nixon-Kissinger team would have ignored the ideological rants of neocons.  Bush not only listened to them but gave them big policy jobs.

But in deference to the many careers wrecked by Nixon, starting with his mid-20th-century California opponents Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, that’s enough praise for the ex-president.

Instead, let’s talk about what Nixon and Bush have in common.

They share a disregard for the Constitution, a belief in absolute executive power and a contempt for Congress.  These are not qualities we should look for in choosing our next president.

Nixon expressed it best.  As Reeves tells it in his book, when Sen. Hugh Scott told Nixon of poor morale among Senate Republicans and said the president should meet with them more, Nixon replied, “Bring them down for cookies ... ? Our senators are nothing but a bunch of jackasses. ... We can’t count on them.  Fuck the Senate.”

Nixon displayed his contempt in a major way.  John Dean, once Nixon’s counsel and now a fierce Bush critic, recalled in an article in findlaw.com how Nixon refused to spend congressional appropriations on programs he didn’t like, invoked executive privilege in refusing to give Congress information, reorganized the executive branch without congressional approval and continued and expanded the Vietnam War without Congress’ permission.  And Nixon engaged in illegal wiretaps.

Congress retaliated by limiting presidential power.  Dick Cheney, a young member of Nixon’s staff and then chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, watched with disapproval.  Thus, as vice president, Cheney quickly moved to restore the imperial presidency that existed before Watergate.

There’s a direct line from Nixon to Bush.  Nixon wiretapped.  Bush approved illegal electronic eavesdropping.  Bush defied congressional requests for testimony and documents dealing with a variety of matters, invoking the Nixon doctrine of executive privilege.  And both of them cost the nation thousands of lives without purpose.

Who’s the worst?  What a dumb question.

 

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By bigjimbo, June 22, 2007 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

As each passing day demonstrates, WE are the biggest losers for for having as our leaders a delusional dimwit with a Napoleon complex and his truly reptilian running mate.  It will take generations to undo the damage wrought by these monsters and regain our respect in the world.  Why is the Congress so reluctant to re-establish its authority as a co-equal branch of government?  Bush. Cheney, and Rove should be in jail.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 22, 2007 at 12:35 am Link to this comment

Inherit the wind. Well it’s true Goldwater calmed down a bit near his end but let’s not forget he was gung-ho about nuking Vietnam too. That would have started a cataclysm.

He did have a whole lot more respect for the constitution than Bush and company though, there is no doubt about that.

As for everyone going to the right, I remember hearing that suddenly in the media during the Reagan years. Like that, liberals became a scant minority even though millions of people who were liberal existed as they always had. That’s when the word liberal started becoming a dirty word. The media just kept announcing this over and over until most people began to generally accept it. Steadily since then, the democrats have moved further and further to the right following close behind their republican counterparts. What’s really “funny” is the reps-neocons calling democrats liberals. for the most part, they are no such thing, neither is the DNC. What makes them look liberal is that the neocons have gone so far to the right the only thing missing is goose stepping and death squads. Thus those who defend the constitution are called enemies of the state. That would have made Jefferson and Madison subversives! It reminds me of the McCarthy era when dumb dumb Joe McCarthy called the commander of the joint chiefs of staff a communist. Only then was he scoffed at and his teeth pulled, leading up to the famous, “Have you no decency sir?” They should have pulled them from the start, before he ruined so many innocent lives.

Report this

By bigjimbo, June 21, 2007 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Nixon appointed a democrat, Monyhan, as his domestic czar.  Who is Bush’s counterpart?—Rove.  If Bush performs another insane act, like attacking Iran, I would hope that we the people would react non-violently and peacefully, but also positively to remove Bush and
Cheney from office.  What slimy rock did they find Cheney under?  I can’t understand how people in the VFW applaud a draft-dodging coward who used 5 deferments to avoid a foreign war.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 21, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Michael Shaw on 6/19 at 7:34 pm
(102 comments total)

DH Fabian. i appreciate your clearing that up. By todays standards Barry Goldwater looks like a liberal.”

Excuse me, but by today’s standards Barry Goldwater WAS a Liberal. Certainly by the end of his life he looked a lot more like a Liberal than a “Conservative”.

These days, anyone interested in preserving the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a “traitor”, a “commie” and “aiding the terrorists”.  Since BG was a fan of NOT dropping every “Conservative” agenda in the Constitution, he’d be tarred as a “Lib-rul”.

Report this

By Skruff, June 21, 2007 at 5:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

79889 by Ernest Canning on 6/20 at 10:27 pm


“Skruff, Do you think if W and his wife were attacked, he would try to hide behind her?”


Well, I can only go by his record. He hid behind a bunch of Florida grade school students when the twin towers fell….. What do you think?

Report this

By cann4ing, June 20, 2007 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

Skruff, Do you think if W and his wife were attacked, he would try to hide behind her?

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 20, 2007 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Well no leader in our nation’s history has been less available to the public than George W. Bush. His staged appearances are always kept in toe with those who love him rather than any opposition. All of them are staged at military bases surrounded by coached yes men. To this end Nixon is better. In fact all these staged events actually started with Reagan. I remember one of the first of them in Voorhees, N.J. where only republicans were allowed in. One the news however it looked like the whole nation supported him.

Report this

By Skruff, June 20, 2007 at 6:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

79377 by Ernest Canning on 6/19 at 5:41 pm

Nixon was a liar and a crook, but he was intelligent

....and BRAVE beyond words. 

Although I was not a Nixon supporter, and remember his faults like his negative campaigning style) he was certainly not the scared little wimp we have now.

I was protesting the Vietnam war, sitting with a group of friends at the Lincoln Memorial, when Nixon, accompianied by only one person (assumedly secret service) walked into the memorial and began talking with us about the war, He made his position clear (he was doing this for us…a better world, etc) BUT he also listened to some pretty strong language.  I still wasn’t a Nixon supporter, BUT my estimation of him went way up that day, and I never placed him on my “worst” list. 

This courage was evident throughout Nixon’s career. As vice president he and his wife (while in Venezuela) were attacked by a mob. They smashed the windows of his car with rocks and sticks. He used his body to sheild Pat from the glass.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 19, 2007 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment

DH Fabian. i appreciate your clearing that up. By todays standards Barry Goldwater looks like a liberal.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Nixon was a liar and a crook, but he was intelligent.  Bush is a liar, a crook, a fascist and dumber than dog shit.

Report this

By DHFabian, June 19, 2007 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

I lived through the Nixon administration, and he was most certainly not a progressive soul!  He was a hard-nosed, paranoid conservative.  However, on social issues, compared to what we see today, he was indeed progressive.  He could also be pragmatic.  Anyone who is, in any way, connected with America’s poor knows that we pretty much have a social powder keg with a lit fuse. Nixon realized that it was far less costly to provide people with legitimate aid than to abandon the poor, picking up the costs later in foster care, prisons, etc.  He had enough sense to know that people couldn’t pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they had no boots, so the poor were able to access medical care, education, and legitimate job skills training. These “failed welfare policies” did, in fact, result in some 80% of recipients voluntarily quitting welfare within 5 years, moving on to employment. The list goes on, but the point is that when it comes to social policies, Nixon was far more progressive than today’s Democrats.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

My dear friend Mike Mid City. You make some valid points with mandatory service. However to be the devil’s advocate, that doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t end up in war. Israel has mandatory service. So does China, and Russia. So did Nazi Germany. I hear what you’re saying though, if some senator’s son had to serve they would think twice before sending him off to war for oil.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 19, 2007 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

Well I agree Fabian, Nixon was better than Bush but I would hardly call him progressive, or for that matter anyone in the GOP. They’ve been trying to dismantle the New Deal since it began. Nixon failed to address problems at home, but no where near to the extent Bush has. Today, the progressive movement wants big government but not the kind of big government Bush has created. They want socio-economic problems addressed, they want universal health care, they prefer social welfare to corporate welfare. Nixon scoffed at all of these ideas as his party in general does. Frankly I feel the only reason Nixon didn’t completely trash welfare was because of the vast unpopularity of the Vietnam war, especially his preemptive strikes on Laos and Cambodia. Welfare was a pacifier to an ever growing, discontent populace. That’s why his predecessor LBJ expanded it in the first place.

Report this

By DHFabian, June 19, 2007 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

In one area, Nixon was far better than Bush, and more progressive (and realistic) than much of today’s progressive movement: easing US poverty.  People are poor when “Get a job” isn’t an option, due to health or circumstances.  Like Nazi Germany, we now refuse to consider that a human life has worth unless they are actively earning and contributing to the tax base.  Real life is tremendously complex, as are the reasons for not being employed (and how we ever embraced the notion that there are people who prefer the hell of poverty to self-sufficiency remains a mystery!)

Nixon did recognize the complexities of life, as well as the fact that a legitimate welfare system does, indeed, provide the financial stability that enabled most poor Americans (some 80% in under 5 yrs, according to records)to quit welfare, securing family-supporting work. This was good for families, as well as for the nation as a whole.

Report this

By Chaseme, June 11, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#75762 by Louise: Very well said and wonderfully done.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Report this

By bigjimbo, June 10, 2007 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t mean it to sound that rough.  National Service, to my mind, would mean everything from the Peace Corps, to a conservation corps, to military service.  I spent 22 years in the service, including a year in vietnam, and I consider it the best decision I ever made.  It gave me a chance to live all over the US and to meet and interact with a large variety of citizens.  I spent 3 of my first 6 years in the service as a full time college student, another 2 years assigned to NASA, about 1.5 years attending service schools and my last 3 years assigned to a major university where I was in charge of ROTC.  My duties in vietnam used all of the training I had up to that point.  I learned discipline, how to give an effective oral presentation, and how to writedetailed technical reports.  I think that most 18 year olds would benefit from such service and be better citizens for it.  I would view it as total opportunity, not indentured servitude.  I don’t know how we let a delusional simpleton with a napoleon complex become the lord protector and emperor of the country. 
was everyone scared to death of Rove and Cheney?  What were we thinking?  How did draft dodging scum become heroes and real heroes come to be depicted as traitors.  Rove’s playbhook had to be “1984”.

Report this

By Skruff, June 10, 2007 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#76725 by bigjimbo on 6/09 at 6:31 pm:

“I want a president that will grab us by the scruff of our necks and say, “you owe two years of national service to your country, every single one of you”.

While I agree with most of what you say, I have to disagree with your model for a president.

I don’t want my employees grabbing me anywhere to make me do anything. 

....AND….

When presidents treat populations in this way, people feel limited, rather than empowered.

It is my estimation that “A National Service Requirement” would just be another of many ways for the system to avoid paying people a decent wage for work.

I want a president who has ideas that challenge our imagination (Like Kennedy’s man on the moon, and TR’s National Park initiative.  Then, maybe, I’l volunteer my time.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

Hey Mid City Point taken. Some could argue that as being worse than combat. I’ll bet you have the battle scars to prove it!

Report this

By bigjimbo, June 9, 2007 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

Bush is terrible but the situation is much bleaker than just Bush.  We have the worst population of citizens ever. What kind of people obsess over Anna Nicole Smith, Don Imus, Paris Hilton, and American Idol.  We are so concerned with our shallow, selfish interests that we can’t even make the effort to vote. We have a huge number of people who believe in creationism and other fairy tales, and go into rapture over elmer gantrys like falwell, robertson, and dobson, redneck bigots all.  We have huge numbers of people that believe the most important problems facing the nation are gay marriage and abortion.  In Bush43, we got the president we deserve, shallow, arrogant, ignorant, and corrupt, just like us.  I want a president that will grab us by the scruff of our necks and say, “you owe two years of national service to your country, every single one of you”.

Report this

By Hymn Singing Misanthrope, June 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There’s no contest.  Reagan was the worst president in history.  In 1981, when he abolished the only real energy program this country ever had, he said we didn’t need it - the “free market” would make us energy independent by 1992. Well, 1992 was 15 years ago, and we’re fighting, and losing, our second oil war since then.

Everything that’s happening now started with Reagan.  Our arrogant and bellgerent foreign policy, the substitution of military conquest for renewable energy development, the growing inequality, the Scalia mafia that appointed Bush to the presidency, it all started with Reagan.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

Hey Mid-West, this too is off topic but I was wondering if while in the marines you engaged in actual combat? I realize that is a personal question so you needn’t feel obligated in answering. As for Bush, he seems to be a reincarnation of Joseph Stalin.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Hey Professor Smartass! I don’t know about the ass part but the smart part suits you. You are absolutely right about Bush. There is not one thing in your post I could contest. Of course it’s a sad day for democracy when we have such conniving leadership.

I Believe the greatest damage Bush has created is yet to be seen, especially on the economic front. Being trillions of dollars in debt on borrowed money at high interest to give the rich tax breaks and the cost of this senseless, illegal war in Iraq will haunt us perhaps as far as the next century. Hell, we might never recover from it!

Frankly, I don’t know why Reagan wasn’t included in this report. He turned us from being a lender nation into a debtor state overnight. He also enabled the notion that corporations are as living persons, a notion that came out of the days of the robber barons and also the so called Imperial Presidency. I’ll never forget the first time I heard that ugly title. It was as frightening to me as the statement the first president Bush made in his second term about the new world order. Why alarm bells weren’t ringing back then is beyond comprehension. The best congress could muster was thunderous applause!

Again to this report, the biggest losers in all of this are really the American people. Bush and his neo-conservative buddies are the real winners. The ripoff is complete and mega-corporate power has never in all it’s history been more apparent.

Bush succeeded in virtually every mandate he set forth except post Soviet world domination, which although not quite a reality yet, by the looks of his new missile defense umbrella( a non proven system but a provocation none the less) in Lithuania and the former Czech Republic, it is well in the works to becoming a reality. We have military bases in most of the former bloc countries that surround Russia and don’t think for one moment they don’t realize it. I would take Putin’s threat to re-aim nuclear missiles as a given.

As for the rest of their Wolfowitz inspired plans, all that’s left is a beaten Iran and with it control of most of the world’s oil and natural gas. The power they’ll gain from that will have other oil dependent nation’s, particularly in Europe on their knees!

With the help of his rubber-stamp congress, Bush has undermined civil liberties, privatized government, given huge tax breaks to the richest Americans and is clearly bringing us into a new cold war and with it a new nuclear arms race. That’s great for defense contractors but not to good for the rest of us or anyone else in the world. It is sheer insanity and can only lead us into further military confrontations, possibly nuclear confrontations and no doubt more acts of terrorism. And all for the god almighty dollar in the pockets of a few greedy zealots who can never be satisfied!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

Hey Dee Dee. I believe Bush is more intelligent than we might think. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Also he(or perhaps his father) was smart enough to surround himself with very smart people. Not ethically good people, but smart people just the same. Everything they have done is deliberate and has been on the drawing board for a long, long time. The key to this entire administration is based upon the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which needed a new Pearl Harbor to be realized and Bush, though only a player, knew full well what that was about. Also that good old boy dyslexia is a facade and a well coached plan by Karl Rove. Granted Bush is not as smart as Nixon. Hell! I doubt he’s as smart as I am but the people around him are. That’s why he’s still in office rather than on that plane for the last time, waving goodbye in disgrace as he should be.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Well Mid City, I don’t imbibe often. I just felt like a beer or two. Once in a great while I get the urge. That said, don’t forget the son’s of liberty often frequented the taverns to discuss their treason to the British Crown. But of course today most people simply go to get plastered, pick up chicks and watch sports.

When I think of the Bush/Nixon question, I think about how most people are so caught up in sports, beer and everything else marketers sell they don’t realize what is at stake here. When a population is more interested in football scores than they are the Bill of Rights, we are all in trouble.

Report this

By Professor Smartass, June 9, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

Chaseme,

My next lecture will be at professorsmartass.com or fascArt.blogspot.com.

Report this

By Chaseme, June 9, 2007 at 8:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Professor Smartass, could you pleae sign me up for your next lecture? Bravo! Bravo!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 9, 2007 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Billy the Dik on 6/08 at 8:40 pm
(145 comments total)

...If you knew my dearest friends you would eat your words…”

********************

If your “dearest friends” knew what you writeabout them behind their backs, how you want to see the only nation on earth that welcomes them obliterated, they’d drop your bigoted Jew-hating sorry ass so fast your swastika would slip off in the slip-stream.

Report this

By Professor Smartass, June 9, 2007 at 1:29 am Link to this comment

Bush is worst without a distant second.  He committed all the crimes of Nixon to a greater degree, but had none of the accomplishments of Nixon.

Nixon at least opened China, got the SALT treaty with the Soviets, and was generally respected on the world stage.

Bush is the first president in American history that other countries view as the greatest threat to peace.

Bush’s crimes are also amplified by a rubber stamp congress his first six years,  a barely functioning one after the ‘06 election, and a press corps that for the same people groveled at his feet as if he were Zeus on Mt. Olympus instead of the dyspeptic, half-retarded trust fund baby who wouldn’t be able to get a job let alone become president of the United States without his father’s help.

Bush will be remembered as the equivalent point in our history Caligula was to the Roman Empire when he named his horse a senator.  Unfortunately for us, we didn’t get Caligula or the horse.  We got the steaming pile the horse left behind and a lot of sycophants in the press who tell us it’s a chocolate cake.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

Well frankly Mike mid City, it could be better. It could be worse too I suppose. But at least the beer is cold.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 9, 2007 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

Mike Mid City, It’s a Friday night for god’s sake. Don’t even suggest for a minute I’m a republican! I take that kind of neocon guff from my cousin in Pennsylvania who feels deep down I’m as much a fascist as she is! I’m a liberal in every sense of the word and to me that is a beautiful thing. I didn’t vote for Arnie in either election and I believe his going into power was a shitty situation inspired by plenty of shitty conniving. That said I am a moderate- liberal, slightly left of center. Perhaps not to a neocon, but still that’s is how I categorize myself.Totidem Verbis! Te Nosce.

Report this

By DeeDee, June 8, 2007 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush is the worst President!! Because of his lack of intelligence! Nixon was a very intelligent man. Unfortunately like Bush, a very immoral person!!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 8, 2007 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

Well Mike Mid-City I lean to the Green and although skeptical, all in all I’ll admit Arnie didn’t turn out to be the thug I thought he was going to be. I dare say that Pam Shriver has been a big help in that matter but the truth is California is basically a moderate state and Arnie has learned to play us that way. I do feel as Clint Eastwood does however that the recall was an injustice to the will of the people. It wasn’t so much Davis’ faulty as it was the fault of Texas energy corporations who played us like a fat New Orleans whore while Bush sat back and enjoyed the show. Pete Wilson was the real culprit, lying to the voters that deregulating the energy corporations would make costs cheaper. A whole lot of dummies fell for that and thanks to them we all got the shaft.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 8, 2007 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

Hey Mike! I’m on your side too and also live on the left coast. I always considered myself to be moderate until the neocons moved in and made Barry Goldwater look like a socialist!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

Mike Mid West, I could argue that the draft would place the children of even the wealthiest of us in harms way, but we both know that the rich have always found ways to skirt around that, including our president, the vice president, Rove, Ashcroft, Gonzales and yes even Rumsfeld.

I hadn’t mentioned the draft in any of my more recent posts and I don’t remember mentioning it in this current blog, but since you have readdressed some earlier comments I made elsewhere, frankly I see private, corporately owned militia as a danger to democracy. That said, I also see a whole lot more people being more quickly enraged over this war if a draft had been implemented prior to invasion. The volunteer service, along with the entire system is geared to insure the poorest of America’s children end up in the military and fighting for god knows what! As opportunity continues to dwindle throughout our nation, it leaves them with little choice other than the military who promises college money and job training to entice them out of the limbo I see as being intentionally created. If a draft had been in effect we would have seen a whole lot more Americans screaming to end this war or perhaps even screaming to prevent it. Many people remained quiet for years about this war because it is a volunteer army, their argument being, “Well they volunteered for it!”  Had it been their own kids send under a draft, that song would have ended before it began!

Any national emergency we can blame on Bush. He created it in the first place and apparently he can’t wait for the next one. Just visit the presidential site and read about the new powers he’s given himself.

As for the rest of it, the amputee thing, I agree entirely with what you are saying. Let’s not forget what he’s done to the Iraqi’s either. 3/4 of a million dead, god knows how many wounded or legless, probably in the millions. 2.5 million fleeing refugees to other countries and no end in sight to this damnable war.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 8, 2007 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

Hey Humble Servant, we’ve heard the term slam dunk many times from your side of the coin and of course have since discovered all of it to be bullshit. Humble Servant indeed! We know who you serve here, and what you do serve is indefensible. The GOP will pay for their crimes just as they did in the last election. All you have left are mundane attacks on a former president who is long gone and who was already impeached rather dubiously because you couldn’t prove any of the other ridicules allegations you are espousing. So readily are you to skirt the current realities with Woo and Gonzales promoting torture and Tenant, Powell, Cheney, Rice calling the WMD’s in Iraq a slam dunk. Unfortunately for your crew, we know now they were all lies and trust me we will act accordingly at the polls!

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, June 8, 2007 at 9:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WHITE HOUSE MEMO LEAKED!
(satire)

Georgie, a reminder:

Right n wrong are not exchangeable.
Lobbyists were never a legal political party.
We The People are family, not your employees.
‘I don’t remember/didn’t know’ is a disgraceful defense.
Like states, responsibility and accountability are united.
Azerbaijan, former or future Russian Republic?
(remember Saddam/Osama/The Alamo)

Georgie, I WANT YOU to ease the sleaze, kill the greed and fill the need. If you cannot, step aside.

~Uncle Sammy

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 7, 2007 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“So much warmth and love…it brings a tear to my eye.  Liberals seem to think that the DemocRats winning in 2008 is a slam dunk, but then again, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk also.  The DemocRatic party is so inept, they could screw up a wet dream.  They couldn’t even beat a president with a mid 40’s approval rating.  Sheeeshh, what a bunch of morons.”

************************************
HS:
I usually find your posts inane garbage. But even though I am a progressive liberal and a Democrat, I agree with this paragraph 100%. I have often said exactly the same thing in frustration.  So the GOP are fascist crooks, and the Democrats are blind stumble-bums.  Pretty sad.

************************************

“Yo Scurvydog.  W never blew up a Chinese embassy.  W did not use John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady to raise money. “

************************************
HS, don’t go there—Bill Clinton didn’t destroy an entire nation based on a set of lies.
W had his own set of crooks: Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay are the first on the list.  Nothing about Clinton compares to Bush when it comes to total, complete, fuck-the-nation, fuck-the-Constitution corruption of George W. Bush.


************************************

“Yo Billy the Dyke.  Good to know you are not a liberal.  Since you assumed I was a W conservative, I was only repaying the compliment.”
************************************

No, Billy the Dik is not a liberal. He’s an anti-semite through and through who just happens to hate Bush. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day).  No need to make fun of his name—no insult you come up with is as bad as “Billy the Dik” all by itself.

“He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind, and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart.”


As always,
Your Humble Servant ”

Report this

By Humble Servant, June 7, 2007 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

So much warmth and love…it brings a tear to my eye.  Liberals seem to think that the DemocRats winning in 2008 is a slam dunk, but then again, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk also.  The DemocRatic party is so inept, they could screw up a wet dream.  They couldn’t even beat a president with a mid 40’s approval rating.  Sheeeshh, what a bunch of morons.

Yo Scurvydog.  W never blew up a Chinese embassy.  W did not use John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady to raise money. 

Yo Billy the Dyke.  Good to know you are not a liberal.  Since you assumed I was a W conservative, I was only repaying the compliment.

As always,
Your Humble Servant

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 7, 2007 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

I think without a doubt George W. Bush is the worst, if not most dangerous president in US History. Tyrant rather than president would make a better analogy. Granted we had some stinkers like Harding, Taft and Hoover who were basically do nothing presidents, but none of them have debased constitutional law more than Bush. Not even McKinley who up till now established the most corporately corrupt government in US History. Not even Richard Nixon should be placed upon this pedestal. He only illegally wiretapped Daniel Ellsberg and the democratic offices at Watergate, Bush wiretapped everybody with his illegal domestic spying program with the help of AT&T and Verizon. Under him and just prior to him we witnessed the most corrupt election processes since Tammany Hall. Some in here are right though to blame guys like Ronald Reagan, the great communicator/first guy in the white house to read from a teleprompter and follow the scriptand who didn’t recall anything, who was pro-union in Poland while dismantling unions here at home. Who enabled the idea that corporations are living persons thus entitled to the same rights(actually more rights) than individuals. The guy who set up death squads, with the help of his buddies Kissinger and Chilean dictator Salvador Allende, in Honduras and El Salvador and throughout Latin America. The same guy who recalled nothing! The beginnings of the so called Imperial presidency were the beginning of the end of our democratic republic, a nation who defied imperialism to become a nation in the first place. Bush has carried this even further by undermining the 3 branch system of government. His privatizing government in general borders on corporatism, or in other words, Mussolini inspired fascism. I agree with the author, when it comes to Bush and Nixon there is simply no contest. Also and as much as I hate to admit it, Nixon did a few good things for the nation, Bush hasn’t done one thing yet that I can think of. Can anyone?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 7, 2007 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Warren Harding the worst?
He at least had a talented Sec. of State, Charles Evans Hughes, (later CJ of the USSC) who professionalized and de-politicized the department.
Herbert Hoover was Sec of Commerce and very good at that (even if he later was a mediocre president who history gives a bad rap)
Andrew Mellon was Sec of Treasury during a major expansion.
Harding left them all to do their thing and didn’t interfere, because he was boffing his secretary in a closet, and playing cards with his Ohio buddies (like Albert Fall).

Nixon alone cannot take the blame for Bush’s excesses and destruction of the Constitution.  He had lots of help, beginning with Goldwater in 1964. Reagan and Bush senior deserve as much of the blame as Nixon.  Reagan created the climate where any liberal and progressive ideal was called either idiotic or socialist.  Helping get the poor out of poverty was “socialist” but giving away airport gates to airlines was “economic stimulation”.

Reagan, using Casey and North, set up a system to fund policies Congress had explicitly declared off-limits and refused to fund.  That was Iran-Contra.

So the foundation for Bush’s power-grab was laid by more than just Nixon.  But Bush is the one who did it.  He is the worst son of a bitch ever to hold the office of president.  It’s critically important to the survival of the US as a free nation to make sure a Democrat follows him into the oval office.

Report this

By pozeur, June 7, 2007 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don’t leave Ronald Reagan (and Bush 41) out of this equation. He pulled off the same distaste and contempt for Congress act (remember Iran-Contra, Oliver North, John Poindexter and Dick Cheney playing his part in the House hearings?)Reagan ran his war his way, bypassing Congressional funding to adventure his way in Central America. Difference: He smiled a lot.

Report this

By BobZ, June 6, 2007 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

I would say Warren Harding was the worst Republican president in history but fortunately he died in office. Also we were in a period of so called “normalcy”, which meant there wasn’t much damage he could do anyway. Even though I am a lifelong Republican, I never voted for Nixon. Being from California, we got to see him close up and it wasn’t pretty. Also we could tell that Ike could not stand him and tried to get him off the ticket. Or maybe he didn’t want his son dating a Nixon daughter. I did vote for Bush the first time around and I would have to say, it is one of the biggest mistakes I ever made. By 2004, I corrected my error and voted for Kerry but too many others in the country drank the Bush Kool-Aid. As much as I disliked Nixon, I would rank him over Bush. Nixon inherited Vietnam and eventually got us out of there, after Ford took over the reins. I would rate Ford over Cheney also. Nixon and Ford had a good understanding of foreign policy that has eluded Bush even after six plus years in office. Even as bad as Nixon was, I never felt like I might have to move to Canada. That has come into my mind a lot under our current prez.

Report this

By scurvybro, June 6, 2007 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Humble Sycophant—

It’s clear that you have a dandy collection of votes and quotes documenting Democrats’ past support of this Iraq tragedy. I hated it then and I still am disgusted by those who try to finesse their way around it today. But you’re not revealing anything new or supporting your argument (more on that in a bit) by trotting out examples of Democrats’ past actions.

If your point is that there is shared responsibility for this war, we are not in disagreement. However, we’ll have to part ways if you’re arguing that the responsibility is shared equally. History will have the final word on that, and I’m sure you’ll be doing your part to ensure that history gets it “right.” Good luck on that one.

And speaking of legacies, you conveniently ignored the invitation I extended to you at the close of my first message. That was to sing the praises of The Decider, remember? OK, I’ll help out with another one:

2) He knows how to use family connections to avoid war duty.

Report this

By Humble Servant, June 6, 2007 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Once again, Billy the Dick shows liberal compassion at its finest.  He epitomizes how liberals embraces diversity.  Boy, I would hate to see what real hate speech looks like.  And liberals want to people to think that conservatives are hateful.  And, boy, are you homophobic!!!  Dr. Humble Servant suspects you are projecting your homo-eroticism on my butt…while it is a very nice one; however, I think you are a little too obsessed with it.

Don’t worry, Billy the Dickless, I know you can’t help it.  You are still suffering from PEST:

http://www.bocanews.com/index.php?src=news&prid=10147&category=Local News

But (opps shouldn’t have used that word around Billy the Dickhead) seriously, why are liberals so afraid of someone questioning their little santa clauses???  You are so much more intelligent than everyone else, so why the fear??

As always,
Your Humble Servant

Report this

By Wally, June 6, 2007 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After living through every president from Hoover to the present ignoramus I would have to without question nominate gdubya as worst ever.  What a shame that old Babs was not spayed about 60 years ago.  The world would be such a marvelous place today compared to what we have.

Report this

By Skruff, June 6, 2007 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“you may recall his dirty tricksters whose pranks basically knocked leading candidate Ed Muskie out of the primary campaign”

Nope, thet was William Loeb editor and owner of the Manchester Union Leader.  He hated Nixon, but hated Muskie more.

Your Humble Historian

Report this

By mef, June 6, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How about, worst state for presidents?
I vote Texas: LBJ overall bears the onus of Vietnam, the Chimp Executive for Iraq. 
Between the two of these, I note that LBJ at least didn’t set back equal rights or promote hollowing-out the economy.

Report this

By Humble Servant, June 6, 2007 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Hey scurvybro,

It is so easy to show the hypocrisy of liberals.  Thanks for your help.  You said, “However, as odious as the Democratic lawmakers’ actions were, they did not make the actual DECISION to go to war.”  Sounds like Kerry’s “I was for the war before I was against it.” 

Here is a list of the liberal’s Who’s Who that voted for the war:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I know, that wasn’t them.  It was part of an evil Karl Rove dirty trick. 

When Clinton vetoed the budget and shut down the government, it was the Republican’s fault.  http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/11/14/cong.t_2.php

Standard liberal hypocrisy.  When Dems authorize force in Iraq, and W acts upon it, Dems claim no responisibility.  When Dems veto a bill that shuts down the government, they claim no responsibility.  Once again, I repeat my an earlier statement that Dems have no scrot and are incapable of taking any personal responsibility.

As always,
Your Humble Servant

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 6, 2007 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

Scurvybro,

Like the name, you can take care of that by eating oranges. No offense ment.

You should not be so hard on “ (Your) Humble Servant” (Your? he includes that sometimes).

We are lucky to have him, he is like our resident George W. Bush, but three times as smart.

Report this

By scurvybro, June 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Hey Humble Sycophant—

In case you hadn’t noticed, Democrats are not reluctant to sharply criticize the cowardly, calculating performance of the elected officials of their own party. We are all too keenly and painfully aware of their shameful votes to authorize our Chimp Executive to invade Iraq and, more recently, to continue the funding of this disaster. However, as odious as the Democratic lawmakers’ actions were, they did not make the actual DECISION to go to war. History will show that is the singular legacy of Bubble Boy, and no amount of bleating from you or anyone else will change that.

You also crow about Republicans being able to bring impeachment charges against Clinton, evidently to demonstrate their prowess at disciplined political power plays. Gee, Republicans are better than the Democrats at mindless, lockstep consolidation? What a revelation! Of course, what you’re celebrating here is superiority at processing. You make no assessment of the merits of the actions of Clinton and The Idiot King: lying about a BJ and lying to get us into a war.

What you don’t offer is any sort of defense of or praise for the Bush administration. Why not? An obvious True Believer such as you must have scores of examples. Here, I’ll help you start the list:

1) He likes Jesus.

Report this

By August West, June 6, 2007 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: ocjim #75598

Nixon may have been “legitimately” elected in 1968 but you may recall his dirty tricksters whose pranks basically knocked leading candidate Ed Muskie out of the primary campaign and helped undermine others, leading to the Democrats’ nomination of George McGovern.

Report this

By Libertarian, June 6, 2007 at 11:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For my money, the two worst presidents in the past 50 years were Lyin’ Lyndon Johnson and Trick Dick Nixon.  Clinton and GWB were minor league compared to those two!

Report this

By Dale Headley, June 6, 2007 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me complete Mr. Boyarsky’s thesis: the worst president - by far - in U.S. history is George W. Bush.  Keep in mind that, as bad as he was, Richard Nixon did some good things, both domestically and in foreign policy.  What has George Bush done to help this country?  Absolutely nothing; in fact he hardly lets a day go by without doing something that hurts us.  As John Dean said when comparing their relative weaknesses and transgressions:  “In Watergate, nobody died.”
  Following up on what #75688 - Leefeller - said: If you must compare Bush to anyone, a much better candidate is Adolf Hitler; except that Hitler was fairly intelligent, which is probably a blessing in disguise; just imagine what devastation a competent George Bush might have wrought.

Report this

By rage, June 6, 2007 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For the first time in the history of the political world, Dumya will get my vote. He is the WORST PRESIDENT ANYWHERE EVER!!! It’s a true shame I am voting to affirm that Junior the dimwitted tool has been the biggest imbicile to crap up the Oval Office ever! I actually don’t know of the existance of a more troublesome numbskull than this beligerent, pompous dunce. He has done such a crappy job, his own dad wept bitterly on global television. He even dropped his own dog! I am PRO-CHOICE, all because Barbara Bush took to term the pregnancy that gave America this evil bane of satan whose life’s mission is bringing about ARMAGEDDON! I have always fancied myself to be a fervent opponent of the xenophobic paranoia that lends credence to the argument favoring forced sterilization of humans deemed esthetically inferior and subsequently unfit to perpetuate humanity. After considerable life experience with the Bush Administrations of 2000 and 2004, however, I can completely appreciate this method of population modification to save our NATION from the heinous perils of naked Bush Familial stupidity. I personally credit the Bush Family with demonstratively verifying and validating the dangerous scientific realities of human generational de-evolution! All this time, I have cruelly berated primates by calling George W. Knucklehead the Chimperor! The ugly inconvenient truth is that any self-respecting ape from any zoo could have been more magnificently groomed to more impudently fling expletives over the open microphone at any formal dinner, burping and belching with his mouth full of food, than our spurious George. A chimp could have given Chancellor Angela Merkel a creepily more unsolicited back-rub than the twit that happened! The Queen and Prince Phillip would have been far more entertained by an actual monkey in a monkey suit than POTUS our vote-stealing simpleton. So, at this time, I wish to extend my most sincere apologies to all those primates who are infinitely more qualified than Flubya to be mayhem marketing pawns for the BFEE Junta, Halliburton, Bechtel, and Blackwater. Dumya is actually an insult to all PRIMATES EVERYWHERE!

Report this

By Louise, June 6, 2007 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The pragmatic and cynical Nixon-Kissinger team would have ignored the ideological rants of neocons.  Bush not only listened to them but gave them big policy jobs.”
***

Ideological rants are but the tools of today. In yesterdays world the neo-cons were far more subtle. But they were there.

***
“Dick Cheney, a young member of Nixon’s staff and then chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, watched with disapproval.  Thus, as vice president, Cheney quickly moved to restore the imperial presidency that existed before Watergate.”
***

Lets not forget the other players.

1969:
Rumsfeld:
Becomes director of the Office of Economic Opportunity in the new Nixon administration.

Cheney:
Becomes Rumsfeld’s low-key personal assistant.

Wolfowitz:
Working with Richard Perle and Hawk Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), helps draft memos supporting Nixon’s anti-ballistic missile treaty.

Powell:
A senior military officer, believes Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara does not understand the reality on the ground in Vietnam.

Armitage:
Leading and training South Vietnamese ambush units.

1971:
Rumsfeld:
Secretly pushing to end the war and trying to get involved with post-war planning.
Nixon tells him to butt out!

Cheney:
Moves into the White House, but soon moves on to serve as assistant director of the Cost of Living Council.

1972:
Nixon wins re-election

Rumsfeld:
Frustrated by his lack of influence in the White House, becomes part of a new school of thought, a new conservative philosophy that centers around dictatorships vs. democracy or moral judgments. The beginnings of neoconservatism.

Wolfowitz:
Completes Ph.D. theses on nuclear weapons in the Middle East and goes to work for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, helped by his connection to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who has considerable influence on Nixon.

By now, the embryo of neo-conservatism is alive and growing.

Powell:
Takes a fellowship at the White House and then a job assisting Frank Carlucci, in Rumsfeld’s Office of Management and Budget.

1973:
Rumsfeld:
Named ambassador to NATO has developed a hawkish view of the world. Meanwhile, Watergate is unfolding, but Rumsfeld, out of the country is untainted by it.

Armitage:
Becomes a hawk. Nixon and Kissinger move toward a Vietnam peace settlement. An angry Armitage joins the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.

1972:
The Watergate break-in.

1974:
Nixon resigns to avoid impeachment

1975:
The Vietnam war ends.

The birth and growth of Neo-conservatism is alive and well.

Nixon did not create neo-conservatism, but no doubt contributed to it’s development. People with rigid minds and consuming ambition for power and money grew with the philosophy. Or visa versa. Was the dishonesty in Nixon’s administration responsible? Or were the dishonest in Nixon’s administration and those influenced by them responsible?

Or were they all simply driven by personal greed and a grudge?

At the end of the Vietnam War “Never again” became the clarion call. And here we are again. So how much of the responsibilty should we accept?

If nothing else, we should by now have learned this lesson.

Pardoning, or ignoring criminal behavior allows the criminals to rise again.

***
“There’s a direct line from Nixon to Bush.  Nixon wiretapped.  Bush approved illegal electronic eavesdropping.  Bush defied congressional requests for testimony and documents dealing with a variety of matters, invoking the Nixon doctrine of executive privilege.  And both of them cost the nation thousands of lives without purpose.

Who’s the worst?  What a dumb question.”

Report this

By sharon ash, June 6, 2007 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am old enough to have lived through both Nixon’s and W’s tenures as president and from my perspective, Nixon is a rank amateur in the worst department when compared to W. There is conversation in this country about the need for a third political party.  I think we need to abolish the Republican Party with its long history of greed and corruption and come up with an entirely new party.  The Republican Party has become so convoluted in trying to mix God, guns and greed that it has truly become pathological in its view of society.  A two party system works fine unless one party has turned diabolical.  I assign to Chuck Hagel the job of coming up with a new party for the right which is not so horribly wrong.

Report this

By Gabe O'Rielly, June 6, 2007 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a neighbour to the North sees it, out of the 43 presidents the US has had, Dumbya is the 50th best.

Report this

By Sang Ze, June 6, 2007 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a joke, right? I mean, instead of dealing with the real problems we confront, we turn things into a game. Our current leadership has failed us badly. We need to act now to bring about meaningful change.

Report this

By Terrence Sullivan, June 6, 2007 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a tough one!  Its like whiffing two separate piles of shit and asking which smells worse. I personally thought Nixon was the most contemptible President until ....“W” and “Dickhead Cheney” and all their little helpers,Rice,Rumsfeld,Wolfowicz, etc. etc. etc. came on the scene.  I would have to vote for the latter pile of dung as the worst and most harmful to Americas interests and world reputation.  Nice going “W” this and Iraq will follow you all your accomplices to your graves.

Report this

By Skruff, June 6, 2007 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sorry we are limited to Bush and Nixon.  When one does this, it limits people and suggests that except for a few bad apples, the system is just fine…. It’s not

My nomination for worst President is James Buccannan
followed closely by James Polk
The next eight in order are
John Adams
Andrew Johnson
George Bush
U.S. Grant
James Carter
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolege
Nixon doesn’t make my list and I believe history will be easier on Nixon and GWB than we (as current citizens)
What’s a wonder is we have had so very many less than adaquate presidents and we still muddle on. 
Even those we consider “best” presidents are no great shucks. Old “honest” Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, was a white supremisist, supported a thug general, and ran a prison which makes Gitmo look humane. 

75605 by bigjimbo on 6/05 at 5:20 pm

“...democratic senator from New York that preceded Hillary, his name escapes me.”

Danial Patrick Moynahan…His name should never be in the same sentence with Hill-the-shill

Report this

By Skruff, June 6, 2007 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am sorry we are limited to Bush and Nixon.  When one does this, it limits people and suggests that except for a few bad apples, the system is just fine…. It’s not

My nomination for worst President is James Buccannan
followed closely by James Polk
The next eight in order are
John Adams
Andrew Johnson
George Bush
U.S. Grant
James Carter
Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolege
Nixon doesn’t make my list and I believe history will be easier on Nixon and GWB than we (as current citizens)
What’s a wonder is we have had so very many less than adaquate presidents and we still muddle on. 
Even those we consider “best” presidents are no great shucks. Old “honest” Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, was a white supremisist, supported a thug general, and ran a prison which makes Gitmo look humane. 

 


75605 by bigjimbo on 6/05 at 5:20 pm

“...democratic senator from New York that preceded Hillary, his name escapes me.”

Danial Patrick Moynahan…His name should never be in the same sentence with Hill-the-shill

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, June 6, 2007 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

60 years of cold war and this moron is restarting the cold war.Nixon must be spinning in his grave to be compared with this incompetent.Nixon was competent and delusional Bush is incompetent and delusional.Now if only Bush would shoplift or something so we could get him on a crime because we seem to timid to charge him with war crimes.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 6, 2007 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

The similarities between Bush and Hitler are more striking than not, reminds me of Gitmo. 

“Night and Fog” the German directive of Adolf Hitler on December 7, 1941 resulted in the kidnapping and disappearance of many political activists throughout Nazi Germany’ occupied territories.  The Third Reich was not a party to the Geneva Convention.

Bush over Nixion any day.

It is as if Bush is trying very hard to distroy our country and the world?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 5, 2007 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As atrocious a president as Nixon was, he did have some redeeming qualities. Only Nixon could have gone to China. His social and environmental policies were at least as progressive as Bill Clinton’s if not more so. Nixon was intelligent, diligent, hard-working, and well-informed—all qualities Baby Bush lacks.  But Nixon was quite anti-semitic, and despite his closeness to Kissinger he didn’t like Jews. I’ll bet that’s the one thing Robert and Billy the Dik like about Tricky Dick.

As for the other “worst” presidents, who can forget the totally forgettable James Buchanan, who did nothing to prevent the secession?  Or U.S.Grant, who was so incompetent that he failed to realize every member of his administration was a crook?

Nixon was a terrible president, but there are at least 4 who were just as bad or worse.  But I don’t include George W. Bush in that group, who is simply the worst president America has ever had and is probably the worst president possible while still retaining a shred of Democracy and Freedom.  It’s a good thing he isn’t more competent or we would already be completely a dictatorship. We aren’t far now.

Report this

By Gandersen, June 5, 2007 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To: Bumble Servant, comment #75570

Bill “the cigar” Clinton.  How could we ever forget that?  That just about the only thing you neo-con, bible thumping self righteous folks can say about Clinton, he cheated on his wife and when asked about it in front of the entire world, did what 101% of men an women (including ministers and politicians) do all the time, he lied.  In fact, he did what every good catholic preacher or politician does; deny it until he could deny it no longer then claim he is an alcoholic or was abused as a youth.  Off to rehab and all is forgotten.

I do not condone what Clinton did, but unlike the mental midget you appear to be, I do not judge a person or a president by one single act of brilliance or one singe foul up.

You are like a High school jock that is still pumping gas at age 41 and still re-living the glory days of his high school career football career, just can’t let it go can ya.

Comparing a president who lied about his affair to a president who:

*tricked the US into the Iraq war,
*is responsible for 3,500 dead us citizens (I think more than 911 by now)
*is responsible for a million civilians in Iraq,
*who helps war profiteers line their pockets
*who uses god and religion to push his agenda
*who appoints literal dimwits to high positions
*who can barely speak in public
*who continually tries to scare Americans into submission and support of his failed policies.
*Who links support of the troops to support of an illegal war?
*Who fails change course even when it is obvious he is wrong or it is not working.
*Who has single handedly embarrassed 70+% of Americans……..

I could go on forever, but I hope in your myopic little mind you can put down the “Clinton bashing” just long enough to see the damage done by Clinton is absolutely nothing compared to the damage and pain caused by bush and his cronies.

So, bumble servant, who do you serve, george, god, religion, the republican party……

Like the rest of the conservatives you serve yourself, you just disguise it well.

Report this

By cann4ing, June 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

Those who haven’t done so, should go to the AV booth, May 27, 2007 post containing Bill Maher’s hilarious piece on this topic.  “While other presidents have sucked in their own ways, Bush is like a smorgasboard of suck.”

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 5, 2007 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

There is NO contest as to the worst president - past, present or future. Our present murderer-in-chief.

This sums him up very nicely:

It looks like he’s been following grandpa’s advice to the letter, doesn’t it?

Bush-Bones Doctrine: “Deny Everything”

“There’s three things to remember: claim everything, explain nothing, deny everything.” - Senator Prescott Bush (Skull and Bones 1917)

The Bush family patriarch made the above statement in a 1966 interview for Columbia University’s oral history project on the Eisenhower administration. Prescott Bush said that political dictum had been explained to him by Claire Boothe Luce, congresswoman, ambassador and wife of Time-Life media magnate Henry Luce (Bones 1920).

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this

By LANCE in CA, June 5, 2007 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Depends on whether or not Bush’s Military is lying about the deaths in Iraq like Nixon did in Vietnam.

I’m sure Bush has lost upwards to 20,000 soldiers at the rate they’ve been dying.

I would still not compare Nixon to Bush.
They were and are both mentally ill substance abusing deniers who’ve lost touch with reality and both should’ve never been in the WH.

Report this

By Humble Servant, June 5, 2007 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

Bill Clinton, Feb 17, 1998, Iraq developing WMDs.
Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998, Iraq will rebuild WMDs.
Nancy Pelosi, Nov 17, 2002, Hussein has WMDs
Jay Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002, Hussen developing nuclear weapons
Harry Reid, Sept 18, 2002, W dealing with Iraq properly
Hillar Clinton, Sept 25, 2002, She supports action again Hussein
John Edwards, Jan 17, 2003, Saddam has WMDs
Evan Bayh, March 17, 2003, Supporst W’s effort against Hussein


As always,
Your Humble Servant

Report this

By QuyTran, June 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Bush is not higher than Nixon’s shoes heels !

Report this

By Cheb Ornek, June 5, 2007 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Humble Servant - you’re one fcked up person.

Can’t pull out the cigar and 1998’s Monica vs. 2007’s Monica.

Loser

Report this

By johnofportland, June 5, 2007 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

King George W. Bush is worst. 

I attended a cocktail party at the National Association of Counties (NACo) Conference in Salt Lake City In 1991.  I overheard the President of NACo and a senior assistant from President Bush Sr.’s office (Rove?) discussing the “best” form of government, ever.  They agreed that it was Medieval England.  Its benefits?

1.  The king secures obedience, neutralizes all possible challengers; gains the monopoly of force; and, maintains law and order.

2.  Patriotism is focused on the nation, not on the localities that comprise it, transferring identity from the local to the national scale.


3.  The state dominates or controls the religious life of society, or at least allies itself with the representatives of religion.

4.  The state exerts control over economic life to facilitate the circulation and exchange of goods, and to grasp as much as possible of the national wealth.


In the medieval model stability is created through divine hierarchy.  The church prays for the soul, the military fights to save the bodies and property of the community, and the peasants work to feed them.  It’s a simple model, which allowed it to last for several hundred years.

The important men at the cocktail party didn’t intend to install a king or a single church in America, but in variation, updated and recycled form, they favored state identification and alliance with a majority religion and a CEO working with a board of directors (perhaps preserving a faint hint of representative government).  Call king and court president and cabinet, or rose and garden, they envisioned a tyrant working with an oligarchy of the privileged elite that they believe is, of course,  best suited to govern.  They were deadly serious and not amused when I asked if they had ever heard of Robin Hood or the Magna Charta.

Edward Gibbon wrote of Augustus Caesar:

1.  He delights in the image of liberty and is pleased with considering himself as the accountable minister of the laws.

2.  He claims a tender respect for a free constitution, which he destroys.
 
3.  A cool head, an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition prompt him to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never lays aside.

4.  With the same hand, probably with the same temper, he signs death warrants and pardons.

5.  According to the various dictates of his interest, he is at first the enemy, and at last the father of the nation.

6.  As he frames the artful system of imperial authority, his moderation is inspired by his fears.

7.  He wishes to deceive the people by an image of civil liberty, and the army by an image of civil government.

8.  Finally, the forms of civil administration are carefully preserved.  The ideal restraints of the senate and the laws may serve to display the virtues, but can never correct the vices of the leader.

It’s an apt description of George W. Bush, the thinly veiled fresh champion of the New Medievalism.  “Americans deserve the government they elect,” my father used to say, but did we elect this one?  Kings, as I recall, are divinely chosen – in our case, by fat cats and the Supreme Court.

Report this

By Jim Houghton, June 5, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The thing about Bush is that he’s ignorant.  He may not be intrinsically stupid, but he’s uninformed and likes it that way.  His mind is made up so why do the work of digesting facts.  Nixon, on the other hand, was something of a scholar.  He thought he knew better and should be allowed to operate unfettered by checks and balances, and he listened to people like Kissinger, so as far as destructiveness goes perhaps he was just as bad.  But there’s something about being fucked over by a dummy that just plain hurts more than if the villain at least has bothered to inform himself.

Report this

By bigjimbo, June 5, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Nixon was an intelligent, sometimes brilliant, man brought down by his paranoia.  He had good ideas and did good things,  His domestic policy czar was the democratic senator from New York that preceded Hillary, his name escapes me.  Would Bush have appointed such an outsider?  Bush has virtually NO positive accomplishments. Bush seems to employ the technique of plausible stupidity.  That is why he will never be impeached or indicted.  No rational person could ever imagine that Bush was calling the shots.  Bush’s primary role is to parrot the talking points of Cheney/Rove, regardless of inanity.  Bush can not formulate an English sentence unless it is spelled out on a teleprompter.  Bush may not be the worst president in history, but Cheney certainly deserves that (dis)honor.

Report this

By ocjim, June 5, 2007 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

It is no contest. Bush has no peer in being the worst president ever. My outrage has no bounds relative to the incompetent, mediocre Bush. With the help of the amoral Rove Bush stole two election. Nixon was legitimately elected and was a genius compared to Bush and did have some some sense of service to the people. Bush is nearly a sociopath in his total lack of caring for the troops, the voters, consumers, workers, etc. His one concern is the rich and his own hide. I have total disgust for Bush who deserves impeachment 10X more than even Nixon.

Report this

By Hammo, June 5, 2007 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

In fairness, Nixon inherited the Vietnam War. Democrat Lyndon Johnson and his associates started it and escalated it (True, Nixon could have redeployed out forces out of Vietnam earlier).

And, Nixon probably honestly believed that the “commies” would expand internationally if Vietnam fell to them.

Nixon had a somewhat creepy persona, but it was there for all to see.

In contrast, George W. Bush and his cronies wanted to invade and occupy Iraq so much they could barely restrain themselves. They faked and twisted intelligence, used lies, propaganda and other activities to get their invasion of Iraq.

The Bush-Cheney bunch wanted to get at Iraq’s oil, establish permanent bases there, create opportunities for war profiteers and for other purposes.

Bush, Cheney and their bunch are also quite scary, but with Bush as the “front man” with his folksy Texas accent, he fooled many people into not seeing that he is probably a quite disturbed personality (which also goes for his associates).

So, my vote goes to George W. Bush for “Worst President Ever.”

Parallels between the two men and situations are looked at in the article:

“Going in circles: Vietnam, Iraq, calls for impeachment”

http://www.populistamerica.com/going_in_circles_vietnam_iraq_calls_for_impeachment

Report this

By Dave, June 5, 2007 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George W. Bush:  Worst, probably
                  Stupidest, definitely

Report this

By Trigger finger, June 5, 2007 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How can we compare these two, Nixon was little league, Bush made it to the majors and brought his crime family with him.

The difference between Nixon and Bush, is Nixon made a mistake and he had to pay for it.
Bush “IS” a mistake and America’s military and taxpayers and the poor people of IRAQ have to pay for it.

Congratulations to American voters who chose to vote for and elect these two republican losers within a span of only thirty years. But, we need more to choose from for the “biggest loser” so, let’s elect and add McCain to the list and make it a threesome, and maybe Ted and make it a foursome. Kennedy was such a big loser he couldn’t even run, but he is proving himself to be right up there in the big loser contest.
Then, if we still can’t decide, we only have to wait four more years to add another moron to the list. Seems like we should at least ask to see their GED scores or, outsource there jobs to a country with integrity.

But, I predict we’ve wised up a bit and we won’t get duped again until at least oh, lets see, probably not until, let me think now, It won’t be another thirty years, but lets say, considering our choices, about Ok, not until 2008.

Report this

By NormDPloom, June 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

A major difference——-I can think of a few things that Nixon did that were a positive contribution to this country.

Report this

By NELSON, June 5, 2007 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Follow the path of Sr. and Jr., plus many other republicans in this story.  A few democrats are mentioned as well.  It is a true conspiracy that
is still going on.

Report this

By Chaseme, June 5, 2007 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What most fail to take into account is the effects of this administrations decisions and actions and how those decisions and actions will effect the future.

Most find it extremely difficult to think a week in advance, which is what this administration has depended on for all their malfeasance. In fact, not only can most not plan for the future, most simply can’t maintain a memory of what happened yesterday, which is what this administration has depended on for all their past malfeasance.

It is as uncomplicated as this, with all the decisions and actions, past, present and future, this administration has, are and will be the worse in American history.

Report this

By Humble Servant, June 5, 2007 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Let’s not forget Bill “the cigar” Clinton, the second President to actually be impeached.  Unlike the current Democratic leadership, the Republicans actually had a pair and did something about him.

As always,
Your humble servant

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, June 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What blows me out of the blue H2O is that nearly 25% of the country still supports Bush. He steps up to the podium, says “Everything’s gonna be okay now ‘cause Daddy’s here,” and those with an infantile hankering for papa heed his call. Oh, and daddy’s never wrong!

Why are we putting up with this madman? Exile Bush/Cheney in ‘07.

Report this

By michael, June 5, 2007 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When will you get over the impeachment thing.  It is not going to happen !!!  the demos either dont want to use it because they are afraid it will be used agianst them someday or more likely they dont care what bushy did they will leave him in power because IT HELPS THEIR CHANCE OF WINNING in 08.  Once again the good of the country the laws of the country and the will of the people are laid upon the altar of politics.  They dont care about anything except getting power.  The next elections seems to leave us the choice who do you want to guard the hen house the foxes or the weasles.

Report this

By louis stroud, June 5, 2007 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

one could probably arrest the whole exutive branch, jail them, and maybe life imprisonment for their actions with the justice department, that is worse than criminal, it is creating something like a nazi germany, putin is right about our government, and also right about not putting missle defense too clo9se to their border, anyone remember the missles in cuba?, we wouldn’t allow that and so why should they allow what bush is trying to do? man, you talk about loose cannons, the exutive branch of our government is full of them.

Report this

By August West, June 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nixon didn’t have the luxury of a rubber-stamp Congress during his presidency otherwise it might be a closer case.  Up until this year, the GOP-dominated Congress and many spineless triangulating Democrats gave the Decider the ability to dictate legislation to compliment a bureaucracy run by cronies and Bush loyalists.  Bush is far worse and there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Report this

By Mudwollow, June 5, 2007 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

It is fruitless but we can’t help but go back to tricky Dick when we look at what George Bush is currently in the middle of. Compared to George, Dick was a gentleman. A liar and a crook and a criminal but an upstanding citizen compared to Mr. Bush. Dick was pardoned by the very person he appointed. That bit of history was ipecac to anyone forced to endure it. So far nothing has happened to George Bush, but impeachment should be only the beginning of the punishment for his as yet mostly unexposed crimes.

Report this

By Dilligent D, June 5, 2007 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At least Nixon did a few things right…

Report this
kelt65's avatar

By kelt65, June 5, 2007 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Mostly agree, but I’d throw Reagan and (Andrew) Jackson in there as well. Jackson was one of the most criminal and depraved presidents the US has ever had.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook