I'm sure glad most past leaders didn't Dubya's attitude...

[D2bets]

When asked what history will say about the decision to go to war in Iraq, Bush responded: "History? We'll all be dead". Great fvckin attitude. This explains a lot.

Somehow I think if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were asked about what history would say about the Constitution, I doubt they would have said "History? We'll all be dead".

This President's lack of vision, even a lack of understanding what it means to have a vision, is startling.

 

[kayaman+]

He just keeps confirming how dense he is, why do repubs love to put mental midgets in office (Reagan, Qualye, Bush2, etc.)?

 

[dickman]

Kaya,

I think that Reagan in office would have done a much better job then Jimmy Carter. Nevertheless, I respect Carter, it is just that he was a bad president but a very good statesman.

 

[xpanda]

Stumbled upon this in another blog:


HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL COMMUNITIES URGE SENATE HEARING ON ARCHIVIST OF THE U.S. POSITION Concern is growing within the archival and historical communities regarding the Bush administration's hoped for "fast-track" process to replace Archivist of the United States John Carlin with one of its own choosing -- historian Allen Weinstein. According to informed sources, the administration hopes to short-circuit the normal confirmation process and see Weinstein confirmed through an "expedited" process. Their goal
-- place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election.

According to Hill insiders, the effort to replace Carlin is coming from the highest levels of the White House. Reportedly, Karl Rove who is widely viewed as one of the president's chief political advisors, if not his political mastermind and, Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, want their own archivist in place for two overarching reasons: first, because of the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive department records likely to be opened in the near future, and second, because there is genuine concern in the White House that the president may not be re-elected.

http://hnn.us/comments/33519.html

 

[kayaman+]

Alex,

I definately agree that Carter was a very bad president.
As far as Reagan in all honesty I couldn't really say anything good about him. His administration was the most corrupt in history up to it's time and likely the most corrupt ever, he cut public education funding and social security benifits, while running up a huge debt on military spending, and worst of all he deceived the American public about using drug money to traffics arms from Iran to Nicaragua.

Any way my point was about intelligence levels, good or bad presidents aside, Carter's a bright guy, Reagan was far from bright.

 

[D2bets]

Reagan was a genius next to Dubya. Maybe not in 'book smarts', but as an actor Reagan understood how to convey a message and had some common sense in that respect. Bush is just wining it.

 

[dickman]

Regarding Bush, I was recently in the states and I was amazed that it took me 3 hours to get my license. While I was waiting for my license, I asked one of the employees why it was taking so long when in the past it would take me half an hour. The employee said that the Bush administration cut a substantial portion of the DMV's budget.

I guess that the Bush administration is becoming more and more similar to Reagan regarding budget cuts and now curroption with the war in Iraq.

 

[kayaman+]

D2bets,

I think that calling Reagan an actor would offend many thespians. I mean the truth is they were pretty lame movies and his co-star was a monkey.
I think the attribute that made Reagan a successful politician was carisma. He may have been brighter than bush2 but on the other hand I think my dog probably is too, either way Ronnie is still the guy that said ketchup constituted a vegetable in public school lunches and admitted he hadn't read a book since college. It's just common sense that that's not a smart thing for a politician to admit.