A mix of (b) and (c), I think. As regards to (a), he could have just stayed in Texas and screwed that place up, and gone down in more local infamy.
And (d) because he doesn't care about black people.
I should be accurate, and say he could have screwed Texas up even more than he already had.
I would say (a) except that it cannot be said his presidency was right or proper, in that it has caused (directly and indirectly) the death and misery of untold numbers.
also, I fear that his failures will go unnoticed by future generations, his fabricated victories celebrated by a new generation of glib-minded patriots: the Ronald Reagan of Generation Z. What is it that motivates so many to wilfully ignore this man's obvious deficiencies? To secure what they believe to be self-interest? But his policies make us all poorer, in all senses of the term.
I fear we are in the opening chapters of a long, shameful period. Nobody remembers how shitty Tiberius was; Caligula came right after.
cocks and titties! cocks and titties!
My understanding was that sycophant came from "fig-shower," i.e., one whose scrotum (the fig) is showing as one bends over, presenting one's ass.
Regarding (a), when's the last time a president was less well-regarded after his term in office than he was during it? It seems like we remember the successes and forget the failures.
JFK it seems to me has seen his reputation steadily fall since his interrupted time in office, defenders of Camelot notwithstanding.
It might seem impossible that Lyndon Johnson's reputation could sink further than it was in 1968, but I'd now say that it has. Yeah, sure, there's been a reappreciation of his evil genius as a political operator, but not only has he managed to retain a lion's share of the blame for Vietnam, but also most of the Great Society's programs have been repudiated not just by Goldwater conservatives but by the political mainstream, even many liberals.
Ike is a wash, reputation-wise: probably has had a slight rise in his rep.
Truman, as we all know, has seen a major improvement in his reputation over his time in office.
Nixon, I dunno, but at least you could say he's not any worse off in reputational terms.
Reagan has come up even among some of his strongest enemies given how mild some of his Administration seems compared to recent events.
Carter, a wash. People who kind of liked him then like him much more now, people who hated him then hate him more now, and people who were not even born then have been taught by their elders to do one or the other.
Ford? Who's that?
Bush the Elder? Does he actually have a reputation that can meaningfully rise or fall?
Clinton, too early to say.
Rehnquist is dead.
Re: 9: we're fucked. Tapped is saying it'll be Gonzales. Wave goodbye to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
this is not a good week.
teh Greeks also had a term meaning "wide asshole" which was generally used in the situations where we would use "jerk." I wish that one had evolved into something we now use, but it didn't. Them Greeks.
What's so great about the 5th amendment?
Rehnquist is dead.
Boy, but Congress is going to be busy.
Bush isn't singularly bad. He's a dull mediocrity who has failed upward all the way to the highest seat of power on Earth. I would feel oddly comforted were he some sort of Nixonian evil genius, but he so obviously isn't. He's just terminally incurious, simplistic, and stubborn.
So for me, its b and c. But c makes me see red much more quickly.
I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.
there is also an ancient Greek term, "he who is fucked by the Gods," that was often used, and now universally applicable.
who would have thought a bunch of liberals would be mourning Rehnquist? I liked him though.
And they still love him:
"The survey also found that Americans were sharply divided over the performance of Bush and local, state and federal governments in the aftermath of Monday's storm. Slightly less than half -- 46 percent -- approve of the way Bush has handled relief efforts while 47 percent disapprove, a result that might offer some cheer to beleaguered White House staffers who feared a stronger negative reaction."
Maybe this time it'll be Clement? Appoint a woman, but don't appear to care about gender balance to maintain your anti-political correctness creds.
I really think Bush could eat a starving baby on television and obtain approval from at least 40% of the voting populace for the act.
I mean, we went through all of this last November.
that comment was in poor taste. apologies.
Re: 20 and 21: It was in poor taste but it's plenty accurate. Bush's approval rating has dipped to the low 40s plenty of times, and it's become clear that this is less a sign of his political weakness than it is the sign of the mindless fervor of his base: he's got a good 40% that will support him no matter what he does in Iraq, no matter what he does to the Court, no matter how he fucks this country today, tomorrow, or the next week. It's the hacks and the sycophants that piss me off the most, because they're his accomplices in all of this.
Would it be worth it to demand Bush's resignation? I'm inclined to say that the answer is no, but, God, I wish that it were otherwise. Sorry to be--slightly--off topic.
I don't know -- demand it. I've been picking up talk of that, here and there. Gross neglect of the duties of the office has always been mentioned as an impeachable offense. There's the problem that Republicans control congress, and there aren't many principled ones left. But what harm could such talk do? I think we are past the point of worrying about scaring moderates -- there aren't any.
Would it be worth it to have a de jure instead of just a de facto President Cheney? Eh, what would be the point.
DOn't you both think that if we could get Bush out, we'd get rid of Cheney too. Now, I don't much like the idea of President Hastert, but still. (I'd be much happier with President Pelosi.)
Damn, we are so fucked.
So, will Mike Brown just end up with a Presidential Medal of Freedom, or will Bush toss him the Rehnquist seat?
I often say that if we had tape of Bush raping kidnapped Filipino boys, his supporters would see it as outreach to both the gay and Asian communities, so I think your example was kind of classy. The larger problem is that his supporters get to vote even after he leaves office; we could be screwed for a very, very long time.
speaking of, any chance whatsoever that Michael Brown can be prosecuted on criminal negligence charges?
AFAIK, all officials are essentially immune for any decision they make qua official. There may well be exceptions to this which I am not aware of.
Right now, a lot of us are comparing Bush's response with what we would expect from Clinton. For me, the salient point on this is as follows. Clinton was able to effectively govern the nation *while receiving a blow job*. Bush can't even manage to both govern and deal with the brush problem on his ranch. I hate him so much I can't stand it.
If I'm not mistaken, the CNN crawl just said that Brown and Bush both said it was difficult to prepare for a disaster that spread across several states. I don't think it's too much to suggest that they seek less demanding work.
Tim: LBJ? Really? From where I sit he gets most of the credit for the civil rights movement, now that people realize it was him and not JFK who did most of the work.