Which US President

ClemofNazareth wrote: I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be.

Me too.  And beyond the process, I don't really like either candidate this time around. 

ClemofNazareth wrote: And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions.

I understand what you mean here.  I just think there's a (very dangerous) difference between saying "perception affects reality" and "perception is reality."  That's all.  But I certainly understand what you mean- for better or worse, perception colors our choices (as I suppose it must).

ClemofNazareth wrote: As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure.

I see your point.  Bush may not be the driving force behind the economy, but he is the head honcho over the US military.

ClemofNazareth wrote: On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents.

I often wish we had more than what is for all practical purposes a two-party system.  Worse than that, we have labels that get tossed around without much thought about what they mean (i.e., "liberal," "conservative").

ClemofNazareth wrote: You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.

Epignosis wrote: You know, Bob, incidentally, I agree with just about everything you've said in this most recent post.  I disagree with a few minor points, but for the most part you and I see eye to eye here.  I am cynical about the election process (although I still plan on voting), and I agree it is pointless to talk about political leaders in different situations (like talking about how different a given progressive rock band would sound if they had a different lineup ). I must, however, take issue with "perception = reality."  There are plenty of people in mental hospitals for whom the little green men under their beds are real- but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.  Politically, people don't take everything into consideration (we really can't), but many do not even try to gather as much information as they can before making a judgment.  That's my whole point about US politics- lack of information or misinformation driving voters' consciences- and the Internet age has only made things worse in that respect. The media has been playing tricks for years, like using a huge headline, but tacking a question mark on the end- George W. Bush Slept With Michael Jackson? for example.  Sometimes busy people catch the headline, but don't read or process the article (or better yet, question it).  When the subject comes up in conversation later that week or that month, it might very well sound like this: "So George W. Bush was on TV yesterday, and..." "George W. Bush?  Isn't he the guy that slept with Michael Jackson?" And so misinformation spreads.  It's just one of many techniques. So how much "awfulness" can be attributed to Bush and how much can be attributed to other factors?  Again, I'm not defending Bush, but from my experience, people treat the President as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything that goes wrong.  I just wonder how much of Bush's foreign policy was based on faulty military intelligence or other forms of bad information?  All I am proposing is that before people claim "Bush is the worst," they might want to judge themselves- how would I act in Bush's situation?  Heck, right after 9/11, lots of people were ready to jump out of their seats to go to war (I lived just outside of Fort Bragg at the time).  And Bush's approval rating then?  A whopping 86%.  Apparently people thought Bush was doing the right thing by going to war at the time.  Now it's popular to be against having gone to war.  It seems that voters don't have to be responsible for the outcome of their opinions, and are free to change their minds at any time, and without repercussion. This is another thing I don't get (remember, as an English teacher I engaged my students in political discussion from time to time, especially if someone made a bold assertion I was not certain they could back up):  Some folks paint Bush as a moron- he's fairly inarticulate, he doesn't always do a decent job of getting his point across, and he seems mildly incompetent; yet in the same breath, claim that he is some criminal mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, some sort of villain who orchestrated and manipulated events to go to war.  Is it just me, or do these two characters seem at odds, or are the people who make these claims disingenuous at best? One more thought your post brought up in my mind regarding the number of people voting is this: If you want to claim that Bush did not receive strong support from his country at election time in 2004, you would have to concede that no candidate has received strong support from his country at election time since perhaps Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (60.1% of the popular vote). Sorry for the extended post.  My intention was to be brief, but I kept thinking of things to say.    Go ahead and tear me apart.

I suspect as well we aren't all that far apart politically. I'll vote as well, as disillusioned with the process as I may be.

And I concede your point about there being shades of perceptions that sometimes don’t touch the realm of possible reality. I still contend in the context of this subject that perception does equal reality though. Or at least one's perception can impact reality. Mark David Chapman thought he was Holden Caulfield, and John Lennon is dead. John Hinkley's reality included a non-existent relationship with Jodie Foster which resulted in an assassination attempt on President Reagan. And millions of voters (whose realities may be nearly as skewed as Chapman’s and Hinkley’s, though not necessarily to violence) perceive one or another candidate to be something that he or she may not in fact be, but elect those people anyway, based on those perceptions.  

As to how much of the past eight years can be ‘blamed’ on Bush, that’s another part of each individual’s reality, I suppose. For me there needs to be some measure of accountability though. Bush held himself up as ‘the Decider’. Bush took the oath to be the leader of the land. I’m probably tainted by my military background, but in my reality the guy at the top takes the praise as well as the blame, both in equal measure.

On the popular vote question I have to say you make a salient point; I hadn’t considered this before. I suppose for some of us the distrust and bad taste left by the 2000 elections tainted those in 2004 as well, although I’ll admit Bush’s second victory wasn’t any less marginal than those of many other presidents.  

You bring up a point that I think helps frame the discussion about which president was the worst though. You asked how much of the past eight years’ “awfulness” can be attributed to Bush. I suppose the same question would have to be asked in comparing him to any other president. Was Bush more (or less) complicit in the bad decisions made during his tenure than Carter, Nixon, or any other president was in theirs? That’s probably a good starting point in determining which of them was actually the ‘worst’, although once again we’d be measuring with a pretty subjective ruler.