for Top Gun...

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16919]There are two major differences between your side and mine...

I liked President Clinton and his administration a lot and I often respond to Clinton attack posts. That's all that's happened here.

I respect your opinion and although I disagree with you on the big picture I'm sure there are aspects of your philosophy that have merit.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I liked President Clinton and his administration a lot and I often respond to Clinton attack posts. That's all that's happened here.

That's fine to like a President personally and even agree with their political philosophy (such as myself with Calvin Coolidge), but to be considered a "great" and "phenomenal" president, they need to do something of substance that benefits this country and its people.

Clinton was an adequate custodial president. Nothing worthy of the accolades you bestow on him.

 

[top gun]

That's fine to like a President personally and even agree with their political philosophy (such as myself with Calvin Coolidge), but to be considered a "great" and "phenomenal" president, they need to do something of substance that benefits this country and its people.

Clinton was an adequate custodial president. Nothing worthy of the accolades you bestow on him.

Dude... stop it! You have absolutely no "zero" right to tell ME how I should feel or what I should deem as worthy. You have every right to call him as custodial as you want.

But then again you got caught up in that partisan mis-statement "Clinton at 30% approval" in response to my statement when he left office. Of course it really was a GREAT 65% job approval... but you morphed that over to during the hearings. Then polls didn't even matter anyway. I guess only the 30% ones huh?

I look at all the damage Bush has done and I think... MAN now this SH*% is terrible!

Let it go my friend... we just don't agree on what's good.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Dude... stop it! You have absolutely no "zero" right to tell ME how I should feel or what I should deem as worthy. You have every right to call him as custodial as you want.

Of course I shouldn't tell you how to feel. But I'm asking you to explain why you believe he is something more than a custodial president, much like Zachary Taylor or James Garfield. What makes him better than these mediocre presidents? Citing some random poll numbers just isn't very convincing.

But then again you got caught up in that partisan mis-statement "Clinton at 30% approval" in response to my statement when he left office. Of course it really was a GREAT 65% job approval... but you morphed that over to during the hearings. Then polls didn't even matter anyway. I guess only the 30% ones huh?

Polls don't matter, but if you're going to use them to make your argument, I'm going to use them to refute your argument.

I look at all the damage Bush has done and I think... MAN now this SH*% is terrible!

What does Bush have to do anything. I have asked you to explain why you believe Clinton stands out as a great president. What another President has done has nothing to do with this.

I never said Clinton was "terrible". I just don't think he was "phenomenal" as you do.

Let it go my friend... we just don't agree on what's good.

You have yet to define what a good president does.

 

[top gun]

Of course I shouldn't tell you how to feel. But I'm asking you to explain why you believe he is something more than a custodial president, much like Zachary Taylor or James Garfield. What makes him better than these mediocre presidents? Citing some random poll numbers just isn't very convincing.
Polls don't matter, but if you're going to use them to make your argument, I'm going to use them to refute your argument.
What does Bush have to do anything. I have asked you to explain why you believe Clinton stands out as a great president. What another President has done has nothing to do with this.
I never said Clinton was "terrible". I just don't think he was "phenomenal" as you do.
You have yet to define what a good president does.

I don't know how many ways to say it, STOP! I've already went over this. I'm not doing the scorched earth policy with you.

Go get an artist and have them paint a portrait of President Clinton... then look at it... GOOD 65% overall job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Then do the same with his sucsessor... ... BAD 26% job approval rating PRESIDENT.

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET May 8, 2007
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

BUT WAIT IT GOT WORSE...

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET June 21, 2007
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.


However you care to work this out in your own mind is fine...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't know how many ways to say it, STOP! I've already went over this. I'm not doing the scorched earth policy with you.

Stop what? I'm respectfully requesting that you answer the question posed in my opening post which you continue to dodge. In case you forget, the question is why do you think Clinton stands out as a "phenomenal" president (as you have called him)?

Go get an artist and have them paint a portrait of President Clinton... then look at it... GOOD 65% overall job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Then do the same with his sucsessor... ... BAD 26% job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Is this your answer? I asked you why Clinton was a good president and you respond with "he left office with a 65% approval rating"?

And to boot, you took Clinton's rating as he left office and juxtapose that with Bush's lowest numbers? At one point, Bush's approval rating was close to 90% which is much higher than Clinton's highest. Bush's lowest is within a couple points of Clinton's lowest. You're not painting a fair picture here by cherry picking arbitrary poll numbers.

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET May 8, 2007
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

A Newsweek Poll? Come on, you can't be serious with this. First of all, it's well over a year before the general election, so these polls are pretty much worthless. Anything can happen between now and then.

Secondly, Gallup poll has Guliani leading Hillary by 2 points. CNN and Rasmussen have Guliani leading Obama by 2 and 3 points respectively,

BUT WAIT IT GOT WORSE...

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET June 21, 2007
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

However you care to work this out in your own mind is fine... [/COLOR]

Who cares? If they had polls in during the 1860s, Lincoln would have had tremendously low poll numbers. Same for Truman in 1945. They were despised during their time but history has granted them quite a legacy.

Only history will judge the success of the Bush presidency. Not some arbitrary poll.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17050]Stop what? I'm respectfully requesting that you answer the question posed in my opening post which you continue to dodge. In case you forget, the question is why do you think Clinton stands out as a "phenomenal" president (as you have called him)?

I'm the NO BULL guy... I don't dodge. I've clearly stated that I don't believe you have to win a World War or something to be a great president. I've given you several positions that Clinton took on bringing the Democrats to the center and positions on reducing (actually eliminating and providing a surplus) on the budget deficit and other social economic policies that I feel showed proper leadership on his part. The fact you discount them doesn't mean I didn't post them. Clinton kept us out of major quagmire prolonged conflicts I liked that too. Clinton was great for consumer confidence and as I said I do look at the OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING... it's important. It gives a good overview of how the American people feel about their leader. And like I said several times now sometimes the most competent leaders just calmly keep us on course. May seem like a small thing but when you compare it to things like Bush running us full throttle into the rocks... I want the other competent skipper!

One can quibble over job approval ratings during a presidents term. Things might change. He might be wrong. He might be right. But at the end after 8 straight years to come out of office even after an IMPEACHMENT at a 65% OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING! WOW!!!!!!!! The guy did his job well!

Is this your answer? I asked you why Clinton was a good president and you respond with "he left office with a 65% approval rating"?

For about the 14th time now... see above...

And to boot, you took Clinton's rating as he left office and juxtapose that with Bush's lowest numbers? At one point, Bush's approval rating was close to 90% which is much higher than Clinton's highest. Bush's lowest is within a couple points of Clinton's lowest. You're not painting a fair picture here by cherry picking arbitrary poll numbers.

I'm amazed. You think there's any comparison to be made between Bush's numbers and Clinton's. You're trying to say Bush's numbers are in anyway good... 26%... worst presidential numbers of all times, good. WOW! You think he's on the rebounded to 65% don't you? I give up you'll say anything.

A Newsweek Poll? Come on, you can't be serious with this. First of all, it's well over a year before the general election, so these polls are pretty much worthless. Anything can happen between now and then.

Again... you'll say anything I guess. What else can you do at 26%.

Secondly, Gallup poll has Guliani leading Hillary by 2 points. CNN and Rasmussen have Guliani leading Obama by 2 and 3 points respectively,

Whatever... you saw the posts I presented. I'm just glad things are close. We'll know soon if the country wants to continue on this downward Republican spiral. I'm guessing no... but that's just me!

Who cares? If they had polls in during the 1860s, Lincoln would have had tremendously low poll numbers. Same for Truman in 1945. They were despised during their time but history has granted them quite a legacy.

I've seen George Bush. I've listened to George Bush. I've watched how poorly George Bush's policies work. George Bush is no Lincoln or Truman.

Only history will judge the success of the Bush presidency. Not some arbitrary poll.

Well my friend there's an old saying that goes... You can put wings on a pig... but that don't make him an eagle! And I'm sure it applies well here.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm the NO BULL guy... I don't dodge. I've clearly stated that I don't believe you have to win a World War or something to be a great president. I've given you several positions that Clinton took on bringing the Democrats to the center and positions on reducing (actually eliminating and providing a surplus) on the budget deficit and other social economic policies that I feel showed proper leadership on his part. The fact you discount them doesn't mean I didn't post them. Clinton kept us out of major quagmire prolonged conflicts I liked that too. Clinton was great for consumer confidence and as I said I do look at the OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING... it's important. It gives a good overview of how the American people feel about their leader. And like I said several times now sometimes the most competent leaders just calmly keep us on course. May seem like a small thing but when you compare it to things like Bush running us full throttle into the rocks... I want the other competent skipper!

So when I sift through all the BS, here's what I get. You think that Clinton was a phenomenal president because he:

(1) Brought Democrats to the "center"
(2) Provided a surplus
(3) Didn't get into a "prolonged quagmire conflicts"
(4) Had a good approval rating at one point in time
(5) Kept us "calmly on the course"

Have I left anything out?

As for #1, I don't exactly see how Clinton brought the Dems to the center. Sure he was forced to work with a Republican Congress that pushed through budget cuts and welfare reform, but it seems as though the Democratic Party has been taken over by the radical "progressive" wing, not the moderate wing since Clinton.

As for the surplus. yes, that is commendable and I applaud him for it. But this alone doesn't make him as great as you seem to think he is. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget during times of peace.

Didn't get into any prolonged conflicts. Well, yes, because he largely ignored the terrorist threat while simultaneously slashing our military. Secondly, most of our Presidents kept us out of conflict. This doesn't support your assertion that Clinton stands out as a president.

Approval rating -- I told you. Meaningless to me.

"Kept us calmly on the course" (i.e. "worked hard at crafting a legacy"). So has virtually every other President in our history.

I'm amazed. You think there's any comparison to be made between Bush's numbers and Clinton's. You're trying to say Bush's numbers are in anyway good... 26%... worst presidential numbers of all times, good. WOW! You think he's on the rebounded to 65% don't you? I give up you'll say anything.

I'm certainly not saying Bush's numbers are good, but I'm pointing out the irrationality of looking at poll numbers as a determinant of a President's success.

I've seen George Bush. I've listened to George Bush. I've watched how poorly George Bush's policies work. George Bush is no Lincoln or Truman.

History will judge.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17164]So when I sift through all the BS, here's what I get. You think that Clinton was a phenomenal president because he:

(1) Brought Democrats to the "center"
(2) Provided a surplus
(3) Didn't get into a "prolonged quagmire conflicts"
(4) Had a good approval rating at one point in time
(5) Kept us "calmly on the course"

Have I left anything out?

As for #1, I don't exactly see how Clinton brought the Dems to the center. Sure he was forced to work with a Republican Congress that pushed through budget cuts and welfare reform, but it seems as though the Democratic Party has been taken over by the radical "progressive" wing, not the moderate wing since Clinton.

As for the surplus. yes, that is commendable and I applaud him for it. But this alone doesn't make him as great as you seem to think he is. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget during times of peace.

Didn't get into any prolonged conflicts. Well, yes, because he largely ignored the terrorist threat while simultaneously slashing our military. Secondly, most of our Presidents kept us out of conflict. This doesn't support your assertion that Clinton stands out as a president.

Look my friend there are many things President Clinton did that were extremely important at the time. You have to remember that Bush #1 was voted out due to the economy (sidebar: Not really his fault Reagan's deficit arms race spending coming due). Please don't argue the point I already know you don't agree.

I'm just not going to chapter and verse everything good President Clinton did but there was much. Some of which you cite but disagree with. What I see as GREAT is as in what was needed at the time and in comparison to others of that general time. Not necessarily of all times, but none the less very important.

It's not a partisan thing for me. Two of the best people... "human beings" we ever had as president one of each Party were Carter and Ford. You want someone to watch your kids or grandkids... either would have been great! However as world leaders, and the let's call it... CEO type running of a country... not good at all.

President Clinton had a direct effect on consumer confidence at a time when it was desperately needed. And I'll once again go to OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING not just during the honeymoon period at the beginning but at the time of leaving office after 2 full terms... 8 years... 65%! That means something brother. The American people were happy with the job that was done. If President Clinton was the president or CEO of any company in the private sector with those kinds of approval numbers stockholders would surly have given him a huge raise. That's what overall approval ratings mean to me... and what I would hope a president to achieve.

Some want the president to be more of a religious figure or a father figure or possibly a military figure. I myself give great consideration to the CEO type that deals with the hand they are dealt and at the end are still liked by the American people.

Approval rating -- I told you. Meaningless to me.

Well of course it "wasn't bogus" when you thought you could bash President Clinton with 30%. But in all fairness I would probably say the same thing in your shoes. You really have no place else to go on the value of overall approval rating. Your guy has won the dubious distinction, over Jimmy Carter no less, as the worst president ever since polling started. I understand you really can't say you agree with polling now.

Like I said President Clinton left office at 65%... great numbers anyway you want to cut it. Americans were very happy with his job performance regardless of his personal flaws.

I think there's little doubt that history will look back at Bush/Cheney and as those on the right try to spin them out of being the worst... the historians will say... Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Let's just wait and see, OK...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

So let me get this straight -- you want a President to get high approval ratings as he leaves office and nothing else? No matter what he accomplishes or screws up over his 8 years, if he leaves on a high note, then he was a "phenomenal" president?

Most people don't pay attention to politics until the couple of weeks before a big election but if things look relatively good and they're fairly happy then they'll approve of a President. They don't know about the intricacies and complexities that determine whether a President was successful or not.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17275]So let me get this straight -- you want a President to get high approval ratings as he leaves office and nothing else? No matter what he accomplishes or screws up over his 8 years, if he leaves on a high note, then he was a "phenomenal" president?

At this point you should see trying to put words in my mouth isn't getting you anywhere my friend.

I gave you many, many reasons and explanations of those reasons including my expectations in overview of what a good president does that in my opinion qualifies as a "phenomenal" job for his time in office.

I never said that the only thing that matters is high approval ratings when leaving... and you're perfectly aware of that. I said high approval ratings at the time of leaving office demonstrates that after all is said and done... the entirety of the job is judged... and President Clinton fared well.

Most people don't pay attention to politics until the couple of weeks before a big election but if things look relatively good and they're fairly happy then they'll approve of a President. They don't know about the intricacies and complexities that determine whether a President was successful or not.

Well that's just gobbledygook my friend and again... you're a smart guy and you know that. With the media crush that goes on today most "voters" have no choice but to pay attention.

Since you can't fall back on overall job approval ratings ever again I guess your only fall back plan is the one you just used here... Well!!! Well!!! Then the public is just to stupid to know what's good or bad! If that's your stand I say good luck to you at the after party.

I on the other hand am still sticking with the 74% of all other Americans that say when it comes to George Bush and his administration... You can put lipstick on a pig... but that don't make him the prom queen!