If Romney were to withdraw, who gets your vote?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree. If Iraq were to become a stable representative non-religious republic that some how paved the way for better representation for Muslims in the Middle East, then he might be considered a visionary. I don't predict that but I would be willing to admit my mistake if it turns around.

The military is starting to win the hearts and minds of the local populace.

I totally agree that if this were to happen, W would have to be given some amount, if not the majority of the credit. I also agree that W would deserve to be labeled a visionary of some sort.

However, the reality is that no sitting President will allow this to happen. Sitting Presidents and Congress take credit for good things that are currently happening.

If you are correct about revising the legacies of prior presidents, then perhaps when Castro finally dies and communism eventually falls, the NY Times headline will read: "Bay of Pigs--Who's Laughing Now?"

Popular opinion shapes our history. W is wildly unpopular. Nothing that happens 5-10 years from now will change that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Are we talking about W or about Mr Smith going to Washington?

W is no saint. He wanted to go down in history as the guy who liberated the Middle East. He rolled the dice and crapped out. He has alienated half the country, as well as much of the Western world, and almost entirely ignored domestic issues in the process. Self belief in ones actions is admirable. It is nice to believe in what you are doing. But the more important question to ask first is whether you KNOW what you are doing. W does not.

As of right now, what do historians tell us about W that popular sentiment does not? Often, they are one in the same, as in W's case.

You know Triplet, your posts about W always speak as if the history books are written. As if you know the future outcome of all policies, and the full view of history is fixed. I hate to think what you'd posted in 1948 about Harry Truman, had message boards existed.

Give the "Bush is the worst president in history" shtick a rest, will ya? Your cataclysmic posting doesn't strengthen your position.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

You know Triplet, your posts about W always speak as if the history books are written. As if you know the future outcome of all policies, and the full view of history is fixed. I hate to think what you'd posted in 1948 about Harry Truman, had message boards existed.

Give the "Bush is the worst president in history" shtick a rest, will ya? Your cataclysmic posting doesn't strengthen your position.

Good point.

I was online that night telling everyone Dewey had won.

PS FWIW "tex" I am not saying he is the worst president in history. just saying he is a terrible president. and that his legacy is largely set in stone.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Popular opinion shapes our history. W is wildly unpopular. Nothing that happens 5-10 years from now will change that.

Harry Truman ended his presidency with an approval rating in the twenties and lost his own parties nomination. Today he's largely considered a good president.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I totally agree that if this were to happen, W would have to be given some amount, if not the majority of the credit. I also agree that W would deserve to be labeled a visionary of some sort.

However, the reality is that no sitting President will allow this to happen. Sitting Presidents and Congress take credit for good things that are currently happening.

If you are correct about revising the legacies of prior presidents, then perhaps when Castro finally dies and communism eventually falls, the NY Times headline will read: "Bay of Pigs--Who's Laughing Now?"

Popular opinion shapes our history. W is wildly unpopular. Nothing that happens 5-10 years from now will change that.

Again I'm not predicting it, and future presidents and their policies will play a role in what happens. However, W took a risk, one I don't believe was worth it, but if things turn out well, my prediction may have been offbase. If it happens in thirty years, then W deserves less credit than if it happens in five to ten years.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Harry Truman ended his presidency with an approval rating in the twenties and lost his own parties nomination. Today he's largely considered a good president.

If it werent for Fletch and Cheers, most people under 30 wouldnt even know or care who Harry Truman was.

I wonder if it was comforting to die, clinging to the hope that in 20 years someone may wind up liking you. (i ask for personal reasons, too....)

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Again I'm not predicting it, and future presidents and their policies will play a role in what happens. However, W took a risk, one I don't believe was worth it, but if things turn out well, my prediction may have been offbase. If it happens in thirty years, then W deserves less credit than if it happens in five to ten years.

ok, fair. Detente.

Did you like my Bay of Pigs reference? I thought it was good.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I wonder if it was comforting to die, clinging to the hope that in 20 years someone may wind up liking you. (i ask for personal reasons, too....)

I doubt Harry Truman gave a damn.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Hillary is not an executive and doesn't manage a bureaucracy.

It's not the size of the constituency that matters but the fact of administering and rendering executive service over a large body that presents the possibility that person can handle the toughest job in the world.

I mostly stay out of political discussions but one thing struck me. I am not sure if I want a manager of bureaucracies to be president. Arnold Schwartzneger was a punchline when he was elected govenor of CA and had absolutley NO experience managing a bureaucracy and was not an executive. Yet he has done a great job here in CA.

IMHO It may be more important to be a highly intelligent visionary that is also a fantastic communicator than an executive as you define it. Leadership is more than executive experience. I think leadership is the ability to inspire and get people to follow. Obama has that kind of leadership in spades even if he does not have what you consider executive experience.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If it werent for Fletch and Cheers, most people under 30 wouldnt even know or care who Harry Truman was.

I wonder if it was comforting to die, clinging to the hope that in 20 years someone may wind up liking you. (i ask for personal reasons, too....)

Weird, but I thought you said history was shaped by popular opinion.

I doubt Harry gave a damn whether people liked him, a trait shared by W.