world

House Speaker Pelosi calls Bush 'a total failure'

112 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

112 Comments
Login to comment

Now that is totally harsh and uncalled for. I would say dubya is about 85 percent failure, definitely no lower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but I don't see Bush as a failure. For the simple reason that anyone else in office over these years, after 911, would very likely be in a similiar situation today, if not worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suppose anything short of socialism under a one world government would be considered a failure for Ms. Pelosi. So even though I'm no Bush fan, her opinion carries little weight. Being Speaker of the House, perhaps she should be focusing more on the Congress's approval rating of 18%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nancy is in way over her head. Her husband is a big time busiess man and lobbyist. His main client, PRC. So as Nancy goes on about how "W" is a failure, she is busy making sure that rules and regualtions are relaxed so her husband and friends can have increased access to China.

I think she needs to "clean House" as she mentioned when she first was elected to the Speaker position by her collegues, and then worry about "W."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it's likely that 71% of the electorate fail to approve of Bush for reasons that are remarkably similar. However, the 82% who fail to approve of Congress do so for reasons that are split along party lines.

The lower approval rate for Congress is not particularly meaningful. What is meaningful is that Americans in large numbers disapprove of their government and that Bush acknowledges himself to be the leader and decider.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush - 'a total failure' what Pelosi is saying is now, rest of the world had said years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what Pelosi is saying now......sorry

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanULTRA,

I don't think that is the case. I think some more intellectually curious presidents might not have toyed with American resources in a divisive war in Iraq and I think they might also have jawboned Congress to adopt tax policies that better served the needs of all the people. And this is to say nothing of some presidents being better suited to resist a perceived need to make our government more and more secretive while assuming more and more powers for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They're all crooks and failures. Every politician.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

God bless America, the greatest country in the world

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She's just upset because Bush's rating right now is higher than one of the (Democrat) Houses of Congress she leads. It's just a distraction tactic.

-Sour grapes.

sweet

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being Speaker of the House, perhaps she should be focusing more on the Congress's approval rating of 18%.

Yet everyone expects the Democrats to pick up seats in both houses of Congress come November. This begs the question of why Congress's approval rating is so low; perhaps it's because the Democrats failed to challenge GWB in the ways voters intended when they restored the Democrats to power in 2006. Certainly that's a source of dissatisfaction within the Democratic Party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nancy is and has been a rich white lady living up in some gated community who thinks she has the right to speak for the real people of the US. She is another Bush in different clothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Pelosi calls Bush 'a total failure'"

Ha ha, really, that's just an overstatement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seeing comments like this must be tough to take for the America-hating bush supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - "Nancy is and has been a rich white lady living up in some gated community"

Bash the messenger, not the message. Is that wise?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho2

You're entitled to your opinion. And I believe that much of what you stated, while no one would disagree, is all with the benfit of hindsight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Seeing comments like this must be tough to take..."

Not exactly. I'm here to be entertained and most of you are doin' a maaaaavelous job.

Arigatos, mes amis.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin, seeing people trying to support bush is like watching the First Mate and bosun hanging on to the coattails of the captain of the Titanic as the ship begins its death dive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SS3, folks've been sayin' that about American politicians, the "daily" collapse of the American economy, the "impending" American downfall for a hunnert-plus years.

Entertainment ad infinitum.

Life goes on. We be here.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember the old adage, "Don't shoot the messanger."

george bush has proven his worth.

Too bad we can't turn back time.

At least he'll be gone in 186 days. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Folks,uhhh,I think it's time we had a national conversation about unpopularity. We need to get past all the Republicans and recognize that we are our own best hope for overcoming patriots.Uhhh,we need Armchair Americans, not Texans.Understand this -- Armchair Americans are our popularity.And we need to have change in unpopularity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're entitled to your opinion. And I believe that much of what you stated, while no one would disagree, is all with the benfit of hindsight.

What about those of us who have been saying this all along?

Can someone please tell me what Bush has done right?

Thus far I have predicted, with unsettling accuracy, the train wreck that the Iraq War has become, the fact that Saddaam had no WMDs (and that the "they're in Syria" defense would turn out to be complete BS,) the inability of "stimulus" checks to do jack s**t for the economy, etc. And I'm a guy who voted for him the first time around.

Because of this, I've been called a traitor, Liberal (ha! right,) hippie (double f***ing ha!), etc.

Am I to conclude that an ability to accurately predict reality from available evidence means I hate America? If the Sarge's and USARonins of the world would spend less time looking for excuses to feel superior and more time actually holding their leaders accountable, then I would have been proven gloriously, mercifully, thankfully wrong. And I would have been man enough to admit it. Hell, I would have been OVERJOYED to admit it.

Stop whining about the Dems, you dinks. Get off your faux-superior butts and contribute something worthwhile for a change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Somebody else noticed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And she is 100% correct!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TPOJ - good points.

Some points I have clearly noticed about people like Sarge and USARonin is that they will bash Democrats and totally ignore the blunders of the Republicans - in fact they pretend the Republican party has done nothing wrong.

On top of that and in a similar pattern, they will bash Obama but they never actually support McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanULTRA,

Yes, I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?

And as for the benefit of hindsight, I would have been one who said from jump street, "no" to Iraq, "no" to economic policies that gut the system and "no" to presidential determinations of indefinite detainees, to presidential greenlighting of torture and to presidential invasion of privacy.

We all had our eyes open as he did these things. As we watched, some spoke out against this and others supported him. If you are having hindsight now, good on you. But others have been saying this all along.

It seems to me that the far weaker assertion here is your assertion that any other president so situated would have done similar things. I think that is simply not true because, for one thing, not every other president would have surrounded himself with the PNAC faithful and the energy crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If any of you have read American History, you will see that we have elected some real "doobers" to the White House. At the time they were in office, the common belief was pretty much the same as what is being said about Bush. But through it all, America has been able to make it.

I seem to remember that when Jimmy Carter was getting elected in 1976, there were posters made with the initials of "JC" and a picture of Carter with the caricature of "Jesus Christ." He was to be the great "saviour" of America. And look what happend after he got elected. American prestige and economy sunk even lower.

One thing about America, like it or love it, the people have the right to bad mouth their leaders. Even if it is deserved or not, the right still exists. I wonder what would happen, here in Japan, if a prominent politican called Fukada a total failure? Would his cabinet dissolve? And would their be a call for "No confidence" and a new person elected? Well at least in America, we have learned that we will stick with a "bad decision" until the appointed time to either re-elect or change. I guess that is the difference between our system and a parlimentarian system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll be more impressed when wh puts impeachment back on the table. Until then, it's just sweet nothings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

I'm not sure that's the case. Nixon was forced from office and Andrew Johnson survived an impeachment trial by one vote.

There is little virtue in sticking with a known bad decision if remedies are available. General Dynamics wouldn't do it. The Yankees wouldn't do it. And I doubt if many of us would do it in our own personal lives.

That an entire country would be hostage to a truly bad decision is to subscribe to the notion that no one can do so much damage we can't fix it. That notion will seem to be true until it is not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

House Speaker Pelosi calls Bush 'a total failure'

Somebody finally tells the truth in Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez, Correct on both accounts. But Nixon was about to be shown to have committed crimes, and one of the main reasons that Johnson's case was much about imcompetence on his part, as well as Clinton's almost near removal. I am not saying that it can't happen, but that when you look back on all of the US Presidents, "W"'s ability or lack thereof is pretty much on par with the rest of them.

I don't think that the country is being held hostage by Bush. We did have mid-term elections, and a change in the make-up of Congress put Pelosi in power. But for all of Bush's failings, none have been impecahable offenses. FOr the record, Pres. Johnson faced impeachment due to mainly the "Radical Republicans" (he was actually a southern Democrat that sided with the Union, so Abe put him on his ticket in 1864 as a 'Unity Ticket') felt that he was not moving fast enough in the right direction in by vetoing the civil rights bill and his hurry to accept the Southern states back into the union with conciliatory policies vice the ones they wanted to make. Why bring this up? If Nancy Pelosi is so insistent that "W" is such a screw up, then she should bring up impeachment charges against him. As the Speaker of the House, she should be able to gather enough votes to do so. But, I think she understands that under all of her rhetoric, both the House and Senate (Republican and Democrats) are to blame for some of the messes that Bush is said to have caused.

I think it is just a way for her to try to come off as doing something, while doing nothing. Smoke and mirrors to easily placate the "Hate Bush" crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pathat, you should vote for Barak Hussein Obama in the coming American presidential election. It seems you're unhappy with the past eight years.

Can you? Legally, I mean.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Congress is even worse. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18%"

I thought it was 9%...

Pelosi's a total idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush and the GOP gov't may have been an utter failure, but so has Congress and the Dems

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's the Senate where the democratic efforts are being stopped. The people look at it as a whole. So they see it as the congress isn't doing their job.

I'm going to be happy to vote for Barack Obama. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape,

Thanks for your response. What you say about Nixon is, I think, correct and what you say about Johnson rings bells but I wouldn't swear to it. I don't think it really matters, though, why they would have been or were impeached. The point that I was making was that we do not have to suffer bad decisions and we should not think as though we have to somehow muddle through.

I'm not sure that none of Bush's actions are impeachable. Were he to have intentionally mislead Congress, that would be impeachable, I think. Were he to have violated citizen's privacy, that would be impeachable, I think. This White House has resisted and continues to resist every effort of the Congress to obtain information. Obstruction would be impeachable.

I think you have finessed the statement that Bush is pretty much on par with all of the other US presidents. I don't think so. We have had presidents under who and because of who, the nation prospered. Washington was one and so might have been Lincoln. Eisenhower wasn't bad. Neither was FDR. Some tout Reagan. Bush, in my opinion, is definitely not in their league.

I don't think that Bush is holding the country hostage. I think that our unwieldy system of removal from office is holding the country hostage. In a 50/50 country where 2/3 of the Senate must vote for conviction, any sort of bumbler, ditherer, or hot-head can continue to control the reins of government as long as his party is not willing to give him up.

Furthermore, as you pointed out, it isn't as though the system actually lets you choose a government that creates a new direction. What would be the point in removing Bush? I can't imagine Cheney would be any better. We'd have to impeach him too to get a truly new government--and that's only if you believe that Democrats and Republicans are not just two sides of the same coin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

You are aware, aren't you, that public approval of Congress is almost always lower than public approval of the President?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm still waiting to see a list of george bush accomplishments.

You knopw the ones that helped people and not his industry buddies.

The ones where life is better for Americana and not cronies.

I'm looking to see where george bush's efforts will be remembered as a humanitarian effort for fellow Americans and not a bumbling leader of the ultra rich.

So as soon as that list is put together, post it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A.D.D., how about America's low unemployment rate?

It must be all of Dubya's "industry" buddies that're fillin' 'em, I guess.

A.D.D., it seems you have a problem with the "rich". Why?

Some might believe you're of Marxist philosophy if you make a pattern of it. You can be "rich", too, if you apply yourself, I'm sure.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin - Unemployment rate is 5.5%. That's all because the others that should be considered have dropped off the rolls.

We've been loosing 1000s of jobs each month without creating new jobs. The US has to create 100,000 new jobs each month just to employ the people that just come into the workforce. That's not considering the ones who lost their jobs. We've lost 62,000 jobs in June — and 438,000 since January 2008.

This administration has pandered to the industries moving jobs overseas. They have assisted in shoving as many jobs as possible outside the United States and continues with the NAFTA deal with Columbia and now he's talking the Central American countries.

george bush's policies have only created jobs at McDonald's and Windy's.

I guess I have a problem with giving them $4Trillion. Watching the country's deficit go all the way hell and people like you who ask such a question. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just read an analysis of the unemployment rate in the US and some put the figure closer to 10% and then of course, there are the working poor and underemployed and part-timers, etc. Good stable FT jobs are hard to come by in the US these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That's all because the others that should be considered have dropped off the rolls."

Yes, right. Sure.

"This administration has pandered to the industries moving jobs overseas."

No, A.D.D., those industries that've moved overseas have done so by their own choice, largely to please their millions upon millions of their own stockholders. Some would say they even have a fuduciary responsibility to these stockholders to do so.

"george bush's policies have only created jobs at McDonald's and Windy's"

You need to meet some Americans; your friend GeeJayPee, too. Check USAJobs.gov on the 'Net. And what's wrong for "beginner" jobs like McDonald's or Wendy's. Are you two snobs?

There is no lack of FT work for those that are willin' to work and they ain't low-payin' jobs as you say.

A.D.D. and GeedJayPee. You really have to work hard to convince yourselves the American job market is goin' to hell-in-a-handbasket.

The sky is not fallin' and the creek ain't risin'.

Occam's Razor.

My advice: Stay in school, lassies.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I recall a comment from President Dick Cheney a few years ago when confronted with the failure to create well-paying and stable jobs in the US, etc. He said something about those folks making money on eBay...I couldn't believe it - or, rather maybe I could. I think if you haven't been a part of that working poor - without health insurance, it is so easy to dismiss others who have been there as Cheney did and USAR did - totally clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can not believe it sometimes. The faith so many put into a president, congress, and a little old lady of a politician. People putting more faith in politicians than they would their local football team is stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, you're right USARoinin.

I'm totally wrong.

george bush is the greatest president "you" ever had. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A.D.D. Economies go up and down. Remember, the people who made it rich in the 90's under Clinton and I invented the Internet Gore, lost jobs and money when the .com bubble burst. Move ahead to the present day, and people who were starting to make money in real estate at the close of the Clinton and beginning of the Bush first term when they were throwing moneyto people to buy houses and property, and everyone was happy making money now face a bubble burst like the .coms did.

True jobs have gone overseas, but there are still plenty of jobs in America. Like I said, economies change. All you can do is plan for them. If the US had a "stovepipe" economy like Japan, then we would be in serious peril like it was here when the "Asian Flu" hit the marktes in Asia and Japan's economic bubble burst. Yes there will be hard times, and people will get screwed but it is not just the disaster that everyone thinks it is.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a total Bush team member, but I do realze that some of it is his fault, and some the opposition's fault. American politics plays "politics" over the good of the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most Americans who don't have health insurance choose not to have it. Once housing, food and utilities are taken care of, many choose not to spend anything on health care coverage. -Still, they'll get treated when necessary and others who provide for their families and themselves will also pay for a large number of these deadbeats.

They have money for a second car, but no health insurance.

They have money for far-away vacations, but no health insurance.

They have money for 50-inch plasma TVs... but not health insurance.

I know these people.

GeeJayPee, don't worry about it. It all works out in the end.

Sounds to me like you should vote for Barak Hussein Obama and you should if you're old enough... and an American citizen.

If not... don't worry about it. -Not your problem. -Not your paycheck that gets gouged.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On September 9th, 2004 Dick Cheney made a statement about the number of individuals who derived some of their income from ebay:

That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago," he said. "Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay." It's unclear how many of those are making enough to support themselves.

I guess the jobless can sell their stuff for gasoline money, house payments (oh forgot, they lost that house already).

Yep, those who don't have jobs are just worthless neer-do-wells. They don't have jobs because they are lazy Americans, just like USARonin said.

So I'm sure that the 438,000 people that lost jobs since January 2008 should have jobs, but they're lowlifes looking for handouts. USARonin says that USAJobs.gov has the jobs for all these people that lost work.

Good luck. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A.D.D., "here we go again" to steal from a fine American president...

I never said "Bush" is the greatest presidents America/I ever had.

I don't know who would meet that criteria for me. They all have flaws and virtues the deeper anyone looks.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's good to know that in 185 days he'll be out of office. Damn good. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A.D.D., I've never personally met anyone who's lost their home due to anything in the American economy.

I'm aware there are those that were given loans that should never have been given loans given their income.

We've got police officers and teachers who buy five and six-hundred thousand-dollar homes with two-thousand-dollars-plus/monthly mortgage payments. How nutz is that?

And how many of those folks you say "lost" their jobs turned around and simply got another? Like nearly all of them. Check out our low national unemployment rate. There's your evidence.

I could get fired tomorrow, A.D.D., and have a job the next day.

The sky ain't fallin', A.D.D.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps, she is the one who is a "whiner," a provocative remark made by a former Senator Phil Graham who referred it to those who were raising a racket over the off-shore drillings to cope with surging gas prices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A.D.D., and then whattaya do if McCain gets in for the next eight years?

Maybe you shoud fixate on your own country's problems should that happen. Another eight years is a long time to obsess about (American) foreigners and not address the problems on one's own front lawn.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US economy is turning south and in a few years there will be equalization between the US and its southern neighbor. I guess that is appropriate given the excessive way Americans have lived. So, our standards of living (Mexico and the US) will meet and future generations will never know the lifestyles of their parents and grandparents. I am just surprised that it happened so fast. I guess we could call it a "failure" of the Cheney Administration - I don't know; I think it was inevitable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The US economy is turning south..."

GeeJayPee, I've been postin' on the JT Olympics since '42 and your mantra is as old as that on these threads.

I want to reassure you that everything is goin' to be fine in your area of worry. It always is.

I would not lie to you.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush being a Miserable Failure is news?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

EmVee, I think Bush listi' "former president of the United States of America" will probably be to his advantage on his next resume.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the only way he could list it on his resume would be more accurately "Worst President Ever".

Heh, I like the way you're suddenly no longer a Bush supporter ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the die hards, may I ask a question, had Bush been left and done the same level horrors, would you back him or drop him?

How do we judge a president as the "worst ever"? Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and even Regan got us involved in wars. Carter sat back and let the whole world dump on us. Bush Sr., gave most of our industry away. Clinton lied, swindled people, and pardoned quite a few I would have not on his very last day and protected his own. What makes GWB such the worst?

If he is the worst fine, but why are we leaving out so many others, in fact, I say all of them are the worst each time they are in and they only get more worse each time.

Respectfully, Nancy really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on calling someone else out. I personally think the president, the entire senate and congress should all resign!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, let's talk about health insurance and then in a slightly different light USAR sketches the issue. First of all there are these millions without insurance and without the vacations, large TVs, SUVs and whatever. And secondly developed nations tend to have comprehensive health insurance coverage for all. Not in the US of A. Amen. Bush hasn't felt the need to resolve the issue. He explained it in a speech by starting saying something like 'It is my belief that the American people . . .' etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

EssTeeEss, hmmm...

Bush, Gore or Kerry?

That's an easy one.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin - I bet you're looking forward to whichever of the candidates gets elected. Perhaps you'll get a proper war hero this time, rather than a deserter, or your first black president, of whom you should be proud. I feel sorry for the next man - he has an enormous mess to sort out that Dubya has left you great nation in. Trying to argue that somehow Clinton's presidency was comparable is simply ridiculous. The 1990s look like halcyon days for almost everyone at the moment. Dubya is a total and ignominious failure and Nancy Pelosi, whatever her own failings, is exactly right. Much of world opinion will agree. The best that you can do is move on and get on with restoring America's standing in the world.

BTW, calling Democrats "socialists" is hilarious. Keep up the comments, they are making me smile...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

calling Democrats "socialists" is hilarious." It is, becasue they ain't. But they do a good job making socialist believe they are.

I see the health care issue is popping. For one, I think we should have one, but on the other hand, considering how much we have seen the US government screw things up, and even before Bush mind you, why would we want one of the last places they don't control to have control?

The health care issue is not Bush's fault, it could have been in place long before he was even thought of.

At least Nancy and Hillary would make out big time if health care makes it finally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was pathetic to see Bush as the US president who always advocating freeom, human rights,liberty ..etc going to Beijiang Olympics. I really laughed for such a shamless president. He was no difference surrundering to an enemy state! Well, thats because he was always working for US corporations'interests and they needs China! With a leader like this, how unfortunate........who is going to read the lips of future US president anymore?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was pathetic to see Bush as the US president who always advocating freeom, human rights,liberty ..etc going to Beijiang Olympics. I really laughed for such a shamless president. He was no difference surrundering to an enemy state! Well, thats because he was always working for US corporations'interests and they needs China! With a leader like this, how unfortunate........who is going to read the lips of future US president anymore?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To those who counter Bush's total failure with the unpopularity of Congress:

If impeaching Bush and Cheney's sorry behinds would bump up Congress's numbers, you'd be all for it, right? (I believe they'd get a quick 20-point bump, minimum.)

The high percentage of people who know the USA is moving in the wrong direction have the worst president in history along with a compliant, Republican-controlled Congress largely to thank for it. (Note: unless you've got the power to override vetos, you are not in control. That's why a simple Democratic majority won't do with a Republican president.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol, there's plenty of failure to go around in Washington. Ever wonder why politicians, journalists and lawyers rate at the bottom of the "respect" indicies for professions? I'm amazed Pelosi can take herself seriously. Of course people in pursuit of power will do just about anything....just look at Cheney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With his track record in business and as governor of Texas, his near-total ignorance of different cultures and religions, and his arrogance, more people should have known he'd embarrass and degrade the US. That the JesusCampers still love him tells one how well they understand Christ's teachings. Way to s-c-r-e-w the US, and the rest of the world, for the foreseeable future. Bill of Rights? Habeus corpus? Wiretaps, economic depression, heightened threat of terrorism, etc.

When he was elected, it was as if the kid who got left back (and became a bully) replaced the teacher at the head of the classroom, out for revenge...like the JesusCampers, who want to take us back to 1950...or 1850...or AD 850

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jahdog,

make that 850 BC.

Bush is not a total failure, he defines the words himself.

"Yesterday I played baseball and struck out four times. I was a real bush."

"My test scores came in, I was second to last but at least I was not a bush and came in last."

"I am divorced three times, a drunk and my dog hates me. Oh, and I did coke for a while too. But even that does not make me a bush."

"I am still looking for WMD in Iraq today so that does make me a complete bush?"

Pelosi is right, in eight years bush has failed at everything. He let 9-11 happen, he lied the US into a failed war, he took the clinton surplus goverment and shredded it, he drove oil prices sky high, he fused the jesus thumpers with the US government corrupting both groups even more than there were before, Katrina, every child left behind, let the coal industry run the EPA and the oil industry the US energy programs and on and on and on. Only if you the CEO for Exxon would you be happy with the total failure president.

And yes so many of us have been saying this for a long, long time. Good to see that the Demos are growing a spine now and speaking the truth. Its about six years late.

The truth, the one thing that the winger community just hates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You need to meet some Americans; your friend GeeJayPee, too. Check USAJobs.gov on the 'Net. And what's wrong for "beginner" jobs like McDonald's or Wendy's. Are you two snobs? There is no lack of FT work for those that are willin' to work and they ain't low-payin' jobs as you say.

USARonin, Let's look at the numbers, courtesy Paul Krugman:

Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.

GWB came into office proclaiming tax cuts were the way to stimulate the economy which would create jobs. Doesn't seemed to have worked, does it? The question is why not.

Krugman cites "rising health care costs" as one factor. Ironically, we find ourselves in the same position as the more unionized European economies where employers in the private sector are reluctant to take on young workers because they won't be able to fire them. Here in the USA, private-sector employers are reluctant to hire anyone whose employment can't justify the health care premiums the company will have to pay in addition to salary. So, in short, if they need people, they will attempt to hire them part-time on renewable contracts. Or send the job overseas....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Nancy,

The public’s view of Congress is even worse. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18%, down from 23% last month, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. Bush’s approval is at 28%, about even with the 29% rating last month.

Maybe should work on this instead of a Bush bash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe should work on this instead of a Bush bash.

I don't recall the Republican-controlled Congress opted to take that course when Bill Clinton's ratings as president were much higher than theirs in the late 1990s. As I posted above (at the beginning of the thread), the Democrats are expected to pick up seats in November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

reddragonguy ( 07:34 ) - "an enemy state"

Who, China? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think this letter to the editor, in reference to a New Yorker magazine cover, sums up the predicament those who try to defend the GWB administration's record find themselves in:

Maureen Dowd points out how difficult it is for people to mock or satirize Barack Obama.

While this will, as she explains, create problems for the comedians who have had such an easy time of it with the current president and his predecessor, wouldn’t it be a good thing if America had a president who did not make the country an object of ridicule to most of the world?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/l18dowd.html?ref=todayspaper

0 ( +0 / -0 )

do the wingers on the board read from the same hymm book?

Congress is almost 50% repubs so if the rating is low that is directed to both parties. Furthermore 97% of incumbants in congress are re-elected. although this year the repubs may get trounced. So no matter what the rating of congress the individual congressmen get re-elected all the time. That is because people vote for the individual and the institution, duh . . ..

However there is just one president and his ratings are his own responsiblity. Bush could not get elected to any office now as he is that oerfect total failure. Flipping a coin he could have done some things right just by chance but he is such a total failure his decisions insure failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I posted above (at the beginning of the thread), the Democrats are expected to pick up seats in November.

Thanks to Bush, after all they sure need to get 18 percent approval rating as to the superior job they have been doing to at least 19 percent.

Good Job Democrats

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium - "Bush could not get elected to any office now"

He's not running for any office now. He's already done won two presidential elections. Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The noteworth thing about GWB's approval rating is that it has been so low for such a long period of time. Compare to that of Ronald Reagan at his lowest point in 1987:

The survey, taken Saturday and Sunday after the release of the report of a Presidential commission on the Iran arms deal, found that 42 percent of those surveyed approved of the way Mr. Reagan was handling his job and 46 percent disapproved.

As zurc pointed out, the incumbency rate for those serving in Congress is extraordinarily high. That's why the Republicans did not expect to lose control of both houses in November 2006.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge,

correction for you, rove won the elections. bush lost elections before rove came along as he is a total failure.

rove became bushs brain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ummm

The noteworth thing about GWB's approval rating is that it has been so low for such a long period of time. Compare to that of Ronald Reagan at his lowest point in 1987:

Deflection again, Reagan isn't mentioned on this thread and I'm sorry Betzee if i disagree with you does not mean sexism either.

I think it's pretty bad when Congress has a pathetic 18 percent approval rate.

What is your honest gender netrual opinion on that one??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

We're now trillions of dollars in the hole. When he came into office, GWB bullied Congress into passing his tax cut package. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) attempted to add a trigger mechanism in case the projected revenues used to sell them fell short. That idea was a no-go, scoffed at in fact by her Republican colleagues (save John McCain who voted against them). The upshot is GWB will have added five trillion to the national debt when he leaves office. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - No, the terrorists will have added 5 trillion to the national debt. Oh, sure, we could have just bent over and grabbed the ankles, thus saving trillions, but then we'd all be reciting the Koran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

Ratings gain their meaning from comparison. A single number doesn't tell you much in and of itself. Yes, it's bad Congress has logged such poor approval ratings. But the Democrats are doing so poorly because they gained the majority to effect change which hasn't happened. Perhaps it will when they make further inroads, as expected in November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee

Ratings gain their meaning from comparison. A single number doesn't tell you much in and of itself. Yes, it's bad Congress has logged such poor approval ratings. But the Democrats are doing so poorly because they gained the majority to effect change which hasn't happened. Perhaps it will when they make further inroads, as expected in November.

Nice post, and to tell you truth it is one of the reasons I have misgivings about Obama, though that opinion is changing for me as he has started to show me the money. If Jessie Jackson wants to castrate the guy he's doing the right allright in my mind.

I'm worried about a big activist congress with a big activist President. I want Government out of my pocket and out of my life as much as possible. Clinton over-reached in his first term and got his butt handed to by a losing Congress and getting a Republican majority in 94 that kept his worst populist instincts in check, and that was the in my opinion the only reason he won re-election in 96. A Republican congress keeping him in check. I think if Obama wins the general election and he also turns out to be a sham centrist and shoves big Government down our throats his mid-terms will be the same, the Republicans will regain a majority. If he does turn out to be the centrist I think he is then he is really going to have his work cut for him with the left wing base of his party, the ones that already want to castrate the man literally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of my special fist bumps to Madame Speaker!Folks,uhhh,I think it's safe to say that polls are a good idea when they hurt Republicans.But,uhhhhhhhhhhhhh,the whole notion that both parties should be held to the same standards,well,I guess that would be a fine example of the kind of change we can do without!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I am a member of the Bush haters club but Pelosi and the Democratic congress has been a total failure as well. Where are any of the accomplishments they said we would see in the forst 100 days? Pelosi behaves like a child half of the time in interviews so she's not really the Dem to carry any weight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

expat - "I am a member of the Bush haters club"

What did Bush ever do to you besides cut your taxes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since 911, there has not been one succesful terrorist attack in the United States. Regardless of other issues, this alone indicates that Bush has been a "Total" failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What did Bush ever do to you besides cut your taxes?"

Bwa ha ha ha!

Wreck your economy and burn up your Social Security without you even noticing it, ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Bush has been an overall failure, but I don't think he is as bad as many people say. Not every problem faced by his administration and the gov't was his fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RepublicofTexas - "Not every problem faced by his administration and the gov't was his fault."

Yes, I agree with you - you are right. The only problems that have been caused by or that are attributable to Bush are -

terrorism, the totally botched invasion of Iraq, the trillions siphoned out of the economy thanks to his mindless tax cuts, the ongoing weakening of major finacial institutions, the freefalling US dollar allowing foreign companies to buy US companies at bargain basement prices, the burning out of the US middle class thanks to sky high gas and food prices, the guaranteed to skyrocket medical bills thanks to Bush's complete failure to protect Americans against climate change,

need I go on?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, he got us involved in an unnecessary war in Iraq under false pretenses. I don't believe the shrieking left "it was for oil" sect. I think Iraq was a direct result of the insular nature of this administration believing their own rhetoric. They actually believed we would be welcomed as liberators and thus had no plan for winning the peace after winning the war. That said we are there now and need to finish the job but that's what I have against Bush. Again as stated above they all need to be held accountable as Polosi and her geek squad have accomplished nothing either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushisake#

A lot of those issues you stated above were not solely Bush's fault, but also that of Congress. Furthermore some of those problems were partially out of American control. High oil prices are not all Bush's fault. It is a combination of ineffective American gov't, American culture, the rise of China/India, and a lack of willingness among certain oil-producing states to expad production. Furthermore that Bush is responsible for terrorism is ridiculous. The terrorists themselves are responsible for their fundamentalist interpretations and killings of the innocent. Bush might have handled the issue poorly, but terrorism is the fault of it perpetrators and the previous American gov'ts that allowed people like the Taliban to come to power. Many of problems faced by the Bush administration are left overs from previous presidents. Others are problems sown years ago that have not surfaced until now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting claims by the head of a party with a lower approval rating than President Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Understanding your comment MPNiea, you do understand that people are upset with results that are coming out of the Senate really. The House passes bills and the Senate republicans block the bill or the president vetos the bill.

So they are upset with the Congress because of what the republicans are doing.

The question never gets ask, "Who is at fault within the Congress for their results, democrats or republicans?" < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

****Don't worry about the word "trillions". It doesn't mean anything; just a word. The only things that reach it are the stars in the universe, maybe mosqitos in New Orleans and Bush's mind. Hasn't been an actual trillion dollars since it came into being.

Neither Obama nor McCain will be able to recover that money.

I respect McCain but don't think he's presidential material.

This may be selfish of me but I'll be 79 tomorrow and I don't really give a damn what happens. Just for fun I would like to see an Obama/Farrakhan ticket with Sharpton on the Supreme court and Jesse Jackson as Sec'y of State. Oh, yeah...Larry Flint as head of the Bureau for American Morality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

Bill Clinton presided over the dot.com bubble which, when it burst, has relatively containable effects. GWB, by contrast, presided over a housing bubble that, when it burst, sent ripple effects throughout the economy. Too many homeowners had foolishly borrowed against their paper equity to finance new purchases and now find themselves owing more than their homes are worth. The Onion, which is a print version of Jon Stewart's Daily Show, made fun of this:

"Every American family deserves a false sense of security," said Chris Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. "Once we have a bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial situation will return to normal."

Despite the overwhelming support for a new bubble among investors, some in Washington are critical of the idea, calling continued reliance on bubble-based economics a mistake. Regardless of the outcome of this week's congressional hearings, however, one thing will remain certain: The calls for a new bubble are only going to get louder.

"America needs another bubble," said Chicago investor Bob Taiken. "At this point, bubbles are the only thing keeping us afloat."

Of course there is no new bubble on the horizon, and economic recovery will be slow. It will, however, enable us to re-open old debates about the role of government in the economy, etc. Ditto for the drop in the dollar. Is it now possible to envision a return of some manufacturing to our shores? Deindustrialization swept through many communities and left few opportunities for a decent economic livelihood in its wake.

I myself am thinking of moving to Washington if Obama wins because it would be exciting to be "part of the process." It's also likely, however, that the Republicans will challenge his lack of progress to reverse the trend toward Democratic dominance of Congress. I don't think either party really has much sense of what comes next.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nancy Pelosi has no room to talk: her approval ratings are 20 points below the President's. So much for her talk of cleaning up congress: there's more corruption now than when the GOP was in control.

House Speaker Pelosi labeling anyone a failure is worse than the pot callign the kettle black: its like a lump of coal calling cast iron "dirty"....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just went through this thread, whew a real douzy!!

One thing I dont understand, WHY do many of you even think Nancy P insulted GWB, she called him a complete failure............

Very clearly that is an EXTREMELY HIGH COMPLIMENT for the shrub!! Cant belive so many dont see it as such, carry on!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nancy Pelosi's ratings in her district are triple Bush. She will win her election easily.

The repubs never dispute the fact that bush is a total failure, because they cant. They divert the discussion to the support for the congress. Which is being prevented from moving forward by the bush vetos and the remaining retread repubs who will be out of office in a few months.

Facts, deal with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who’s to blame for our economic woes? There is plenty to go around as the New York Times notes today. While many put the bulk of the blame on the Fed, the GWB administration touted the "roaring economy" as evidence its tax cuts worked. We have to move away from a speculation-driven economy.

In the estimation of many economists, it starts with the Federal Reserve. The central bank lowered interest rates following the calamitous end of the technology bubble in 2000, lowered them more after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and then kept them low, even as speculators began to trade homes like dot-com stocks.

Meanwhile, the Fed sat back and watched as Wall Street’s financial wizards engineered diabolically complicated investments linked to mortgages, generating huge amounts of speculative capital that turned real estate into a conflagration....

Mortgage brokers netted commissions as they lent almost indiscriminately, offering exotically lenient terms — no money down, no income or job required. Wall Street banks earned billions selling risky mortgage-linked securities around the world, aided by ratings agencies that branded them solid.

Through it all, a lot of ordinary Americans borrowed a lot more money then they could afford to pay back, running up enormous credit card bills and borrowing against the value of their homes. Now comes the day of reckoning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/economy/19econ.html?pagewanted=3&hp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling. The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires in about two months. SoH Nancy Pelosi and the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seem intent on reimposing a ban. Democrats are taking a very foolish gamble here. Gotta side with Republicans,and the majority (76%) of Americans on this issue - "Energy is Freedom".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecided,

ok in a few years you might get a few more quarts of oil, freedom..........duh!

You want freedom, america is going to have to do a major rethink on how it goes about things, either that or quit kissing the Saudis butts & just go over there & take`em over & their oil for yourselves, I see that happening quicker than gooing for a few quarts of offshore stuff.

And do you think oil wud be where it is today if the shrub didnt screw up by going into Iraq, the whole world is reaping the #$%& bush has sown, and we dont thank you very much!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I for one am glad conservatives, and conversatism is really more a philosophy than an ideology, are taking stock of where they've brought the country:

“We’ve been extremely discouraged by the policy trajectory of the Bush administration, with big increases in unfunded entitlements, big increases in deficit spending, considerable growth in government regulation,” said Mr. DeMuth [outgoing president of the American Enterprise Institute]. Other conservatives point to the failure to deal with Hurricane Katrina and a foreign policy that includes the mismanaged war in Iraq. They are familiar criticisms. But what’s new is the acknowledgment that these were not simply one administration’s missteps, but evidence of deeper rot. As Mr. DeMuth put it, “Some rethinking has to be done on the deep philosophical questions.”

“Now there’s the sense that the Republican Party is clearly on the defensive, and potentially heading for a disastrous election,” said Norman Ornstein, a longtime scholar at A.E.I. who specializes in legislative issues. “Even if John McCain wins, it’s not at all clear what that means in terms of ideas that conservatives have promoted. There is a division on what role we play in the world, what a smaller government means.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You'd think that the Pelosi-controlled congress' 9% approval rating would inspire Pelosi to look at her own repeated miserable failures as a leader. Then again, when was the last time anyone in congress ever took responsibility for the idiodic decisions they make??

I also got a great laugh from SushiSake3's post. Terrorism was quite rampant before Bush took office, progress in Iraq is so stunningly good that people are talking about an advanced withdrawl schedule, how does a tax cut siphon anything from an economy, the weakening of finanical institutions is almost exclusively due to congressional acts allowing people who have no ability to repay a loan getting one in the name of 'fairness', a weak currency is a boon for exporters, fuel prices are determined by supply and demand so when congress & the whacko environmentalists deter more supply at every turn people hedge their bets and the price rises, and while the inane remark about taxes is a whopper it takes second place to the total farce we call man-made global warming.

Whew. There is always a lot to say when liberals start putting up demonstrably backwards ideas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe Pelosi read this: (BTW, gyudon, you left how why large deficits are a benefit but I'm sure you can think of a reason).

According to the July 1 survey of 1,000 likely voters, only 9 percent of respondents said Congress is doing a good or excellent job, while 52 percent surveyed said Congress was doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that category.

Republicans, eager to portray Democratic leaders as running the Congress into the ground, pounced on the numbers. But the negative perceptions of Congress as a whole do not seem to be greatly affecting views of the majority party.

Democrats still enjoy a 12 percentage point lead on Rasumssen’s generic congressional ballot, despite the negative views of Congress as a whole.

In addition, Democrats can point to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken in mid-June, which found that by a 52 percent to 33 percent margin, people said they would rather see Democrats retain control of Congress in November.

That 19-point spread favoring Democrats is the largest recorded for either party since the question was first asked in 1994.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Congressional_approval_ratings_hit_new_lows.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium - and Bush's ratings in his home disctrict are triple Pelosi's? Who cares about that? The fact is Nancy Pelosi promised change, promised to clean up congress, promised to end the war and end funding, and promised to curtail the GOP, none of which she has delivered on. The fact that Bush has used his veto powers is irrelevent to the discussion: Pelosi has promised, promised, promised and renegged on all of them. And further, when push has come to shove about her promise to cut off funding for the War on Terror, she has backed off every time with her tail between her legs, and the rest of the DEMs in Congress foillowing suit. Tip O'Neill must be rolling over in his grave!!!

The fact is, Pelosi is more of a colossal failure than Bush has ever had nightmares about, and the US Electorate could do us all a favour and vote the Democrats right out. What is hilariously hypocritical is that Pelosi won with the help of ultra-conservative DINOs, who've remade the Democrat Party Base into something Pelosi and Reid never dreamed it'd be. Go Blue Dogs...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not sure why I'd ever say that large deficits are a benefit, but there are probably liberals out there who think that's the case. I'll have to think about it... I especially love it when they start talking higher taxes and limiting freedom as good things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Pelosi, except that she didn't include herself and congress in the quote. This failure has been building for more than 8 years and it's finally reached critical mass. If these elected leaders can't correct things the future will be very dismal. Thankfully the states seem to be doing somewhat better besides Pelosi's California.

If things get much worse there will be riots and revolts. No one wants to be President now and there certainly isn't any leadership in congress either. A big group needs to go on strike or something. Airlines, truckers, garbage collectors etc. I want some picketing too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I say get these elected leaders to quit meddling in things they shouldn't be in the first place. You just have to look at Michigan & California to see what a mess over-regulating liberal politicians can make.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pelosi can be both wrong and right at the same time. Bush is a total failure. And in the future, it will be said, "he was a total failure." Doesn't mean she'll be given credit for a job well done. Of course, anyone working in American politics today are doing an uphill battle, against a system inclined not to work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites