Gore vs. Bush

[ramapo]

Look at what each man has accomplished since January 2001.

Tally up the good and bad that each man is responsible for.

Review the recent media coverage of Gore vs. Bush

Who will have the better legacy?

Perhaps in a somewhat perverse twist, Gore won!

[bricolage]

1. Experts are mixed on what Bush's legacy will be.

Some say it depends upon what ultimately happens in Iraq, some say it will be bad. I read somewhere that historically, the ones who have had very poor legacies are the ones who just didn't do much, didn't take chances, like Polk, Fillmore, and Taylor. Those who fared the best were ones who attempted and/or accomplished bold things, such as Lincoln and FDR. Interestingly, one president who tried much but was rated poorly was LBJ. Viet Nam, in the view of some historians, did him in. So agree or disagree with Bush, one would have to admit he tried bold things such as democratization of Iraq and SS reform.

Forgive me for not remembering the source, but I think it was U.S. News and World Report. Interviewed were historians, some from each side of the aisle. Predictably, some rated highly by one group was rated low by the other.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. LBJ will rise once the baby boomers leave the scene

Once a generation of historians not tainted by the controversy over Vietnam take an objective look at his record he will rise into the near-great category among historians. LBJ was the most domestically progressive president of, if not our entire history certainly the 20th century, after FDR and he did more for minorities than any president in our history.

[ramapo]

4. Sadly true

I had a momentary burst of optimism, sorely misplaced, and now gone.

[MasonJar]

3. Sorry to refute your basic assumption. The tally is not out on W.

This is a man who knowingly misled his country into a war against a sovereign nation, with the clear intention of robbing the said country of its main source of revenue (in the 80 to 90 % range.) This is the same man who after having been AWOL from his military service in time of war, actually had the nerve to send forces to battle without proper training and equipment and who continues to send those same troops over and over (for some a 5th rotation.) This is the man, who having ruined several perfectly good companies singlehandedly, prodeeded to ruin the entire country with his lack of expertise, his lack of curiosity about even the most basic ideas, his dry drunk sociopathic personality and his arrogance built on murdering innocent frogs for his own entertainment. This is the man who spies on fellow Americans, who ignored the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina and still ignores them two years later. This is the man who read a book to grade schoolers and had a photo op while New Yorkers were burning and jumping from high rise buildings to their deaths. This is a man who is not a man. No news media can make him so. No clearing of brush on a pig farm can make him so. No, this is a weak excuse not even equal to a one celled organism at the bottom of the ocean, the latter probably representing some miracle of nature.

[bricolage]

5. I think the poster was trying to do some serious analysis.

Conservatives likewise would paint Clinton as a serial philanderer too busy selling out our country to China and humping chubby interns to give a second thought about the likes of Bin Laden.

When we frame things in a cartoonish manner, it just isn't that helpful to serious thoughtful analyses.