OT: Why Obama is Mum About Harvard

[MicroGravity]

If you ignore what they say, and just watch what they do, it gets really hard to tell any of these guys apart.
Bush championed one of the largest increases in govt. in decades, did little to end abortion…
Obama has yet to close Gitmo, hasn’t started any noticeable pull-back from Iraq…

In the meantime, things like one of the largest transfers of wealth occurring with the banks borrowing our money at zero percent, and lending it back to us at 5.5 percent goes mostly unnoticed (with certain blogs excepted).

IMHO, I think they all get together at Old Ebbit Grill and just laugh their asses off at us bickering over all the razzle dazzle.

“I want to keep the Democrats out of my pocketbook and the Republicans out of my bedroom.”–unknown

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]

I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.

If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.

Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]

I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.

If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.

Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]

I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.

If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.

Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]

I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.

If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.

Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes. [/quote]

I dunno. LBJ arguably did more to advance civil rights than any president except Lincoln, but his guns and butter approach along with a bare-knuckled political M.O. doesn’t play too well these days.

If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. Carter was a hapless victim of circumstance (so the story goes) and went on to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Reagan had a lot of buffoons in his cabinet (Haig, Watt, Meese, etc.), but he used his boundless charisma to get America out of its funk and “win” the Cold War. Bush Sr. had Desert Storm and, for a president, fairly obvious integrity. Clinton had an economic boom, welfare reform, and is a sympathetic character due to the vast right wing conspiracy’s impeachment.

Even Nixon had China and the various Cold War machinations of Dr. Strangelove, er, Kissinger.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft.

[surveyor]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]

Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.

He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.

Now what’s your point again?[/quote]

There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.

[surveyor]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]

Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.

He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.

Now what’s your point again?[/quote]

There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.

[surveyor]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]

Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.

He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.

Now what’s your point again?[/quote]

There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.

[surveyor]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]

Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.

He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.

Now what’s your point again?[/quote]

There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.

[surveyor]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]My proof lies in that his aility to fly a plane, pass the test and meet qualifications is proof of his intelligence. Those facts expose the lie that he is unintelligent.
[/quote]

Randy Cunningham was a hell of a fighter pilot. He is one of only two American pilot aces in the Vietnam War.

He also did some things a little later that fairly reek of arrogant stupidity.

Now what’s your point again?[/quote]

There’s a difference between intelligence and making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, intelligent or otherwise. That doesn’t make them unintelligent. It just makes them human.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[Author]

Posts