My friend and former colleague John Mosey has challenged me to back up my assertion that George W. Bush is a “failure by any objective measure.” Well, here’s some stuff for him, culled from just a few minutes of web research. There’s lots more, of course, and I left out a lot of stuff that strayed even a little bit into the “subjective” category (like the Plame outing, lies in last year’s State of the Union, etc.). But this is a good taste. Here we go.
UPDATE: I forgot approval rating, but Mr. Mosey reminded me. I personally think approval rating is pretty soft as “objective” measurements go, but according to CBS, Bush’s approval rating is at 50 percent, matching his lowest level ever. (His disapproval rating, 45 percent, *is* his highest ever.) The week after Saddam’s capture, it wsa 60 percent. The week after 9/11, it was 90 percent.
Economy
-Converting $127 billion budget surplus into $374 billion deficit in three years
-2.4 million jobs lost, making Bush II the first administration since Hoover to preside over an overall loss of jobs
-Tripled the discretionary spending increase rate of the Clinton administration (Clinton 3.4 percent annually, Bush 10.5 percent annually)
-If all Bush’s tax cuts stay in effect through 2010, the richest 1 percent of Americans can expect an estimated 17 percent tax cut; the other 99 percent, a 5 percent cut
Environment
-More than 200 major rollbacks of environmental law during his administration
-Bush’s EPA has halted work on 62 environmental standards; FDA has halted work on 57 standards
-At EPA, proposing eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, dropping staffing levels to lowest ever; inspections down 15 percent; criminal cases referred for prosecution down 40 percent
-“Clear Skies Initiative” actually weakens the Clean Air Act
Disengagement
-As of August 2003, spent 27 percent of his presidency on vacation; tied the 30-day record for continuous vacation time with Richard Nixon
-Held fewer press conferences than any other president since the advent of television
-Stated he rarely reads the newspaper, but instead relies on his advisors for news
Iraq
-Started pre-emptive war in Iraq, costing $100 billion and counting, losing 500 American soldiers’ lives so far, killing perhaps 8,000 Iraqi civilians and 10,000 soldiers, to take over a country with no credible ties to al Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction
-His administration awarded Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, more than $2 billion in no-bid contracts in Iraq
-Impending Iraq war caused a record number of people around the world to protest simultaneously Bush’s policies (10 million people)
Education
-Underfunded his own “No Child Left Behind Act” by $9 billion in FY 2004, and $7.2 billion in FY 2003
More good stuff at:
Scorecard of Evil
The Bush Record
The Bush Legacy
(And yes, I know these are biased sources. But I don’t see a lot of Republicans keeping score on Bush.)
Not a single one of those is even slightly objective. They are based on an opinon, not a question. Where is your unbiased question? Where is your measure? Where is your test? Where are your defintions? Hell, your “list” isn’t even exhaustive, just the things you think he did “worst” in.
See, I knew you didn’t know objective.
Listing a lot of things you found you don’t like isn’t objective at all. You didn’t even start with a question to answer, you started with a solution and made points to defend it.
You made my point perfectly clear.
Hell most of it is stumping clap trap. Things like underfunded his own…” reeks of bias. The fact it is there is objective. Does it do any good is objective. his “underfunding” (which is baised as a word and a truth) is trivia and subjective.
It is no different than, “Yeah the guy ran into the building to save kittens, but he missed one” and you “objectivly” trying to argue, “the man let one kitten die! Bad man!”
Acting as if *any* change or rollback of EPA law/standards is bad is not objective. It doesn’t measure results it measures that you think “more laws is better” logically speaking.
re-reporting (biased) breakdowns of who benefits from tax breaks isn’t objective. There is no conclusion that if richer people get bigger tax breaks that is bad, or that poor people get less (hint: they still pay less in taxes). Again, what is it you measured or defined?
I mean seriously, people protested So the fuck what? How is that a measure (much less worldwide)? What question is it answering?
Much less huge logical flaws, multiple endpoints, trivial mongering, et al. hint: “pre-emptive” and “since the Nixon adminstration” and how much he reads the newspaper (so? really, so? If you want an example of group think, talk to Kennedy’s ghost)
BTW if you actually believe the President has anything to do with “the economy” and it’s cycle you are petty dumb. You went to college, you know better. (and that goes for any President past probably FDR, maybe Harding)
PS you aren’t looking for Republicans keeping “score” on Bush. But htat is normal, the opposition kept “score” on Clinton, didn’t see a lot of Democrats doing it.
But then, your last line isn’t even objective.
Here is a quick “objective” measure, his approval numbers. unbiased question (do you think…) simple measure, distance, sigma, test, result and conclusion. Hardly the only one, but it is objective for what it measures (instead of apparently “measuring” how much you dislike Bush). Over this last year he “averaged” a 60% approval rating and I believe 67% for his term thus far.
Unless you think that approval rating.public opinion is not a reasonable measure of a presidency your original stament is already wrong.
But feel free to try again. Thus far the only failure is your understanding of what “objective” means.
Are you saying “pre-emptive” and “Richard Nixon” aren’t factually correct? Also, I think protests are a huge measure. And yes, I think we should all care how engaged and available the President of the United States is.
All “objective” measures are still subjective, because you pick the ones you want to list. Is it objectively true that Clinton lied under oath? Yes. You and I may disagree whether that matters, but it’s still objectively true.
OBJECTIVE: adj. Based on observable phenomena.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me about approval ratings. Bush’s are heading south. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. It’s “observable” that he gets a boost when something like the capture of Saddam happens. Then he sinks back down again. Other than among his base, Bush’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
And yes, that’s a subjective assessment. I guess that makes me a pundit now!
Fact is not at all objective. Not sure where you got that definition, but it isn’t anything I’ve ever seen: b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=objective
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Speaking of locial flaws, nice scarecrow. No, I never said they weren’t facts (…since Nixon is, pre-emptive is not) I said they were logical flaws.
According to your logic:
“Adam is not a nice guy, he has a big butt.” I observed your big butt, therefor I can conclude you are not a nice guy.
All objective measures are certainly not still subjective, they are opposites. They are boolean opposites.
The fact that your argument keeps starting with “I think…” pretty much rules out “objective.”
PS what exactly are protests “measuring” and what question does it answer. You still don’t have an objective question. You don’teven have the teeniest tinest base for claiming anything so far is objective.
PS, his ratings heading south is also no objective, observable is not objective. Heading south is a trend, not a conclusion, and not at *all* a measure of his term. This is all very simple.
When it comes time to vote in November, I think this is what a majority of Americans are going to say to themselves when they go to the polls.
-We have not had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. (for all of our sake, hope this is still true in November and for long after that)
-The economy is back on the upswing.(there is an argument to be made here about job creation not climbing back as fast, but it’s arguable whether or not that will be enough to pull back people’s optimism about the economy going forward)
-The war in Iraq is over, and control has been transferred back to the Iraqi’s via national elections. U.S. decreasing size of the force in Iraq. (this is a big if, we’ll see how it goes when they elect new government at the end of June. Could change things wildly either way. If it goes bad could be trouble for Bush, as the election is just getting into high gear.)
I think that’s how objective Americans are going to consider the issues at the polls. All the little numbers, and things the fringes of the bell-curve like to swat back and forth will fall on deaf ears. If we do not have another terrorist attack before this election, if the economy does not start to go in reverse, and things don’t take a serious down-turn in Iraq, I think Bush will be re-elected pretty easily-as painful as it is for some.
I agree with Mosey, in that the economy is cyclical, and the president gets way too much credit for it’s success or failure…it just happens that when you’re president, whether or not you get re-elected depends on something you really don’t have a great deal of control over. The economy. And if it continues to grow between now and election time, the deficit and any other issues like the class warfare issue, rich vs. poor will just get sucked in by the undertow. We control the economy, with our fears, hopes, optimism, pessimism. That presents a problem with the economy is on the upswing, and the Bush is the president because it means the democratic nominee has to come out and make people feel pessimistic, to vote the current guy out. And it’s hard to rally people with pessimism.
The tax issue, pitting rich vs. poor has become so ineffective, I’m not sure how much impact it will have in this election, although I know we’ll hear it all over again. I definitely didn’t have an impact for Gore, especially in the south and middle of America where it’s intended to have the biggest impact. In addition to that, a good deal of middle of America, the swell in the bell curve, find themselves somewhere in between the rich-poor scale, and I think it just gets drowned out.
The other issue, a feeling displayed by Sen. Kennedy last night a few times, is that Bush has stolen issues that have been traditionally been Democratic issues. Prescription drugs, education…I think the pain on his face was in most part due to the fact that (despite a person’s feeling about the worth or effectiveness of the measures passed), Bush and the congress have passed big education and prescription drug/medicare bills, and it’s going to get hammered and hammered and hammered on the campaign trail.
And people like Sen. Kennedy will be screaming from the sidelines all the reasons why the bills are bad, don’t do enough, or hurt this group or that…while Bush is hammering home the fact that they passed legislation on education, prescription drugs-good or bad…Americans will be left with the impression that he’s getting things done on those issues. It will be up to Democrats to try and fight through that and convince Americans the bills were mistakes. I think that’s where his pained expression was coming from. Bush feels like every issue he put forth last night he can win on. And they will be trying to fight through all that on the board he’s laid out.
The numbers that get tossed around, whether they’re real, positive or negative…I think that just gets drowned out during election time. In one ear and out the other. this percentage vs. the percentage when Clinton was in office, this deficit number vs. that one…it makes sense to many people who are passionate about politics, the economy, social issues…but unfortunately, when it comes to presidential politics-people want to feel safe, want to feel like the economy is on the way up, and like the guy they elect.
As an individual, whether we like him or not, most objective Americans will tell you they like Bush as a person. Even some who disagree with him on an issue here and there. The hatred for Bush doesn’t sit in the fat part of the bell-curve. And there are plenty of Americans out there who don’t read the paper either, and get their news from tv, the internet and family/friends…so I don’t see that hurting him in many respects. If the dems really want to nail him on that, they should probably come out and say what I think to be true, that he damn well DOES read the papers, but won’t give the press the satisfaction of knowing he’ll see anything negative they say about him. But what dem is going to come out and say that.
The democratic nominee is going to have to come to work with his hammer every day and work it like never before to get your average American to feel unsafe, unsure about an economy that is on the upswing(jobs and taxes being issues to hammer home) and that Iraq is a never ending gulch of death for American troops, un-salvagable(if we haven’t handed over control by then, and possibly even if we have and are still suffering losses).
I guess I’m saying in horribly drawn out fashion, even if you objectively look at the facts, everyone reasonably agrees he’s a failure…your average American voter will be satisfied with the current prez if there are no terrorist attacks between now and Nov., and the the economy is good-or getting better.
In my last paragraph, I meant to say, “even if you objectively look at the facts, and everyone reasonably agrees he’s a failure…”
-Not saying that everyone agrees he is a failure, but even IF everyone does…
When have politics ever been about objective measures? It was a silly question to ask of Adam — that’s why he can’t answer it.
It’s about values. If you think the war in Iraq is just and necessary, you won’t have a problem with spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives on it. As for its objectively harming the nation, only history can tell. It’s easy for us to look back on history and make criticisms (like how the European powers should have checked Hitler early on), but it’s hard to make predictions while you’re in the middle of it.
If you don’t care that much about the environment, even if Bush were objectively harming it (which is hard to prove anyway), you wouldn’t care. Or you might care about the environment but just don’t think leftist environmental policies are the best answer to balancing environmental and economic concerns.
How can you prove objectively that Bush is a bad president? Conservatives naturally think he’s a great dude — are they objectively wrong?
Wayne: Still staying firmly in pundit territory, I think a major terrorist attack (although I don’t think it will happen) would only be a boon for Bush’s re-election. “We have to band together! We can’t change course now!” Martial law might help, too.
*smacking own hand* Bad pundit! Bad!
Mosey: OK. What “objective measures” would you use? You suggested approval ratings and then slapped them down immediately. Give us the Mosey Science of Politics lecture so we can all learn something.
— Fact: $127 billion budget surplus in 2000.
— Fact: $374 billion deficit 3 years later.
Those are just measures that anyone can observe. They’re figures in the public domain, free of interpretation. They’re as “objective” as looking at someone in the eyes and observing what colour they are.
So, does choosing to juxtapose two objective, observable facts always render a conclusion subjective? If so, we might as well throw out our calculators, since even simple arithmetic is “subjective.”
But in my books, though, this fact alone points to a roaring failure and I can’t understand how it can be seen as anything but.
Maurice: It’s like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – when we try to examine this administration, they keep moving, so nothing can ever be measured.
“When have politics ever been about objective measures? It was a silly question to ask of Adam — that’s why he can’t answer it.”
Answer: Since Adam claimed exactly that. You know, words mean things.
Adam, what questions should be asked of a President (and I didn’t “slap down” approval ratings, I said they weren’t the only measure)?
The very broad “are Americans better off” is too wide. The questions need to be more specific.
I didn’t think of a good list since hte idea was to show you are not objective, not the Bush is doing a good job.
However, a few that pop in my head:
– Are Americans safer (or feel so) in regards to their lives due ot his actions?
– Are Americans richer (or feel so) in regards to their lives
– Has science, health or standard of living done better due to his actions.
– Do Americans have confidence in his job and the direction he (more he and his staff…) is taking the country?
– Do they agree with his principles and moral arguments and the advancements in policy because of them? (see prohibition and the repeal of it as the ultimate example)
– Has education made improvements through his efforts?
(and I am sure about a dozen more)
– Has he shown leadership and moral roles in his job?
– Are those who “need” government help most benefiting from his Presidency, or getting worse (note, this one is one you would really screw up because 99% of those people haven’t been affected at all, but I am sure you would list”hundred of people” who have been).
Those are all unbias (read: objective) questions which can be measured (that part is also very important) and concluded in their entirety.
The *important* part is to look at all he has done, not just, “ohhh same sex marriage, he’s a Nazi… so no, no one likes him; at least no one I know!” That is not objective, you have to include all of his actions if you want to define the entire term. To flash point one topic so yu can rant and then say “his term is a failure” is at best illogical.
Unlike random facts about deficits, which is in great, great part due to the ecnomy (people don’t work they don’t pay taxes, they make money, they pay more taxes).
Context is important, maybe the defcit spending isn’t a “roaring failure” (not your words) because of *how* it happened. Hell, if the budget was balanced, lots of shit would need to be cut. And I bet a lot of it stuff that would make you whine more. Has the GNP and GNI come down? How much? I’d guess tax collection is down around 200-400 billion dollar,s or around the amount of the change (give or take if you accept all the numbers provided).
If you want to say the deficit is because of a war, that is a different point. Show a percentage, what it would be “without” that.
If you say the war is “bad” you had better give historical perspective (and public opinion) or else it is bias.
Again, this is all very simple.
Using “are we safer” yeah, we probably are. I can’t stand the Patriot Act as much as anyone, and long-term might be a real pain in the ass, but by most accounts parts of it (the good parts) have made us safer, we are catching things before they happen, checking better, and at a minimum giving the illusion of safety so everyone isn’t edgy.
That is opposed to saying, “the Patriot act is bad, so he has been a failure” there is no measure, no question. You started with an opinion and based a conclusion on it and then called it unbiased.
Mosey: Almost all of your “objective” measures seem to be poll questions. I personally don’t want to judge a presidency from polls – do you?
How are we objectively safer? Or is that just a feeling?
And I think you really stepped in it when you said we should judge whether the war is bad based on public opinion. Kind of throws my protest point back into the mix, doesn’t it? And “historical perspective” isn’t objective either, is it?
Not really all that simple after all.
We obviously have different definitions of the word “objective,” and that’s not going to change any time soon. Overall I agree with Miss A’s point – politics is subjective. But that doesn’t mean facts don’t exist to back up your assertions. It’s called debate.
Mosey: How big *does* my butt look? Are you looking at my butt? 🙂
Bush suXXorz. w00t!
None of my questions are poll questions, It’s not a “public” rating, it is “are the people better off” (you know the one the President works for). Funny, anything “objective” is a poll question… hmm, maybe that is how polls get objective ratings. Go figure.
What you said is, “I don’t want ot judge my President from an objective view point, I need to form an opinion then watch him.” I never said take a poll, I said ask objective questions. The reality that they “look” like poll questions was *exactly* my point, you don’t know objective.
We are objectivly safer. Terrorist attacks in schools, federal buildings and previously WTC (the first one), and I am sure many more. Now, several attacks foiled, higher levels of security, far fewer shootings in schools (in large part because htey are being watched via patriot act) and in fact also fewer plane crashes (which may be residue). You can count it.
PS, if you read what I write (instead of making up the decision then doing so… see a theme), public opinion on the war is a) local. No one cares what Europe thinks. b, in combination with history (see ,and, and means also, not instead of). b) history is more or less objective. You can fairly accurately measure loss, gains and change. “Stopping Hitler in 1934” is a good example.
Lastly, you don’t get a “different definition” of objective. No more than I can give a different definiton of France and say it is in Antartica. It is there; it is defined. You want it to mean “opinion and facts, so I can slap whatever title I want on someone” that is not what it means, and never has, never will. Opinion is by definition, subjective.
Again, very easy stuff.
You still haven’t shown even part of a clue you know what “objective” means, despite an iron clad Websters definition. You simply threw away what “objectrive” is because you didn’t like polls (doesn’t mean they *aren’t* objective, which you said flat out he failed by any reasonable measure… so are you saying you were wrong because he does pass, or wrong because they are not objective, both of which you have already admitted logically to being wrong on)
You can’t say, “by any objective measure” and then, “your objective is boring and I don’t like it… so I will ignore it.”
You said it, you can’t back out of it now.
Er, these are still kind of subjective questions… since they relate to my experience etc. But here goes.
Mosey > Are Americans safer (or feel so) in regards to their lives due ot his actions?
I don’t feel any safer. I feel as likely to be attacked as under Clinton or pre-9-11.
Mosey > Are Americans richer (or feel so) in regards to their lives?
I feel poorer. I just took a job with a smaller health benefit kick-in, so my take home is significantly less.
Mosey > Has science, health or standard of living done better due to his actions?
I have no idea. I imagine science is going to go forth regarless of who is jerking off in the oval office.
Mosey > Do Americans have confidence in his job and the direction he (more he and his staff…) is taking the country?
No, I have absolutely no confidence in it.
Mosey > Do they agree with his principles and moral arguments and the advancements in policy because of them? (see prohibition and the repeal of it as the ultimate example)
No, If I understand the question, no I don’t agree.
Mosey > Has education made improvements through his efforts?
I’m not a student, but we’re sending Maddie to a private school. Can I get a voucher? No.
Mosey > Has he shown leadership and moral roles in his job?
Leadership? I would say yes. I’m glad a Bush Boy was in office after 9-11 compared to the alternative. Moral? Cutting vet benefits is not moral. No-bid contracts does not *appear* moral, even if it is. Seeming to disappear from the Guard for a year or so doesn’t *appear* moral. The guy is shady to me.
Mosey > Are those who “need” government help most benefiting from his Presidency, or getting worse.
I don’t think all people who are getting help need it and that all people who need it get it. I think the whole thing is a mess that the president has no effect on.
Just my crack at the answers.
Mosey > Has science, health or standard of living done better due to his actions?
Science has suffered since his Administration censors the science it doesn’t agree with.
Health has suffered because of rollbacks of environmental protections. Dirty air is less healthy than clean air.
Standard of living has suffered as there are 2.4 million fewer people working, making a salary, and spending that salary in the marketplace. Those job losses are a direct result of Bush not inspiring the country toward economic confidence, not assuring us that we will weather the storm, not exhorting companies to sacrifice a penny of earnings and hire a few more Americans. That’s real leadership, and Bush has none.
i can’t decide which are worse. the conservative neocons who are actually evil, or the people who actually believe the crap they spew out.
i don’t care what you decide “objective” means. ‘no child left behind’ is decimating the educational system our country has. if you believe that’s a good thing and we need a new system, then fine, say so. but if you think that polls based on people not wanting to appear like they doubt their president reflect much, you’re wrong.
the jump in polling relevent to the sept. 11th attack is the single most defining proof that policy and accomplishment are not as important to the average american as patriotism.
Phillip “I” isn’t subjective. Good way to vote based on the questions, awful way to rate his Presidency. Hell, that is why “Americans” and not “you” was used to begin with.
Because of your bias, “you” aren;t worth asking the questions as they are, asking for your (not yu in particular, a sincgle person) opinion, instead of a group, or a measurment is the whole point. If we ask “you” it isn’t objective at all.
They are all fine and legitimate answers, but bring us no closer to objective decisions (unless you are really 1000 randomly seclected people or something).
“Science has suffered since his Administration censors the science it doesn’t agree with. ”
Show your work. Which “science” is being censored?
“Health has suffered because of rollbacks of environmental protections. Dirty air is less healthy than clean air.”
Once again, making the blind (and dumb) assumption that any law is a good law, so fewer laws must be bad. Show where health has suffered, in people, not in “ohhhh he’s so bad, rolling back laws…” You are assuming there is more dirty air, much less a significant amount muchless effecting people, much less that dirty air is bad (the last one is the easy one).
“Those job losses are a direct result of Bush not inspiring the country toward economic confidence, not assuring us that we will weather the storm, not exhorting companies to sacrifice a penny of earnings and hire a few more Americans. That’s real leadership, and Bush has none.”
That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Inspiring the contry towards economic confidence? So the economy is run on a pep speech? Funny, I thought it ran on really visible 8-12 year cycles, turns out Lou Holtz would make the best Fed chariman.
Even if 95% of Americans feel safer, it is a subjective finding as are the results of all of Mosey’s arguments. They all describe something that can’t be measured or something subjective.
If 99% of Americans “feel” safer, that is an objective statistic of a subjective finding. It’s not a measure of anything objective and the objective statistic is only relative to the subjective circumstances. You may feel safe driving your car but you have a much greater chance of killing yourself in it than dying in a terrorist attack. And people that feel poor in the US are indeed much more affluent than most of the people in China.
Adam provides measurable facts that Mosey claims can’t be used due to some bias rendering them subjective. This is wrong because using Mosey’s own argument one cat DID in fact die in the burning house and that fact is objective and can be measured. That 9 saved kitties is considered a good thing is subjective. If the fire department spent 90 billion to save them that is an objective finding. The fact that the fireman’s friend made 45 billion in providing water for the fire is unethical and objective. Whether or not the idiot who spent the 90 billion is an unethical kitty killer or not is subjective. To not mention the 90 billion spent by the fire department was incredibly misleading by Mosey.
Anyways, subjectively or objectively Mosey fails to provide any arguments against Adam’s list of reasons why Bush is a failure. And that’s what I want to see. I have not read one good argument to keep these untrustworthy, unethical bastards in office when clearly they are huge failures.
Oh, and if you tried to sell me a car with the safety record of the space shuttle, I would tell you to go to hell.
Now, you want me to vote for a guy who wants to go to Mars with the designers of the space shuttle and the Hubble telescope.
go to hell
No he idn’t! Bush r0xx0rz!
He treetz ideaz like 0bjectz!