Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn the contest for Worst President Ever, who's the winner—Richard M. Nixon or George W. Bush? It's a depressing question but relevant now that we are picking Bush's replacement. For Nixon had, just as Bush does, qualities to be avoided at all costs.
I know that the game of picking worst presidents is fruitless. There are elderly Republicans alive who still maintain that the now-revered Harry Truman was the worst. My wife, Nancy, and I continue to argue about LBJ, she unable to tolerate the thought of him while I see some good points.
edbatista.typepad.com/lowculture.com
Striking similarities: Richard Nixon (left) and George Bush could be cut from the same presidential cloth, according to the author.
There is no doubt in my mind about Bush and Nixon being on the top of the list.
I knew Nixon slightly because I covered some of his campaigns. In fact, I was one of the many reporters conned by the "New Nixon" image sold to Americans in 1968 and bringing him at last into the White House. All through that year, Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War, which dragged on for five more years. I knew people on his enemies list. There were the wiretaps, the burglaries and the Watergate cover-up.
I was at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, pad and pen in hand, the day Nixon, just resigned from the presidency, landed to begin his exile. A large crowd of loyalists stood behind ropes. Nixon walked toward them. His manner was odd. He seemed disoriented. Aides took his arm and he went to a waiting car.
I saw Nixon and his strange gait again just last month in the play "Frost/Nixon" on Broadway. It is the story of David Frost's 1977 interviews with the disgraced Nixon, a contest between two men in search of a comeback. The famed television interviewer and host had suffered a professional decline and was counting on the Nixon interview to reclaim his career. Nixon, who resigned the presidency in 1974, was seeking redemption.
Frank Langella makes a great Nixon: brooding, physically clumsy, socially inept, scheming, sophisticated, unrelentingly competitive and highly intelligent. As Richard Reeves writes in his book "President Nixon: Alone in the White House": "He was not born for the job [of president]; he sometimes described himself, quite accurately, as an introvert in an extrovert's business. ... He was always a man alone. A strange man of uncomfortable shyness."
In other words, Nixon would not have made it through the front door of the Deke house at Yale when George W. Bush was rush chairman and chapter president.
But George Bush wouldn't have made it through the front door of the White House when Nixon was president. You had to be smart to work there. Evil maybe, amoral certainly. But smart. In that White House, the incompetence of the Watergate burglary was unusual for a gang of connivers who did their work—fair and foul—in a competent manner.
Brownie of Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have found a place in the Nixon administration. The awful but brilliant Kissinger wouldn't have allowed loudmouth Rumsfeld to send a small and inadequately armed force to Iraq. Nixon didn't talk to his vice president, much less let him run the government. The pragmatic and cynical Nixon-Kissinger team would have ignored the ideological rants of neocons. Bush not only listened to them but gave them big policy jobs.
But in deference to the many careers wrecked by Nixon, starting with his mid-20th-century California opponents Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas, that's enough praise for the ex-president.
Instead, let's talk about what Nixon and Bush have in common.
They share a disregard for the Constitution, a belief in absolute executive power and a contempt for Congress. These are not qualities we should look for in choosing our next president.
Nixon expressed it best. As Reeves tells it in his book, when Sen. Hugh Scott told Nixon of poor morale among Senate Republicans and said the president should meet with them more, Nixon replied, "Bring them down for cookies ... ? Our senators are nothing but a bunch of jackasses. ... We can't count on them. Fuck the Senate."
Nixon displayed his contempt in a major way. John Dean, once Nixon's counsel and now a fierce Bush critic, recalled in an article in findlaw.com how Nixon refused to spend congressional appropriations on programs he didn't like, invoked executive privilege in refusing to give Congress information, reorganized the executive branch without congressional approval and continued and expanded the Vietnam War without Congress' permission. And Nixon engaged in illegal wiretaps.
Congress retaliated by limiting presidential power. Dick Cheney, a young member of Nixon's staff and then chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, watched with disapproval. Thus, as vice president, Cheney quickly moved to restore the imperial presidency that existed before Watergate.
There's a direct line from Nixon to Bush. Nixon wiretapped. Bush approved illegal electronic eavesdropping. Bush defied congressional requests for testimony and documents dealing with a variety of matters, invoking the Nixon doctrine of executive privilege. And both of them cost the nation thousands of lives without purpose.
Who's the worst? What a dumb question.
© 2007 TruthDig.com
36 Comments so far
Show AllThe good doctor is 100% correct. Harry Truman is far and away the worst president. No one comes close to the body count he racked up. Murderous villain! Dropping the deadliest bombs imaginable on whole cities full of people--lots of them BABIES! For what?!? To show Stalin that we are the "real deal?" What the f*%^!! Some day we will realize that a single moron/lunatic sitting atop a powerful government cannot have the right, the ability, any of the wherewithal to commit murder & genocide.
Thanks to a sister: ~ Siouxrose. xx
Shortage of time allows me to mention just one point: There is a marked difference between 'Churchianity' --and Christianity, (and just to re-state, this comes from one not a Christian, -nor of any other religion.)
I kinda like Madame Blavatsky's comment, inscribed in many of her books: "There is no religion higher than truth."
Would that some well-known leaders in the world today were able to incorporate that wise aphorism into their lives and actions.
++++++++++++++++
Keep on keeping on you guys...
The now-revered Harry Truman, who in his time was the equivalent of the now President Bush.
Imagine the difference had Henry Wallace or William O. Douglas been Vice President when FDR died.
The reason for HIROSHIMA NUCLEAR ATTACK was what?
Then the reason for NAGASAKI NUCLEAR ATTACK three day later was what?
The reason for the Korean War was what?
What a treat that Mr. Truman was.
What a treat that Mr. Bush is.
Its an interesting debate for sure.
The BBC just aired Alexandra Pelosi's roadmovie; 'Journeys with George' following BU$H on his first presidential campaign and I was struck by a man who was clearly full of humour and personal magnetism. He was clearly full of nothing else. Might have been intersting to see a similar documentary on the last campaign, if only to see how much, or how little he had changed as President. I'm guessing little?
Whilst I am forced to agree with most of the other comments, especialy those that refer to what criteria American voters place so dear in presidental candidates, I am filled with melancholy. An overwhelming sense of emptiness to rival that between Dubya's ears. I do not get to join in on these elections, but as Brit I am aware, perhaps as a result of our two countries' "Special Relationship?" that whoever we vote for here will follow the White House, chapter and verse in all its grisly foreign policy decisions.
Its probably stating the obvious therefore that the American voting public has an awesome responsibilty. Your leader is our leader and pretty much everyone else's.
(at the next election..)
Americans please remember to vote (for us all)
Nixon has long been considered the epitome of political corruption, however, he is finally regaining a little respect. In stark to our current President, Nixon was a genius at international relations. He never acted rashly, but thought long and hard about the consequences of any foreign policy action.
We know that political corruption is rampant. Nixon however had two things that worked against him, that caused him to be singled out, unfairly in my opinion, as uniquely corrupt. One was that he had all of his conversations in the White House taped. Two was that the traditional relationship between press and President underwent a paradigm shift during his term. With the anti-climactic unveiling of Mark Felt as "Deep Throat", it looked like exposing Nixon was all about political revenge, not moral compulsion.
Nixon was intelligent and actually cared about the country. Our current President is unrivaled in his stupidity.
The biggest loser: Easily, tragically, Bush
Thanks Siouxrose. Just as I was about to write off Christianity as destructive superstition, I ran into this site. It shows that there is a good, liberal side to it, as with every religion, that has been overshadowed by it's greedy conservative side. Sorry for the long post.
Ezeflyer: I applaud your explanation of the impact the love of money/as idol, has had upon our society. (Of course in earlier times the European church gilded its doors in gold and left the poor to starve outside, and the church has been behind a number of programs to murder outsiders). Two points I would add are that Christian Bible quotes are not the ONLY truth; Truth has been illumined to all people, and just as our spectrum is composed of a variety of expressions of light, it is more holistic to recognize that what we call GOD cannot be known entirely by and through the limits of the mortal mind. Therefore, to realize facets of the Creator express through the entire spectrum, aspects of its luminosity shown in EACH religion helps us to overcome the divides based on race, creed, religion, nationality, etc. And one thing that you could tie to your albeit long (yet apt) "essay" is the role that all this focus on mammon has regarding the cannibalizing of all of earth's resources to the point where sustainable ecosystems are imploding and putting human life (not to mention an extraordinary number of species) at risk. The film Soylent Green envisioned a future or parking lots and not exactly gourmet food supply. At the rate the mammon-media-trained are going, it's not that far fetched!
Some say Nixon was brilliant at foreign relations and I can agree with that. Bush, on the other hand is a truculent bungler.
The "Cancer on the presidency" to quote John Dean, seems to be Dick Cheney.
Please, in all our hate for out current president; please don't forget that all who take the post of head of America is cut from the same cloth. America will never elect a president that would say "I have no stance on gay marriage it has absolutely no effect of any kind on the direction that our country is going. I am Pro-Life and Pro-choice. Because they are not one in the same as people try and make you believe. I am against war but will use it to protect those that can't protect them selves. Enough with gross consumerism; If you made 100 Million dollars last year I think, its time you take some of that 100 million from this year and give back to the people that work hard for you every day to earn you that big paycheck. No more corporate backed Mega million dollar campaigns. You are the few and I am concerned about the many. It's time for the mega rich to pay your fare share; as you demand immigrants to do. This will finally help fund our health care system.
And to our youth do not fear joining our armed services because you and your families will be greatly rewarded for your sacrifice. You will not be left to die on our streets after you protected the streets of others. To the poor its time to take advantage of the opportunities that will be made available. Fare wages and jobs that sustain a decent living will become available. Government assistance is not the only way.
To those that have come illegally will have to work to stay. And those that need to seek our home as their own need not sneak to get in. Apply and find work, and your may stay. Oil companies will now be forced to use your record profits to help the country not hurt it more." But we will never hear those words…………….Never.
Pundit has it right--we need to look beyond those of our generation if we are to pick the worst U.S. president.
My personal nominee is James Buchannan whose piddling and diddling around made the civil war inevitable.
(Dis)honorable mention to Warren Harding, a midwest good ol' boy who managed to find some government post for everyone of his corrupt political allies and whose wife (according to writer Nicholas Von Hoffman)had to be restrained by the secret service from killing him after she found him in a closet copulating with a winsome White House secretary.
Hey bush jr did one thing right, he made all the other bad presidents look good.
As the Libertarian bumper sticker says, "Bush makes me miss Nixon.".
BAD = Nixon
Worse = Reagan
WORST = bush
"But as long as Americans choose Presidents for physical appearance, "fun to be with", charming demeanor, they will get what they are looking for and no more."
ROFL Alfred Chimp Newman is SO ugly and so blackhearted that that theory is blown out of the water. It's definitely "some other reason" why honorable men , such as Congressman Kucinich, can not win. You can't win a FIXED election when you are an outsider.
Reagan combined Bush's intellectual mediocrity with Clinton's worst moments of sophistry and complete willingness to sell out to monied interests. Bush would have been unimaginable before Reagan but in retrospect seems completely inevitable after Reagan.
I well remember watching Nixon on television, saying "The President is not a crook", as a fine film of sweat broke out on his face.
It was impressive work. He was so good, I could have almost believed him. Not knowing any better, I found it amusing.
But Nixon at least had somewhat of a brain in his head and had leadership qualities. bush, on the other hand, has an empty skull. there are no brain cells working and leadership qualities(laugh), he has none. he gets his from god. god told him to invade Iraq and to bring about the messia. but they are close in other areas. they were both drunks, drug abusers and talked to god. one was just a little smarter than the other and bush was just luckier.
Bush is the worst ever.
He has, I now believe, become possessed by some sort of satanic entity, and nothing, -no matter how evil, is beneath him and his grisly, utterly sordid crew.
-Surely that status beats Tricky Dickhead and Ronald Raygun? I bet that this incontinent infant BuSh also pees in the Oval office sink, -just as LBJ was in the habit of doing.
Tea anyone? :(
_______________________
As to intelligence, I seem to recall this diabolic, catatonic zombie BuSh once said:
"Fool me once, you fool me ...um... twice.
Fool me ...er... fool, and I'm a fool me.
Fool me three times and I am... (-how many did I get to now Condie?)
Fool me, ...er... fool me, and goddam, I'll stick a nuke where Ronald Dumsfeld don't shine. -Dogs bless Amurka!
Fully fool me fifteen times and I'll folly fool you too fools fully thrice.
Fool me ...er ... um... er... ... ?? "
[etc]
:)
Unknown Arts.Org.I agree Reagan who the republican's still think was God was a traitor just like Bush.Reagan raped this country not only Iran Contra but he busted the Air Traffic Controllers Union Reagan damaged this country more than Nixon but not nearly as much as the moron we have now.
I am trying to catch my breath after the ezeyflyer blog.I slipped on his soapbox.
Re Nixon and Bush,the debates between Nixon and Kennedy showed Nixon winning from radio listeners and Kennedy winning from television viewers.So Bush is critical of the appearance of Kucinic,knowing the mind of the average viewer.It is a sad state of affairs where content plays second to appearance.The "debates" with various Republican and Democrat contenders is ample proof that not much is going on in the serious thinking area.It looks like an exam with multimate choice answers,that gives the politician an opportunity to smile winningly or display a posture of gravitas to the many people swayed by these non-events.
I can say only one good thing about BUSH. He is so outrageous and pathetic that he caused me for the first time in my life to quit getting my news from TV. (FOX News)
and start READING! I am now studying books like The Bush Agenda by Antonia Juhasz Awesome book!! has really opened my eyes!! I now understand WHY BUSH TOOK US TO IRAQ,BIG OIL CORPORATE GLOBILIZATION ETC AD NAUSEUM at fIRST I SAW Bush AS PATHETIC BUT NOW I SEE HOW DANGEROUS HE REALLY IS!! I HOPE BUSH WILL CAUSE OTHERS LIKE ME TO TURN OFF THE TV AND START STUDYING FOREIGN POLICY,PAX AMERICANAS,EMPIRE BUILDING ETC. Long live Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers!!!
and so it goes....
A (lengthy) true Christian view of Nixon, Bush and their minions:
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. Jesus said: You can't serve both God and Mammon" Matthew 6:24
The nature of the luke-warm church is that of being blind to their own avarice. Confusion abounds among those that cannot see past themselves but for those that have been preaching repentance and a turn from mammon all along, it is perfectly clear. The church has tried to serve both God and mammon, knowing Jesus said you can't. We have witnessed a great tragedy in the destruction of the World Trade Center but this is only the beginning of sorrows. The end is not yet but it is coming. Think of a drought so severe as to dry up the farm land and stop the power generators. The inflation alone will bring the world into famine. Think of catastrophes so widespread that a third of the people in the world will die? Frightening isn't it. All over money.
So, we are in the midst of a discussion on repentance. Fitting. We are not the only ones with a call to repentance, many know very well that this is the way to stay God's hand. You say that God is not to blame? I agree, but tragic as it was, the only god that the World Trade Center represented is the god of mammon. The only god that the Pentagon represents is reflected in the image of the beast. Whatever judgment that is represented in this evil is the natural result of sin and the love of money, the root of all evil. Of course it was perpetrated by evil people but the hedge around the United States was let down. No matter how much you love America, the message is still the same - judgment is coming against her. There are of course those that disagree but we do not see them repenting of mammon worship either. Repentance comes when we are aware of our sins and are determined to turn from them. Judgment is also coming to the church. Bible prophecy must be fulfilled. Repentance is what dresses ourselves in white, ready to meet the Bridegroom. "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Revelation 7:13-14.
Can you recognize the blindness to avarice and laissez-faire oppression? Your eyes must be opened to the deception of foreign investments and development loans used as a bribe for cheap labor and enslave the third world in debt. It is past time to warn the church. Take a look at the multinational moneygrubbers spouting democracy and freedom to deceive nations and the military interventions to protect our economic interests. The bulk of the Christian church has supported this new world order as part of their mammon worship. Freedom becomes the license to exploit. Embargoes, trade sanctions, favored nation status and economic blockades are the nature of the beast that forbids countries to buy and sell in the world market. Many are still blind to it but it's there. Hey, many of us will die for taking sides against the new world order but Jesus has already given us the anointing to take the kingdom. It is very obvious once the blinders are taken off but God has sent a strong delusion for those who believe a lie. The saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever and ever.
There are many competing voices saying that this is not judgment but still they wonder why this is happening to a Christian America. These are the voices of the image of the beast, not the true God. God has blessed America but look at her now. She is the most amoral and violent nation since pagan Rome, mingled with the seed of mankind but still can not cleave one to another. America was founded upon Christian principles but now it is in money we trust. Hollywood has infected the entire world with the most vile sensuality since Sodom and Gomorrah and polluted the minds of our youth with violence and blood. Sin piles upon sin, too much never seems to be enough. All for the almighty dollar.
It is good and well to pray for the families of the victims but let us not forget the families of the survivors all over America and the rest of the world, they need to come out of the delusion. What delusion? The delusion that thinks that being liberal to the poor is evil. The delusion of the younger generation that votes against the elderly and the elderly who vote against the youth, all for lower taxes. Every move they make is for the sake of money. What part of your Christian faith is conservative? All of it? Conservative faith, conservative giving, conservative grace, holiness, prayer life, a life of conservative do as little as possible Christian service. No wonder God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, they worship a false Jesus.
We now have the greatest impetus to revival that this generation has ever known but we must look within ourselves first for this to happen. We must turn before we can ask others to turn. We must shake the mark of the beast from our consciousness and take upon us the seal of God. I say that Lucifer is the light that the church has been worshiping and calling him Je$u$. Money is opposed to God and considered unrighteous. What is being brought before us here is not the unrighteous means by which money is procured, nor the unrighteous use to which money is put, but the unrighteous character of money. In God's sight there is only dirty money. Money invariably leads us away from God.
It is impossible to serve God and mammon. Making friends of it describes the proper use of money to take care of our needs and the needs of others but by serving it, you become its slave. The essence of the present system is money. Whenever you touch money, you touch the world. It was money, which trapped the chief priest, and it is money, which has trapped our religious leaders of today. A man might serve two masters by dividing his time between them, but he cannot be slave to both, and slave is the word here employed. If both demand a total allegiance, the man must choose: he can divide his time, but not his soul. So Jesus here implies that mammon poses as deity, demanding a life-and-death devotion. Covetousness, which is idolatry, tells of the domination. Money makes a man slave indeed. It asks an absolute loyalty.
They that desire to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and perdition. "For the love of money is the roots of all kinds of evil which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." In other words, if anything can lead us astray from God, money will but it is not the money that is evil but the love of it.
Mammon is the god of the world's leading religion. His chief temple is the holy city of New York at Wall Street. It isn't money itself that causes the trouble, but the use of money as votive offering and pagan ornament. Ask an American what money means, and 9 times out of 10 he will say synonymous with freedom, that it opens the doors of feeling and experience, that citizens with enough money can play at being gods and do anything they wish. The dreams of avarice glitter in the shop window and glisten with the displays of opulence. This peculiarly American form of idolatry pervades the whole of society; profit takes precedence over life and art and love; the freedoms of property take precedence over individual liberties.
People came to be valued for the money they command, not for their deeds or character. As their capacity to command decreases, so also does their stature as human beings. Without money it is all but impossible to aspire to public voice or persona in American society. Society in the US rests utterly and entirely upon money; a society that cannot distinguish between profit and profiteering, between money defined as necessity and money defined as luxury. Juvenal: "Money is mourned with deeper sorrow than friends or kindred." Diogenes is quoted as saying "It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little. Now, the love of luxury is an even more insidious kind of corruption than the love of money, because it draws more directly on a variety of entirely normal needs."
There are two choices that the church in all ages have had to make, to serve God or mammon. The god of this world has had his way in the church for so long that the kingdom has had to suffer tremendously through its witness. We are in the Laodicean age of the church in that the church has become rich, it is all stored within and precious little gets to the ones that need it the most. We have magnificent buildings and outreach programs to proselytize, crystal cathedrals and steeples that reach into the sky like the tower of Babylon but as long as there is still poor among us, we have failed. We already had a great discussion on tithing some time ago, where it was mentioned that the curse of Malachi was directed not so much to the lack of tithing but to the unrighteous use of it. (continued)
http://latter-rain.com/theology/mammon.htm
WJM: A bit off topic I guess, but if any one person can be credited with starting the EPA, that person would be Ralph Nader, not Richard Nixon. Nader has also sued the agency.
We cannot vote our way out of the mess made by Bush We did not vote our way into it. Understand we are way past deciding who to vote for that has already been done for you. Or did you sleep through the whole 2000 vote and the repeat in 2004?
Do you smell it yet?
Welcome to reality what you feared would happen already has.
Jediah: Important point! Thanks to the media buyout by mostly rightwing corporations, Bush's evil and incompetence (or willful disregard for every meaningful aspect of American life, apart from gross worship of the profit motive, aided and abeted by violence to win its objectives) have been heavily ASSISTED by media, congress, etc so that his power to do harm has spread beyond what Nixon could do. And Jonedon: you hit it; contenders need not apply! WE have our "winner" and it's at a loss to every good, decent, valuable and sacred/lasting thing.
I'm no Nixon lover, by any stretch of the imagination, but the man did do some good things. He started the EPA. He ended our involvement in Nam, even though he did it poorly and cost us thousands of extra lives. He opened up the Soviet Union and China. He essentially ended the cold war, at least until Reagan came along and started it up again.
Bush, on the other hand, hasn't done a SINGLE thing that can be considered a positive for he country, the government, or the world in general. His is a COMPLETELY failed presidency from the word go.
Reagan deserves his place near the very top of the list as well. He turned us from the most prosperous, most productive, most inventive country the world has ever seen into the most debt ridden, least accountable place on the planet. He turned Americans against themselves, and destroyed the social contract that had built us into that great country virtually overnight. He took a country that had a heart and surgically removed it, leaving a dead hulk left with no feelings, and a wallet where that heart once was. Oh, but he made everyone FEEL so good... just like his economic plan, it was all built on paper. It has NO substance. Never did. The paper presidency.
But bad as he was, Bush has hin beat by a mile and a half.
beyond intelligence and charm, one difference b/n nixon and bush may be a much more combative congress and MSM. limited though they were, congress and the MSM did something about Nixon, instead of being mostly enablers.
Articles have appeared already describing how other members of "the media" have begun an all out, irrational attack on Al Gore, who is not officially even running for anything. The depth of these attacks extend mostly to his style and his high fallutin' reputation for his intelligence and erudition. An example is a recent Washington Post Book review that mischaracterizes his newest (and best) book on "The Assault On Reason." The implication is that "you deserve our collective disdain if you actually know anything and are well qualified." Nothing validates the title of the book more than the smear job that it is receiving in some quarters. Having just finished the book myself, I give it five stars and wish it was required reading in high schools and colleges but then, I must be an "elitist" myself.
As long as America runs to the lowest common denominator that's where we will continually end up - at the bottom. When criticism of style and analysis of how well a candidate is "liked" substitutes for actual discussion and debate of issues and qualifications, we are in for many more Nixons and Bushes. For example, I understand that the June 15th issue of Rolling Stone will have an article about how Rudolph Guiliani is actually "Worse Than Bush." Yet, he continues to lead in polls of Republican voters mostly because of tv images of him on September 11th. Using this as a criterion, I guess we are lucky Sanjaya is not running fo anything.
whether you are the worst or next to worst you still walk away from ring toss without a kupie doll. Of course, it is merely an academic exercise to judge the standings of Nixon or George W. Bush or Buchanan or Andrew Johnson or any other US president. But, as Jackie Gleason was fond of saying, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
And to paraphrase Casey Stengel, "This ain't ring toss!"
I am feeling some pity for Ronald Reagan's exclusion from this little run-off election. Iran-Contra? The October Surprise? GRENADA as a threat??? I mean, for sheer ridiculousness, you can't really even put Iraq on the same stage. Sure, the results of Grenada were nothing compared to those of Iraq, but the premise? And Reagan set the stage for Bush by proving that we did not need an intelligent person in the nation's highest office. All we needed was a talking head. Bush has merely followed that up with proof that the head doesn't even have to have a particularly fine grasp of the English language. But Reagan, like Bush, was a tool. NOTHING but a tool. He was reckless, irresponsible and cruel. He had the Democratic congress doing his bidding. A master of PR and lying with conviction in the face of all evidence to the contrary (perhaps because he was not informed enough to KNOW he was lying?). So, please, a little love for Reagan as a trend-setter. The man who proved we did not need intelligence at the helm.
And as to Nixon's contempt for the Senate: "Bring them down for cookies … ? Our senators are nothing but a bunch of jackasses. … We can't count on them. Fuck the Senate." It seems that the president CAN count on them NOW and that Nixon's words on the Senate would not be far from my own.
Bush is a perfect example of what may be concealed behind an appearance of easy charm. Because as long as he's getting his way, he's full of that. But cross him and his real self appears, as many have learned, to their pain.
But as long as Americans choose Presidents for physical appearance, "fun to be with", charming demeanor, they will get what they are looking for and no more. Abraham Lincoln would be unelectable today. As is Dennis Kucinich. Look how the press derides him. On his appearance. And yet, the words coming out of his mouth express his integrity, his intellect, his concern for working people, his ability to see the core of issues, his realistic solutions to problems. And the MSM is careful that no one knows he exists.
The majority of voters don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear a comfortable pack of lies so they can go on living in denial.
The problem with selecting the "worst president in history" is that history, for most people, began in 1945. How about Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, US Grant, Harding? There have been many bad asses in the office since George Washington,give them some recognition!
After all the Americans wake up in 10 years and realize all the hell that has been let loose because people were to afraid to impeach the bastard (and his crew of fascist). Then we will see him hold that bottom spot for a very long time.
But I feel very strongly that until the suffering and loss of rights spreads around a bit more; people will still make the wrong decision when it comes to a president.
Bush.
Nixon was a crook, but he actually had the capacity to suffer. Bush is incapable. There is nothing there.
Bush is not finished yet. He still has a reasonable chance of setting on fire the entire region from Lebanon and Syria to Afghanistan. He is going to be a very tough competitor for that bottom spot.
jon
Connecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
Http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Recent research in psychology aimed at measuring violence-related personality traits has produced reliable ways of measuring individuals' propensity toward violent "solutions" to problems.
The research suggests the possibility of using psychological instruments in the process of selecting new leaders and, ultimately, a new political party based on true representation of constituents and selection of psychologically healthy representatives.
Check out the videos on the Publications tab at http://www.politicalpsychologyresearch.com
Many have observed that the pace of technological development has outstripped humanity's development in social and psychological arenas. This research suggests we may have a chance to advance our "people technology" rapidly as well.