ryan - b l o g

So, here's the story. My friend Claire posted a link to this article on facebook. Her friend made the following comment.

Ooh, making fun of Bush. How original.

I couldn't not say something, right?

So we just shouldn't criticize him because everyone already knows what a miserable failure he is?

Apparently that pressed the wrong button! This was her reply;

Hey high school, how old were you in 2001? 2004? Way to follow suit when the big kids bash someone who was obviously capable enough to stop any post-911 terrorist attacks on American soil and simultaneously bring down Saddam Hussein. Kudos to them, though, blaming the president for their obviously pathetic lives in an economy that was created to fail "by the people, for the people." Oh, what's that? You think that our (alleged) recession has nothing to do with Clinton's presidency? Yeah, believe it or not, in the real world it sometimes takes more than a few months to see the consequences of decisions made in Washington. Maybe that's too hard for you to understand because Clinton was president way back in the '90s.

...you know, I worry about the future of America when some pissed off teenage suburbanite uses the term "miserable failure" to describe a man who was smart, experienced, and skilled enough to attain to the highest seat of power in the world. Good on ya, kid.

I was pissed, to say the least. High school? Really? Naturally, I defended myself.

First off, my name is Ryan. You do little to substantiate your argument by making an ad hominem fallacy right off the bat. I am not some random, dopey, uninformed high schooler. It is unwise, and quite frankly rude to assume that I am when you don't even know me. I am not a mindless drone who simply follows what the "big kids say", and I should remind you that you are only four years my senior.

Yes, there haven't been any terrorist attacks since 9-11. That's absolutely wonderful, and I am thankful for whatever role Bush played in keeping that from happening. However, the actual groundwork and preventative work is done by agencies such as the CIA, not the president himself. To give him a lot of credit for that is simply foolish. If anything, he has harmed our image abroad and given the jihadists more fuel to hate us, though I'm sure that makes little difference considering how much they hated us to begin with.

I said nothing about the economy and didn't blame it on him. I think you are taking your anger at anyone and everyone who opposes Bush out on me, which is unfortunate. The fact is, Presidents have much less of an impact on the economy than people think they do, and I recognize that fact. The current crisis is largely the fault of banks with deceptive and unfair lending practices and unwise people who entered into financial situations which they could not support. I realize that Clinton era deregulation has had an impact on the current crisis. I didn't defend Clinton in what I said either. It's nice to see that you finished your first paragraph the way you started it; with an ad hominem. At least you are consistent.

I worry about the future of America too sometimes, albeit for different reasons. I worry about our looming energy crisis, jihadism, and a failing education system. Ah yes, failure. The root of my comment! He is smart enough, though there are certainly many people who are much, much smarter. He was a C student, I'm sure you must hold yourself to a higher standard. I'm sure the cocaine use didn't help things either. Your next quality, experienced. Well, he was a governor, that's true, I'll give you that. However, that doesn't automatically mean that everything he does is good either. As for being skilled, I would say that he was lucky in getting his seat. He lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes, and he won the election in a single state by a few hundred votes. That was a state where the voting system was extremely poor, and the electoral practices were extremely questionable. His brother, Jeb Bush, had 58,000 voters taken off of the voter rolls, 54% of whom were Black. Journalist Greg Palast subsequently investigated the matter and said that only a small fraction of those actually weren't allowed to vote. Additionally, if the recount had proceeded as the "skilled" Bush asked, Gore would have won the election. The fact is, Bush was a likable enough guy, and people voted for him.

As for 2004, Kerry was an absolute joke, and Americans reasonably didn't want to switch presidents in the middle of a war. I could go into the war but this status comment has been long enough. I could also go on about the Ohio election 04, but again, I doubt it would make much difference in your mind. Much like I may have come off as a blind Bush opposer to you, you have so far come off as a blind Bush supporter. However, I do not assume that you are a blind supporter of him because I don't know you. You should have the same courtesy.

As for the term failure 61% of historians rate Bush as the worst president EVER, while 98.2 percent rate his presidency as a failure.

Think about that, 98% of historians rank him as a failure. I don't think such a statistic can be blamed on party lines or following the "big kids". Historians know what they're talking about.

I'm looking forward to her reply.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 28, 2008 at 12:15 AM. You can skip to the end and leave a response.