[Archived] American Presidential Elections

[philipl]

This is entirely predictable.

The Daily Telegraph and their ilk who are seeing their political philososphy crashing and burning at the US polls (well, in reality, nobody dared offer a continuation of the "neocon project") are turning on Bush.

At the moment, they are portraying him as a comic book idiot but sooner or later the right is going to provide a far more bitter and ruthlessly destructive analysis of the walking disaster in the White House than any liberal will write.

A Telegraph article on America's desire to heal itself. And the great thing about the American democratic process and system, it has more capability and capacity to flush a truly aberrant and abhorant second Bush out of the system than pretty well anywhere else in the world.

With McCain securing the GOP nomination, I am looking forwards to the next Presidency with relaxed content. At worst, we will get thoroughly competent pragmatists in Billary Clinton.

Dreams v machines, The Observer's commentator on the American primary battles.

[American]

A new candidate emerges....

[blue phil]

Surely the worst?

It's a little strange how those who are so quick to have a go at Bush's record are not so quick to condemn the base liar who led our very own country into the war in Iraq . It's with a sense of deep shame that I remember all sides of the House of Commons giving Blair a standing ovation - when his chief claim to fame was sending our troops in the wake of the USA to their deaths in Iraq. It really pi$$es me off when some follow the left-right party line without considering the inconsistencies in their stance .

Anyway , back to America ....I'd be quite encouraged with things over there if McCain were to stand off against this Barking Osama bloke . They both seem decent enough (for politicians that is ) , a class above the rabble we have on show at present over here at any rate .....

Hillary Clinton ? To me she seems the cold hearted , power hungry type . Cheshire Blue would love her ....

[Bazzanotsogreat]

It's a little strange how those who are so quick to have a go at Bush's record are not so quick to condemn the base liar who led our very own country into the war in Iraq .

Yes but running down America and their president, is so much cooler. How people can make the claim that Bush is the “worst president the US has had”, based on one failed foreign policy is beyond me. Mind you criticism comes with the “hegemon” tag. Their are proffesors who would struggle to quantify the above statement.

Very tight between Obama & clinton, with clinton edging it. I like Mccain but surely he is to old at 71,

[blue phil]

Yep ....maybe he's had his chips

[broadsword]

Didn't Reagan get to the White House at the age of 70? And he had two terms ...

[Rovermatt]

Exactly what I was thinking. My feelings about McCain are ambivalent. There are far worse in his party and at the very least he cares about climate change...

Yes but running down America and their president, is so much cooler. How people can make the claim that Bush is the “worst president the US has had”, based on one failed foreign policy is beyond me.

'Cool' has nothing to do with it.

The assertion that Bush is the worst President ever is based on more than one disastrous policy. Even then the Iraq debacle and Guantanamo Bay (that's two) shouldn't be so easily dismissed. His domestic performance has been just as bad (even if American's taxes are lower ), with the Hurricane Katrina aftermath being just one more catastrophic blunder in his eight years.

BP is right also, Blair's lemming-like adherence to the clearly insane US foreign policy is one of the biggest embarrassments in British political history and certainly not something any true Labour leader should have been touching with a barge-pole. While I do agree with Blair and Bush's view that lunatic Islam sees all of the West as fair game, the UK's involvement in Iraq has made it an obvious and ripe target.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Exactly what I was thinking. My feelings about McCain are ambivalent. There are far worse in his party and at the very least he cares about climate change...

'Cool' is nothing to do with it.

Anyway, the assertion that Bush is the worst President ever is based on more than one disastrous policy. Even then the Iraq debacle and Guantanamo Bay (that's two) shouldn't be so easily dismissed. His domestic performance has been just as bad (even if American's taxes are lower ), with the Hurricane Katrina aftermath being just one more catastrophic blunder in his eight years.

Matt you must have some political knowledge to quantify that from the period of 1789 to 2008; Bush is the worst president that the US has had. Sure he hasn’t got the intellect of Wilson, nor has been a good president, but the comment that you are throwing about would represent about 5 years of rigorous research for a political scientist to conclude. So far matt you have yet to convince anyone that you have the knowledge of Bush’s internal performance, to persuade them to your way of thinking.

So if we are follow your rule- then surely Johnson was a worst president than Bush?

[Flopsy]

he's not got the intellect of a small stone too be fair.

Id be more worried with the massive budget defecit that he's managed to build up

[Rovermatt]

Matt you must have some political knowledge to quantify that from the period of 1789 to 2008; Bush is the worst president that the US has had. Sure he hasn’t got the intellect of Wilson, nor has been a good president, but the comment that you are throwing about would represent about 5 years of rigorous research for a political scientist to conclude. So far matt you have yet to convince anyone that you have the knowledge of Bush’s internal performance, to persuade them to your way of thinking.

So if we are follow your rule- then surely Johnson was a worst president than Bush?

Come now, I'm not trying to 'convince anyone' of anything. It's simply an opinion. Chill out.

Anyway, Johnson did enact the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which was, you know, quite good.

[American]

he's not got the intellect of a small stone too be fair.

Id be more worried with the massive budget defecit that he's managed to build up

Does that mean that there is hope for you yet?

What alleged Republican "supply-siders" seem to forget is that you cut taxes and cut spending - all spending, including defense.

[Flopsy]

Does that mean that there is hope for you yet?

More than you anyway

[Rovermatt]

Hillary did well last night and while I would prefer Obama to be the Leader of the Free World , there is no doubt that she can do the job should she get the nomination.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Come now, I'm not trying to 'convince anyone' of anything. It's simply an opinion. Chill out.

Anyway, Johnson did enact the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which was, you know, quite good.

And was responsible for taking the US into that little conflict in "Indochina"

[Flopsy]

You mean JFK?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You mean JFK?

No Flopsy -LBJ, JFK was dead by the gulf of Tonkin incident. The US officialy went to war with the North in 1963.

[Rovermatt]

But Kennedy started it.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

But Kennedy started it.

Started what? a few hundred special servicesmen training troops . Infact it was the French that started it all a few years earlier

Unfortunately Kennedy was dead when the US declared war in 1963. It was LBJ that took the US into full-blown war

[American]

Hillary did well last night and while I would prefer Obama to be the leader of the free-world , there is no doubt that she can do the job should she get the nomination.

She can do the job - very poorly.

Once my work papers come through, I have given a 2 year commitment working in Europe. If Hillary wins it will increase to at least a 4 year commitment.

[Flopsy]

Bazza, it was never a War, due to the fact that a Declaration of War was never issued. A small and rather pedantic point, but hey never stops anyone else.

And you're right Johnson ramped up the US involvement but JFK had put the wheels in motion by putting troops in the area anyway.

Also does Kenedy not get a special mention of getting the World as close to Nuclear conflict as it ever has been with the very two faced attitude of it being allright to stick nuclear missiles in Turkey, but that was completely different to the Soviets sticking missiles in Cuba?

And the Bay of Pigs, and the fact that he's slept with nearly every female in the Washington area?

He was rubbish as well wasnt he?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza, it was never a War, due to the fact that a Declaration of War was never issued. A small and rather pedantic point, but hey never stops anyone else.

And you're right Johnson ramped up the US involvement but JFK had put the wheels in motion by putting troops in the area anyway.

Also does Kenedy not get a special mention of getting the World as close to Nuclear conflict as it ever has been with the very two faced attitude of it being allright to stick nuclear missiles in Turkey, but that was completely different to the Soviets sticking missiles in Cuba?

And the Bay of Pigs, and the fact that he's slept with nearly every female in the Washington area?

He was rubbish as well wasnt he?

So by your logic Bush wasn’t responsible for Gulf War II? as the US already had tens of thousand of troops already posted in the gulf region before he even came to power. No doubt they had been carrying out “covert operations” in Iraq since the end of Gulf war 1.

As for your JFK tirade, the silos in turkey had been inoperable for years- they were merely their for show. The worry over the Cuban missile crisis was the type of deployment, not only did the Soviets deploy IBM’s but also tactical warheads (FROGS), which added to the speculation of land invasion.

Defcon 2 was deployed by Kissinger in the Yom Kippur campaign in 1973, and it is rumoured that the US went even higher during Gulf War 1. Both were the equivalent (or higher) of the Defcon 2 announced during the Cuban Missile crisis.

Back to Vietnam , it was well documented that Kennedy was not in favour of full-blown war in Indochina- this is one of the conspiracy theories behind his death. The US joint chiefs staff wanted it, he didn’t. The US had operations and small troop numbers in the peninsula as early as 1959, following the French defeat. The troops there were Special Forces, carrying out “tactical missions” or training local troops. It was LBJ that started the Vietnam war as we know it not JFK.

[Flopsy]

Oh bloody hell Bazza, take that holier than thou attitude stick out your arse, I was trying to be ironic. And that if you look at all Presidents they've made cock ups etc etc.

If you're going to be picky, here's a few things

1) Their was no Gulf War, it was a conflict

2) The Defcon rating does not mean how close you are to Nuclear war, it means how close you are too a "War" footing. Its a readyness exercise, even if you're at Defcon 1 doesnt mean you ahve to shoot at people (but its encouraged)

Just because they go to Defcon 1 does not mean they're launching nukes in 30 seconds, it means that they are at full war footing and if neccessary instant suntans will be launched.

You can launch Nukes at Defcon 5 if you want.

But again dont let that stuff get in the way. Bush has been bad for the US because he's managed to take a strong economy, which I believe, if not in surplus, was bloody close to it, and has now stuck them trillions into the red.

He's taken the world's support that was rightfully given to the US after the September 11th attacks and has squandered it by completely cocking up the Iraq Conflict, not by invading, but by totally cocking up the aftermath by not using enough troops to secure the country and by completely disarming and disintegrateing the Army and police services. A lot of Baathists need to be removed but not all of them.

He's brought in, or at least overseen, rendition and Camp X-Ray which is a really good way of pissing off the whole world by extoling the virtues of truth and justice and the American Way whilst basically kidnapping and holding without trial hundreds of people, a number of whom are terrorists and deserve to be captured, but they also deserve to be charged and tried.

If not then there is no Moral authority from the US to tell any other country how to behave.

Which is one of the reasons I'm so against detention without trial for 40 odd days or whatever number the government have plucked out of the air this week.

[Rovermatt]

She can do the job - very poorly.

Once my work papers come through, I have given a 2 year commitment working in Europe. If Hillary wins it will increase to at least a 4 year commitment.

I'm genuinely interested to know why so many people seem to hold this view. Obviously you have more of an insight into the woman than I do. What is it about her that is so divisive?

[Flopsy]

she tried to sort out healthcare and she's married to Bill, plus she's a women and a democrat.

Appeard to be the concensus on the radio yesterday.

American, who would you rather have in charge of the economy, Clinton or Obama?

This whole election doeas appear to be following the last series of the West Wing, doesnt it?

[Rovermatt]

she tried to sort out healthcare and she's married to Bill, plus she's a women and a democrat.

Appeard to be the concensus on the radio yesterday.

American, who would you rather have in charge of the economy, Clinton or Obama?

This whole election doeas appear to be following the last series of the West Wing, doesnt it?

Season 6 surely? There was no candidate until the final episode. Season 7 was simply the presidential campaign.