Worst president in history

[lostmale]

Subject: Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter
to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put
things in perspective:


Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this
war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal
recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look
at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.


FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us:
Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average
of 112,500 per year.


Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.


Lyndon Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



President Nixon ended it.



Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.


In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, He put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist
attack at home.


Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is
taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm
billing records.


It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines
to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the
votes in Florida!!!!

[dogjaw]

Pretty much sums it up. The Dems of today know only one way to win elections. "Spin". No, lets call it what it really is, LIE. They make up crap and state it as truth. A former Clinton "advisor" has turned up as a political hack for Kerry. He looked in the camera this morning on Fox News and said the unemployment rate was 4.8% for 8 straight years. It was a LIE.

The current 5.6% rate is below the average rate of the 90's. When the rate hit 6.0%, the Dems said "oooooh, look what WE did, we're great! Now that it's 5.6%, the Dems say "oooooh look what BUSH did, he's lousy!

[jdt]

if it were not for F.D.R. you probley wouldn`t be here!
read your history books,with out u.s. intervention germany
and her allies would have taken over the world!we barely
won it then.we had to fight germany and japan at the same time!

[Ranger Ray]

if it were not for F.D.R. you probley wouldn`t be here!
It was all the people that fought and labored for the Allies that won the war, not F.D.R... We intervened only after being attacked! That would prove to be hindsight not to be confused with foresight. Don’t just read your history books
but study them. :D

[MSUICEMAN]

Originally posted by Ranger Ray
It was all the people that fought and labored for the Allies that won the war, not F.D.R... We intervened only after being attacked! That would prove to be hindsight not to be confused with foresight. Don’t just read your history books
but study them. :D


whoa! we were attacked? thats not what the original post said. It said we weren't attacked and we still went to war. Talk about "spin".

Clinton I believe had UN consent, as it was a peacekeeping mission, not truly a war. I remember UN peacekeepers being all over the news over there, and I doubt that they would send people in while not giving "consent".

steve

[Ranger Ray]

It said we weren't attacked and we still went to war
Read it again. I believe you missed something.

Just think if we would have had the foresight to attack the Japinese first. Everyone who died at Pearl Harbor might have been spared.

[dogjaw]

Originally posted by MSUICEMAN
whoa! we were attacked? thats not what the original post said. It said we weren't attacked and we still went to war. Talk about "spin".

Clinton I believe had UN consent, as it was a peacekeeping mission, not truly a war. I remember UN peacekeepers being all over the news over there, and I doubt that they would send people in while not giving "consent".

steve
Clinton did not have UN consent in the Somalia fiasco, the Bosnia fiasco, or in his bombing Iraq. None, nada, zilch. Not even when he bombed an asprin factory to change the subject from Monica.

[ifish4eyes]

oh yeah and don't forget Iraq never attacked us and don't forget about who's daddy went to war with Iraq and they never attacked us. LOL. You guys are confused. :confused:

[jdt]

our allies were losing the war when we intervened!

[Ranger Ray]

I think you could say we were all losing in the beginning. :eek:

[jdt]

I AGREE!R.R.

[Hunt_n_Fish]

lostmale~~
C'mon you believe we shouldn't have entered WWII. It's true that if we didn't go to war you wouldn't be here. Germany would ocupy the world. They probably would have taken out Japan as well. Seeing that Germany had some of the best scientists of the time they probably would have dominated the world had we not gone to war. Also the Korean War we didn't lose. We helped half a country from being overun. Right now North Korea is starving its people. If we didn't go to war then more than twice the people would be dieing and starving.

[Kevin]

Hunt_n_Fish
I edited your post to remove the name-calling.
Please read the Groundrules in Soundoff.

To all: Please remember that it is okay to attack an argument, but not another member.

Thanks for your cooperation

Kevin

[kingfisher 11]

Something I have always watched and wondered when I saw these war protests during the Vietnam era. Most of them started at colleges. And I see this same thing developing now, even a few of our younger members are anti war/Bush.

I am not pro war, I think it is terrible and and would hate to be there. I also believe there are some bad people out there who would just love to see every American wiped off the face of the earth.

I guess what I am getting to, how many protest it and want it to stop. Not because they feel its wrong, but because they are cowards. Scared out of there pants and don't believe in fighting for what you believe in. They use the pretense of how wrong this is to cover up there cowardice.

I for one cannot say how much I appreciate what most soldiers are willing to do for us. When I say most because, I believe there are some who signed up just for the college fund. Never expected to be in a conflict. This is why you will always be able to find someone in the military who will claim this is an unjust war. Seems like the media can always locate a few of them too.

The young men and women who sign up during these times we are having right now. They are true patriots. Something I think the young of this country need to realize is.... there are those before them that have died for this belief. It makes me sick to watch such negative politcal spinning to make Bush look so bad. Just to gain leverage in the election. To me its a slap in the face to all of those who have died in the last couple of years. If you believe we need to pull our soldiers out right now and stop before we are finished. Then we have truely wasted the lifes that have been lost in the last few years.

Finish this in Iraq, then we can debate it.

[lostmale]

Hunt in Fish


If you read the post I didn't write it was a letter printed in the paper. That I thought had alot of truth to it. Some of it I may agree to some I may not.

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter

[lostmale]

C'mon you believe we shouldn't have entered WWII

Where did I say we shouldn't have entered WWII.
and it is true that if we did not enter it would have been a different world today. We enter to stop a tyrant which is No different than why we are in Iraq today. But now that are there we should support the President and the troops. The pressure should be put on the countries that we have helped that are not backing us.

[MSUICEMAN]

i believe there is a difference. people weren't asking to go to war with pol pot (sp?) in indonesia when he was killing more than a million people (I think that would qualify as a tyrant), or in Rwanda to save hundreds of thousands of people from being slaughtered. Also, most people that weren't dems were giving Clinton a hard time about Bosnia (I would imagine a lot of you did also). Now how is that any different than this morally speaking? my point just being that just because there is a bad person or dictator in the world, does NOT give you the right to go bomb the crap out of em and wage war.

Do i think Saddam was a creep? for sure. Do I think he was a threat to America? Nope.

He didn't have any links to Al Qaeda that we can tell. Now how was he a threat again? no weapons of mass destruction, and even if he had, he didn't have ballistic missiles that could travel halfway around the world to hit any american soil.

Keep in mind also that we backed Saddam at one time, maybe we shouldn't get into bed with sketchy individuals before we judge their character as a whole. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, just someone that might be occupied before they are your enemy too.

please everyone, go vote, for anyone you want to! thats what its all about! I can just say how i feel, you say how you feel. thats why this country is great. Apathy and the feeling of being unattached to the political process is the greatest threat facing america today.

steve

[dogjaw]

Originally posted by ifish4eyes
oh yeah and don't forget Iraq never attacked us and don't forget about who's daddy went to war with Iraq and they never attacked us. LOL. You guys are confused. :confused:
But they did attack us almost daily. Don't you remember the reports of our jets dodging anti-aircraft fire daily. Anti-aircraft fire from Iraq?
Number one, that's an act of war by Iraq.
Number two, it's a violation of surrender that was signed by Iraq.
Number three, Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq over the simple threat of killing George Bush. Wasn't that pre-emptive? Shouldn't the threats of killing any Americans count as much?

When 9/11 happened, everyone, and I mean both sides of the coin were gratefull that our friends (read other countries) came to our aid. Are we to turn our backs on others in need based on the political party of the current president? What does that say about us as a people? And what does that say about us individually. Do you cut and run when your friends have to carry a heavy burden? Or do you help your friends carry that burden? Do you have friends because they are benificial to you today, but will ignore them when they not?

If we bury our heads in the sand like we did in the late 30's till we were attacked in 41, it'll happen again. Hmmm, it did happen again, on September 11, 2001.

[ifish4eyes]

I agree we screwed up starting over 50 years ago and this is just a continuation of those blunders of foreign policy. But as we always think we can fix our mistakes, sometimes you can't right the wrongs we've committed. I say protect and take care of our own first and them help others. Also don't for get who gave him the weapons of mass destruction ( USA ). It like a VD you can mask the symptoms, but there's no cure.

[Hunt_n_Fish]

Please forward to all on your list as this will put
Lostmate ~~ you wrote this didn't you?? so that means you must agree. correct??



Sorry Amos

[lostmale]

Originally posted by Hunt_n_Fish
Lostmate ~~ you wrote this didn't you?? so that means you must agree. correct??

Sorry Amos

Nope I don't see where that statement says I agree or disagree

Please forward to all on your list as this will put
things in perspective:

[Hunt_n_Fish]

you wanted everyone to read it, so if you didn't think it was true or worth while to read then why would you post it. Anyone else see my point??

[JackpineSavage]

Imgoing to agree w/ MSU ICEMAN. Good point brudda!:D

[Moron]

Hunt_n_Fish

Don't assume a poster automatically endorses something they post if they didn't author it themselves. Many post articles and topics because they might present perspectives not already shown. I think this is a good thing as it provides for more food for thought.;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Do I think he was a threat to America? Nope

How can you say that with such certainty?

He had no problem paying homocide bomber families $20,000. What makes you think he didn't do the same for 9/11 terrorist families, the mear thought of monetary reward for attacking the US would be enough fan the fires of Muslim extremists. He also didn't mind supplying them.

You can trace a whole lot of trouble back to Iraq. It was one huge piece of trouble taken out, 3-4 more to go! Iran, Syria, North Korea and hopefully Saudi Arabia are next.

[MSUICEMAN]

ya know why I can think that? saddam hussein was not a muslim extremist, believe it or not he didn't share the radical faith that terrorists have. In all actuality, his antics would probably be frowned upon by extremists as his faith was more of the relaxed muslim faith (remember, the reason why we backed him in the war against Iran).

Actually, I believe it was a Saudi that was paying the suicide bombers, along with holding tv fundraisers for the cause, yet they are still our "allies".

two of the most oppressive regimes in the world, egypt and saudi arabia are bedfellows, that makes my stomach flip just thinking of it.

steve

[Kevin]

Columnist Deroy Murdock offers a reply to the frequently asked and publicized "Did Saddam have ties to terrorists" question. He includes direct links to sources.

Column Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp)


FWIW

[MSUICEMAN]

I don't doubt that there were terrorists living inside Iraq or using Iraq as a shield. Since we don't have jurisdiction or any friendly ties to Iraq, wouldn't you want to hide here also if you were wanted? Whether or not he himself or his government were anything more than passive about such things can be disputed.

I don't doubt that he has ties to Hamas, or the PLF. That entire mess is a different ballgame altogether for the most part. Having ties to one group does not necessarily mean you have ties to another group. Hell, technically we have ties to Iraq's army and weaponry, but that doesn't mean that we are part of Iraq's former policies. I also bet if you swept our entire country you can find people that also have links to Hamas or the PLF, but once again that doesn't make the US have ties to them. So really its hard to say without having said "smoking gun".

I never have once had a doubt in my mind that Hussein was a tyrant and a borderline madman. And yes, I think invading Iraq may have turned up other bad people living inside that country. Now whether or not the plus side of that happening outweighs the negative of the firestorm that this war has stirred up around the world remains to be seen. This is the wildcard here, and from whats been going on around the world since our "war on terror" began, I have my doubts.


steve

[WILDCATWICK]

IRAN/CONTRA:mad:

We are not perfect....neither parties are even close but it's fun to watch you guys defend such imperfections.:p

[JackpineSavage]

My view is that there is too much of a coincidence that our top govt officials have so much money and friends tied up in the oil business. It is a belief of mine that a main reason this war was started was to put some mucho denero$$$ in the pockets of these people. Kinda makes the reason for those high gas prices clear. I pesonaly dont like either candidate bush or Kerry i think that they are both pretty much standard politicians; when they arent kissing babies they are taking the candy right from under their noses.

[lostmale]

High gas prices come on without inflation gas prices have stayed rather low. With inflation added in that $1.99 a gallon would have been $ 2.18. Has your insurance premiums stayed the same or how much has the price of a new vehicle gone up since 2000.


http://a298.g.akamai.net/7/298/5382/050602234918/www.imakenews.com/tourism/word_images/3521855_image002.gif

http://a298.g.akamai.net/7/298/5382/080103182224/www.eletra.com/tourism/word_images/7805795_image002.gif

[JackpineSavage]

well you got me on the gas price thing but that still dosent explain the rest.

[snakebit67]

My favorite president, Harry S. Truman, is the reason we have a war on terror. Think about it.

[MSUICEMAN]

they haven't gone up because of any inflation, and they sure as hell didn't go down because of deflation. What we have here is Reagan like stagflation.

steve

[lostmale]

Looks like things were going good between Jul01 to Jan03 gee could it have anything to do with 9/11, bailing out the airlines beefing up security and fighting terroists. Stagnation was in Clintons term and he didn't have to deal with the war on terror.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/air20040317.gif

[MSUICEMAN]

uhhhh, economic growth is not a sign of stagflation. inflation and economic growth rates do not go hand in hand.

MIT professor of economics and management, Lester Thurow said, "stagflation means that the economy is both inflating and stagnating at the same time. Prices may be going up in many industries, although large numbers of men and women cannot find work."

Walter Wessels, Professor of economics at North Carolina State, said, "stagflation is inflation and recession occurring at the same time."

David Pearce, Director of the London Environmental Economics Centre, describes stagflation as, "periods of recession and rising unemployment coupled with positive rates of price inflation."

Harper Collins Dictionary of Economics": "Stagflation - a situation of depressed levels of real output combined with increases in prices (inflation).

So let me see, unemployment is up...... prices are also going up....

case in point: has our GNP gone up 12% per capita to go along with the 12% inflation in prices. Also, has the average wage per capita gone up 12% in that time also?

Ideally, normally you want economic growth with a corresponding and balanced inflation rate.

steve

[Kevin]

Steve, unemployment is not significantly up. The "Bush" unemployment average for his first three years is basically the same as the "Clinton" average for his first three years - about 5.6% nationwide, including the household surveys.
Michigan has it tougher than most states in that regard right now though.

[MSUICEMAN]

yeah, i guess its just what i'm seeing from my own eyes that is bugging the crap out of me. I know lots of students nationwide that are graduating and have no jobs to fill. damn babyboomers.... retire already! hehe.....

quick note though, just because the unemployment rate might remain almost steady (remember, even .1% change is a LARGE amount of unemployed people). I wonder if people are taking low paying jobs to pay the bills compared to good, steady, middle of the road jobs that were around before that seem to be lacking as of late. I dunno, just think it would be interesting to see, give it a little bit of a better barometer as to our "strength" of economy or lackthereof.

steve

[huntsummbucks]

Heh Kingfisher, You sound like a good replacement for all of the cabinet openings that are coming up as Bushes people bail out. Oh yeah They are ALL just liars right? He has you B. S.d into believing he is a leader.Answer me this... When you get inside and discover the real W and you bail out, Am i supposed to believe you are a liar and have a political agenda because you dont believe in Bush anymore, or are they just trying to smear your name for their own political livelihood?

[Jackster1]

High gas prices come on without inflation gas prices have stayed rather low. With inflation added in that $1.99 a gallon would have been $ 2.18. Has your insurance premiums stayed the same or how much has the price of a new vehicle gone up since 2000.


http://a298.g.akamai.net/7/298/5382/050602234918/www.imakenews.com/tourism/word_images/3521855_image002.gif

http://a298.g.akamai.net/7/298/5382/080103182224/www.eletra.com/tourism/word_images/7805795_image002.gif

I wish they would update this chart. Where's Spence? :help:

[suppa roosta]

Stagflation, Inflation.... :bloos:

I think the whole thing reeks of FLATUATION! :help:

[bignoccursg]

If anyone has a problem with Bush, lets blame those meatheads in Florida who couldnt figure out how to vote. He never won the election in the first place.
I think the difference between the rest of the wars and what is going on now is that it will never be over. Im afraid that my great great grandkids will still be fighting those no brain idiots from the middle east hundreds of years from now. They have never had peace over there, they dont want it. The whole history of the middle east is that theyve always had some kind of religous BS reason for going to war.

[fishin' fin]

Big n. The part about "It will never be over" catches my attention. I feel it's like attacking a bee's nest with a bayonet, Which basicly in the end we'll learn never to do that again! :dizzy: As to the unemployment propoganda. Do You people realize that when you'r unemployment is finished after 26 weeks or whatever the feds allow you to draw, you are no longer a statistic, because theoreticly you are not on unemployment anymore!! A biased statistic or mabey a "flatuated" truth. :rant: ( I like that one.) Insofar as the history spin in the beginning of this thread, all I have to say is what R.R. say's "Don't just read you'r history books, But study them." ;)

[fishlkmich]

I found an interesting set of replies to the original post:

There's another Bush-embracing e-mail making the rounds. History buff and scrupled Republican Richard Harden of Huntington Beach, CA and Professor Cary de Wit, of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, are fighting ignorance with fact.

Your readers may be familiar with the e-mail, which (at least if information about its origin is accurate) is actually a letter to the editor from a Durham, NC newspaper.

But, in case they need a quick rebuttal:

<The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!>>

From Richard Harden: "That is not perspective, it is distortion. Unfortunately, cold truth doesn't travel as well as entertaining fiction but if this response could travel back up the e-mail chain to the author of the original misinformation, we might all be spared further nonsense.

Letter: "We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11."

Richard Harden: "Indeed it was and not a one of the perpetrators of any of those acts of terrorism against us was an Iraqi or a member of the Taliban.

I will not address the 'casualty count' as a measure of the success or failure of Presidents except to say that if that were the only criteria, then Coolidge might be our best and Lincoln our worst.

On to the history!

Letter: "Germany never attacked us: Japan did."

Richard Harden: "That's true, and FDR never tried to convince us it was the Germans! Within a few days, Hitler declared war on the U.S. then we declared war on Germany.

Letter: "Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us."

Richard Harden: "Harry Truman did finish WWII but he hardly started the Korean War. Soviet-armed North Korean armies poured over the internationally-recognized border into an unprepared South Korea. There were so few U.S. troops there available that it was seriously considered abandoning the Korean Peninsula. The war was fought by and authorized by the United Nations."

Letter: "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962."

Richard Harden: "Again, President Kennedy did not start the Vietnam war. It was a continuation of the civil war that followed the French withdrawal.

Letter: "Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire."

Richard Harden: "Hard to argue there. But this is history in 20-20 hindsight. What were his options? Could he realistically have allowed the North Vietnamese to take over South Vietnam in 1965?"

Letter: "Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,"

Richard Harden: "That conflict was fought by NATO within NATO's operational area, i.e. Europe. As supporters of this ill-starred war in Iraq can attest, the French have rarely consented to anything the Americans have done since D-Day!

Letter: "Bush has liberated two countries,"

Richard Harden: "'Liberated' maybe. Occupied, definitely. We now have massive Army forces in those two countries. National Guard men and women have been torn from their lives here and sent to fight shadowy enemies in these countries with no end in sight. The cost cannot yet be counted. Recruiting for our armed forces is understandably down."

Letter: "Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home"

Richard Harden : "Nor do we bother charging the 600 people we hold without legal recourse of any kind in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most of them are probably dangerous people but if so, let's prove it openly. By the way, nobody has been convicted of any crime related the World Trade Center attacks. Good detective work there, Mr. Bush."

Letter: "Worst president in history? Come on!"

Richard Harden: "Come on indeed." -- rdh

From Prof. Cary de Wit:

"The original author conflates the invasion of Iraq with the 'War on Terror.' Most liberals don't.

The Taliban may have been crushed, but it has sprung back with a vengeance, and women in Afghanistan are hardly feeling liberated.

Regional tribal warlords rule most of the country, and opium production is up to pre-Taliban levels.

There were UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in North Korea until Bush called Kim Jong Il a pygmy and named NK to the Axis of Evil. NK then kicked them out. As far as I know, NK hasn't allowed inspectors in since.

Bush didn't put nuke inspectors in Iran or Libya, the UN IAEA did.

Libya's cooperation with IAEA is credited by most of the people involved (not politicians or the press) to long-term, persistent diplomacy and delicate negotiations over the past decade. By the way, it's spelled Libya, not "Lybia."

The IAEA is the same agency that Bush and Cheney attempted to discredit
during the runnup to the Iraq invasion because the IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that there was no credible evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons or had reconstituted any of it's pre-1990 nuclear programs.

Other than that, I couldn't agree more with Mr. Harden."

[Kevin]

You know Mark, you can just link the url of the web site from which you are cutting and pasting. Like this:
The "Worst President" and His Management Claims
A BUZZFLASH PERSPECTIVE
Submitted by Maureen Farrell (http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/archives.html)
To read the "Buzzflash Perspective" click HERE (http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/04/worstpresident.html)

You do not have to past the whole column each time.

[Kevin]

Funny thing, I searched Google and Yahoo and could not find a single reference the Richard Harden that Maureen Farrell cites.
The only Richard Harden I found that had a political tie was a gentleman that worked in the Carter Administration: link HERE (http://www.capitolimpact.com/about/harden.html)
There is a Professor Cary de Wit who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at University of Alaska, Fairbanks: link HERE (http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffcwd/)
Not sure why these folks were cited, as I see that one may not exist, and the other holds no particular expertise in the subject (presidential history, I presume).

But of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[dogjaw]

If anyone has a problem with Bush, lets blame those meatheads in Florida who couldnt figure out how to vote. He never won the election in the first place.
I think the difference between the rest of the wars and what is going on now is that it will never be over. Im afraid that my great great grandkids will still be fighting those no brain idiots from the middle east hundreds of years from now. They have never had peace over there, they dont want it. The whole history of the middle east is that theyve always had some kind of religous BS reason for going to war.
Amazing. I'd like to know who did the counting that came up with Gore winning the election, because out of the 6 or so counts done by government officials and news organizations, Bush won every one of them. They even took Gore's "rules" for recounting, and Bush won by even more votes. It's over, and Bush won fair and square. The Dems are playing on peoples emotions, not facts. Many so called main stream media types are more than willing to help them out.
I agree with the 2nd part. That's the danger of mixing politics and religion on that level. I don't mean a person should not be religious and in polictics, but that they're using religion for purely political reasons. Until the people over there wake up to that fact, it won't stop (unless we turn it into a glass factory).

[fishin' fin]

Funny thing, I searched Google and Yahoo and could not find a single reference the Richard Harden that Maureen Farrell cites.
The only Richard Harden I found that had a political tie was a gentleman that worked in the Carter Administration: link HERE
There is a Professor Cary de Wit who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at University of Alaska, Fairbanks: link HERE
Not sure why these folks were cited, as I see that one may not exist, and the other holds no particular expertise in the subject (presidential history, I presume).

Amos,
I'm not sure what your point is here? Cases and point- My wife has a friend , whom she went to college with, that is a top aide to Carl Levin, so we type his name into google and yahoo and found nothing. We also tried to find three professors, one from UofM-Flint, and two from SVSU, again nothing. On the flip side, my wife looked her name up on these two sites and found not one referrence but two, that gave her email address at work and also the general site that listed her a member of the staff. So, if your theory is correct, we should not ask the three Doctors from well known universities what they think, but my wife is an acceptable because she can be found on a search engine? :confused:

[Kevin]

I do not think I offered a "theory."
At first glance it would seem that the Buzzflash.com contributor was citing two unbiased experts or authorities on the subject, to refute the list of assertions about "worst president in history." It actually seems pretty clear that it she merely quoted a series of opinons to counter a series of opinions.
That is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone else can weigh those opinions however they see fit.

Occurrence or absence in google or yahoo or other search engines is not a litmus test for a citeable source. My name could appear for scoring a touchdown in a high school football game, but that does not make me an authority on say energy policy. Conversely, it is possible that I am a leading authhority in energy policy, and my name could fail to show up. The latter is becoming increasingly unlikely though.

[cireofmi]

You dont need to win the popular votes to become president, just need to win the electoral votes. Those that cast the electoral votes do not need to go with the popular votes. So there is nothing to contest with Bush and Gore. Bush won the electoral votes and that is all he needed.