Politicans will be thanking Bush for years
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
June 29, 2010 12:51pm CST
Why? Because he lowered the bar so far that as long as they are not "as bad as Bush" the public won't hold them accountable for their mistakes,corruption or greed. I hear it all the time here on mylot and in the world at large...well such and such is not as bad as Bush...or if you point out a politican did something illegal or wrong, their come back is well Bush did this or Bush did that. How did Bush become the standards bar that we judge presidents or politicans on? Let's face it...Bush and Cheney should not be the "standard" we use for any political officer or for anything really.
But heck looking at most of our politicans they don't meet the standard of a "decent person" who does a "decent job". Just my opinion.
Why have the American people lowered their standards? Shouldn't we have very high standards for our politicans...no matter what party....and HOLD THEM TO IT? Why is it if if one politican getting caught doing something wrong or stupid...instead of the whole population calling that politican out on it...we get partisan BS..even from the general population at large? With some taking up for the jerk because he belongs to "their" party...and the others calling for his blood. Shouldn't we all want better for ourselves and our country?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@laglen (19759)
• United States
30 Jun 10
I know that in my small circle we have truly become disenchanted with political parties. This is a good thing as it gives more pull and credence to third party candidates, I believe this is a great way to get the point across.
You are right, the comparison to Bush has gotten so ridiculous. What a lack of ambition if you use him as the bar.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
30 Jun 10
I know ALOT of people that are sick of both parties. I know I am. I have lost faith that either party can deal with our issues or govern in a decent or common sense way.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
1 Jul 10
Blaming the preceding Administration is nothing new. I just saw a montage of commentators first complaining about how the "statute of limitations" of blaming Bush should be up and then in some cases the very same people blaming Clinton for things right up to the final year of the Bush presidency.
Both parties are guilty of blaming the last guy for the bad and taking credit for the good while the other party will do the opposite. When Clinton took office many on the right refused to give him credit for anything, saying it was still because of Reagan or Bush 41. Go figure...it's politics as usual but now we have the 24/7 media so we hear a lot more reporting and commentating about everything.
Annie
1 person likes this
@trruk1 (1028)
• United States
29 Jun 10
Bush really did set some low standards. So "better than Bush" isn't saying much. Notice how former Presidents manage to keep their names in the news? Clinton, of course, is all over the place. But historically, after leaving the White House, you still see a lot of them. Not so with Bush. the only time you see him is when he is playing second fiddle to somebody else with a big project. Nobody wants to hear from him about anything.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
29 Jun 10
I don't even hear "better than Bush". I just hear "Bush did it too!" which is far worse. That tells me that democrats want Obama to be JUST LIKE Bush, instead of better than him.
I think Presidents actually tend to be low profile after leaving office. Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, etc. focused on their private lives more than their public personas. Even Clinton was pretty low profile until Hillary decided to run for president. He's all over the place now I believe because he doesn't think Obama knows what he's doing and needs the help.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
30 Jun 10
You won't see Bush making millions on public speaking tours like Clinton. Personally I think most of them like having some privacy after having to live in the fish bowl that the white house is.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Jun 10
I sure do hope you're wrong about this; I mean, I'm looking at it this way - if a politician is of the belief that Bush and Cheney ran our country into the ground and did tons of damage in so many ways and on so many levels and he or she felt "thankful" for that, now THAT would be truly evil!
I use the word "evil" because of how the phrase "the lesser of two evils" is tossed around so casually in discussions about for whom to vote and while I know at least some people are only using it as a figure of speech and not literally I've never been one to use it because, while there have been candidates I've been less enthusiastic about than others I've honestly never felt I was voting for an "evil" person". Heck, I've rarely REALLY felt that I was voting AGAINST an evil person...maybe a not-so-bright person or someone who is incompetent or misguided in their views, but not truly evil.
Annie
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
30 Jun 10
How many times have you heard someone defend something stupid or wrong a politican has done by say "he is still better than Bush" or "Bush did it". Like that makes it ok somehow. Heck I think my cat could have been a better president that Bush...so should I get her to run on next election? LOL
the lesser of two evils is kinda harsh sometimes...it should be the lesser of two idiots most of time.
But I dont know...I do kinda think Cheney was evil. He was on the few politicans that actually scared me. Most politicans just tick me off...but there have been a handful (from both sides) that honestly scared me.
I just don't like that some parts of our society are ok with whatever a poltican does as long as he or she is "not as bad a bush". We need higher standards than that if we want a better government.
1 person likes this
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
29 Jun 10
You are absolutely right we have become accustom to scrapping the bottom of the barrel and just taking the lesser of two evils when it comes to politicians from either major party. As long as we keep voting by party (either one of them) than the two major parties will never have to worry about providing decent candidates. At times I have said the same thing myself and I admit I am wrong we shouldn't put up with any of it they should be held accountable just like the average Joe, diplomatic immunity seems to have went far beyond its original intent. If we broke laws and violated someones constitutional rights we would be in jail and politicians should be also. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 Jun 10
It just drives me nuts. It never fails...if I say something negative about politican..someone will pop in and say how Bush as worse. Well ya bush was worse...but that does make the others good or right. WHy take up for a criminal? Why take up for someone who even though better than Bush is still far below the standards we should have for our politicans in this country.
I am tired of the lesser of two evils. I don't find it exceptable. I want NO evil.
1 person likes this
