The Instigator
Shtookah
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
121 Points

Bush was the worst modern U.S. president.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 23 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,198 times Debate No: 13191
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (23)

 

Shtookah

Pro

Im lazy so here we go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://hnn.us...
http://www.commondreams.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...
http://wsws.org...

Bush was a Neo-Con who exploited the poor, stroked special interest, exploited a religion for political gain, raged war under false pretenses, raged war on diplomacy, gave tax cuts for the rich, advocated for torture, ostracized all who apposed him. He was a tyrant and I wish to here a right winger say otherwise.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro provided no definition of what criteria he used to provide his opinion of the "worst" president. In a democracy, I think the most important criteria is whether the candidate provided an accurate description of how he would govern. If the candidate provides an accurate description of his vision and that vision turns out to be a poor prescription for government then the fault lies more with the electorate than the candidate. For good or ill, the electorate should, most importantly, get what they bargained for. I grant that having a poor vision is a detriment, but it is not the primary one.

President Bush scores very well on his promises. Bush promised a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and an expanding Federal role in education. Bush delivered on both promises, working with Democrats to enact the legislation. Conservatives disapproved, but the electorate got what they were promised. On the foreign policy front, no one thought for a minute that Bush would start by having an apology tour. No one confused Dick Chaney with Joe Biden. Americans got what they were promised. Moreover, Bush was re-elected, clearly reflecting the fact that they got what was promise and were not terribly displeased with it. Of course, leftists were and still are outraged. That's not Bush's fault. That is a consequence of their beliefs.

President Obama is the worst president of modern times because he has governed contrary to what he promised from the day he took office. http://www.cato.org... He expressed generally leftist policy preferences, but not to worry, he assured Americans, because everything would be done on a bipartisan basis. He promised explicitly never to use the reconciliation process, because that would be contrary to the principle of bipartisanship. http://www.washingtontimes.com... Obamacare was jammed through under reconciliation. Early in the health care debate, Senate Republicans made regular requests to meet with the President to present their ideas for compromise legislation. Obama steadfastly refused to meet, and never did. There was a one-day "summit" designed as a stunt to give the appearance that the President was willing listening, but it was proved irrelevant to the legislation that was passed. Obama promised to have all the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, but did not. http://tinyurl.com... The numerous payoffs like the union exemption the tax on Cadillac health care plans and the Florida exemption to the discontinuation of Medicare Advantage were negotiated in secrecy.

Obama's failure to govern as promised was a matter of his choosing, and so inexcusable. He could have met with Republicans if he chose to; he could have promised to veto any legislation passed under reconciliation; and he could have made the health care negotiation transparent. His pattern is consistent. The "czar" system of governing prevents appointees from being questioned by Republicans in Congress. http://www.judicialwatch.org... Obama chooses not to make those as conventional appointments.

Pro has the burden of proof in the debate. He must prove to the audience of the debate that the resolution should be affirmed. Pro has not presented a case. He presents a reading list and invites us to construct his case for him. Of Pro's 20-some references, all but three are opinion pieces on the "World Socialist Web Site, Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)." For example, they tell us about "Bush, Clinton and the crimes of US imperialism in Haiti." Shocking how that Bill Clinton committed crimes of imperialism, right? He also cites a diatribe from a Pakistani paper.

Since Pro has not made a case, I have no obligation to refute it. However, let's pretend he did make a case and used the polls of historians cited in his first two references to show Bush was poorly ranked.

The first, a opinion piece in the Washington Post, includes the caution,

"Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken [60 yeas ago], the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated 'near great.' Today, by contrast, scholars consider ... Johnson a flat failure."

Not long ago, a Chinese historian was asked what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell." Recently the public approval ratings of George Bush edged past the approval rating of President Obama, 44% to 43%. It's difficult to assess the policy repercussions of presidents in less than a hundred years. If Iraq turns out to be a successful democracy and spurs the spread of democracy in the Middle East, overcoming terrorism in the process, then Bush will rank as on of our greatest President's. If Obama produces a lasting paradise in the United States, then he will be right up there. Right now, the odds look better for Iraq than hope-and-change, but we'll have to wait to know for sure. Since we cannot tell for sure how policies will be viewed over time, I proposed campaign honesty as the criteria.

The historian's polled are all academics, and probably left-leaning. That is because confirmed sighting of right-wingers in academia are extraordinarily rare. The historian polls were before Obama had been in office, and Obama's demonstrated incompetence has soured even leftists. Even they do not appreciate his lack of bipartisanship and transparency. Neither poll is a scientific survey, and the second, the History News Network poll, is explicitly proclaimed informal and and unscientific. A scientific survey would have to include all historians, not just selected ones in leftist academia. These types of polls down rate Reagan and give high marks to Clinton and even Eisenhower. They are polls of ideology.

Con concludes with a list of false charges against Bush, none supported by other than the opinions of the World Socialists. Bush was a middle-of-the-road president. He expanded social welfare programs and gave unprecedented aid to Africa. He had a tough foreign policy against despots and terrorists, which is what people wanted and still want.

a. Bush's key support came from the manufacturing and industrial sector. Obama's key support is from trial lawyers and unions. Bush's favored sectors are far more in line with the best interests of the country than Obama's.

b. Bush did not lie about the threat of WMDs in Iraq. It turned out that Saddam ad deliberately leaked false data to make it appear that he had WMDs. Saddam thought this would deter Iran, while thinking the US would never invade under any circumstances.

c. Bush cut taxes across the board. The high bracket was cut from 39.6% to 35% while the lowest bracket was cut more dramatically, from 15% to 10%. http://tinyurl.com...

d. Enhanced interrogation causes no permanent injury. If lives are in immediate danger, as they were, enhanced interrogation is morally justified, and, as liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz argues, morally compelled to save innocents. http://tinyurl.com... The American public approved and continues to approve.

e. Bush did not ostracize all who opposed him. He worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform, and the War resolutions were overwhelmingly bipartisan. The revised system of military tribunals was broadly bipartisan, as was the drug benefit.

Pro has offered his opinions, but has not made a case. On policy issues, it will be many decades before history can judge. The one thing we can judge is campaign honesty, and Obama is much worse than Bush.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Shtookah

Pro

My opponent is one hell of a debater. And although he can talk very articulately.. And has WAYYYYYY to much time on his hands... I won't give him the satisfaction:d! Now, I myself am not a fan of Obama. He's a Neo-liberal who is militarily aggressive, and like bush, he is a tool to special interest. And seeing how I was lucky enough to taken on by this guy, I was certainly expecting to be faced with quite intellectual argument. But the second, he spun out the phrase "Obamacare" he really lost my attention. Truth be told I feel my opponent is merely taking on this debate because of his politics. Most likely he is a drill baby drill, capitalist purist.. Most likely he really just hates Obama's "spending sprees" and has most likely called him a Marxist. Aside from my opponents red herring styled attack on Obama, he has failed to make a convincing fiscal reason why BUSH was NOT the worst modern U.S. president.

In defense of Obama:
http://www.whatisobamadoing.com...

More stuff on bush:
http://www.rawstory.com...

http://original.antiwar.com...

http://www.ocweekly.com...

I must say I takes a lot of balls in this day in age for someone as good of a debater to come out and be a Gee Dubya man...
RoyLatham

Con

I thought if I gave Pro an example of debate, he might be prompted to try it. It involves defining what you are saying, forming contentions, and then trying to prove those contentions using referenced facts and making arguments from the facts.

Pro doesn't want to debate. He wants to express his feelings. Maybe his mother cares.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TBooth 6 years ago
TBooth
Lol, awesome.
Posted by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
Oh my goodness, Roy is so scary!
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
sadolite, Yes, in the context of the debate, "democracy" means a democratic form of government s opposed to an authoritarian form of government. I think that's obvious.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
No contest. I will officially vote in this debate, all 7 points to Roy.

On a side note: "In a democracy" Are you referring to the US as a "democracy" within the context of this debate??
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Prove yourself with another debate, BUT without just posting some links. WE WANT ARGUMENTS.

If you can do this, and it doesn't matter if u won or lost, we will show you the love :P
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Wheres the love:(
Posted by minervx 6 years ago
minervx
the affirmative failed to provide ANY arguments aside from ad hominem attacks. even if you disagree with the negative, it is clear that he deserves the votes.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
oh jeez....there isnt even a need for an RFD here....
Posted by Postup10101 6 years ago
Postup10101
this debate was more of a skirmish between the too, they got a little ahead of themselves.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
This "debate" was just a beatdown. While Roy had rational, supported arguments, as well as a clarified criterion that makes quite a lot of sense in context, Shtook had links and petty insults. Obvious vote is obvious.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Blank 6 years ago
Blank
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by TBooth 6 years ago
TBooth
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zGodMode 6 years ago
zGodMode
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ThatGuyWithAFace 6 years ago
ThatGuyWithAFace
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Gnome 6 years ago
Gnome
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rengstrom6147 6 years ago
rengstrom6147
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05