River Valley Blogs

LB wrote on May 21, 2008 8:14 PM:

" There is someone who stole your material, and copied this article word for word "

Michael Welch: Quality -- The Missing Ingredient... wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Right wingy dingyness sometimes overtakes this blog with its casual sweep of 'socialism' as everything but right wingy ding Republicanism. And the 'quality' of Republicans these days seems pretty low if you judge the 'thought' here; it's mainly silliness and mean spirited name calling with the nastiest kids chortling on the playground that they are 'taking over.' But if they uh 'smell' -- victory that is -- it's because the Democrats indeed seem in the process of suiciding themselves, and so even a bad economy and an endless won't keep Big Jawn from the white house? One hates to see these sorts of people 'win' -- again -- and they haven't yet but yes they may. The quality of America has been in decline for some while however so perhaps one should not be so surprised at that... "

To Tess Falseheart, I mean "True" heart wrote on Apr 17, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Your lumping Obama together with the likes of Stalin and Hitler is not only woefully inaccurate, it's downright shameful. "

Michael Welch: And After "Cahtah" Came "Ray-gun"... wrote on Apr 17, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Well the Carter (your 'Cahtah' pronunciation stikes me by the way as more 'Bostonian' than southern) presidency was also 'inept' -- but certainly with not as terrible a result as say Buchanan's. It ended with the Reagan presidency, which was a decidedly mixed bag that shifted some domestic spending into military while pumping that military budget so that deficits became the largest, proportionally, since WWII. Reagan was the 'oddest' Republican though, so detached and often curiously disengaged. He really really wished to abolish nuclear weapons which sent many in his administration into slight strokes; and he even said once 'There's a lot of things I'd like to do but "they" won't let me.' These are VERY revealing words about the TRUE nature of our 'modern' presidency... "

Re Tess wrote on Apr 17, 2008 11:11 AM:

" I believe "comrade" is a term of respect. I think of it as similar to the word "friend". Isn't it a derivative of the word comraderie? "

Bugs to Tess wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:49 AM:

" Could you tell me your source for your contention that a "vast majority" of historians disapproved of Lincoln's presidency? Also, Tess, I would imagine that British historians might have been a little biased against Washington, for obvious reasons. "

looking west wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Attn: Tess Trueheart. You insult both Washington and Lincoln by comparing the current occupant to them. It's utterly absurd (par for the right wingnut course). I think Washington was judged quite well by the American historians of his time.....why you would 'quote' Britsh historians 'negative views'is a mystery (or not). One would think the Brit's were bitter because we spanked them off the Continent, thanks to General Washington's leadership. Bush, on the otherhand, read a kid's book and looked like a deer caught in the headlights when he was informed 19 pocketknife bearing jihadi's crashed US planes into buildings as was predicted all summer long. Washington fought and forged this Nation, Lincoln saved it and Bush has trashed it and wiped himself with the Constitution. - "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Bobby,

Nice "non-denial denial" there. (For you public school educated folks, the "non-denial denial" gained popular usage during the Nixon administration and how they often responded to erroneous questions from some Washington Post cub reporters.) Truth is that your points are often in keeping with socialists like Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein Obama and the Clintons. I would implore you to seek wisdom from G-d, but clearly your struggle has been to remove the Judeo-Christian G-d and replace Him with something else. "

Dear "Tess" wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:12 AM:

" Your argument is poppycock....absolutely nonesensical. 1st....since when do we give a 'care' what the brit's think or thank of us? And you have the nerve to say Brit historians during General Washington's time judged him to be poor? What did Washington's fellow US citizens think? Ah......there is a critical difference....Bush is hated by the masses and Washington was adored and offered the title of king. RE: Lincoln.....why not just dig his body up and shoot him again. Comparing Bush to Lincoln insults a true American's sensibilities. - BrianGSmith "

Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Tess,

You made a nice point about Lincoln and Habeus Corpus. However, we are not presently in a civil war. Then your discussion totally went down the toilet and needs to be flushed when you called me "Comrade" and put me with Osama, etc. Please refrain from Joe McCarthy comments like that here on the blog if you would like to have any effect at all. We can debate issues, but name-calling should be kept to the playground. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on Apr 17, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Just a little 411 (that means information for you tin foil hat Dems) for you. At the end of Lincoln's presidency, the vast majority of contemporary historians disapproved of his presidency, most rating it, "An utter failure." Likewise, contemporary British historians rated George Washington as having done, "An incomplete job." Lincoln? Washington? GW Bush is in pretty heady company. I'm sure Comrade Freedland would take Mr. Lincoln to task for his reworking of habeas corpus to preserve the republic. Thankfully, we have more Lincolns and Bushes and less Freedlands, Hussein Obamas and Reverand Wrights! "

Kenneth Krause to Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Robert, it looks like we put our other discussion to bed on the Holmen blog, only to have anothere here. :) I think my views are consistent. I do not approve of the actions you mentioned by Bush, nor do I approve when the Supreme Court oversteps their authority. You criticize Bush(rightly so), but give the Supreme Court a pass. You are absolutley correct when you state here the legislature is supposed to make law and the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it. But, on other blogs you defend the Court when they make new laws prohibiting public displays of religious symbols and the like, something the Constitution does NOT prohibit. "

To 6:29 pm poster wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:08 AM:

" You didn't mention the reasons for the things you listed did you? Carter followed two of the most corrupt and evil Presidents this country has ever had. The war was ending during that time with no plan of action for the aftermath. Sounds just like today doesn't it? Dubya on the other hand followed a good President AND good economic times and proceeded to screw everything up. Nope, George W Bush is the Worst President Ever. "

RE: Keeping us safe wrote on Apr 17, 2008 2:13 AM:

" Aside from failing to stop the 9-11 attacks, aside from the waves of E-coli breakouts in the National food supply, aside from the 4000 dead soldiers and 35,000 injured, aside from al Qaeda restrengthening in tranquil Pakistan, aside from our Natioanl economy being owned by China, aside from the sinking family income......yeah....Bush has kept us safe....I guess. - BrianGSmith "

Eddie wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:49 PM:

" When it comes to discussing our government, nothing makes me ill more than the phrase, "signing statements." Coming in a close second, though, is "Presidential pardons." "

Michael: history smishtory.....you believes what you pays for wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:29 PM:

" In June 1979, Jimmah Cahtah (Jimmy Carter to those who don't read Georgian) reigned of the worst energy crisis America had seen. The OPEC oil producers' cartel had recently announced another in a series of oil price increases that sent gasoline prices skyrocketing and led to severe shortages. Long gas-pump lines and short tempers started in California and spread eastward, focusing Americans' outrage over a seemingly endless economic decline. Much of that anger was directed at the White House: Carter's approval rating had dropped to 25%, lower than Richard Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. If you live on a southern border state, Bush's policy on Illegal immigration will cause you to not approve of him now, but in 5 years, Bush will be remembered as freeing two countries and protecting America. "

Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:51 PM:

" To clear up some misinformation: I was not a plaintiff on the Ten Commandments case. Next, the Supreme Court does not make laws, that is the responsibility of the legislature made up of the House and the Senate in the United States. They are responsible for interpreting laws as well as making sure that laws are consistent with the Constitution. Since we are talking about George W. Bush, he failed to obtain the necessary FISA Court rulings before proceeding with wiretaps and lied to the public about this. He also utilized 'signing statements' that extended his power vis a vis the Congress, ignoring the law in the process. Do YOU approve of his actions? On what grounds? "

Starfish to 3:08 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Most people? Maybe that's true but I would contend that 1) front-ending his "legend" with a fawning punditocracy and lavishly underwriting the PR campaign has had undue influence and 2) much as Ike's grade is improving, Reagan's grade is slipping. As historians and other social scientists do the forensics, it is appearing that good acting, dumb luck, and ridiculously low energy prices made the smoke and mirrors that was the Reagan legacy. Carter did the heavy lifting to get the economy out of the "Stagflation" spiral and Mikhail Gorbachev was the guy that changed the dynamic with the USSR. "

Re:.... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Huh, Jimmy Carter must be very happy now..... "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Odd that you would use Reagan as an example. Most consider him one of the greats. "

To Jimbo wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:50 PM:

" The rest of the world has always hated us because they are jealous. If you want a TRUE portrayal of what the rest of the world REALLY thinks of us, examine the number of people trying to get in versus the number of people trying to get out. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:49 PM:

" I agree with the posters that think more time is needed to get the full picture, but if they think this will exonerate Bush, they are sadly mistaken. This most secretive president will be having his dirty laundry aired for decades.

Also, to act as though time will be an impartial arbiter is a good laugh. One only has to look at how "historians" have front-loaded the "Reagan Legacy" with pricey campaigns to name parks, bridges, airports, etc. after him to ensure that future generations just ASSUME this guy was something. There will be similar well-funded efforts for George W. Shrub. "

To To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:48 PM:

" I am curious about this also. Hopefully he responds. "

Jimbo wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:29 PM:

" anyone that thinks that Bush is responsible for no terrorist attacks since 9/11 is delusional. Bush hasn't kept us safe. He's ticked off most of the world, and the terrorists have always had years between attacks on america in the past. Thank you, Bill Clinton, for keeping us safe. No terrorist attacks under his watch after the world trade center was bombed in 1993. "

harsch wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Bush has kept us safe...The air force could not prevent rogue planes from slamming into buildings under his command. 4,000 plus are dead (Americans) because of his bogus 'response' to that farce. The economy is in the tank. New Orleans was an unparalleled modern first world disaster. Not to begin on the erosion of constitutional rights... "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Georgie gave an interview today saying the next terrorist attack on the US is probably brewing in Afghanistan right now. Folks, this is what is called a set-up. The little guy is preparing us for another 9/11, which like the original, will be home grown. Of course, it'll be blamed on al-Qaeda or maybe Iran. I know most of the country will be so blankety blank blank glad to have the little twerp out of the White House, but, be warned, his "AWOLness" might just declare martial law and suspend the Constitution in the aftermath of another 9/11. With Obama threatening to "immediately review" potential Bush crimes if he's elected, that's just another reason to fear Bushie will "go back, jack, and do it again." (Apologies to Steely Dan) "

To 9:25am wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:15 PM:

" Good point. I agree
"

Michael Welch: More About "Ratings"... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:45 AM:

" In his memoir 'A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House,' the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr, an aide then to President Kennedy, records an anecdote of JFK starting to fill out a survey of historians' ranking of presidents. (Kennedy had 'qualified' re: his collection 'Profiles in Courage,' written and researched largely by Theodore Sorenson but a Pulitzer prize resulted and it isn't a bad book at all.) Kennedy, now a president himself, put down his pen and told Schlesinger to the effect -- It's different once you're here; who knows what they had to face. I thought that a generous attitude. Eisenhower in 1961 by the way had been rated '28th'; now he's probably in most 'top 15' or higher... "

Michael Welch: And Was It "President Bush" Or "President Cheney"?... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:30 AM:

" It's possible that if the Iraqi fiasco somehow converts into oh a stable Egypt-like semi-dictatorship with a more or less pro-US government attitude (heavily subsidized) that Bush might benefit from a reconsideration such as Truman received from 'mainline' historians. The Korean war did not end in absolute disaster; south Korea revived as a strong economy with semi-stable government; the Truman 'hard line' cold war approach avoided war with the Soviet Union at least and President Eisenhower followed that model with some innovations of his own. Bush seems less, well, 'strategic' than HST however but just as stubborn -- though I suspect the role of 'the man behind the curtain,' Dick Cheney, will be the most interesting for presidential historians to explore... "

Michael Welch: Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Bush... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:20 AM:

" James Buchanan was an inept (but 'experienced'!) president who inadvertently encouraged the civil war by his constant biased placation of the south; Franklin Pierce supported the Kansas-Nebraska act that allowed Stephen Douglas' idea of 'popular sovereignty' to create 'bleeding Kansas,' a proto-civil war; Millard Fillmore went along with the Compromise of 1850 that undermined the, until then, durable Missouri compromise of 1820. George Walker Bush led the nation into a totally unnecessary war and occupation that his administration then proceeded to botch with a strange combination of arrogance and indifference. Now the country is 'tied' to Iraq, spending about $12 billion a month without an end in sight. Yes Bush deserves the company he keeps... "

Eddie wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Judging a presidency as the "worst ever" during its actual tenure is pretty irresponsible. We have to wait a generation or two (or maybe longer) in order to see the long-term effects. In the here and now, we can definitely say that the Bush presidency has been a major failure. In my lifetime, I haven't seen a more incompetant and corrupt president. George W. Bush will definitely be seen as one of the worst presidents ever, but THE worst? Only time will tell.... "

I agree with Jimmy... wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:46 AM:

" We need a President that WON'T keep us safe. "

To Bugs wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:45 AM:

" I just saw you clarified your position regarding my question re Obama on another board. "

To Bugs wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Not to beat a dead horse, but you are being selective in your condemnation. You acknowledged on another board that Obama was also complicit in the 9/11 inside job cover up. So that would mean Obama also operates under Machiavellian principles. Correct? "

To: Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:37 AM:

" I noticed from some of your postings on other blogs, not to mention your name being made public as one of the people on the complaint re the 10 Commandments that you have no problem with the Supreme Court overstepping their authority and making law as opposed to merely interpreting it. And, because you happen to agree, you joyfully proclaim it is "the law of the land". Let me ask you this. In the interest of consistency, do you also support Bush when HE oversteps HIS authority as it relates to the Constitution? I mean, separation of powers, what's good for the goose, that type of thing. "

Sorry if this is a problem, wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:30 AM:

" But I DO appreciate the fact that Bush has kept us safe. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Bush kept us safe by not launching any more attacks on America as he did on 9/11. But that doesn't mean he won't do it again in the coming months. People like Bush and Cheney and the Clintons operate under Machiavellian principles. "

Wait for 25 years...or more wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:25 AM:

" It's funny, but a lot of wartime Presidents approval ratings are not very high DURING their time in office. But, as time goes on and people look back, some of those Presidents are looked at as the greatest ever. I am guessing down the road, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents ever. "

Angry Ernie wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:24 AM:

" It's obvious to me that 81% of Americans hate America. I wish they'd all leave. "

Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Jimmy,

Please stop being so hard on 'W'. Just because we had one devastating attack on 9/11 during his watch, he certainly didn't let down his guard again. And just because Clinton left office with a surplus that he managed with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress to turn that around into a massive deficit with tax cuts galore, doesn't mean he is bad. And o.k., we didn't find any WMD's in Iraq, but I mean they could have been there, right? And so what's a little torture? And Katrina happens; what can the government do anyhow? They are bad guys. And who even can spell Habeus Corpus anyhow? He didn't have sex in the White House with an intern like Bill did and that is what is important. "

DJ: wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:21 AM:

" "109 eminent historians" do not a population make. It will be history, not the "hysterians" that decide. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:16 AM:

" No surprise here (see my post "Starfish (con't) wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:05 PM"
where I quoted this very survey). In fairness to the very onslaught of blather-to-come that you've predicted, it is ASTONISHING that such universal condemnation is being leveled at an administration in the current tense. Of course, as we speak, the Reagan legacy is being revisited by serious historians, acknowledging that Carter, through HIS Fed Reserve guy, is the guy that brought inflation under control with VERY unpopular policy, setting the stage for Reagan�s "Morning in America." With W, the sheer incompetence and politicization of EVERY ASPECT of government has been truly epic�and catastrophic. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »