Posted on 04/04/2011 5:44:20 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Businessman and "Apprentice" television star Donald Trump blasted President George Bush today, calling him "probably the worst president in the history of the United States," and blaming his 2004 victory on the Democrat ticket. Appearing on CNN's "Situation Room," Trump was asked by host Wolfe Blitzer his opinion of Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. "I don't know him," Trump answered. "People like him. I know people that like him very much, but I really don't know him." Trump went on to say that Edward's experience as John Kerry's 2004 running mate was a negative in his estimation. "Well, I think that's a huge negative, because that was a shame that that race was lost, because look what we have right now," Trump said. "It's a disaster. So, you know, I would probably be inclined not to like him on the basis that he lost an election that should have been won. That election should have been won." Trump noted that the blame fell on Kerry as well. "He's a friend of mine. But I'm so upset that he blew it," he said. "I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States. And I just don't understand how they could have lost that election." The entire transcript of Trump's interview with Blitzer can be read here.Trump: Bush probably worst U.S. president
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I agree with everyone that this statement shows Trump is a jackass, on top of being incredibly wrong. But there is a silver lining: if he bashes Bush, he gets the keys to the MSM executive washroom. They put him on all day, every day if he might say something bad about Bush and, hopefully, that will keep the Birth Certificate issue in the news. Whatever Trump is, he was giving the issue some traction.
I am not supporting or extolling Trump. I am just saying if he’s going to be an idiot, let him at least be a useful idiot.
Using your logic...Bill Clinton must have been incredible in your eyes...
That whole impeachment thing notwithstanding. Plus selling secrets to China, lying continuously, selling access to the White house, purloined FBI files, etc.
Congress from 1995-2000 was pretty incredible.
You completely dodge the point...each time.
When it came to hold Bush accountable you blamed Congress...when it came time to rate Clinton you praise Congress.
It is precisely the lemmings like yourself that will continue to doom our country when you exercise your right to vote and vote GOP because you worship them.
The GOP hasn’t represented true Conservative values in decades. You don’t even realize you are supporting and promoting the progressive agenda in this country - AND YOU ARE PROUD OF IT!
You must not have any children...because how can anyone with children actually continue this destruction which they will fully have to bear?
I’ll take Bush’s 4% unemployment destruction over Obama’s 10% unemployment destruction. Your boy just isn’t able to keep up with Bush. So if you can get him to close the border and end farm subsidies. We’ll wait patiently.
When the Republicans held Congress, we had prosperity. When the Democrats held Congress, we had misery. Bush was fortunate to have a Republican Congress and they were fortunate to have a supportive president. Bush wins.
You won’t get any argument from me that W made many mistakes.
He also did quite a few things right.
But your pushback on my comment begs the question: are you saying that Carter or Clintoon or Odumbo are or were BETTER presidents than W?
Well at least with Clinton and Obama congressional Republicans oppose liberal stuff. Bush was able to get Republicans to fall in line on liberal stuff by playing that good cop/bad cop stuff, You know the scam :”You may hate what I am doing BUT they would be even worse. This is the best deal we can get. Wait till the final bill is passed. The SCOTUS will throw out my bill if it's unconstitional, BLA-BLA BLA ”.
Under Obama you wont see Republicans support for:
1) Amnesty
2) Liberal energy
3) Bank bailouts, that end up going to GM
4) NCLB without private school vouchers
5) Laws restricting running issue ads against those in DC offices, laws that violate our free speech
6) Stimulus Tax credits for those that pay no taxes, that taxpayers cant get
7) New entitlements
Under Obama Repubicans tend to ACT like conservatives, not liberals. So yes, he was a crappy president. You think Obama and Pelosi would have had the power they had if Bush was a good president?? Pelosi??
You didn’t answer my question. You made up a different question and answered that one.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, so I’ll ask it in a different way as three separate questions. Please answer YES or NO.
1) In your opinion, was Jimmy Carter a better president than George W. Bush? YES or NO
2) In your opinion, was Bill Clinton a better president than George W. Bush? YES or NO
3) In your opinion, is Barack Obama a better president than George W. Bush? YES or NO
Thanks and FRegards
As I illustrated, at least Obama rallies Republicans against liberal garbage, not for it like Bush did.
A good president would NOT have put Obama and Pelosi in charge of everything at the end of eight years, only a crappy one did, supporting my comment you objected too.
Your equivocating on what should be three bright-line choices actually tells me everything I need to know.
Buh-bye.
Bush was a complete disaster, if nothing else he gave all the power to Democrats (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) leaving us here in this huge mess. Your failure to comprehend what a disaster that was tells me ....
Reagan did not turn a Republican WH and congress all to a Democrat one, Bush is NO Reagan.
Insofar as No Child Left Behind - the teachers unions hate it; that makes it good enough for me.
>> Bush is NO Reagan.
Never claimed he was.
But I would take Bush back right now over Obama. In a heartbeat.
I lived through the Carter years. I would have taken Bush hands down over Carter.
Clintoon was a politically astute triangulator, and a passably competent executive, but as a human being he was (and is) an evil, low-integrity corrupt horndog. W made mistakes, but they were not mistakes of integrity or character. As POTUS, I’d take W the man over Clintoon the man any day of the week.
Your argument seems not related to the man in the executive role, but rather to some bizarre systemic evaluation of the universe during and after the man’s term. You seem pathologically incapable of admitting e.g. that Obama is an unmitigated EVIL POS. The fact that the current congress isn’t letting him score on his evil has NOTHING to do with whether or not he is, in fact, the POS that Bush was not.
It makes me wonder about you, frankly. I’ll chalk it up to sophistry and love of a convoluted argument, and not lack of a conservative core ideology. Especially since I took that “political leanings” test and discovered that I come out almost exactly the same place as you did. :-)
FRegards
Yoda?
Is that you?
Can we all be missing an obvious ploy here? Is Trump not running interference for Hilary? If he can create enough noise around the birth certificate, that opens up a 2012 run for Clinton.
He can’t be doing it as a Democrat, because that would just not fit within the agenda of portraying the GOP as a bunch of right-wing nuts, plus it is too close to home for Hilary. But as a faux-Republican he can achieve two things...bring Obama down and have Hilary step up, and enforce the mainstream media image of Republicans/Trump being nuts or stupid.
I just find it hard to believe that his motives are pure after years of supporting far left liberals.
NOTHING...except for some scandals and screwing up so freaking badly that Pelosi took power and then Obama.
Give me a break...it is really sad when you look back at the Bush decade and somehow rationalize that was good for America. You are accepting a dismal level of mediocrity, American’s deserve better than that and our children deserve a lot better than we are setting them up for.
This is ALL happening on our watch...but keep voting for the establishment they have come through with a level of mediocrity which you are enthralled with. The Bush's, Clinton's, Obama’s, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc...etc... ARE ALL NATIONAL DISGRACES.
Maybe you just don't understand what the American Experiment is supposed to be...give you a little hint...since Calvin Coolidge we haven't seen it. Reagan was the closest since Coolidge but he fell far short of where he should have been.
It is time we reverse and elminate 100 years of progressive decay of our country.
Yoda not far...
wonder all you want. I am not loyal to Republicans just for being Republicans and I expect MORE from them than Democrats because correct or incorrect, they represent different things symbolically and have different side effects. Loyalty to the R party is what got us here.
A Republican president that has two Democrat congressional sweeps in his second term is a failure, especially when he had his own party congress for almost six years. It doesnt take any specific world view to understand this.
Let me throw one at you you probably wont like : Things would have been even worse now if Mccain won in 2008 , and I am still glad he is not president.
The media and the Democrats want you to believe that somehow the 2006 election was different, something special. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?
President / Mid-term / Senate / House
Grant (R) 1870 -4 -31
Grant (R) 1874 -8 -96
Hayes (R) 1878 -6 -9
Arthur (R) 1882 +3 -33
Cleveland (D) 1886 +3 -12
Harrison (R) 1890 0 -85
Cleveland (D) 1894 -5 -116
McKinley (R) 1898 +7 -21
TR (R) 1902 +2 +9
TR (R) 1906 +3 -28
Taft (R) 1910 -10 -57
Wilson (D) 1914 +5 -59
Wilson (D) 1918 -6 -19
Harding (R) 1922 -8 -75
Coolidge (R) 1926 -6 -10
Hoover (R) 1930 -8 -49
FDR (D) 1934 +10 +9
FDR (D) 1938 -6 -71
FDR (D) 1942 -9 -45
Truman (D) 1946 -12 -55
Truman (D) 1950 -6 -59
Ike (R) 1954 -1 -18
Ike (R) 1958 -13 -48
JFK (D) 1962 +3 -4
LBJ (D) 1966 -4 -47
Nixon (R) 1970 +2 -12
Nixon (R) 1974 -5 -48
Carter (D) 1978 -3 -15
Reagan (R) 1982 +1 -26
Reagan (R) 1986 -8 -5
Bush ‘41 (R) 1990 -1 -8
Clinton (D) 1994 -9 -54
Clinton (D) 1998 0 +4
Bush ‘43 (R) 2002 +2 +6
Bush ‘43 (R) 2006 -6 -28
(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush ‘43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.
(2) Midterm years that are the dreaded “six year itch” are 1874, 1894, 1906, 1918, 1938, 1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, 1998 and 2006 . I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK’s second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.
(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush ‘41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that the 2006 election fits into.
(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse.
(5) Voters don’t like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.
(6) Voters don’t like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the “Billion Dollar Congress”. The same can be said about FDR’s spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton’s in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?
(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President’s party in the midterms. For the “six year curse” the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.
8) The margin of victory in three of the six lost Senate seats were razor thin. A swing of a couple thousand votes in one of those races and Republicans would have retained control in the Senate.
Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing over the elections is unjustified. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow.
What was he right about, to the point he should have been elected?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.