Harry Reid declares Bush as worst President

[Elduardo]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the nation prepares for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, a leading Democrat is not letting up in his criticism of President George W. Bush.

“I really do believe President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Reid pointed to Bush’s failed plan to privatize the Social Security program and also said Bush “has done his very best to destroy Medicare” in order support his assessment of Bush’s presidency.

Asked by David Gregory if he had any regrets about his persistent criticism of Bush, Reid responded, “I am who I am.”

“I think you just have to call things the way you see them.”


For the left-wing ideologues, this is red meat. The far right will attack Reid.

For me, problem is that Reid and Pelosi have spent way too much time putting blame and not nearly enough time getting things accomplished.

Last time I checked, Congress had a lower approval rating that even Bush.

Would prefer to see House leadership working in areas to move the country in a better direction. Problems will still be the same on Jan 21st.

[Luris Blear]

Nah. It's a good system. Blame everyone except themselves and their best sources of campaign money.

I expect at least four years of, "Oh yeah! Well, uh, we're cleaning up Bush's mess!" It may fly in the face of the last two years as well as the trust Bush put in the Democrats before 2003, but we'll hear it. Over and over and over and over and over again.

[3/6]

who the fuck is Harry Reid???

[Luris Blear]

If only all of America could say that, 3/6. :lol2:

Harry Reid is a Democratic Senator from Nevada. Although he apparently votes on things and may draft a few bills here and there, his primary job is to spew the worst kind of partisan garbage into any microphone he sees. This keeps the angry blogger and hackey-sacks-in-the-street crowd happy. It also allows the other like-minded members of his same party to not have to say any of it until the next election.

It would be about the same as having Senator Bill O'Reilly, I suppose. Only this one really is a Senator.

[Elduardo]

Problem for Reid and Pelosi is that a much easier case could be made that they are the worst in history in their respective roles.

Instead of trying to get things accomplished, both continuously refer to Bush as the worst President in history.

They have no respect for the office of the President and no clue that a majority of Americans don't even know who they are.

[Luris Blear]

They have no respect for the office of the President and no clue that a majority of Americans don't even know who they are.

I think they have a lot of lust for that office, and no respect for the kind of person who should be in it.

And you are correct: most Americans do not seem to know who these two are. This again allows them to take cheap shots that the public hears, without having to answer for their own policies and failures.

It's a great position to fling muck from.

[WarBeast]

I think what pisses a lot of people off and makes Reid's words especially hollow is that when the Dem's regained control of congress, it was specifically because the people wanted congress to keep Bush in check... and they didn't do that. They would either or cave in after a short period of resistance or just rubber-stamp what Bush wanted outright... then bitch about the Bush policies that they themselves ended up passing.

If it's one thing that people get pissed about, it's incompetence, hypocrisy and betrayal of trust... and that's pretty much all we get out of Washington DC these days.

[Luris Blear]

If it's one thing that people get pissed about, it's incompetence, hypocrisy and betrayal of trust... and that's pretty much all we get out of Washington DC these days.That's exactly what all of us have gotten, too.

I don't even think Bush would be in this much trouble if he hadn't started contradicting himself in order to please everyone.

I can only see partisanship at this point as a last-ditch effort to cling toward the last remnants of all of our beliefs. It doesn't matter what "side" anyone is on. Those people have thoroughly betrayed us, and the population as a whole has responded by appointing them to permanent power.

[Elduardo]

It quickly got to the point that there was so much hatred of Bush that the desire to prevent Bush from having any success took priority over actually solving problems.

Happened on the other side during the Clinton impeachment stuff although he never should have had any kind of sex with an intern and definitely should not have lied under oath.

[Lemmywinks]

I find the issues in this country far more important then constantly stating the obvious of the tenure of Bush. All it causes is distractions and isn't needed.

[Searcher]

I expect at least four years of, "Oh yeah! Well, uh, we're cleaning up Bush's mess!" It may fly in the face of the last two years as well as the trust Bush put in the Democrats before 2003, but we'll hear it. Over and over and over and over and over again.

As well we should. He never did anything in the interest of the country, his biggest mistake was underestimating how bad things could get while he was undermining our democracy and helping his friends.
Declaring Bush the worst pres ever is redundant. How much more obvious can one get.

[Elduardo]

Okay so to say Bush has never done anything in the interest of the country is just absurd and really casts doubt on the credibility of the person saying it.

But the point of this thread is not to debate about Bush, it is to discuss the fact that the leaders of the Senate and House choose to continuously criticize Bush instead of doing anything to help the country when their approval ratings are even lower than the historically low ratings of Bush.

[Grendel]

I think what pisses a lot of people off and makes Reid's words especially hollow is that when the Dem's regained control of congress, it was specifically because the people wanted congress to keep Bush in check... and they didn't do that. They would either or cave in after a short period of resistance or just rubber-stamp what Bush wanted outright... then bitch about the Bush policies that they themselves ended up passing.A situation that has infinitely more to do with their basement approval ratings than anything any one of them said about the president.

Back when they gained majorities the people's opinion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/opinion/polls/main1604495.shtml) was clear:
"The overall approval of Congress' performance has diminished vastly since 2001; only 23% approve now while 67% did in 2001. This figure reflects frustration over Congress' ability to challenge the President since 67% think Congress does not question his policies enough."They had the ball and promptly dropped it as they cringed and cowered before a lame duck Executive.

[Searcher]

Yet, the American people voted him into office again. They got what they had coming.


Okay so to say Bush has never done anything in the interest of the country is just absurd and really casts doubt on the credibility of the person saying it.

Go ahead, name anything that he did that served this country well.

[Elduardo]

Again, not the point of the thread. If you would like to stay civil, and stay on topic, I'm all for it.

Another key point related to the topic at hand is that this type of commentary from Reid really does nothing to unify political parties in Washington where we clearly need less partianship and more effective government.

This has been one of the goals of the Obama team and it appears to me that the Bush administration has been very graceful and cooperative with the incoming Obama administration to ensure a smooth transition.

[Searcher]

...the Bush administration has been very graceful and cooperative with the incoming Obama administration to ensure a smooth transition.

Of course, Bush had his bags packed and sitting on the porch six months ago.

[Elduardo]

Okay, so to be serious, even if that were true, it doesn't mean he had to go out of his way to help Obama with the transition which in my view he has done.

[Dr. Phibes]

...does nothing to unify political parties in Washington where we clearly need less partianship and more effective government.

This has been one of the goals of the Obama team...

It was one of the talking points, and selling points of team Obama. We have yet to see if it was ever seriously one of the goals.

[Grendel]

Another key point related to the topic at hand is that this type of commentary from Reid really does nothing to unify political parties in Washington where we clearly need less partianship and more effective government. The GOP, itself, ran (and continues to run) from Bush like he's radioactive thanks to his hideous public image.

With that conscious push for separation from his own party, how are Reid's comments increasing any sort of divide between the Ds and Rs? If anything, coming together on a rebuke of this presidency would be unity and actually serve the GOP well in the eyes of the people.

[Dr. Phibes]

The GOP, itself, ran (and continues to run) from Bush like he's radioactive thanks to his hideous public image.

With that conscious push for separation from his own party, how are Reid's comments increasing any sort of divide between the Ds and Rs? If anything, coming together on a rebuke of this presidency would be unity and actually serve the GOP well in the eyes of the people.

I doubt if any unity at all will be achieved via tandem party assaults - or distancing - on/from the president. Serving the GOP in the eyes of the public? I have my doubts as to whether the media would pose it in any way that might be perceived as a unity. Partisanship is their meat and potatoes.

I think it might be summarized through the "everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" philosophy: two wrongs aren't going to make a right. Bashing the president from both sides will not be an effective tool in uniting the parties. Also, one would have to pre-suppose that the aim of both parties is indeed solidarity. Again, I cannot see that as a realistic possibility. Ask Warbeast why. There may be disparity in the fundamental platforms of each party, but the end is the same: power.

Jeez, I'm getting old and jaded. It's difficult for me to see this new, brilliant "change."

[Grendel]

I doubt if any unity at all will be achieved via tandem party assaults - or distancing - on/from the president. Serving the GOP in the eyes of the public? I have my doubts as to whether the media would pose it in any way that might be perceived as a unity. Partisanship is their meat and potatoes.True enough. Stories will be created and maintained whether they're there, or not. In and of themselves, though, I just can't see Reid's remarks being that much of a wedge, given the positioning we've seen, so far.


Jeez, I'm getting old and jaded. It's difficult for me to see this new, brilliant "change."Don't think there's much to see, myself. Contrary to the breathless fears of Right Blogistan and its representatives on Digg, Stumbleupon, etc., I think Obama will tack much closer to a mushy middle than a legitimately progressive (or crypto-marxist, depending on your level of paranoia) course during his presidency.

[Elduardo]

Haven't seen any prominent GOP members repeatedly call Bush a failure, the worst president ever, declare an ongoing war lost, etc.

Especially someone who is the leader of a group that has a lower approval rating than Bush himself.

[RIP]

Speaking as a Democrat...Harry Reid needs to be replaced immediately. He has been and continues to be a waste of a leader.

[Grendel]

Haven't seen any prominent GOP members repeatedly call Bush a failure, the worst president ever, declare an ongoing war lost, etc.

Especially someone who is the leader of a group that has a lower approval rating than Bush himself.The point is, Reid's statements aren't anything close to the sort of wedge you suggest because the GOP knows Bush has so damaged their brand with the American public, there's little--if any--loyalty there they want to acknowledge, let alone fight over.

[Elduardo]

Point for me is that Harry Reid has no business calling anyone a failure.

[Grendel]

Point for me is that Harry Reid has no business calling anyone a failure.Well, you criticized him for "putting blame instead of getting things done" when it certainly appears that his chamber's low popularity is due in no small part to to the lack of effective opposition to and oversight of the sitting administration.

If he had more success would he still be guilty of pinning blame?

[Elduardo]

It's amazing that you've found a way to blame Reid's low popularity on Bush.