[Rhodes22-list] Catastrophe or a disaster?

[Rob Lowe]

Oh, I don't know.  It's an interesting question, but I agree it has nothing
to do with discussing the current candidates and should be debating on it's
own merits.  Pete, which is worse, a catastrophe or a disaster?  I am
undecided how W's administration will be remembered too, between those two
choices that is.

In some ways, you got to feel sorry for W.  He grew up in the shadow of his
very famous and successful father.  Although I didn't care much for George
H.W., I have to admire him for his accomplishments and his success.  H.W.
was a successful collage baseball player, war hero, business man, a pretty
good politician, and put together a coalition to drive the Iraqis out of
Kuwait.  W. on the other hand was a C student, avoided the Vietnam War,
failed in business until his daddy's rich friends bought his businesses at
inflated prices, choose partisanship over accomplishments in politics
(although I have to argue Cheney is the force behind most of that), and got
into two wars that he can't win.  And bin Laden is still on the loose.

W.'s pretty much shot Jeb's chance at the White House, and it wasn't
supposed to be that way.  Jeb is the favorite son and was being groomed for
the White House.  But W, looking for daddy's approval, decided to run for
the White House and won.  Well, he didn't win it, the Supreme Court gave it
to him.

Yes, history will be the judge of W's legacy.  But this is the same guy
trying to spin his own legacy.  This is the guy who has compared himself to
both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.  You sure don't see anyone else
comparing W. to Washington or Lincoln, not even his most ardent supporters.

So, catastrophe or disaster?  Worse president in American history?  Only
time will tell.  - rob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Say What, Barack?


> Huh???? How is discussing whether "the bush presidency will be evtually
> considered a catastrophe or a disaster" more a substantiative political
> critique than discussing the current candidates? The Bush presidency is
> just about over, and virtually nothing can be done to change his course.
> History has shown that the great presidencies were typically not
> recognized as such until LONG after they're over. In reality, that
> discussion would be virtually empty of substance were it to be held now.
>
> >
> > For a more substantiative political critique I suggest the discussion of
> > whether the bush presidency will be eventually considered a catastrophe
or a
> > disaster. I am undecided, but willing to hear arguments on both sides.
> >
> > Pete Hussein Lauritzen
> > Key Largo