Thursday, March 23, 2006
Bush: Harding, not Grant
Discuss.
(Trying KEvron's extreme minimalist blogging technique ...)
--ER
(Trying KEvron's extreme minimalist blogging technique ...)
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Actually, both may be applicable:
Both were crony-ists of the worst sort who hired their drinking/and/or poker buddies to the highest offices of their cabinets, and then said cronies enriched themselves grossly, at the expense of property owners and stockholders all over America.
The economy was robust under Harding, due to lies and happy bullshit, and Grant eventually had most of his cabinet dismissed under scandal, ultimately leading to an election in 1876 even more suggestive of civil war than 2000's. There are certainly paralells there.
Both are remembered as awful presidents, as will our current chief, but at least neither of the other two will preside over the end of the human race, as I suspect the current one might-or at very least, he'll get the ball rolling.
(Despite what most of the scientific community now says, global warming doesn't exist, right?)
All three made certain that the least qualified were hired to posts of profound importance, but at least the other two did so out of pure venality: the current one did it to "prove" that government doesn't work.
Grant was a drunk who had never succeded at anything until he was a very efficient general. Bush can't even claim that much.
Harding was a Republican loyalist...Uh, who kinda got the vote because the old freaks who ran the party said so...Like Bush.
Harding at least meant well, Grant just didn't know what he was doing. Bush? Combination of the two? Even if he means well, the people who control him certainly don't. He personally doesn't seem to know what he's doing as he spouts happy bullshit...But the people who control him do...History, as I say, is a demon.
Both were crony-ists of the worst sort who hired their drinking/and/or poker buddies to the highest offices of their cabinets, and then said cronies enriched themselves grossly, at the expense of property owners and stockholders all over America.
The economy was robust under Harding, due to lies and happy bullshit, and Grant eventually had most of his cabinet dismissed under scandal, ultimately leading to an election in 1876 even more suggestive of civil war than 2000's. There are certainly paralells there.
Both are remembered as awful presidents, as will our current chief, but at least neither of the other two will preside over the end of the human race, as I suspect the current one might-or at very least, he'll get the ball rolling.
(Despite what most of the scientific community now says, global warming doesn't exist, right?)
All three made certain that the least qualified were hired to posts of profound importance, but at least the other two did so out of pure venality: the current one did it to "prove" that government doesn't work.
Grant was a drunk who had never succeded at anything until he was a very efficient general. Bush can't even claim that much.
Harding was a Republican loyalist...Uh, who kinda got the vote because the old freaks who ran the party said so...Like Bush.
Harding at least meant well, Grant just didn't know what he was doing. Bush? Combination of the two? Even if he means well, the people who control him certainly don't. He personally doesn't seem to know what he's doing as he spouts happy bullshit...But the people who control him do...History, as I say, is a demon.
Last year I would have gone with Harding. Grant , never. Grant understood war and what it ment to lead. Although once you through in Sherman and Sheridan and Custer et. al., well there is some historical similarity.
I might suggest Buchannan for the simplistic double think, but Bush is not the traitor that Buchanan was.
Nope, the Bush Baby gets his own catagory. But it is a long ways from being over, too much time and too many people who want a chunk of his ass (in and out of the country).
Too many Nut Cases out there(domestic and foriegn), too many Democrats bent on revenge, kind of like the Republicans were after Nixon. Too many Republicans ready to let him twist in the wind for the remaining three years.
No not Harding, not Grant, Not Buchanan. He will have a large and unique place in History no doubt, but not one that his Grandchildren will cherish.
I might suggest Buchannan for the simplistic double think, but Bush is not the traitor that Buchanan was.
Nope, the Bush Baby gets his own catagory. But it is a long ways from being over, too much time and too many people who want a chunk of his ass (in and out of the country).
Too many Nut Cases out there(domestic and foriegn), too many Democrats bent on revenge, kind of like the Republicans were after Nixon. Too many Republicans ready to let him twist in the wind for the remaining three years.
No not Harding, not Grant, Not Buchanan. He will have a large and unique place in History no doubt, but not one that his Grandchildren will cherish.
# posted by 
: 9:38 PM
: 9:38 PM
Good stuff, Drlobojo.
My own take, in a nutshell:
Grant at least had been a good, war-winning general, when the GOP was as corrupt as could be -- and leading businessmen were, too.
Harding was mediocre at everything he put his hand to, when the GOP was as corrupt as could be -- and leading businessmen were, too.
Bush = Harding.
Post a Comment
My own take, in a nutshell:
Grant at least had been a good, war-winning general, when the GOP was as corrupt as could be -- and leading businessmen were, too.
Harding was mediocre at everything he put his hand to, when the GOP was as corrupt as could be -- and leading businessmen were, too.
Bush = Harding.
<< Home
