BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The most dangerous President?

34 comments on The most dangerous President?

The most dangerous President?
: Howard Dean is flailing like a loser. Here’s his latest slap at the President:

From Iraq to homeland security to public health, President Bush’s “reckless” habit of placing “ideology over facts” has resulted in “the most dangerous administration in my lifetime,” Democrat Howard Dean charged over the past two days.

The “most dangerous administration” in his lifetime?

This guy is so over-the-top that he makes Democrats have to defend George Bush.

The “most dangerous”?

OK, let’s gander at the Presidents since 1948, the year of Dean’s birth:

: Harry Truman. Dropped the first atomic bombs. Overaw the Korean War. I’d call that dangerous.

: Dwight Eisenhower. Military man. Many find that dangerous on its face.

: John F. Kennedy. Damned near bluffed his way into a couple of nuclear confrontations. Dangerous.

: Lyndon Johnson. Well, my generation thought he was mighty dangerous. He was going to send us to our deaths in Vietnam.

: Richard Nixon. In my book, the most dangerous. Tried to bring down the presidency.

: Gerald Ford. Dangerous mainly to himself.

: Jimmy Carter. Not dangerous. Not terribly effective, but not dangerous (except to interest rates).

: Ronald Reagan. Well, I won’t start a holy war on this one. Suffice it to say that some think he’s a saint but others think he’s the opposite — and I’d bet those people would prefer Bush to Reagan (I would).

: George H.W. Bush. The Republican Carter: Not dangerous, not effective.

: Bill Clinton. Well, I liked him.

Go ahead: Play the Howard Dean Game with others and I’ll bet that few if any over voting age who’ve washed in the last week who will come to the same conclusion Dean did. I’ll bet that most will vote for Nixon.

It sounds as if Dean is trying to revive the ’60s (and turn Bush into Nixon). But these aren’t the ’60s. What’s uppermost on our minds today is not a war we declared — no matter how much you wish that were the case, Howard — but, instead, the war that was declared against us, by terrorists. This is more like World War II. If this were 1940 and a Republican called Franklin Roosevelt “dangerous,” would you tolerate that or think it disloyal?

Criticize the President and the administration all you want, Dean, by all means, have at it.

But don’t ever forget that the real danger is out there among the people who want to bomb our White House, not stay in it. If you can’t remember that, Doc, then I won’t feel safe with you in that White House. If you get elected, come November, I’ll be paraphrasing you: “the capture of Saddam election of Howard has not made America safer.”

: UPDATE: Josh Marshall says the Dean is also “playing the defection card and that crosses the line.”

: UPDATE: Roger Simon says he’s flailing because he’s terrified of Hillary. Yup. I keep saying that: Hillary to the rescue.

34 responses to “The most dangerous President?”

  1. finnesota Avatar
    finnesota

    For somebody who says they’re going to vote Democrat you sure spend a lot of time bashing their candidates. I suppose its admirable to be hard on those representing your party, but based on how little you criticize Bush, one is only left to believe that your allegiance is a sham.
    As for Dean’s comments, I don’t think they bother a lot of Dems as much as they bother you. I think many people of color, women, gays, and the working poor would find the Bush admin. quite dangerous. Now granted, to us middle to upper income white guys he’s not much of a threat, but even you have to agree that it’s not always about us. Right?

  2. Oliver Avatar
    Oliver

    Bush is dangerous because when faced with a battle against the people who do want to bomb the White House, he decides its a good idea to invade and occupy other countrues, rather than go after our enemies full tilt. But I don’t expect you to get that as you’ve swallowed the GOP’s “Howard Dean is baaaaaad” pill wholeheartedly.

  3. Mikhel Avatar
    Mikhel

    It’s all about Dean pandering to his base, the young, angry liberal college students who are going to eat up the hyperbolic rhetoric and the group, they’ll go down with me claptrap. I’m sure there’s an argument that George W Bush is the most dangerous president in the past fifty years, but it’s popularized mainly in the confines of Democratic Underground or the Dean ’04 Blog.
    Frankly, I’ve never been more turned off of Dean than I’ve become within the past week or two. His comments concerning the loyalty of his voters that, apparently, care more about spiting an alternate democratic nominee than ousting the most dangerous president GW being the ne plus ultra of fanaticism. You want idealogy? Don’t look at the White House — look at Howard Dean.

  4. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk


    Bush’s Desolate Imperium (Click to read the entire article)
    By Bernard Chazelle, Professor Computer Science, Princeton University.
    Ah, the ease with which George W. Bush attracts superlatives! Helen Thomas calls him “the worst president ever.” A kinder, gentler Jonathan Chait ranks him “among the worst presidents in US history.” No such restraint from Paul Berman, who brands him “the worst president the US has ever had.” Nobel Laureate George Akerlof rates his government as the “worst ever.” Even Bushie du jour, Christopher Hitchens, calls the man “unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.” Only Fidel Castro, it would appear, has had kind words for our 43rd President. “Hopefully, he is not as stupid as he seems, nor as Mafia-like as his predecessors were.”
    Vain hopes. In a mere three years, President Bush has compiled a record of disasters that Fidel could only envy. While cutting taxes for the rich, starving out federal programs for the poor, dismantling environmental protections, riding roughshod over civil liberties, and running the largest budget deficit in history, his administration has pursued a “law of the jungle” brand of foreign policy fueled by overt paranoia and an imperious sense of omnipotence. Its shrill, threatening rhetoric, relentlessly echoed by a gang of media goons, has coarsened public discourse and alienated friends and allies.
    At home, Bush has stoked the fears of a public traumatized by 9/11 and encountered rare success preaching an “us-against-them” Weltanschauung soaked in self-righteousness. Dissent has been equated with lack of patriotism, illegal detentions have gone unchallenged, and racial profiling has been given new life. In the run-up to the war, international disapproval met with sophomoric tantrums (“freedom fries, anyone?”) and vindictive hissy fits (canceled exchange programs with French high schools): hardly America’s finest hour.
    …

  5. Dan Z. Avatar
    Dan Z.

    Well, I’ll say it: I agree with Dean. I think George W. Bush is more dangerous to America’s long term health than Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton was.
    This isn’t to say that I’m happy with Dean as the Democratic nominee. But the Bush administration has shown itself to be reckless, ideologically blinkered, vindictive, secretive, and unconcerned with enforcing accountability or maintaining our hard-won Constitutional rights in the face of the War on Terror. The damage Bush could do with four more years seems immeasurable.
    I don’t say this as a knee-jerk Bush-hater, either. There are a number of criticisms of Bush that are simply preposterous. We didn’t go to war for oil, or to make Halliburton rich. I remember the Bush of 9/11, who said, voice breaking: “I’m a loving guy.” I don’t doubt his faith or the fact that he believes he is doing the right thing.
    But he lacks the intellectual curiosity and rigor this nation needs from a president. He trumpets the fact that he doesn’t read newspapers. Again, this isn’t saying that Bush is stupid. I don’t believe he is. But he is too trusting, too willing to take statements at face value, too unconcerned with contextualizing them, too willing to rely on ideological underpinnings instead of proof, and, unfortunately, too petulant and too ego driven to be trusted with the reins to America any longer.
    Where might we be in four more years with Bush in the catbird seat? Judging from past experience, we’ll be enmired in more costly wars, expending hundreds of billions of dollars, maiming and extinguishing thousands of lives, all so we’ll feel safe. But we won’t be. Our chemical plants — those ripest cherries of terrorism — will still be insecure, endangering millions at home. Our state first responders and Homeland Security forces will still lack the funding they require to respond to emergencies and meet the highest standards of vigilance. And our military will be stretched thin, unable to respond to new crises, while we make committed enemies faster than we make fair-weather friends.
    Domestically, we’ll see more encroachments into civil liberties, more sequels to the PATRIOT Act, more excuses to declare citizens “enemy combatants” and strip them of their rights. The enemy combatant trump card is, to me, the most frightening evidence of the way Bush’s vision of America differs from the vision of America most of us love and cherish. To a man and woman in this nation, we believe that if you’re accused of a crime, you ought to have a fair trial where you can confront your accusers and the evidence against you. Terrorism presents new challenges to achieving this goal, but it’s so crucial to who we are that we would never abandon it. But the Bush administration has. Instead of striving to find new ways of implementing accountability, they’ve accepted a mechanism for stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights, without any accountability at its core, as valid. Their repertoire of domestic anti-terrorism tactics shows a lack of respect for the rule of law and the history of justice and accountability that so many have fought and died for. If you find yourself on the federal “No Fly” list, for example, there is no appeal. Based on past experience, I can only expect the Bush administration to come up with more unappealable lists in the next four years.
    These are hard times, and to be honest, we ought to have better candidates to choose from than the current crop of folks running. But Dean, despite his faults, has expressed an understanding of our traditional values of freedom and accountability. He’s articulated a foreign policy that understands the value of both military strength and diplomacy. I’m not fond of some of his policies, or of his sometimes smug manner, but against Bush, it’s no contest. I’ll vote Dean gladly.

  6. hugh macleod Avatar
    hugh macleod

    As somebody who has spent a long time in Texas, well, people have been “misunderestimating” George W for years, often at their peril.
    The Dean campaign is not about “Beating Bush”. In Realpolitik terms the Dean campaign is all about making it easier for George W to win. He’s doing a great job so far.

  7. Lola Avatar
    Lola

    I agree with you, Hugh. I sure underestimated Bush but I’ve come to realize it’s all part of strategizing and tactics. And, this guy reads history books – what does this tell you? I love history, and one can learn a lot about what happened in the past and apply it to the future. I think Bush realizes that. It’s too bad more people don’t read up on the history, especially about the Middle East. They might learn a thing or two.

  8. John Irving Avatar
    John Irving

    Interesting how you can tell someone obsessed with a candidate over someone interested in his favorite candidates strengths and weaknesses. I dislike the ties Bush has to highly conservative groups, but thus far seems to have avoided giving them much of what they want (and sounded the most sympathetic of all the people who criticized the Mass gay-marriage decision, including the Democratic candidates). He’s shown weaknesses, mostly pre-9/11, including the steel tariffs and “faith-based initiatives,” but makes up for it in other areas. From an unblinkered perspective, he’s extremely moderate.
    But when you criticize Howard Dean, watch the True-Believers scramble to fold, spindle, and mutilate the truth just so their candidate can have a chance to lose against a highly-successful President in November. Oh, and Oliver Willis? Saddam provided monetary aid to Al Qaeda, had repeatedly stated his objective to retaliate against the US for kicking him out of Kuwait, and apparently is now singing about his WMD’s. Watch yourself before that kryptonite knocks you stone dead.

  9. Ali Karim Bey Avatar
    Ali Karim Bey

    Prof.,
    I support your analysis. The Dean Master campaign is about engaging:
    ANGRY WHITE BOYS n GIRLS (with an occassional Oliver thrown in).
    Dean Master is treating old grannies to max-out their credit cards to support him. I think of this as the hooked on coke phenomena.
    Dean Master can flip-flop at will and all the Dean Master fans can do is: Bush did this and that. That is their “informed” brain at work: When caught red-handed, just say “Ashcroft”
    The Ultra Left is a Liberal-Hypocrite. I want it to be dissected front and center everyday, 24/7.
    Ali Karim Bey
    Political Analyst and Investigator of Liberal-Hypocrites

  10. Geoff Matthews Avatar
    Geoff Matthews

    You left FDR, the man who put Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps? That wasn’t dangerous? I think everyone agrees that it was dangerous to the U.S.
    Hey, I’ll agree that RR was dangerous. He decided that the U.S. was fighting a war against the USSR, and I’m inclined to like the results.
    But, is Bush dangerous? Absolutely. You want dangerous leaders when you’re at war, and we are at war. Let’s just hope that he doesn’t make any of the mistakes that FDR made (and so far, he hasn’t).

  11. RB Avatar
    RB

    If we democrats are lucky, Dean will self destruct long before the decisive primaries. He is bloody well making a good start of it.

  12. Roger L. Simon Avatar
    Roger L. Simon

    I think I know why (other than perwsonality) that Dean is flailing. He’s afraid of somebody and it isn’t Bush. (Click on my blog).

  13. hey Avatar
    hey

    fundraising: $200M
    use of the office of the presidency: $0
    use of af1: $0
    ability to set the news agenda every day: $0
    having 9 dwarves running for opposing nomintation, with the leading candidate described as unelectable, unamerican, and dangerous by 2/3+ of his party’s supporters: PRICELESS BABY!
    my bet is that they’ll spend $150M on a gift for karl, and $50M advertising for dean… really, what’s better advertising than helping the american public get to know dr dean much, much better
    just air highlights of the primary debates in 30 second snapshots (or any of his news conferences)
    no commentary needed, just end with: paid for by g.w. bush and karl rove
    it’s not an attack ad if you just let your opponent speak!

  14. HH Avatar
    HH

    We’ve already seen how Carter and Clinton were dangerous. Just look at North Korea for starters.

  15. HH Avatar
    HH

    This says it all, except it has the premise that Dean doesn’t agree when he does.
    http://snltranscripts.jt.org/03/03hdean.phtml

  16. Tadeusz Avatar
    Tadeusz

    Hwlfway through Anne’s bit, when I realized it wasn’t a parody. Way to hit those talking points!
    Nixon dangerous? Guy weakened the Sovs with one plane trip, and declined to challenge JFK’s possible theft of the Presidency out of respect for the Office. Nixon’s just a victim of a pre-blog mass media rampaging unchecked.
    Law enforcement methods have been proven in the ’90’s to fail dealing with terrorism; and the run-up to the Iraq war showed the failure of the United Nations in dealing with a terrorist supporter like Hussein (He offered blood money to the families of suicide bombers, among other evils.)
    Hussein got captured, and Quaddaffi decided to give up his WMD’s in the same week. I’m sure they are totally unrelated, and Bush and Blair had absolutely nothing to do with these events. Or back in reality, we could say that Bush and Blair had a triumph of diplomacy which the Left denies they have any capability for.
    But Dean would have left Hussein in charge, and Quaddaffi would be busy cooking up a nuke as I right this if Dean and Bush’s positions had been reversed. So whose the more dangerous man, again?
    Tadeusz

  17. HA Avatar
    HA

    Dean is a loose cannon and is unfit to be president. Every time Dean opens his mouth I’m reminded of the line from Forrest Gump. Dean is like a box of chocolates – you never know what you’re gonna get.

  18. Harry Avatar
    Harry

    Too many Democrats are seeking catharsis for the 2000 election in 2004 instead of victory, and the Dean campaign is Primal Scream therapy for them. True, it’s loud, it attracts attention, but it repels sane people and doesn’t work.
    2004 is shaping up as a wipeout along the lines of 1972, except that the Republicans will also increase their margins in the House and Senate. When Dean supporters are faced with the prospect of Chief Justice John Ashcroft, I hope they’ll take a long look in the mirror at the delusional fools who made it possible.

  19. joe Avatar
    joe

    I’ve been asking this for over three years, and I’m still looking for a logical answer…
    If it’s perfectly all right for the President of the Unites States to lie under oath in a court of law, then why should anyone else ever have to tell the truth?
    The most dangerous?
    William Jefferson Clinton.
    He lowered the moral standard for personal behavior in this country and we’ll probably spend the next generation or longer trying to rebuild it.
    All of you Dems out there, be honest, how would you react if GWB got caught red-handed committing perjury in a deposition before a grand jury?
    Would you bury him, or say, “Give him a break. It would have been too embarassing if he’d told truth, and besides, everyone lies about adultry and sexual harassment these days so what’s the big deal? Just leave the guy alone.”
    Be honest.

  20. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    Jeff’s taking Dean literally which in this case is wrong. What Dean means is the most dangerous president that I’m running against. The rest of that stuff is ancient history.
    I don’t consider Dean’s veiled threat about his supporters not being transferable over the line. first of all he’s probably right. Secondly what’s the difference between his saying his supporters aren’t transferable and all the other candidates saying he’s unelectable? They’re saying the the same thing, that their supporters aren’t going to support another candidate.
    I also don’t believe for 1 second Hilary’s entering the race. She’ll run in ’08.

  21. CharlesWT Avatar
    CharlesWT

    Coming in 2004,
    Bush Lite and the Sweven Dwarfs
    :)

  22. Charlie T. Avatar
    Charlie T.

    Good thing for Dean we have a liberal media, huh?

  23. zota Avatar
    zota

    So Nixon is the most dangerous, and you prefer GW to Reagan?
    Well, we have the worst of Reagan’s policies right now, being put in place by members of the Nixon administration. So based on your breakdown of dangeous presidencies, this would be the worst of all possible worlds, no?
    You also badly mischaracterize George Sr. — he was Director of the CIA. Secret wars, Central American bloodbaths, arms trade with the Axis of Evil… very very dangerous. And somehow his C average, recovering alcoholic kid made it to the presidency in the face of a popular vote loss. Go figure.

  24. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    “Bush is dangerous because when faced with a battle against the people who do want to bomb the White House, he decides its a good idea to invade and occupy other countrues, rather than go after our enemies full tilt. But I don’t expect you to get that as you’ve swallowed the GOP’s ‘Howard Dean is baaaaaad’ pill wholeheartedly.”
    Ah, youth.

  25. appalled moderate Avatar
    appalled moderate

    The Dean supporters need to think hard about their guy, and think hard about his appeal to those of us who aren’t thrilled with Bush on an operational (as opposed to idelogical) level.
    Think about it a moment. What are Bush’s flaws?
    * He’s secretive
    * He ticks off our allies unecessarily. (I don’t mean Iraq — I mean cracks about old Europe.)
    * He seems uninformed much of the time.
    * He’s protectionist when it suits him.
    * He’s big into deficit, big government spending.
    * He might be dishonest, if dishonesty will let him get his way.
    Now look at Dean’s campaign and the recent flaps surrounding it. Seems like Howard’s got all the same flaws. So, as someone who is not enraptured with the underlying philosophy of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, but am frightened by Bush, why should I vote for this guy? He seems to have all the same essential flaws.

  26. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    This will probably go unnoticed, but I read Oliver’s comment and am rather confused:

    Bush is dangerous because when faced with a battle against the people who do want to bomb the White House, he decides its a good idea to invade and occupy other countrues, rather than go after our enemies full tilt.

    Okay, Ols, tell me this: how are we supposed to go after our enemies “full tilt” without, well, going after them wherever they happen to be — including their own countries?
    In any case, I’m with Geoff Matthews: better our leader be thought dangerous than ineffectual.

  27. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Well, Oliver never fails to make me chuckle. Get off the college campus Oliver.
    As far as the remark about Bush and his C average in college, Gore had the same average and the same ties to power. I am sure you voted for Nader, right?
    I love Dean. He will make sure Bush wins in 2004.

  28. Ali Karim Bey Avatar
    Ali Karim Bey

    Catherine,
    One note. Al Gore dropped out of Law School and Divinity School (two graduate schools). He was a C student at Harvard until his later years as UG where he be began to take independent studies for his thesis. His grade improved to B (or B+) due to this work. But, as a student, he was bad, very bad.
    Well, the Liberal-Hypocrite Press, led by NYT and NPR, usually do not give details. This is from my own research during fall of 2000.
    Basic rule for reading NYT, listening to NPR, or watching PBS: Always get 2nd-fifth opinions from other sources before forming your decision.
    The current fans of Dean Master are in my opinion most empty-headed vessels (blind/deaf/dumb) I can think of. If they did a study in future of the current young college students, they would come up with the notion: The Uninformed Youth. These people will believe anything Dean Master says. He flip-flops, and they say “We covered your back, Dean Master”.
    On way they have to cover his back. Their credit cards are maxed out in their uninformed support of him. No one of these Dean Master fans will ask: What was Dean Master stand about Saddam? What was his stand on French during Clinton admin.? When did he discover Jesus? How did he conduct his own energy meetings? And so on. The Dean Master fans will also refuse to acknowledge that the current Gov. of VT is GOP; Dean Master’s chose successor lost “big time”.
    (PS: There is one caveat. I think EJ Dione’s essay in WashPost on 12/30 is very good. There is a possibility that Dean Master may scrap his way to WH. What a nightmarish thought but there is that 0.0001 probability.)
    Ali Karim Bey
    Political Analyst and Investigator of Liberal-Hypocrites

  29. capt joe Avatar
    capt joe

    oliver is starting to exhibit the signs of krytonite poisoning. sad.

  30. Loud Mouths Avatar
    Loud Mouths

    Howard Dean will shoot at Bush or Gepardht while the ricochet hits Clinton and other Democrats.
    Not very smart.
    In his comments about the Mad Cow scare, he attacks Bush on not acting quickly enough, eluding to 1996. If Clinton had 4 years to act but didn’t what’s the beef with Dean?
    Next, while Gephardt is in Iowa today speaking about a good plan on finally fully funding special education costs mandated by the federal government, Dean attacks Gepardht and states that in the two decades Gephardt has been in the house, it has never been fully funded.
    Once again Dean opens up criticism. First how can one lone Congressmen get an entire House to go along and get the funding. Then on top of that, you had 8 years of Clinton in office.
    Dean is an idiot.

  31. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    –* He ticks off our allies unecessarily. (I don’t mean Iraq — I mean cracks about old Europe.)–
    I really don’t have a problem w/this because THEY’RE NOT OUR ALLIES – WWII is OVER, Cold War over. And they’ve been ticking me off for 20-odd years. The blood, lives, and money we’ve poured into them for the past 60 years down the tubes because they have delusions of grandeur. It’s always been there, all that has happened is that it’s now out in the open for all to see. W/o the net and people like Merde, I never would have seen the political cartoons our “allies” draw. There’s been backstabbing for 40 years, after the full-frontal on Powell in the UN, it’s there for the world to see. DeGaulle and Libya 1986 are recent. Read John Adams’ bio, they haven’t changed. They thought about invading England while the lobsterbacks were busy w/US. And dissedent printed some text from one of his schoolbooks, Soviets ok, we’re bad????
    I’m supposed to take advice from a country on it’s 5th republic, one who’s candidates only get on the ballot by collecting signatures from other government officials and they’re not allowed to make fun in cartoons of their president??? And still hasn’t published Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist” that’s been out 4 years????? And that poor reporter who just got canned for looking objectively at how their news is reported????

  32. Rootbeer Avatar
    Rootbeer

    Ali Karim: I enjoy the variety of catchphrases and blanket generalizations you use in lieu of restrained, informed debate. Do you have a newsletter or webzine where I could learn more about your ideas?

  33. Karl Lembke Avatar
    Karl Lembke

    “Ronald Reagan. Well, I won’t start a holy war on this one. Suffice it to say that some think he’s a saint but others think he’s the opposite — and I’d bet those people would prefer Bush to Reagan (I would).”
    FWIW, I know one person who claims George W. Bush has, in his opinion, displaced Reagan as the worst president ever.

  34. Tina Avatar
    Tina

    I honestly can’t understand this beatification/vilification of presidents. I’ve read too much Douglas Adams (anyone capable of getting themselves elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job). My memories are as follows:
    Carter: how did this doofus get elected?
    Reagan I: the actor?!?!
    Reagan II: medicated
    Bush I: (honestly, can’t remember ever thinking about him)
    Clinton I: if he told me it was sunny out, I’d carry an umbrella
    Clinton II: don’t touch me
    Bush II (until 9/11): oh, no
    Bush II (post 9/11): could be worse