Post by Calanria on Aug 11, 2012 14:05:58 GMT -5
Basing the performance of a president on the loss of a building is a little ridiculous. No argument against your statement of Nixon, but Madison was controlling the army of a nation still in its infancy, running against the might of the British, still very powerful in those days. It's a wonder we were able to walk away with a stalemate, let alone with the Executive Mansion being the only major locale destroyed.
Not a fan of Bush, but blaming him for the terrorist attacks is absolutely preposterous. Nobody knew it was happening; expecting him to "defend" the WTC or the Pentagon when the only option to do so would be to SHOOT DOWN A PLANE WITH INNOCENTS ON BOARD - forgetting again that there was no warning about what would occur - is complete fallacy. Secondly, defending against a force of nature like Hurricane Katrina is even more impossible. You shouldn't blame a president for the unfortunate occurrences outside his control; you should judge how they respond to those occurrences.
Listen this is the way presidential politics works here in the United States. Whoever is sitting in the Oval office takes the blame or gets the credit for whatever happens while they are the president, regardless of what role they played lets look:
Obama: Gets full credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden he also gets blame for the unemployment rate being near 10% and a runaway deficit.
W. Bush: I still don't know what he gets credit for, but he takes the fall for all the events on 9/11 and a freaking Hurricane. Not to mention the collapse of Wall Street and the Housing Market. (Did I mention as a person I liked George W. and even voted for him for his second term?)
Clinton: Gets full credit for the economic prosperity during the .com boom. "Am I better off now than I was 4 years ago?"
H. Bush: Gets credit for a fast and efficient victory during the Gulf War and liberating Kuwait. Takes the fall for having to raise taxes due to then record deficits caused by the crazy economic policies of the previous Regan administration.
Regan: Takes the fall for the Iran Contra scandal. Gets all the credit for the end of the USSR and the fall of Communism in eastern Europe.
Carter: Gets credit for nothing (just like W. Bush) yet takes the fall for the Iranian hostage crisis.
For all the above named events, the presidents named did nothing more than occupy the Oval Office at the time these events occurred. It's just what happens when you are president. You get all the credit or all the blame.
I'm not saying that's not the case, far from it. I'm saying that if you are aware that this is how public perception runs and the failure of such analysis, you yourself shouldn't be following the crowd. An analysis of a President's performance should not be that superficial.
Trust me, I don't need a lesson on how politics operates in the United States.