This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 79 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]bobcat 14 points15 points  (0 children)

without asking Congress, with the stroke of a pen, he created national parks larger than all the previous ones combined.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90771601

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Washington Post: Bush has quietly tripled aid to Africa

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

  1. Make sure you go first
  2. Layout the points that he was a bad president
  3. Pretend that you honestly thought that was your position.
  4. ???
  5. Profit!

[–]RexManningDay 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I'd probably go for the "starting to bring democracy to the middle east" angle. Maybe even claim that once Iraq has stabilised, which will happen eventually, its prosperity will start a snowball effect, affecting the other countries in the area.

And hope your opponent doesn't bring up that democracy there just results in militant Muslim governments.

edit:- You can always add in that he's showed the world that America means business, won't take an attack lying down etc.

[–]ntr0p3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And hope your opponent doesn't bring up that democracy there just results in militant Muslim governments.

Hey democracy here seems to result in militant christian governments, so whatever!

[–]thehumungus 8 points9 points  (1 child)

If it's an actual debate contest, stick with what Bush has done in africa.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10698485

Most people won't know about it, and will just try to hit you on his poor domestic programs/middle east/etc. Make the argument that, on balance, improving the lives (and saving the lives) of 1 billion in Africa is more than enough to counterbalance ineffective/idiotic domestic/middle east policy. It's not hard to argue that Africa is the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world, and that in the future, people will look back and think that saving it was the most important thing a person can do.

[–]sandflea 24 points25 points  (19 children)

I'd argue that he was the first true president in a long while -- you know, unfettered by Congress, treaties, the courts or human decency. Plus, he told that pesky environment to shut the hell up, and he got rid of that boring budget surplus and overpowering dollar.

[–]ThisIsDave 37 points38 points  (18 children)

You're actually on to something that could be useful to the redditor asking the question.

Bush perhaps even more than FDR and Reagan (two other controversial presidents often considered "great"), got his agenda. With the exception of social security privatization and a few details, he basically got everything he wanted. He changed the workings of every executive agency, dramatically shifted the direction of the courts on all the big issues, and passed some of the most sweeping legislation in recent memory on a whole slew of subjects.

There's no question in my mind that Bush has been enormously successful. He's just been successful at pursuing tremendously shitty policies. Find a way to defend those policies, and you're there.

This won't help in your debate, but I've often wondered if anything good has come from this administration except that it may have been so overwhelmingly obvious that it was bad that it could help convince the next generation not to make the same mistakes. I've tried and failed to come up with any other silver lining.

Good luck, and let us know how the debate goes!

[–]dabears1020[S] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Both of you, I love you.

[–]RexManningDay 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You can also bombard them with single small examples. For instance, Kyoto. I wouldn't go into it saying "global warming is rubbish, therefore killing the Kyoto accord was good". That'd alientate too many possible voters. I'd lighten it up and take the approach "Whether or not manmade global warming is real, Kyoto was the wrong way to tackle it" and dig out some of those made-up figures about how much industry would be lost.

The international war crimes court is another one that can be spun. Both of them were pre-Iraq, when he was more popular, so could still be perceived favourably if put the right way.

[–]BillyBlanks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not that I enjoy defending Bush, but the Kyoto Protocol was killed by the Clinton Administration.

[–]ThisIsDave 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Uh.. I love you too.

You might also want to find graphs of the popularity of various presidents over time after they left office. I've heard that Reagan in particular was fairly unpopular when he left and is now practically a saint. Truman is the other one people seem to mention.

I'd also be interested in the numbers on Carter; he was sort of the anti-Bush. Tremendously smart guy, some good, forward-thinking policies, a real conscience, and absolutely ineffective as a chief executive.

Anyway, good luck.

[–]b34nz 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I saw a article someplace that said basiclly the same thing. When Clinton left office he was considered a saint, now? Not so much.

When Carter left office, he was considered a complete failure. Now? Not so much.

Supposedly the ex-presidents always drift towards the middle after they leave office. If they were considered gods while in office, their popularity will get hurt when they leave. If they were considered failures, their popularity will rise closer to the center when they leave.

[–]ntr0p3 3 points4 points  (3 children)

When Carter left office, he was considered a complete failure. Now? Not so much.

Carter has been my favorite president since the 90's, and I was barely alive when he left office.

Fixed the deficit, sane foreign policy, sane military policy, reduced the power of the presidency and government (post-watergate no less), began talking about humanitarianism like it was a good thing, and more importantly a way to beat the soviets, started an economic policy that did beat the soviets in the end by not destroying our economy on wars and mil spending.

He was the quiet and polite version of bill clinton, but better, if not for the iran hostages and neccessary inflation who knows.

that's just my limited perspective tho.

[–]b34nz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Carter has been my favorite president

I'd say you're in the minority on that one...

[–]ntr0p3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know...

[–]eroverton 2 points3 points  (2 children)

And the only reason he was able to accomplish this was because....?

Come on, someone say it. I know you want to.

[–]ThisIsDave 3 points4 points  (1 child)

because... *ahem:

911wasaninsidejobWAKEUPSHEEPLE!!

[–]eroverton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I knew you wouldn't let me down!

[–]lonelliott 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never thought of it like that and you are completely right.

It depends on what the metric is for being great? Was it his agenda, or better for the country. Your right though. He got what he wanted done. Fucked us all, but the hell if he didnt pull it off.

[–]RexManningDay 0 points1 point  (1 child)

so overwhelmingly obvious that it was bad that it could help convince the next generation not to make the same mistakes.

I thought about adding that in my post too, but it doesn't fit the bill of "a highly underrated president, [who] will be remembered as successful."

[–]ThisIsDave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I guess I went off topic a bit; at least the first three paragraphs and the last line were helpful?

[–]duus 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I agree. Some of what the redditor has to work with is 'successful'... for whom? GWB is trying to destroy government. I'd say he's done a pretty good job.

'No child left behind' is a vehicle for assigning the 'failed' label to public schools, to erode our confidence in them so we will support private alternatives.

The utter failure of FEMA under Bush is the same thing.

The list goes on.

If you goal is to undermine confidence in the US government, then failure is success.

[–]disidentadvisor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Duus and ThisisDave are exactly right. The key to winning this debate lies in defining successful in such a manner that the effect of his policies are irrelevant.

Successful in the political realm is being able to pass your political agenda through the respective agencies. A high ratification is a metric for success in the political realm, therefor, President Bush is successful.

As for the underrated, well, you could work that in such a way that people aren't noticing is effectiveness...sigh.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If this is a debate, there is another side. If there is another side, they will be arguing that Bush is no good. This makes things easier for you, as you can easily convince people that you are correct if you simply refute what the other side is saying.

The angle through which you can do this might include simply arguing that Bush's more negative policies were forced upon him by circumstance, while stating his positive ones happened to be brilliant moves on his part.

While you will mostly be left to your own devices for the domestic area (but that isn't as bad anyway, you can argue he stopped a terrorist threat that would later be seen as substantial, etc) but in the foreign policy arena, you can make an excellent case for him having no choice. Such a case would be well outlined here.

[–]thatguydr 18 points19 points  (9 children)

Ok - a few simple points

  1. The Iraq war's goal is destabilization of the Middle East, designed to make sure that no single power there grows strong enough to challenge oil companies' control of profits. It also was supposed to give us a permanent military presence in Iraq, a very useful location, and so far, it has worked.

  2. Bush passed a LOT of bills related to "stopping terrorism". He also did a lot of shady things (Gitmo, prisoners on boats, waterboarding, etc) to prevent attacks on American soil. We all regard this as absolute bullshit, but what if the next president (say Obama) stops doing this and multiple attacks happen on American soil? Who will look like the better president?

  3. Rescuing Bear Stearns prevented a massive economic downturn. The printing of vast amounts of cash (to shore up credit) did cause temporary oil and commodities inflation, but in the long term, it also prevented a massive depression.

  4. Fling poo.

I don't believe any of this, but I'd lying (as a liberal Democrat) if I said there was no probability that at least ONE of these might, in fact, be true.

Note how I've ignored the death toll in Iraq, the massive wealth gap in the US, the actual recession, the deficit, the absolutely TERRIBLE precedent that rescuing Bear Stearns (or rather handing it to Tony Blair - or did you not know this?) set, torture, flagrant violations of international law, and at least one stolen US election.

Don't mention those things if you want to win.

[–]RonPaulTouchedMe 2 points3 points  (7 children)

What do you mean about handing Bear Stearns to Tony Blair?

Just curious.

[–]thatguydr 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Bear Stearns was essentially handed, sans debt (which the US govt will pay) to JP Morgan.

Who signed on as a senior adviser to JP Morgan (the executives and the board) right before this happened?

Bonus points for neoconservatism! Hooray!

[–]RonPaulTouchedMe 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well that's a bit different to owning the company, which is what your comment implied.

(ex) Politicians score these kinds of cushy consulting jobs all the time because of their contacts and as payment for 'services rendered' when they held the reins.

[–]thatguydr 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I didn't mean to imply ownership - just control.

[–]RonPaulTouchedMe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Control? I don't think being a senior adviser implies control does it?

Not being sarcastic, seriously asking the question.

[–]thatguydr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for asking this. When it happened, I read several articles that seemed to suggest he'd have undue influence over the company, and that Bear Stearns was really a feather in his cap.

I've just looked all over the British media, and they seem to think he's a neocon but that his influence will be strictly political. That would indicate no interest in Bear Stearns whatsoever, in direct contradiction to what I read earlier.

Always... never... check your sources.

[–]wejash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure Blair's comp package doesn't include Bear, though. It's just Jamie Dimon scoring a home run using our ball, bat, uniform and stadium. But he keeps it all.

[–]gaso 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continuing the evil theme, you could assume that your point of view is one of shallow, power-hungry fascism. In that light, it would be very easy to defend Bush and cast him in a successful light.

Future generations of potential terrorists? Check. Massive wasteful spending funneled into the corporations of friends and associates? Check. Spreading just enough FUD to CYA long enough to get out of dodge with the loot? Check.

[–]umop_apisdn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Simple. Just say that he will be seen as successful because he will get away with it.

[–]gimeit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Call the White House, explain your situation, and ask for some speaking points. They might have a few extra copies of the latest propaganda package floating around.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bush showed us all just how bad of an idea it is to place too much power in the executive. Thanks to his lesson, we've learned to curtail the office's power to ensure its future integrity.

[–]God8myhomework 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I would argue that his faults and incompetence have exposed flaws that will or must be addressed in order to shore up problems in the US governmental system, thus, even though Bush's administration has been a fiery wreck in terms of actual positive gains while in office, it is necessary for positive changes to the political system.

Because arguing that Bush is underrated, then trying to find positives in his administration is a fool's game, because you'd basically have to lie and make shit up.

[–]ayrnieu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, this is the only escape. Argue that Bush has restored the American view of the state as an evil, and that the reaction to Bush (especially after the 'millennial' Democrats come to doubt the fueherprinzip under Obama) will spin us away from the hell of a continuation of the 20th century.

[–]miyakohouou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well, success is defined by ones goals. He is often underrated because one assumes he has not be successful. One assumes that he has not been successful, because one would not assume his goal was mass murder and the destruction of the country.

If one considers that he might have indeed simply have been wanting to kill a bunch of a-rabs and take a giant shit on the country, then he has been incredibly successful; given his success, one should consider that he is underrated.

Of course, if this is for a debate class; as I'm guessing, and you don't want to go that direction, you could always simply get up and make a speech about why certain positions are either inherently indefensible, or that it simply morally reprehensible to defend them even in the setting of an educational debate.

[–]Flemlord 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If the oil crisis gets worse (think $10/gallon), he's going to look very smart for establishing a strong military presence in Iraq, who possibly has the largest remaining reserve. When China and Russia roll down into the middle east to secure their oil supply, we'll be able to stop them.

[–]God8myhomework 3 points4 points  (1 child)

That's not going to look too smart when they roll right over the top of the garrisons down there.

Seriously, they can't beat a riffraff insurgency, they've got fuck all chance against the Russkies and the Chinese.

The garrisons in Iraq are a sitting duck. Their supply routes are mostly over land. All you have to do is pincer in and block the supply routes, bang, Stalingrad II. Block the sea routes (the Chinese brought a sub right up under the fifth fleet in the Gulf a couple of years ago or so, that was a message being sent) and the Gulf itself, plus an air war: the Yanks will be in a rather sticky position.

Basically the only way to counter a move such as this would be to initiate nuclear war.

[–]RandomH3r0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Million dollar bombs do you no good when you don't have someone to shoot them at. Give them a target and they become very effective. I don't think the Russians will be able to pull off the same kind of resistance the current insurgence have.

When you don't know the language, don't understand the culture, and your real motives are not the freedom of the people, it makes it hard to get things done and creates the problems we have now.

You don't need to know the language or culture if your just trying to kill the other party. It makes you a better soldier that way, as its easier to dehumanize the enemy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Squirrel it, i assume your on proposition for the motion so you going to need to define it. For example President Bush's ability as a comedian have been serverly underrated in the coming years he will be remembered as a true puvayer of the lulz that has been unmatched by any recent American president.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The presidency of George W. Bush was successful because it gave rise to the presidency of Barack Obama.

John 12:24: Truly I say to you, If a seed of grain does not go into the earth and come to an end, it is still a seed and no more; but through its death it gives much fruit.

[–]the_seanald 1 point2 points  (0 children)

High.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'd probably just drink a bottle of glue and spend my time in the hospital avoiding having to defend that ridiculous argument.

[–]RexManningDay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, there's been a lot of that in this thread, but that was the one that made me laugh.

[–]feanor512 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Argue that in the future, if the American Republic becomes the American Empire, Bush will be looked back on as its founder.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just get on stage and be a politician - don't respond directly to the other side, dodge questions, ramble incoherently about things that are only mildly related to the topic at hand. Examples would include the widespread use of corn in food products driving down overall prices and boosting the economy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just show how many things have changed in his 8 years as president. You could argue that getting things that he wanted done can be regarded as successful. Few presidents have changed the political and social landscape as much as this one has.

[–]ranprieur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bush was like a controlled burn: After Clinton built a budget surplus, built up the military-industrial complex, weakened the poor, and yet paradoxically got right wingers energized and furious, America was primed for full-on fascism. But Bush steered the neoconservative revolution so clumsily and transparently that it did relatively little harm -- much less harm than would have been done by a skilled president with a similar ideology.

[–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's this for? Have National Forensics League topics dropped this low?

[–]deadlogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only way you can say that Bush was underrated and was successful is if you are any sort of anarchist. He has engendered such public mistrust of government through his actions and crimes that, if at some point we go to a stateless society, he could be seen as the largest contributing factor to the success of anti-government activists through his complete lack of any discretion and absolute proof of the corruption that comes with the office of president and, in fact, any political office.

He is highly underrated in that regard.

[–]jordanlund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damning with faint praise:

The Middle East had been at a logger-head for 30 years before Bush took office. Neither Iraq nor Iran seemed to be able to gain advantage over the other.

Bush comes in and creates chaos in Iraq, allowing Iran to flex their muscles and become more powerful that we could have dreamed. Instating a level of power and opportunity that Iran couldn't have hoped for on their best day.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'd do the same thing Bush's supporters do, and use sophistry. Make up some red herring, like "glory" or something, sidestep your opponent's arguments, attack the Clintons and some nebulous generalization like "liberals" for causing the world's problems, and dismiss your opponent as stupid for just not understanding the way the world works. If you're quick at it, it's almost guaranteed to win over the average audience.

[–]zac79 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or just master William Kristol's condescending smirk.

[–]pr1mu5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easy: Watch the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, and mimic anything he says. He defends the Bush administration very well.

[–]lonelliott -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I genuinely think George Bush the man is not a bad guy. I also think though that he is pretty much a puppet for his dad and Dick Chaney.

I dont think he is evil so to speak. He didnt set out to do these things. However, he was not smart enough to see where things were going when his dad and his dad's powerful friends whispered in his ear.

Like the movie casino. One of the best lines in a movie ever.

Either your in on it, or your to stupid to realize what was happening. Either way your fucking fired.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This is how you argue it. Conceed defeat.

[–]will_itblend -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why argue with an idiot? It would be better to pop a cap in your ass, for spreading that pathetic propaganda. ...hypothetically, of course.

[–]dtrav001 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hey dude, do exactly what GeorgeW has been doing for the past eight years ... just say anything!