Bush Administration most dishonest in recent history?

[Darth Wong]

I've been an adult long enough to see several administrations come and go (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton), and I can honestly say that never, ever have I seen an administration which was as blatantly manipulative of the facts as the Bush administration. Even if we completely ignore the whole Iraq situation and just look at the way they campaigned in 2000 and again now (and even the way they set upon McCain in the primaries), you can see a persistent pattern of completely amoral, anything-goes conduct.

So what do you guys think? Have any of you been around long enough to compare the marketing tactics of this administration to those of previous administrations? The longer I witness these assholes in action, the more stunned I am that they are actually capable of doing and saying all of these things.

[MKSheppard]

Eh, it's the same for every administration; the last real honest presidents
we had were either Harry Truman and Eisenhower

[SirNitram]

Eh, it's the same for every administration; the last real honest presidents
we had were either Harry Truman and Eisenhower

Smells like a Golden Mean to me..

While politicians lying is roughly the same as Darkstar fucking up, or me breathing, the Bush Administration has taken it to new and inventive heights in it's quest for Neocon ideals.

[Stormbringer]

I think the Bush Administration is quite probably one of the worst in recent history. I dare say the last to pull crap like this is Nixon.

However, I think the Bush Campaign isn't really that different from a lot of campaigns these days now. The Kerry/Democratic side is really doing the same sort of low campaign tactics that Bush has. I think the races have more and more become about the party winning and screw the rest . It's not new and it's not just Bush.

As to low balling McCain that was far more intra-party politics than anything. It's not terribly disimilar to Howard Dean's experience.

[Howedar]

I think in terms of flat-out lying to the public, Nixon probably has Bush beat. In terms of manipulation and spin, I can't think of a recent administration that comes close.

[MrAnderson]

Examples please. If you are going to assert that this Administration is the most dishonest in recent times then give some examples.

Without taking sides I would like to point out though that the first Bush and Clinton really had little to lie about. American Administrations become less and less honest for various reasons as their involvement in crisis and war increases. One just had to look at Roosevelt to see how dishonest a President can get when the nation is at war.

[SirNitram]

I think the Bush Administration is quite probably one of the worst in recent history. I dare say the last to pull crap like this is Nixon.

However, I think the Bush Campaign isn't really that different from a lot of campaigns these days now. The Kerry/Democratic side is really doing the same sort of low campaign tactics that Bush has. I think the races have more and more become about the party winning and screw the rest . It's not new and it's not just Bush.

I think as far as just the Campaign is this is true, though this is also a comparison of the campign to what they did. We're a minimum of a few years from telling if Kerry will follow through.

What were Clinton's promises last time he ran, since that's the most recent we can do a real comparison to?

As to low balling McCain that was far more intra-party politics than anything. It's not terribly disimilar to Howard Dean's experience.

Quite. It struck me that both sides don't want someone whose running on ideals in the running.

[Darth Wong]

Examples please. If you are going to assert that this Administration is the most dishonest in recent times then give some examples.

Read the first post. Two election campaigns and vicious smear campaigns (even one against a fellow Republican) which went well beyond the norm in recent politics, even if we disregard the insane levels of spin surrounding the Iraq War.

Without taking sides I would like to point out though that the first Bush and Clinton really had little to lie about. American Administrations become less and less honest for various reasons as their involvement in crisis and war increases. One just had to look at Roosevelt to see how dishonest a President can get when the nation is at war.

Yet again, I wonder whether you bothered reading the first post.

[MrAnderson]

I think in terms of flat-out lying to the public, Nixon probably has Bush beat. In terms of manipulation and spin, I can't think of a recent administration that comes close.

Nixon was cheated of the Presidency and became a twisted little man over it. JFK's daddy and the Daley administration of Chicago stole the election and Nixon chose to not fight it when he could.

The fact that he was beaten by dishonest politics at the grandest of levels I think tore out any level of honesty the man had and taught him truly that the ends will always justify the means.

[Howedar]

Wow, that's relevant... how?

[Gil Hamilton]

I think in terms of flat-out lying to the public, Nixon probably has Bush beat. In terms of manipulation and spin, I can't think of a recent administration that comes close.

I don't know about that. Nixon's big problem was that he got caught, not that he was any less honest than most presidents.

[Elfdart]

I think in terms of flat-out lying to the public, Nixon probably has Bush beat. In terms of manipulation and spin, I can't think of a recent administration that comes close.

Nixon was cheated of the Presidency and became a twisted little man over it. JFK's daddy and the Daley administration of Chicago stole the election and Nixon chose to not fight it when he could.

The fact that he was beaten by dishonest politics at the grandest of levels I think tore out any level of honesty the man had and taught him truly that the ends will always justify the means.

Will someone buy Mr Anderson a calculator? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Kennedy and Daley stole Illinois, if Nixon had won Illinois' 27 electoral votes, he would have still lost, since Kennedy had an 84-vote lead: 303-219. 303-27=276/ 219+27=246/ Either way, JFK won.

[Tzeentch]

I've been an adult long enough to see several administrations come and go (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton), and I can honestly say that never, ever have I seen an administration which was as blatantly manipulative of the facts as the Bush administration. Even if we completely ignore the whole Iraq situation and just look at the way they campaigned in 2000 and again now (and even the way they set upon McCain in the primaries), you can see a persistent pattern of completely amoral, anything-goes conduct.

So what do you guys think? Have any of you been around long enough to compare the marketing tactics of this administration to those of previous administrations? The longer I witness these assholes in action, the more stunned I am that they are actually capable of doing and saying all of these things.

I haven't been around that long, but I've been doing research on Bush's policies for my job, and the thing that disgusts me most is the routineness of his hypocrisy. It's most apparent on the environment. Bush continually spouts green rhetoric about how much he cares while passing plans with names like "healthy forests" and "clear skies" that, in fact, are anti-environmental bills carefully hidden. Rather than pass bills, the administration prefers to use unilateral or bureacratic action to undermine environmental protections.

Bush does the same thing with science. Despite using the buzzword "sound science," and claiming to want accurate data backing government decisions, he quietly follows the neocon idea that all science is completely affected by the biases of its practitioners. Thus he fills formerly balanced bioethics and research boards with Christian fundies and industry shills, and his underlings regularly simply reach out with a black pen and cross out findings that would be inconvenient, lashing out at would-be whistle-blowers.

Bush's strategy is to avoid taking unpopular stands publically, but to accomplish his agenda quietly and unilaterally while claiming that he intends exactly the opposite. I'm sure he does this on more issues than the two I mentioned above, but for those two I actually have pages of evidence.

[Stravo]

I didn't remember Nixon but I think he has Bush beat in terms of sheer lunacy and paranoia with his enemies list, IRS investigations and teams of 'plumbers' seeking out leaks and breaking into offices and files.

Bush however is next on that list. His lies about WMD's, his service in Vietnam, etc and his dirty tricks campaigning against McCain and the fact that he won the electio through judicial fiat are all just one steaming pile of crap laid upon another.

Clinton had his faults but they were mostly foibles of character. This guy is just anything goes but the buck most certainly does NOT stop here kind of asshole.

And McAnderson on your passionate defense of Nixon, when did you develop telepathic powers to look into Nixon's mind and heart? If not put down the crack pipe before you really damage your brain.

[Lonestar]

Eh, it's the same for every administration; the last real honest presidents
we had were either Harry Truman and Eisenhower

Carter was an astonishingly honest man. Everyone agrees he was a good man.

Problem is, he wasn't exactly Presidential Material.

Dubya's problem is that he sees everything in Black and white...which leads to "ends justify means" mentality.

[Master of Ossus]

Carter was an astonishingly honest man. Everyone agrees he was a good man.

Problem is, he wasn't exactly Presidential Material.

Carter's problem was that he's a fucking retard, who simply had no grasp of the depth of the impact that his policies would have. This led him into a huge number of spur-the-moment decisions that may have seemed good when they were drawing them up, but created massively negative consequences that he didn't bother to think out.

Dubya's problem is that he sees everything in Black and white...which leads to "ends justify means" mentality.

Why can't the ends justify the means?

Dubya's main problem is that he ignores problems when they crop up, rather than correcting them immediately. He also has the Carter lack of deep thinking about cause-and-effect.

[Dalton]

At the risk of this sounding like a me-too post, I have to agree with Mike. I was here for Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II and this is, by far, the most lying, manipulative, despicable administration ever. Hundreds of men and women, many of whom were quite young and had bright futures, died because of lies and stupidity. Our freedoms have faced their greatest threats in years because of this administration. And the world hates us because of this administration.

As an American, I'm appalled that this mockery of government is allowed to go on.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I was here for Carter, Regan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. I think this administration is going to go down as the worst of the group. All administrations have their bad side, but Bush and company exhibit a hubris and lack of connection with the average Joe that is stunning.

[The Kernel]

Why can't the ends justify the means?

Because you don't know the end ahead of time. Duh.

[Marksist]

Yes, although this is the first Presidential election that I've been able to vote, as far as the things I've read/heard etc. it does seem that Bush is one of the most manipulative Presidents.

One just had to look at Roosevelt to see how dishonest a President can get when the nation is at war.

Could you provide some examples please. I thought FDR was considered one of the best Presidents in this nation's history, and you just compared him to Bush, who is considered one of the worst in recent history.

And as far as I've read, I don't recall FDR being dishonest.

[MKSheppard]

I was here for Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II

Doing the math on your age, Bob, you would have been born just
before or during Reagan's first term, and I didn't know you were
watching Newshour with Jim Lehrer as a tot instead of Mr. Rogers

And during Bush I, you would have been roughly 10. So that's a
rather good trick, again unless you were watching the news instead
of transformers