No more cutting old letters...

Unless it is something meaningful, that is.

Like something I wrote.

If one wants to break Ryan's adoring fans in on what has been done in the past by this group, then perhaps we should revisit the as yet unfinished "Presidential Report Cards". I distinctly recall being told by both of your sorry asses that you'd have your versions of the report cards done MONTHS ago... and the closest to a finished product I have seen is a final grade list from James, with no meat OR potatoes about how the grade was arrived at. Never saw a speck of finished product from Ryan, at all.

So, without further delay, I give you MY Report Card:

***

posted 03-14-07


So, here is my “Report Card” for the Best President of our Lifetime.

I have broken mine down to very simple, traditional educational norms. Each President was given a general report card containing the following categories, with each “grade” consisting of a score of 0 up to 100, with 100 obviously being the best:

Foreign Policy

This topic (read “grade”) is defined by any policy implemented while this man was President… or any policy left in place from previous Presidents. Sub-categories could be military engagements, treaty negotiations, international relations, involvement in international organizations, et. all.

Domestic Policy

Pertaining to anything domestic in nature, where purely internal affairs are graded and international considerations are ignored, unless specifically defined by contrary arguments.

Economic Policy

We all agree that the PotUS has very little to do with the actual functioning of the US economy, but he is a prime figure in how it performs… and it directly effects his ability to function in office when it goes wrong. This is considered here.

Cabinet Appointments

We all agree this can make or break an Administration. All considerations here need to be specific in nature, please.

Legacy

This is a transient topic, as it can change from year to year. However, we can see general trends in action throughout the years we will be discussing… and thus, we can make assumptions for years to come.

*************************************************************************************
Richard M. Nixon
1969-1974
Topic First Term Second Term Overall .
Foreign Policy 70 55 62.5 ( D- )
Domestic Policy 89 78 83.5 ( B- )
Economic Policy 70 62 66 (D )
Cabinet Appointments 65 35 50 ( F )
Legacy 92 25 58.5 ( F )
Final Grade 64.1 ( D- )

My biggest gripe with his foreign policy is that nothing he did was pro-active in the long term. His courting of China gained the US some mileage in the Far East, but it did nothing to stem the river of arms and equipment to Vietnam or Cambodia, and cost the Republic of China its seat on the UN Security Council. SALT I did next to nothing for the US, while it guaranteed that the Soviets and the Chinese would continue to develop ICBM technology while exporting (rather than destroying) MRBM platforms to places like Vietnam, Angola, Iran, India, and North Korea.
I have yet to see an argument that removing the US from the gold standard in the manner that Nixon did actually benefited the economy. Much of what I have read online seems to indicate that it was a leading cause of the later recession that plagued both Carter and Reagan… the Dollar simply couldn’t keep up with currencies that maintained the 1% variable value the gold standard guaranteed. So his 1973 completion of the work begun by FDR is why I give him the low grade in economics.

I have one word for anyone defending his Cabinet… Watergate.

His legacy speaks for itself.

Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
1974-1977
Topic First Term Second Term Overall .
Foreign Policy -- 68 ( D )
Domestic Policy -- 86 ( B )
Economic Policy -- 88 (B+ )
Cabinet Appointments -- 75 ( C )
Legacy -- 92 ( A- )
Final Grade: 81.8 ( C+ )

His greatest lacking was in foreign policy. His support of Indonesia in its invasion of East Timor resulted in an anti-American regime that killed 250,000 people in two years and plagues us to this day. He seemed content to follow Nixon’s policies to the end, and thus gets a portion of his bad grade.

On a side note, he gave an interview to Bob Woodward in July of 2004, and I found it online. It is a ringing indictment of the Bush Iraq policy, stating clearly and unequivocally that the pretext of WMDs as a reason for invading Iraq was a huge mistake, and cost the nation decades of international groundwork in a completely un-needed excuse for a clearly defined national security issue. Read the article.

James E. Carter, Jr.
1977-1981
Topic First Term
Foreign Policy 74 ( C- )
Domestic Policy 88 ( B )
Economic Policy 75 (C )
Cabinet Appointments 75 ( C )
Legacy 69 ( C- )
Final Grade 76.2 ( C )
Jimmy is a problematic subject. While much of what he has done since his term of office has been questionable, while in office, I still feel he was a President that worked outside of the “box” created by his predecessors. His foreign policy changes, such as abandoning the “containment” strategy for Soviet influence as primary policy, showed that he felt a new course of action was needed. However, he didn’t take it far enough, by a long shot. His greatest foreign policy failing was SALT II, not in that it hurt the US, but that it didn’t hurt the Soviets enough. His fight with the Joint Chiefs over troops in Korea was also a disaster… don’t wait for bad press to come after a choice, pre-empt it with reasonable facts and figures to show why you feel troops should be removed from the peninsula.

He fought Congress on “pork”, and he lost. Okay, but he fought Congress… a Democratic, liberal Congress… that’s more than Ford managed.

And, of course… Iran. This is a failure, no question. The only point up for debate is what could have been done differently. He took the blame, and paid for it in Nov of ‘80.

Ronald W. Reagan
1981-1989
Topic First Term Second Term Overall .
Foreign Policy 88 95 91.5 ( B+ )
Domestic Policy 89 82 85.5 ( B+ )
Economic Policy 84 90 87 (B )
Cabinet Appointments 95 90 92.5 ( A- )
Legacy 92 97 94.5 ( A- )
Final Grade
90.2 ( B+ )
If Reagan had understood that out-spending the increase in tax revenue his tax cuts achieved, he would have gotten a better grade from me. His increase in spending of 244% however really undercut his vaunted “small government” position. With an average increase in government of 11% a year during his term in office, I fail to see the connection.

I cannot deny that he took the record-high unemployment of 11% in ‘82 and turned it around by ‘87 to less than 4%. The dollar was strong by the end of his second term, and we were the undisputed “king” of super-power hill.

Domestically he cut more programs than anyone since Hoover, so I took points for that. The difference between an 11% a year government growth and 11.7% seems like small potatoes to me, and it would have gone a long way to making him seem “nicer” to the left, even in hindsight. His retraction of the Social Security Inflation adjustment upset the “baby-boomers” terribly, and hurt his late-office opinion polls, but his legacy is firm and unequivocal… his foreign policy was as instrumental in the reduction of the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations to whimpering “povs” as anyone in the world, including Maggie Thatcher and the Pope.

George H. W. Bush
1989-1993
Topic First Term
Foreign Policy 95 ( A )
Domestic Policy 75 ( C )
Economic Policy 75 (C )
Cabinet Appointments 80 ( C+ )
Legacy 90 ( B+ )
Final Grade 83 ( B- )

This was tougher than it looked. I can’t debate a bit that his foreign policy was nearly a resounding success. He got rid of Noriega, got Hussein out of Kuwait, kept the Coalition together when Israel looked like it would take matters into her own hands, put together NAFTA for Clinton (a strike against him in economics, but great foreign relations material), kept taxes low until the recession hit in ‘91, and then only moderately dropped the “no new taxes” ball… even I didn’t bitch about the taxes, only the broken promise. His cabinet was solid, and except for the afore mentioned “Read my lips” quote, his legacy is very strong and has remained intact.
In fact, the only thing I took points away for in his Legacy area was the Weinberger-et.all pardon fracas he caused at the end of his term. “Iran-Contra” was ugly, and it was embarrassing to both his and Reagan’s administrations… but it wasn’t another Watergate wound that needed to be healed. Those pardons made him look guilty, and worse than that, they made Reagan look guilty.
He also lost points on the failure to see the fall of the Soviet Union. As a former Ambassador AND head of the CIA, he should have had a finger on the pulse of international intelligence. Instead, we all watched him stumble and stutter through a nearly incoherent speech congratulating the Russian people on achieving the freedom they had so long awaited. Duh…

William J. Clinton
1993-2001
Topic First Term Second Term Overall .
Foreign Policy 89 88 88.5 ( B+ )
Domestic Policy 89 88 88.5 ( B+ )
Economic Policy 70 75 72.5 (C- )
Cabinet Appointments 75 72 73.5 ( C- )
Legacy 88 49 65 ( D )
Final Grade 77.6 ( C )

Africa, Haiti, China, the Middle East, the Balkans, Mexico… all can be considered foreign policy success stories. He saved Mexico from collapse in spite of a hostile Congress, ensured peace and stability in Haiti in spite of a hostile Congress, fought an un-winnable fight in Somalia and the Balkans that the Bush administration left him, and responded with appropriate and acceptable force and action after the World Trade Center bombings and the USS Cole… according to the 9-11 Commission Report.

His greatest failings in this grading curve is his cabinet. His choices for key positions hurt him in the long run, including Janet Reno and M. Albright, although I refuse to entertain the notion that it was their gender that hurt the administration more than their ineptitude.

I gave him low marks in economics because he was mostly simply following Gingrich and the boys by not vetoing their budgets and spending allowances. Very little of what he spent was of his own initiative, so I tend to think he was a follower in this regard rather than a leader, as was Reagan and Carter.

I shouldn’t have to explain the bad marks in Legacy, should I?

George W. Bush
2001-2009
Topic First Term Second Term Overall .
Foreign Policy 98 59 78.5 ( C+ )
Domestic Policy 78 85 81.5 ( C+ )
Economic Policy 85 88 86.5 ( B- )
Cabinet Appointments 50 39 44.5 ( F )
Legacy 88 65 73.5 ( F )
Final Grade 72.9 ( C- )

With France, Germany and Kofi Anon the only openly critical opponents to the invasion of Mar ‘03 (excluding Hussein, of course)… it is no wonder he scores so big in his first term. He rode the benefits of his speech at Ground Zero nearly the whole term (and deservedly so, in my opinion), and masterfully orchestrated the Afghani-invasion coalition with the help of Powell.

I can’t complain about his domestic agenda, as he has spent a lot of money in areas I think are important, but I do question how he is spending it. None the less, he is spending, and it is not a bad thing. He has allowed the economy to tank through a crisis in confidence time after time, but that isn’t something unique to him, either. Both Nixon and Carter did the same thing.

As has been said time and again, by both myself and James, his choices for key cabinet positions are atrocious in the extreme, and he was graded accordingly.

The legacy numbers are a bit arbitrary, but I think they are firm in my eyes. He has allowed his public image to fall far below what anyone probably thought they could… and there isn’t a whole lot of excuse for that.

My final numbers, submitted for your approval:
Nixon 64.1 D-
Ford 81.8 C+
Carter 76.2 C
Reagan 90.2 B+
Bush Sr. 83.0 B-
Clinton 77.6 C
Bush Jr. 72.9 C-

I can’t express enough how much I think this is an eye-opening topic. My grading curve is probably off, as I have no 100% yardstick to go by. If you have a suggestion, please make it.

A taste of our immigration debate... for the public

Look - no one, especially me, is arguing that a closed society is capable of permanent sustainment. The "ingredient", in my opinion, that gives this nation it's unique soul, is that immigrants from throughout the world (and not just any immigrants - the most determined and hard working their native born nations have to offer, in that they are willing to uproot and relocate entire families in order to "make it" here), have populated this great land and made it what it is today. What we have now is a national debate on what to do with two converging situations. 1.) we live in an age of organized, focused and dedicated terrorism; and 2.) our borders are effectively "open." The two can not simultaneously exist if we are to call ourselves either protected, safe, or even sensical. The situation at the borders, given the age of terror we now live in, is simply untenable. These two converging issues is what has brought the "illegal immigration" issue to the forefront. Personally I never once had a discussion, let alone an argument, about illegals until after 9/11. I knew it was happening, I mean I was conscience of it, but honestly it wasn't on my radar screen. Now it's on everybody's.

The bottom line on the border issue - regarding terror, is this: no president, no elected or appointed government official, no one, can honestly look into the camera and tell the American people that the government is fulfilling it's first and most basic responsibility of keeping the citizenry safe when the border remains insolvent. Period. And no sane society, during war time - which we are unquestionably in - allows their national borders to remain in such disarray. It just defies all aspects of common sense. On that principle alone the border must be secured.

Now, in what I call the second tier of the argument - as I put security first - we have the cultural issue. And I must take issue with this in your last ...
"Only that the illegals coming into the country, now as in all times past, are coming because they want to be AMERICAN. They want the success and ease that we live with, the opportunities that they are denied in their home nations, and the resources that we avail ourselves of like healthcare, education, travel, and lifestyle enhancements that they can't get."
Presumably the last two words of that sentence would be "at home." "That they can't get at home."You're half right. And this is the issue Savage et al are referring to. Personally, I don't think these people are coming here to be "Americans." (this is assuming of course that there exists a standard acceptable definition to us both for what it means to be "American").

In my opinion their desire to enter this country is based out of what I call vigilante economics. They want more and better opportunities to make money and they don't want to wait in line - period. It's no more complicated than that. The difference from immigrants past, as I see it anyway, was that for the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, etc, when they came here, they insisted that their children learn English. I've heard stories of the kids getting a back hand for not speaking English in the house - "we are Americans now damn it, speak the language", as one elderly man said his father put it (per a recitation I listened to on the radio recently). They displayed American flags in their delis, and homes. They joined the police, fire, and military forces, and ... they voted! Not at the expense of their native culture mind you, just that "Americanism" was featured and encouraged. And when I see Mexican protesters marching while waiving Mexican flags on the streets of LA; when I have to press one for English; when I sit in an a US located employee dining room and watch 40% of the workers screaming in cheer for Mexico to win a soccer match - WHILE PLAYING THE USA no less, I get the distinct impression that the Mexican immigrants that want to be "Americans", those descendants (in spirit) of the Ellis Island immigrants, are the ones coming here legally. The illegals are just here to make a buck, send half back to Mexico and go see a Matt Damon movie. No oaths, no creeds, no pledges, no English - just money, some Gatorade, and the occasional purchase at Wal Mart. That's the extent of their American experience. And yes, that describes a growing portion of native born Americans, I understand that - but that's their birthright, sad as that is (forgive me fior ending in a preposition).

And I can hear you screaming now Titus - THEN LETS MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO BE LEGAL! Titus my boy, on one point you were dead right. We will never, and I mean never, quail the desire people have to come here. Especially the desire coming from a third world neighbor. And no system you can put in place at the border will EVER satisfy the demand. You could make it a hundred times easier this afternoon and still, the capacity at which we could process the people wanting to come in would be too slow to satisfy all. That's assuming you could expedite background checks, physicals and English competency tests - all part of the bipartisan bill the POTUS pushed, and which will be a part of any immigration reform bill even if it is written by Pelosi and company. So my point is that no matter how efficient at expediting the process you make it, it will never be enough to prevent attempts at illegal entry. Thus security must be the first step. Those who don't meet your standards, don't pass the above requirements ( i.e. have criminal backgrounds, don't want to take time to learn English, etc) will simply continue to cross an unsecured border. Not to mention, no matter how fast the Titus plan for expedited legal entry is, it will never be as quick as grabbing your sh** and running.

So where does that leave us? Well, it of course leaves us with the only sane answer a society can come to. Secure the border first, and in a dramatic and effective way, and then, and only then, set up an expedited process for legal entry in a way that fits the needs and demands of the US - NOT THE POOR MEXICAN IMMIGRANT for crying out loud. That's what this is about isn't it? The sustainment of America? Its assured continuation? Well first and foremost we must have security (in an age of rampant terror and drugs) and then set up the expedited legal process - and I'm all for the two being attached in one bill, as long as enforcement for a two year period is the first step and necessary to trigger the second. I don't see how anyone, with an ounce of common sense, can come to any other conclusion.

One last point. You assume that the massive undertaking that would constitute an efficient, expedited legal entry process is one that could be undertaken by the feds without missing a beat. Yet you see securing the border as some elusive goal that they could never achieve. I find that a bit odd. Just a thought.

Shocked!

I just googled "driveway bund" and out of 52,000 possible choices for that word selection - we are NUMBER ONE!! i know that's word specific, but still out of all the possible choices for that word grouping, #1 !!!!

Encaustum 2007

Excellent form Titus. I've looked through this and all meets to expectations. You're right - why keep my ... err, OUR genius only to ourselves. Good work. By the way, just to get the ball rolling, Sen Craig is dead in the water. What's that old saying? "The only thing that can end your political career is being caught with a dead girl or a live boy." Well, add to that, "a cop in the next stall." FR

Titus: Background and ice-breaker...

Okay,

This all started about 7 years ago. Three guys who worked at the same place together and found a similar fascination with all things political, historical, and religious (i.e. all the thing you are NOT supposed to talk about at work) and enough sinful pride to enjoy hearing themselves talk about them. We started meeting at our homes after work (which, for us, was about 3 am!), and as our wives and children were all abed, we took our discussions to the driveway, where we could talk, yell, drink, smoke cigars, yell some more, and eventually solve all the worlds problems while disturbing no one but the pesky neighbors. These meetings were named the "Driveway Bund" by one of us, and it stuck.

We have been close friends ever since, and only moved away from each other after the nightmare of Hurricane Katrina wiped out our jobs, homes, and habits.

So, being that all three of us are hardened "Katrina" survivors (*flex*), even if 66% of us have moved from the Coast, you will understand and forgive our occasional forays into self-pity and morbid reflections about the course of our lives...

Enjoy!

Titus: Rules...

I say we keep it the same as the mailing list... no profanity that you couldn't defend in front of your kids and as p.c. as we ever were at work (meaning if it gets you fired for saying it on a live game, it's probably too strong here).

Hehe... truth be told, though, we never kept it very clean on the mailing list either, did we?

T

Jambo: How politically correct do we have to be?

I mean, if Thomas has a Trevor moment, can we identify it as such? Or, as Ryan so colorfully put it, if Thomas' account on "HairyAsses.com" runs into the thousands of dollars and hundreds of thousands of visits, are we not allowed to mention that for the world to see?

Oh well.

Where to begin, other than Thompson looks like he's making an official type move. Just what we need, someone that has the same spontaneous stage presence as G.W. or a deer in headlights. I know it'll make Ryan puke green bile, but at least Lil' Bill could get in front of a camera and speak to the population. Whether or not he was being honest, or saying anything meaningful is not the point. He could do it. Which is more than Bush Jr. or Sr.

Cruising along through all the Katrina memorials. Have to thank G.W. for flying in on Marine One, saving the traffic jams all his other visits have created. Probably wouldn't be so bad if that bridge was fixed.

Well, I have no idea how this posts or where the hell the spell check is. How do I post this?

Bios

This all started about 7 years ago. Three guys who worked at the same place together and found a similar fascination with all things political, historical, and religious and enough sinful pride to enjoy hearing themselves talk about them. We started meeting at our homes after work and as our wives and children were all abed, we took our discussions to the driveway, where we could talk, yell, drink, smoke cigars, yell some more, and eventually solve all the world's problems while disturbing no one but the pesky neighbors. These meetings were named the "Driveway Bund" by one of us, and it stuck.We have been close friends ever since, and only moved away from each other after the nightmare of Hurricane Katrina wiped out our jobs, homes, and habits.



F. Ryan is a 30-something father of two strapping boys learning to be a single-parent in a modern world. He lives in the desert Southwest since relocating after Hurricane Katrina and is a dedicated and vocal Reagan-conservative.


Jambo has three beautiful children in deep South, just blocks from the Gulf of Mexico. The only one of the Bund to remain in MS after Hurricane Katrina, he has determined to rebuild rather than relocate. He has published a book, called "About Half", which all are encouraged to purchase by following this link.


Titus moved from coastal MS one year after Katrina and now resides in northeast PA with his high school sweetheart, Liz, and her three children. He maintains his Democratic Party affiliation, but struggles with many of the more liberal aspects of the new Democratic position.