Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46625)	1/23/2008 12:12:45 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542059

Frankly, I can't think of any presidents after FDR besides those two one could say that about. Bush the father and Carter were not particularly strong presidents but they were much less partisan than Bush the son and the tricky one. Well, for a President to successfully pursue a consensual leadership role there has to be some objective that the nation can unify behind. WW2 is an easy example. Even Bush the son was a fabuloulsy successful consensual leader in the year immediately following 9/11. The entire nation was with him on the invasion of Afghanistan, which most of us think of as a US led invasion, not just a US Repub led invasion, and his approval ratings were sky high. And the vote to invade Iraq was near unanimous, and I think his ratings were still sky high at the time, and we re-elected him (albeit just barely) a 2nd time. So from 9/11/01 for about the next two years he was as successful a non-partisan leader as we've had. Unfortunately, he lead the united nation right into Iraq, somewhere most decided we didn't want to be once we arrived and had a look around. Remember, Bush was a hugely popular Pres during certain parts of his first term, and not just among Republicans.