The worst president ever?

Michael brought this up a few days ago over at his blog, All Now Mysterious . . . (link over at the right side) and historical accuracy and honesty requires me to add my buck fifty.

Those who say President George W. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history are historically illiterate buffoons. I won't list the alarmingly high list of mediocre presidents of the nineteenth century (especially pre-Civil War). I need only list the terrible presidents of my own short lifetime to make my point that not only is President Bush not the worst in history but he's actually been a good president.

I was born during the Nixon administration. Bush worse than Nixon? Watergate, price controls, and Vietnam anyone? I happen to think Vietnam was a just war but Nixon pulled our troops out of the region and mass slaughter--including one-third of all Cambodians--was the result. Communism is evil, folks, and Vietnam was a just cause.

Gerald Ford, a good man, was a terrible president. He was a completely ineffective commander-in-chief. It wasn't really his fault (Congressional Republicans didn't see him as legitimate because he wasn't elected; congressional Democrats wouldn't work with him because he was a Republican) but he had no noteworthy accomplishments as president.

Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the worst president in history. He wouldn't back the pro-American Shaw in Iran and that nation fell to Islamic extremists. He created two incompetent federal bureaucracies in both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. His policy failures are hurting us today. And then as an ex-president . . . the guy is a worthless human being.

George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton weren't bad presidents but they both left a lot of foreign policy messes that George Walker Bush had to clean up. Iraq and Islamic terror chief among them.

Bush's eight years in office are notable because of a soaring economy during the vast majority of his presidency, his response to September 11th, and his subsequent liberation of fifty million people in two nations. Folks, Lincoln brought freedom to a few million slaves. President Bush brought freedom to fifty million slaves. Or do you really think Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were kinder masters than Southern slave-owners?

Look, not only is President Bush not the worst president in history or in my lifetime, he's one of our better presidents. The second-best in my lifetime after Reagan.

When those of you who don't like Bush say he's the worst ever, it doesn't say anything about the former president, it says something about you. It makes you look like fools.

Obama administration not off to a good start.

I want President Obama to be a good president because if he fails to be a good president America fails.

Of course, how I define good president and you define good president could be very different. Point is, President Obama is not off to a good start. Signing executive orders to close Gitmo (or look at closing Gitmo) and lifting a ban on funding international pro-abortion family planning groups I can stomach because, after all, President Obama is a liberal. But a couple of other things this week made me raise an eyebrow of concern.

Thursday night President Obama met with the White House press corps. But Mr. Obama soon got testy when a reporter asked him a question. Didn't the president promise us this administration would be the most open and honest one ever?

On Friday, President Obama told GOP congressmen that they should not be listening to Rush Limbaugh. Nevermind the arrogance of such a staement, it just isn't a smart move to admit to your political opponents you fear Limbaugh.

I know it's early and these may just be the miss-steps of a green president but it is entirely consistent with similar gaffes and bouts of hubris that were common during Mr. Obama's campaign.

Is it important? While I hesitate to attack President Obama, he is one of the most arrogant politicians I've ever seen. The office of president can humble a man or destroy him. You need look no further than Nixon and Clinton to see how arrogance can destroy a presidency (or nearly so in Clinton's case).

Five really bad Star Wars characters.

Jabba the Hutt - A fat muppet just doesn't scare me. Maybe it should.

Ewoks - Episode VI: Attack of the Teddy Bears.

Padme/Queen Amidala - From queen to crybaby in three episodes.

Boba Fett - The most feared bounty hunter in the galaxy . . . beaten by a blind man with a stick. But, hey, he looks cool.

Max Rebo - A rejected muppet from Sesame Street. Seriously, the character is so obviously a muppet (and a bad one at that) they could have used Grover or Miss Piggy and it would've looked more real.

I'm grateful for President Bush.

Ingratitude is the ugliest human trait. You won't see it here.

Thank-you, President Bush. Thanks for keeping us safe for over seven years. No one believed after September 11th we would go seven years without an attack. But we didn't get attacked. You, President Bush, get the credit.

Thanks for giving us fifty-two weeks of uninterrupted economic growth after 9/11. Contrary to claims by the left, things were good for the majority of Americans during your presidency.

Thanks for being classy. Heaven knows your political opponents weren't classy. But you're better and you showed it.

Thanks for winning the war in Iraq (yes, we've won). You liberated 25 million people from one of the worst tyrants in history.

Thanks for being a good president.

Names for number three.

My wife is pregnant with our third child. I have a son, Bobby, who turns seven this weekend and a daughter, Mary, who just turned four. The sequel to Bob and Mary will be released sometime in July.

With every new kid comes a name and my wife and I get to decide what that name will be. My wife and I prefer names that are both traditional and family. My son is named after my maternal grandfather, Robert, while my daughter is named after my wife's maternal grandmother, Mary. Maybe not original but in this day and age, it seems it is becoming rare to honor family members by naming new additions after them. Heck, I'm named after my own great-grandfather so it's a family tradition. Only problem is that my wife and I are running short on good, solid grandparent and great-grandparent names for our future kids (that is our children's grandparents and great-grandparents).

As I stated earlier, Robert is the name I gave my son after one of my grandfathers. Problem is, if we have another son, my paternal grandpa's name is out of the running. Two reasons: One, I wasn't close to him (he was a good man but because of my parent's divorce, I didn't get very close to my dad's side of the family) and two, I'm not naming a son Elwood.

Other names borne by our parents and grandparents are out because of other reasons. My dad's name, Craig, is out because, well, Craig just doesn't sound right for a baby. And I'm not really that close with my dad. My father-in-law's name is LeRoy. Look, my father-in-law is a great man but his name is still LeRoy. Some other male names on both my side and my wife's side have their own problems as well. Female names on both sides are out. Two are too old-fashioned and two are weird. Damn weird.

Thing is, you're probably saying to yourselves, just pick a name you like. If it has to be a traditional name, fine, just find a good one that you guys both like. Look, fella, I don't tell you how to name your kids, you don't tell me how to name mine. It is very important to both me and my wife that all our children carry first names that honor either their grandparents or great-grandparents. It's necessary for us.

I've actually gone back to to my great-grandparents and looked at names. I found one that my wife and I both like for a girl: Clara. And one of my wife's grandfather's (she has three because one died and her grandmother remarried) is actually okay: Edward (Teddy for short?). I don't know, but right now, that's all we've got.

Hey, do you like comic books?

If you like comic books and you're not reading Robert Kirkman, what the hell's wrong with you?

Seriously, folks, Kirkman, who currently writes Invincible, The Walking Dead, and The Astounding Wolfman is just about the best writer around right now. He always manages to hit just the right balance of action, humor, and drama.

Invincible, which is now in the 60s as far as issue numbers go, is the story of a teenage hero who has girl troubles and a messed up personal life. Isn't that Spider-Man, you say? Yes, if Peter Parker's parents were still alive and his dad was Superman.

The Walking Dead is set after a zombie apocalypse. I'm not a zombie fan but the book is excellent. Look, all the zombie films I've seen (except for 28 Days Later) are silly and stupid (sorry George Romero) but Kirkman's book does something different with the big disaster that a lot of so-called disaster movies--including zombie flicks--tend to miss: What happens after the disaster? What happens to the world, to the survivors after the credits roll? That's what makes The Walking Dead so interesting. The survivors have to deal with a new world and it's how they handle eachother (and the zombies) that make the book so darn interesting.

I haven't picked up Wolfman yet but I will. Robert Kirkman is the best there is right now. Pick up Invincible or The Walking Dead in trade paperback format. If you don't like it, don't blame me. It's likely you have some sort of mental defect. Seriously.