Bush is what is called a “legacy.” And yes, you can get into Harvard Business school based on connections if you’re a Bush, or come from a powerful family. You’re telling me he got in based on the straight C’s he earned at Yale? And he earned D’s at Andover. Look it up.

I went to Yale, I get the alumni magazine, and know that he was the biggest legacy that ever was (I thought others knew that, too, but apparently not on this site…). At most schools–and Yale and Harvard especially–there is a big push to let in sons (and now daughters) of alums. Many, many allowances are made for “legacies.” Much more than for “diversity,” and more than for athletics. The reason is simple. Alums donate big bucks. Alums have connections, power, prestige, and the Ivy Leagues want to continue to court their support.

See, La Shawn. This is who you’re dealing with. People who are completely uninformed about their own president, their own party…

And, in case you’re completely outfoxed by Fox, you probably don’t know that despite “Rathergate” Bush didn’t show up for the majority of flight school. In fact, he went to Harvard MBA and tried to “make it up” later. Flight school was his way of getting out of ‘Nam. He was, however, better than Cheney, who got (at last count) five deferments, and who went on record as saying, “I had other priorities in the 60’s.”

The fact is, even the president’s friends and family knew what a bad student he was. So you all support Affirmative Nepotism for him and his kind. Equality at work.

Re Firebird. I don’t agree with everything Jesse Jackson–and certainly not with everything Al Sharpton–says or does. But I’m quite sure King wouldn’t stoop to your language, telling them to keep “their big noses” out of things…

I’ll just say this, then this thead is closed. It’s skin color preferences that bother me, not legacy preferences. I’m not all that bothered by athletic preferences, either. Admitting/hiring a black person because they’re black is quite odious. If you don’t get it, perhaps you should read someone else’s blog. – Admin

Bush got into Yale w/awful grades (must have been snorting cocaine to enhance his performance)? I suppose he passed OCS & Flight school with bad grades as well? Then explain how he got into Harvard Business School?

No one gets in regardless of connections unless they have the grade. Think how devalued a HBS MBA would be devalued if anyone could buy a degree.

Alternatively, sKerry couldn’t get out of the Navy to get into his school of choice since they all turned him down. He had to reach deeper into the barrel before he could find one that would accept him.

I understand how upset you are when you say you believe that white people (even though Russell isn’t white) accuse blacks of “getting where they are” because of their black skin–i.e. what you would call “preferential treatment.”

But I’m a little confused as to how old you are, and when you were born…are you entirely unaware that 30 years ago most whites simply wouldn’t have hired even qualified blacks? Do you not know that it was Nixon who, realizing this, extended Roosevelt’s propositions to become the third plank of Affirmative action?

It was called “The Philadelphia Plan” (1969) and it set specifc goals for minority hiring. He did this because he knew that without nudging whites to hire qualified blacks, they simply wouldn’t, and what Nixon wanted (despite being no personal friend to blacks) was to expand the black middle class, and bring them more fully into the Republican fold.

One thing that happened, that many people aren’t aware of, is that to gain further support for AA, women were added on, and today, white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA, and don’t even realize it…

I wish people who talk about AA actually cared enough to do research on it..

I also wish conservatives who talk so mush of “skin color preferences” and “merit” would explain why it’s fine for someone who NEVER would have gotten into Yale w/ his awful grades (GW BUSH) to benefit from white skin color preferences?

Where’s the uproar?

That’s why your cause has no merit. When the sides are reversed, conservatives NEVER fight against white skin color preferences that are institutionalized in our society.

However, going forward from that rant, my statement stands. When considering executive and/or party accomplishments, it behooves us all to consider the balance of power at the time. So in response, I’ve created a simple table after doing some screenscraping (thanks M$ Excel)

So w/o further ado:
Years____ | POTUS_____ | SENATE_ | HOUSE____ | IMHO Noteworthy
1927-1929 | Coolidge(R)__ | 46:48 50% | 194:238 55% | Effectively doing nothing
1929-1931 | Hoover(R)___ | 39:56 58% | 164:270 62% | Stock Crash. Cuts taxes, expand spending
1931-1933 | Hoover(R)___ | 47:48 50% | 216:218 50% | Economy begins to recover, kneecapped by Europe
1933-1935 | FDR(D)_____ | 59:36 61% | 313:117 72% | Blame Hoover for recession. New Deal
1935-1937 | FDR(D)_____ | 69:25 72% | 322:103 74% | Economy begins to recover. Attempts redesign of SCOTUS
1937-1939 | FDR(D)_____ | 76:16 79% | 334:88 77% | Good Neighbor policy
1939-1941 | FDR(D)_____ | 69:23 72% | 262:169 60% | Prepares for war, Lend-Lease
1941-1943 | FDR(D)_____ | 66:28 69% | 267:162 61% | WWII, brings in CEOs to produce war machines and maximize public works efforts
1943-1945 | FDR(D)_____ | 57:38 59% | 222:209 51% | WWII. Truman saves $15B from Fraud, Waste & Abuse
1945-1947 | Truman(D)___ | 57:38 59% | 242:191 56% | V_E Day, V_J Day, UN chartered
1947-1949 | Truman(D)___ | 45:51 53% | 188:246 57% | Expand SS, Fair Employment Practices Act (Fair Deal)
1949-1951 | Truman(D)___ | 54:42 56% | 263:171 60% | Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift & Korean War
1951-1953 | Truman(D)___ | 49:47 51% | 235:199 54% | Korea partitioned
1953-1955 | Ike(R)_______ | 47:48 50% | 213:221 51% | US/USSR develop H_Bomb
1955-1957 | Ike(R)_______ | 48:47 50% | 232:203 53% | Proposes arms verification w/USSR
1957-1959 | Ike(R)_______ | 49:47 51% | 234:201 54% | Desegregation of military & schools accelerated — ‘There must be no second class citizens in this country’
1959-1961 | Ike(R)_______ | 65:35 65% | 283:153 65% | Atoms for Peace program
1961-1963 | JFK(D)______ | 64:36 64% | 263:174 60% | Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missles, To the Moon, tax cuts, sends advisors to ‘Nam
1963-1965 | LBJ(D)______ | 66:34 66% | 259:176 60% | Civil Rights, Tax Cuts, increased spending
1965-1967 | LBJ(D)______ | 68:32 68% | 295:140 68% | Great Society program
1967-1969 | LBJ(D)______ | 64:36 64% | 247:187 57% | Nam, Black ghetto unrest
1969-1971 | Nixon(R)____ | 57:43 57% | 243:192 56% | Moon landing, revenue sharing, draft ended
1971-1973 | Nixon(R)____ | 54:44 54% | 255:180 59% | Engage Peking/Moscow, disengage Nam, Egypt/Syria vs Israel
1973-1975 | Nixon/Ford(R) | 56:42 56% | 242:192 56% | Watergate, resigns
1975-1977 | Ford(R)_____ | 60:38 60% | 291:144 67% | Heals nation, fights inflation, maintains Détente
1977-1979 | Carter(D)____ | 61:38 61% | 292:143 67% | National energy policy _ deregulate energy & transportation
1979-1981 | Carter(D)____ | 58:41 58% | 277:158 64% | USSR invades Afghanistan, Iran hostages, crippling unemployment & inflation. Attacked by a wabbit and seeks nuclear counseling from daughter
1981-1983 | Reagan(R)___ | 46:53 53% | 242:192 56% | Stimulates economic growth, curbs inflation, increases employment, and strengthens national defense
1983-1985 | Reagan(R)___ | 46:54 54% | 269:166 62% | Tax cuts, growing deficit, Grenada invasion, still blows Mondale out of water
1985-1987 | Reagan(R)___ | 47:53 53% | 253:182 58% | Overhauls tax code, declared war against international terrorism
1987-1989 | Reagan(R)___ | 55:45 55% | 258:177 59% | Plays hardball with USSR and S American subversives. Overal economic prosperity & peace thru strength
1989-1991 | Bush(R)_____ | 55:45 55% | 260:175 60% | Exxon_Valdez, Panama invasion, Berlin Wall Falls, Gulf War 1
1991-1993 | Bush(R)_____ | 56:44 56% | 267:167 61% | Economy falters, ‘Read my lips’, loses popularity vote due to Perot’s 15%
1993-1995 | Clinton(D)___ | 56:44 56% | 258:176 59% | Wins w/<50% popularity vote, ‘I feel your pain’, co-opts GOP platform
1995-1997 | Clinton(D)___ | 47:53 53% | 204:230 53% | Welfare reform. Liberal spending programs blocked by GOP
1997-1999 | Clinton(D)___ | 45:55 55% | 206:228 52% | Monicagate, impeached by House
1999-2001 | Clinton(D)___ | 45:55 55% | 211:223 51% | Lame duck. Bosnia/Kosovo/Desert Fox. DotCom bust
2001-2003 | Bush(R)____ | 48:50 50% | 212:221 51% | 9/11, frees Afghanistan, recession & turn around, rising employment
2003-2005 | Bush(R)____ | 48:51 51% | 204:229 53% | Economy starts recovery, Iraq invasion, UN Oil Scam discovered, Afghan elections
2005-2007 | Bush(R)____ | 44:55 55% | 202:232 53% | W/o US & Australia military, much more Tsunami victims, UN inept. Iraq elections, Condi becomes SecState

NOTES
Given the layout of La Shawn’s Blog, I hope it turns out OK.
1) “##:##” = # of DEM vs # of GOP, or Left:Right
2) “## = Majority Party
3) “##%” = Majority Party %. Generally speaking and depending on circumstances, either a simple, 60% or 2/3 majority is required to pass legislation, override vetoes etc
4) “##% = Majority Party is NOT POTUS’ Party

SOURCES
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/index2.html
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html

White liberals? Sorry dear if I don’t wear my race on my sleeve. But I’m as black as you. Ask baldilocks.

What about the notion of people advancing because of what they know and how well they do their job and excel at their craft? No, it’s their blackness that people can’t stop looking at!

All of the mumbo-jumbo double-speak about “exclusionary practices” truly makes me ill. And the numbers you roll off about “minorities” is more of the same. I’m updating this post with a link to “The Immorality of Race Preferences.”

Latent bigotry disguised as…liberal enlightenment. I think it’s time to close this thread.

Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action. For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce. That’s 11 million taxing-paying citizens that add a direct dollar amount to our GDP.

Additionally a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors. This means because of Affirmative Action, there are more black and female managers – which in turn means more white-men have black and female bosses, which deflates stereotypical prejudices held by a mostly white workforce. 30 years ago having a female or black boss was unthinkable to most white men. Now, for the most part, it’s not that big a deal. How could that have been accomplished without Affirmative Action?

Furthermore, job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body’s balance.

Simply put, Affirmative Action increases minority employment in formely “close” careerpaths. Increasing minority employment adds to the fiscal well being of the country while breaking down walls and defeating prejudice – which is “morally” the right thing to do.

Source:

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

Civil Rights, don’t know about Conservatives, but the Republican platform was all for it when the party first formed.

Feminism, why the HECK would ANYONE want to own up to that hack job and a half?!

Job creation, not sure about job creation, but at least under Reagan small businesses began to flourish.

Nice ad hominem. Perhaps next time instead of just calling me either a liar (full of canards and misrepresentations) or stupid (Not that you’d deliberately misrepresnt anything of course) you could find the time to actually refute an argument.

To your aside about this next generation: I too look to them for a brilliant future – since, empirically, the upcoming generation always rebels against the status-quo.

Hopefully we’ll both be around to see how lovely the country’s shade of blue is in 2020.

Needless to say, full of canards and misrepresentations. Not that you’d deliberately misrepresnt anything of course, nonetheless, repeating revisionist/post-modernist talking pointsthem don’t make them anything more than wishful thinking.

I rest assured that the new generation ain’t buying the malarky and as long as we stick to common sense, morals (that which comes from God above) this purple country will continue to turn redder.

As an aside, didn’t the color red use to represent leftist/marxist/socialist ideology? hmmm… Rather than ban the red colors, I guess we must have co-opted it. How ironic.

comment by Baklava

Uh, sorry. Affirmative Action is the status-quo.

You have to convince people to get rid of it.

For every single example you cite of AA-gone wild, I can name many more examples of AA that added value to society – both morally and fiscally.

Please explain to me how you end programs that “divide us” and de-regulate small businesses and at the same time strongly enforce anti-discrimination laws – without creating or enforcing regulations on small businesses that upholds anti-discrimination laws, that is.

I won’t even go into “low taxes with good schools.”