Living in the shadow of Bush

[GreyICE]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14027.html

Interesting article about how either candidate is going to have to spend more time cleaning up the mess than implementing their own 'Vision for America.'

Looking back on the past 8 years, it really has been the most incredible run of failures.

 

[davefoc]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14027.html

Interesting article about how either candidate is going to have to spend more time cleaning up the mess than implementing their own 'Vision for America.'

Looking back on the past 8 years, it really has been the most incredible run of failures.

Yes, it has.

In eight years no significant successes and a relentless drum beat of failure.

Bush has done a significantly better job in his second four years than he did in his first four years. Firing Rumsfeld and hiring Gates seems to have led to some significant improvements. The elimination of Rove seems to have helped but much of the damage was already done. Cheney's wildest notions seem to have been constrained if Cheney hasn't been marginalized completely now.

But the massive damage that the Bush adminstration has done to the US will still being dealt with for a generation to come. The disaster was sustained by a congress bought off with ear marks and hyper partisan pundits who even today continue their defense of the indefensible with their knee jerk partisanship.

 

[Whiplash]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14027.html

Interesting article about how either candidate is going to have to spend more time cleaning up the mess than implementing their own 'Vision for America.'

Looking back on the past 8 years, it really has been the most incredible run of failures.

What hyperbole. I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think. One thing I have noticed over the last 8 years is how something ridiculous would come up that the left was bitching about, and would go on and on and on about, and then after a while it just became "reality" in their world, even though it never had any credence in the first place.

I'm sorry you guys are so upset about having to have had Bush for 8 years. You will probably get your payback this time though. I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years. But I won't stoop to that level. If I have a problem with him, it'll be substantive.

 

[GreyICE]

What hyperbole. I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think. One thing I have noticed over the last 8 years is how something ridiculous would come up that the left was bitching about, and would go on and on and on about, and then after a while it just became "reality" in their world, even though it never had any credence in the first place.

I'm sorry you guys are so upset about having to have had Bush for 8 years. You will probably get your payback this time though. I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years. But I won't stoop to that level. If I have a problem with him, it'll be substantive.

You didn't read the article at all.

 

[Oliver]

The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

That's actually true. Because Bush knocked himself out all the time.
No need to interfere and distract him from doing what he can do best:

Failing.

 

[Quad4_72]

What hyperbole. I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think. One thing I have noticed over the last 8 years is how something ridiculous would come up that the left was bitching about, and would go on and on and on about, and then after a while it just became "reality" in their world, even though it never had any credence in the first place.

I'm sorry you guys are so upset about having to have had Bush for 8 years. You will probably get your payback this time though. I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years. But I won't stoop to that level. If I have a problem with him, it'll be substantive.

I very much agree with this statement. It didn't matter if Bush did something right OR wrong, whatever it was the left was there to find fault with it and speak only of the bad.

I am probably not going to be happy if Obama gets elected, but if he makes good decisions I will give him credit where credit is due. I will not hate him just because of his party affiliation, like the majority of lefters do to republicans on this forum.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I very much agree with this statement. It didn't matter if Bush did something right OR wrong, whatever it was the left was there to find fault with it and speak only of the bad.

I am probably not going to be happy if Obama gets elected, but if he makes good decisions I will give him credit where credit is due. I will not hate him just because of his party affiliation, like the majority of lefters do to republicans on this forum.

Preach it, brother.

Also, vote Kinky Friedman for President, 2008. He's a better choice.

DR

 

[Chaos]

Preach it, brother.

Also, vote Kinky Friedman for President, 2008. He's a better choice.

DR

Chtulhu for President! Don´t settle for a lesser evil!

 

[Dragoonster]

What hyperbole. I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

Though I voted for Gore (would've voted McCain if he'd been the GOP nominee), I was hopeful for Bush in '00. I liked some of his platforms, liked that he put minorities and females into cabinet positions, and figured he'd be an acceptable President.

But he's been horrible. His foreign policy has been abysmal and added at least one more generation of anti-US crazies. His budgetary and taxation policies have been horrible, spending like a democrat but cutting taxes at the same time, and during two wars. His domestic policies have been okay, I liked that he increased student loans, he hasn't advocated strongly for conservative agendas on issues of personal choice. His environmental policies have been poor. His energy policies have been somewhat neutral, at least compared to the vast majority of lousy policies every US politician has. And his initial cabinet has turned out to be terrible (part of the reason not many are still there).

All in all he's tanked the country pretty hard. We're worse off in nearly every way because of his policies, and completely blew the global support we had post-9/11. It's not partisan to acknowledge that the next President will largely be focused on undoing a lot of damage he did. He's a terrible President and deserves scorn and revulsion.

For my history, I'm a liberal but have voted for GOP candidates fairly often, including a Governor, President, and Senator.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think.
...snip...

Only about 71%. So you're right -- that's not as many as I would think.

A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html

 

[New Ager]

What hyperbole.

It's what liberals are good at.

I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

Yep, how dare he beat Gore by a small amount of votes. The fix was in to get Bush no matter what.

He has endured more negativity and blame than any President I can remember.

It's no wonder hit pop rating is so low the way elite liberal media has bashed him at every turn.

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think.

It wouldn't have mattered what Bush would have done. They would have the same opinion. His crime was being a conservative and winning.

One thing I have noticed over the last 8 years is how something ridiculous would come up that the left was bitching about, and would go on and on and on about, and then after a while it just became "reality" in their world, even though it never had any credence in the first place.

Yep, the media and liberals kept repeating that Bush was a failure until many actually believe it.

I'm sorry you guys are so upset about having to have had Bush for 8 years. You will probably get your payback this time though. I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years. But I won't stoop to that level. If I have a problem with him, it'll be substantive.

Yeh, we won't compare him to Hitler.

 

[Gurdur]

.... I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years......

That seems rather unnecessarily masochistic. He's not Charles Manson, you know.

 

[New Ager]

Yes, it has.

In eight years no significant successes and a relentless drum beat of failure.

He lead us through 911. He cut taxes. Unemployment was low most of the last eight years. He deposed of an evil dictator and gave a country a chance at democracy.

Which of those do you wish wouldn't have happened?

And that's more succcesses than Clinton had. In fact, what were his?

But the massive damage that the Bush adminstration has done to the US will still being dealt with for a generation to come.

Such as?

A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.

That misleading. That's an opinion now, not of his whole Presidency. Anyone can be disappointed at any one thing and be in that percentile.

 

[SezMe]

...elite liberal media ...

Way to work in those focus group tested words there, New Ager. It's no longer the liberal media, it's the elite liberal media. Tell me, New Ager, what does the word "elite" used as you did actually mean?

 

[SezMe]

That misleading. That's an opinion now, not of his whole Presidency. Anyone can be disappointed at any one thing and be in that percentile.

That's funny. He's been consistently low for years and now resides consistently at record lows. Trying to paint that as an isolated incident is worthy of the laughing dog.

 

[GreyICE]

He lead us through 911.

Given that he did absolutely nothing productive after 9/11 and evidenced no particular leadership besides bullheadedly charging the wrong target, his major experience in 'leadership' appears to be that he ensured that in 2008, seven years would have passed since 9/11. I think we could have replaced him with an Oak Tree and the only difference in leadership would have been 900 Billion dollars.

He cut taxes.

How did that economic growth that they were certain to cause work out for us?

Unemployment was low most of the last eight years.

Oak tree.

He deposed of an evil dictator and gave a country a chance at democracy.

And at the bargain price of only 1 trillion dollars, 4000 American lives, countless thousand Iraqi lives, and our international credibility.

Damn, that oak looks pretty good.

Which of those do you wish wouldn't have happened?

Well I damn well wish 9/11 hadn't happened. And I don't think the tax cuts did jack, except put us deeper in the fiscal whole. Unemployment I don't think he affected in any way. Well, there's now 4000 less Americans to be unemployed as a direct result of his actions, and coffin makers, flag makers, and funeral homes gained some business, so maybe I need to give him some credit here. So yeah, guess I do wish that was a little higher. And as for Saddam? Send me a button that says "Click here and its a magical fairy world where he's gone and Iraq is stable" and I'd hit it in a heartbeat. At that cost? No thanks.

And that's more succcesses than Clinton had. In fact, what were his?

Balanced budget, economic success, multiple trade agreements, the Oslo Accords (which despite the collapse, was a definite step in the right direction), Good Friday agreement, and shall we start on the list of things he didn't do?

Didn't create a disasterous medicare program that costs billions and does nothing but line the products of certain campaign backers.

Didn't kill 4,000 people and spend a trillion dollars on the basis of a pack of lies.

Didn't reduce pollution controls and aid polluters.

Somehow managed to avoid drafting and passing unconstitutional attacks on civil liberties.

Somehow managed not to use scientific theories as bollocks as the former USSR's.

Oh crap, now we're back to the oak tree.

P.S. Blame Clinton is dead. Who cares if Clinton was good or bad? He was 10000x better than George W. Bush.

That misleading. That's an opinion now, not of his whole Presidency. Anyone can be disappointed at any one thing and be in that percentile.

Which one thing? Polling worse than Nixon before NIXON RESIGNED?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

That misleading. That's an opinion now, not of his whole Presidency. Anyone can be disappointed at any one thing and be in that percentile.

I didn’t post that poll in a vacuum. I posted it in response to Whiplash’s questionable assertion...

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think.

My bold.

Considering that Bush has the highest disapproval rating in the history of disapproval ratings, it’s hard to imagine a whole lot more people could think as I do.

Of course, his presidency isn't over yet so there's still time, Ed help us.

 

[davefoc]

Whether Bush has been a particularly bad president or not is something that probably can not be objectively proved. There are facts like the 4 trillion dollar increase in the national debt or the inept and corrupt handling of the Iraq occupation, or the corruptly driven medicare drug plan that can be put forth as evidence for it but in the end judgments about the Bush administration will not be something that can be made with mathematical certainty.

However characterizing the widespread negative view of the Bush administration as the result of liberal biases is misleading if not just outright wrong. More than any president in my memory Bush has been widely criticized by both left and right sources.

Even on this forum a lot of the criticism of the Bush administration comes from moderate libertarian/moderate Republican types. People that perhaps have liberal ideas about social policy but who hold fiscally/economically conservative views.

Many of the books critical of the Bush administration have been written by fellow Republicans.

Many of the pundits critical of the Bush administration are conservative by some definitions. Here's a review of a Bruce Bartlett book critical of the Bush administration:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/bruce_bartlett_bush_is_an_imposter/

Would the country have been better off if Gore had won the election? Obviously no one can know, but the I think facts strongly suggest that we would have been.

One of the most important results of a Gore presidency would have been a healthy Republican Party that served as a responsible advocate for small government ideas. As it stands now the Republican Party is responsible for a massive increase in national debt in a time of peace and a massive increase in the lobbying forces that corrupt our political process. The Republican Party today has been marginalized by their association with the horrible governance of the past seven years. It will be years if not generations before the Republican Party will regain the power it has squandered away over the last seven years.

 

[Tricky]

Bush was a monumental disaster as president, but I'm not going to say he never did anything good. Unfortunately, the times he tried to do the right thing, he was torpedoed by his own party. For example, I though his "guest workers" way of addressing the problem of illegal immigrants should have been given serious consideration. Instead, it was thrown on the scrap heap. I also thought that there was nothing wrong with letting the UAR take the bid to run the ports, or at least, no more wrong than letting any foreign countries make bids. The UAR was not involved in terrorist attacks and they are one of the few countries in the Middle East (besides Israel) who like us. Admittedly, the Dem's screamed about this too, but they were joined in the chorus by Republicans. It never had a chance.

His commitment to education, while flawed in some ways, was genuine and a lot better than some GOP-ers would have done.

I also agreed with going after the terrorists in Afghanistan. We had a coalition and we had a legitimate target there.

Of course, his biggest failure was Iraq. It overshadows anything else he could have done. But in my mind, his evisceration of environmental laws, or at least the enforcement of them, borders on criminal. His tax cuts (mostly) for the wealthy added even more to the staggering deficit, a deficit that was non-existent when he took office. Some of the scandals like being cozy with Enron and the no-bid contracts for Halliburton put him on a par with fellow Republicans Nixon and Reagan for nation-damaging corruption.

Yes, the next president, whoever it is, is going to spend at least the first two years on damage control. That's not completely Bush's fault, because the jump in oil price and China's emergence as a competing economic power are based on many factors that aren't in the control or even the realm of the POTUS. But we're going to be paying for this stupid war for a very very long time. We are going to spend a very long time trying to rebuild the diplomatic ties and respect that so many countries held for us during the Clinton years.

George W. Bush was a terrible president. I couldn't say that he was the worst ever, because I don't know history well enough to make such a statement. He was certainly the worst I can remember. But it is foolish and counterproductive to demonize him. I disagreed with him on much, but I don't believe he deliberately damaged the US as badly as he did. Now Cheney, I'm not so sure about that.

 

[fishbob]

What hyperbole. I'm not saying Bush was a great President but the hatred of him and anything he has done is completely over the top and unwarranted most of the time. I blame it on the vitriolic nature of politics in general. The left was itching to stick it to him from day one as payback for Clinton, and they never pulled a single punch all the way through.

And sadly, while I know that for most people on the left, it's just "given" that he was an utter failure at everything he did, but it's not an opinion shared by as many people as you may think. One thing I have noticed over the last 8 years is how something ridiculous would come up that the left was bitching about, and would go on and on and on about, and then after a while it just became "reality" in their world, even though it never had any credence in the first place.

I'm sorry you guys are so upset about having to have had Bush for 8 years. You will probably get your payback this time though. I'm sure I'll be pretty miserable under Obama for the next 4-8 years. But I won't stoop to that level. If I have a problem with him, it'll be substantive.

I notice that you lobbed your own wad of vitriolic hyperbole back over the fence while failing to include anything resembling a counter-argument - tarred with your own brush instead of simply providing a few examples of Bush's many notable successes.

You can do that, can't you?

ETA: Just noticed that Tricky did it for you.