W, a Disappointment, but Hardly a Failure
This morning, I did something I don’t normally do in LA. I scanned (& read) the New York Times (my Mom subscribes to the print edition). While the paper’s bias is palpable, one can still get a good sense of what’s going on in the world by perusing its pages.
Something struck me when I read the front-page article on the bomb blast in Kabul. No, not the paper’s claim of a deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan (perhaps due to NATO’s leadership of the military operations there?). Instead what I noticed was this fact: combat deaths in Afghanistan “have surpassed Iraq’s in the past two months.“
Another reminder that media silence notwithstanding, we are winning in Iraq. And to think that President Bush authorized the surge only after his party lost control of Congress to an opposition committed to ending the war.
Quite an accomplishment to shift strategy in that conflict which, in 2006, seemed unlikely to produce a victory. Not just that, the president managed to get several funding bills through a legislature whose leadership was anti-war while defeating bills favoring timetables for retreat and defeat.
The president has been far from perfect, as the latest troubles in Afghanistan show. And he has hardly promoted a conservative domestic agenda, but, against great odds, we are succeeding in Iraq.
The left may be determined to dub him a failure and the worst president in US history. George W. may not rank with Reagan or either Roosevelt, but the facts about his White House tenure tell a different story than that offered in the MSM and on left-wing blogs.
George W. Bush is the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter–the worst Republican President in any of our lifetimes. He has divided the GOP into warring factions, siding with and installing a hotline to the whacked out religious right. His “you’re either with us or against us” philosophy has been a disaster. It is because of him that many, and not just gays, no longer feel welcome within the GOP.
His ignoring of the libertarian (small L) wing of the GOP has left it in such a vulnerable position that it will take a long time to reunify the party. Bush has taken the position of the moralizing busybodies and has turned the big tent that Reagan carefully built and nourished into a Southern traveling Revival Tent roadshow.
It is because of George W. Bush that the GOP has basically morphed into a self parody. Bigoted, religious fanatics who demand everything, are unwilling to compromise and now threaten to sit out the election unless their uncompromising hate filled demands are met are what the GOP has turned into.
George W. Bush is the biggest disaster the GOP has ever seen.
Comment by HollywoodBill — July 8, 2008 @ 11:50 am - July 8, 2008
Worse than Nixon? Worse than Ford?
Clearly you have limited memory or historical knoweldge. But dont let that stop you from making your historical pronoucements.
Comment by Vince P — July 8, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - July 8, 2008
#1 - I for one have been more warmly received in the GOP as a gay man than I have been at my local gay bar as a conservative.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 8, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - July 8, 2008
To be honest, we won’t know how W. will rank for another 20 years. In the lame duck years of Reagan’s presidency he was not loved and adored like he is now.
Truman was considered a total failure - until now, when historians look back and see that he accomplished a lot.
Anyone who froths at the mouth and proclaims that Bush is our worst president is suffering from DBS. History always looks at things differently - since the outcome of many actions only come into play years later.
Comment by Leah — July 8, 2008 @ 12:24 pm - July 8, 2008
A failure? It’s curious that a president regarded as a failure has managed to implement so much of his agenda… even the many, many parts I disagree with. Supposedly, the Iraq War was a huge mistake/waste of time/miserable failure and is opposed by (liberals tell us) 92% of the public… and yet the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly and utterly failed to secure American defeat in Iraq. He also got the FISA bill passed with the immunity provision the Democrats so desperately wanted in the bill as a payoff to their trial lawyer base.
I don’t like Bush and I never did, but for a “failure,” he seems to have gotten a lot of his “unpopular” agenda passed even with a hostile congress.
And speaking of the Democrat Congress, they have failed to secure American defeat in Iraq, the Federal Deficit is up dramatically since they took over, as are budget earmarks, they have failed to “clean up” Washington as proved by the scandals involving William Jefferson, Chris Dodd, and now John Conyers demonstrate. Gas prices have nearly doubled while Democrats refuse to permit any new drilling or exploitation of shale deposits or coal gassification. Barbara Boxer’s massive cap and trade scheme crashed and burned. The Democrats failed to over-ride his veto of the “Extend S-CHIP to Affluent Families Making Six or More Figures” bill, despite Democrat assurances that what the American people really wanted was higher spending to pay the medical bills of affluent families. They failed to over-ride Bush’s veto of a pork-laden Agricultural Bill that was so bad even the New York Times editorialized against it.
Who’s the failure here?
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 1:04 pm - July 8, 2008
“And to think that President Bush authorized the surge only after his party lost control of Congress to an opposition committed to ending the war.”
So after years of troops deaths and pleadings from military and civilian leaders to implement a saner war policy, it took political losses for him to decide to do anything any differently, despite the experts in the military telling him (and Rumsfeld) before the first boot hit the ground that the post-war plan was non-existent / flawed.
Troops dying and the military asking for better policies? No change. Party losses? Well, then, maybe now we should make some changes.
I guess this is the current GOP’s definition of leadership. (shrug)
Comment by torrentprime — July 8, 2008 @ 1:14 pm - July 8, 2008
Gas prices have nearly doubled while Democrats refuse to permit any new drilling or exploitation of shale deposits or coal gassification
And the GOP’s control of Congress and the WH for years and years failed to resolve this issue why? Who wrote the bills and signed them from 2000 until 2006? Which party?
When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. But it’s the Democrats’ fault that they didn’t magically bring them down in less than 2 years. Right.
Comment by torrentprime — July 8, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - July 8, 2008
Always count on a Lefty to do nothing other than dwell in finger pointing.
Does anyone really believe that had the Dems been in control any of the things they are complaining about would have gone any better?
Laughable.
Comment by Vince P — July 8, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - July 8, 2008
Bush and the Republicans tried to push for drilling in ANWR and off-shore, for new refinery permits, for opening shale oil deposits. They have been blocked at every turn by Democrats.
Yes, it is the Democrats fault. If Bill Clinton had not blocked access to ANWR in 1995 and his blockade of drilling in ANWR had not been sustained by Democrats, we could be getting up to a million bbl a day from ANWR. The Democrats block US energy production at every turn. Add in the Democrat’s opposition to coal and nuclear power and, darned right, it is the Democrats’ fault the US is so dependent on foreign oil.
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - July 8, 2008
Here’s an idea, TP, instead of lying about the Democrats’ record, why don’t you try explaining why keeping the US dependent on foreign oil is so important to your beloved Democrats?
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - July 8, 2008
Also, developing energy resources in America means creating jobs in America! Every drilling rig, every shale oil extraction plant, every refinery, every coal and nuclear power plant built in America creates jobs in America. TP, why are your beloved Democrats so opposed to creating jobs in America?
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - July 8, 2008
Torrent in #6, you sound like you’re defending John McCain who’d been pushing for a change in strategy in Iraq for at least two years before the president implemented any change.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 8, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - July 8, 2008
The radical Islamists are Republicans?
Conservative or liberal, gays had best consider their own bigotry when it comes to fundamentalist Christians. We are all sinners, in the fundamentalist Christian view. Now, if some want to have a holy war over whether homosexuality is a sin, fine. But do so with logic and reason. Branding your “enemy” as bigots who make “uncompromising hate-filled (political) demands” begs for proof. Not proof of the anecdotal variety, but doctrinal proof.
What I most dislike about “homophobia” is that it seems like one gets put in the club without even joining. Do you suppose there is a counterbalancing heterophobia?
Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2008 @ 3:25 pm - July 8, 2008
torrentprime:
Ta-da!
What a great 26 months of do-nothingness we have had from the Democrat super stars. Congress managed to get its approval rating into single digits under these forward thinking solvers of all problems. What an achievement. Bring on Obama who believes in
flip-flopchange twice a day.Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - July 8, 2008
History will remember Bush as a “compassionate conservative” who by and large architected effective, appropriate strategies for the War on Terror - like Truman for the Cold War - and who got irrational grief for it.
I reject Bush because I disagree strongly with the Big Government philosophy that underlies so-called “compassionate conservatism”. Even so, I can recognize all the allegations that Bush lied, he “tortures”, he “suspended habeus corpus”, blah blah blah, as so much irrational hogwash.
The media silence *means* we are winning in Iraq.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 8, 2008 @ 3:41 pm - July 8, 2008
There is no mention in my comments about homophobia. While I deeply resent that Karl Rove and his merry band of Bible thumpers used same sex marriage as a wedge issue in the 04 election, it is more disconcerting that Bush and Company actually pandered to every whim of these religious whackos at the expense of GOP unity.
Terri Schiavo started the destruction of the GOP coalition. What should have been a private, familial matter was destroyed by Bush pandering to the Revival Tent Republicans. The meaning of strict constructionism became apparent. There is as much of an agenda on the extreme right as there is on the extreme left. And while I understand that the Revival Tent Republicans must have a seat at the table, they also need to understand that they are not the stars of the show, but merely another cast member.
It isn’t Bush’s foreign policies that are going to forever keep him in the lowest depths of Presidential greats, but rather his domestic issues. His overspending. His blending of theocracy and government was hugely discredited by the 2006 elections. States that should be safely Republican, like Colorado, Montana, Nevada and even the Pacific Coast states want no part of the Social Conservative Republicans that Bush represents. He will go down in history as the ONLY social conservative ever elected by the GOP.
Comment by HollywoodBill — July 8, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - July 8, 2008
So… the Democrat solution to gas prices is to punish companies for supplying gasoline for consumer.
How does this lower prices, exactly?
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - July 8, 2008
By magic, of course.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 8, 2008 @ 5:00 pm - July 8, 2008
(sorry… “Magick”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 8, 2008 @ 5:00 pm - July 8, 2008
HollywoodBill, 99% of the time, I respect and appreciate your points. But, it is clear that you carry animus toward fundamentalist Christians. When you say “Karl Rove and his merry band of Bible thumpers” I read it in the same way you would probably react to “Barney Frank and his merry band of butt bumpers.”
I am not a fundamentalist Christian, so this is not personal with me. I am in total agreement with your statement: “And while I understand that the Revival Tent Republicans must have a seat at the table, they also need to understand that they are not the stars of the show, but merely another cast member.”
You certainly understand that gay Republicans must have a seat at the table, (but) they also need to understand that they are not the stars of the show, but merely another cast member.
The job is to make the cast members work with one another. If a gay can not be at the table because the “tent revival Republicans” won’t have it, then that is a problem the party needs to address. On the other hand, sliming the “tent revival Republicans” is not a good way to start the dialog.
“Bible thumpers” are fairly used to being called bigots, ignoramuses and worse. That doesn’t mean they enjoy turning the other cheek. I worked for a political campaign that sought help from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I approached them honestly about the fact that my candidate was not asking for their endorsement in Evangelical terms, but that he valued their opinions and input and he would be forthright when he was politically uncomfortable with taking any part of it.
Evangelicals know you don’t catch a fish every time you cast a line. They are patient people and usually pretty considerate. I really believe that gay conservatives and Evangelicals have a lot in common. You do not have to give in to them any more than they have to change their belief system. It is possible to agree to disagree and be hard and fast friends.
I have heard much of Karl Rove using the “gay issue” to get Bush elected. I really can not find much that documents the facts of it.
Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2008 @ 5:07 pm - July 8, 2008
“The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.
I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.”
–Barry Goldwater
Comment by HollywoodBill — July 8, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - July 8, 2008
Hollywood Bill is full of it.
He’s tired of being preached to?
What the hell is this:
I dont want Obama anywhere near my soul. I don’t want the Government anywhere near my soul. And I certainly don’t need these misguided people to tell me what my social responsbilities are.
See ourselves in one another? That’s a scary thought.. I want nothing to do with most people.
Tell me Hollywood.. you support this? You dont want to be “preached to” (by who?.. really.. who the hell is preaching to you?) and yet you’re supporting this bizarre crap?
Hyde Park , Chicago is not one of the toughest neighborhoods. I live in Chicago.. it’s a little Lefty bubble for the Univ of Chicago .
And its pretty bold to state that Obama has such a huge heart when he gave practically nothing to charity all these years.
And I would think in a nation like ours, -
Jesus.. what is this.. the Matrix?
Hollywood Bill has the nerve to tell us he’s sick of being preached to by people who really have no say in his little world.. and yet he is supporting that?
These people are Fascists.. they’re brainless, auto-pilot fascists.
[Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Vince P — July 8, 2008 @ 5:51 pm - July 8, 2008
That would be politics as usual for any special interest group.
They have never come close to being able to “dictate their moral convictions.” Goldwater, however, said “try to dictate.” Even that is an impetuous rejoinder. Evangelicals do have a clear agenda, that is to “conquer” all of humanity.
I guess I would have preferred Goldwater to just come out swinging against “the religious factions that are growing throughout our land” and damn them all to Hell.
Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - July 8, 2008
We get it, Bill. You want Christians to shut up while the secular left imposes its values every day using all the tools of government and media at their disposal. Christians are just supposed to shut up and take it while our taxes are used to shove Folsom Street values down our throats.
Kids can’t pray in school, but if an 11 year old wants birth control, they just have to ask the school nurse and they’ll be sent off with a pack of condoms and a hearty… “have fun now.” Planned Parenthood, a billion dollar corporation, gets hundreds of millions in federal subsidies, meanwhile, they help rapists avoid justice by providing their victims with abortions. Public school teachers on the public payroll bash Christian beliefs with complete impunity.
But you just want Christians to shut up and let the secular left impose its values uncontested… like enlightened Europe. Where the secular left has prevailed… and whose countries are destined for demographic oblivion and sharia.
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - July 8, 2008
And what’s better….turns out Nancy Pelosi and her leftist cabal were actively working with the leftist FARC terrorists to undermine the Columbian government.
No wonder Pelosi Girl and Barack Obama so adamantly opposed free trade with Columbia; anything that would help the country would ruin the leftist terror organizations with which she was bargaining.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - July 8, 2008
reagan was a coward, he cut and ran in lebanon
Comment by markie — July 8, 2008 @ 6:39 pm - July 8, 2008
#26 - Then he must be one of your biggest heroes if he really did do that, since all you libtards like to cut and run like any other scared, confused, pinko cowards.
Go take a long walk across a short pier.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 8, 2008 @ 7:00 pm - July 8, 2008
I don’t know, Bush 43 has done an exceptional job keeping his country safe after the most horrific attack on our soil in history. I think when he stood on that pile of debris everything else took a back seat to security for his countrymen. And I applaud him for it. It became difficult for him to veto spending bills when he was asking for massive funds for the war on terror and two wars. So I salute the Commander and Chief as he leaves office. Think for a moment about the “domestic” accomplishments of Lincoln, FDR or Truman. When you are fighting to save the country, I don’t begrudge the leader for inattention to lesser details. (By the way FDR’s domestic accomplishments are debateable I’m sure. Some would say his big job govenment programs brought the country out of the depression, others would say it prolonged it.)
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - July 8, 2008
Reagan like any good commander knew where to fight his battles. He singlehandedly brought down the USSR and freed millions of souls. Whooa! Don’t the leftists wish they knew what that felt like. To not just talk nice, talk about helping women and children, but to actually do something that lifts them up. Freedom ain’t it beautiful. Thank you President Bush and President Reagan. Reagan freed the Granadans against the judgement and whining of the Democrats. He freed the eastern Europeans. Bush 41 freed the Panamainians. I’ve a good knowledge of history, did Jimmy Earl Cater or William Jefferson Clinton ever free anyone? For over 50 years it is Republicans, Conservatives who stand for freedom and justice. Democrats just talk, oh and whine when MEN stand up and do what’s right. Now that Iraq is being secured, the victory assured after the Dems wanted to retreat, chaulk up another 24 million freed souls. Now we have a recent, stark example of the Democrats spongey lazy attitude toward freedom. They won’t pay any price. They just ride the back of true patriots.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 7:55 pm - July 8, 2008
Floating about the blogosphere today: George W. Bush, Most Underrated Leader in Recent History.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 8, 2008 @ 8:42 pm - July 8, 2008
Nice link ILC.
Remember when the Clintonistas were complaining that they wished 9/11 had happend during his administration so he could have proved his metal? Someone want to tell me how ole Bill would have earned his bones if not doing very closely what Bush 43 has done. Yeah you can argue that some of the tactics were faulty. (I hate how back seat drivers complain and how they would have had all the answers during WAR!) Some of Eisenhowers and FDR’s were too. Do you think Bill Clinton would have tried to build his legacy by prosecuting UBL in the courts? Or negotiating with the Taliban. Or by allowing Sadam to continue to violate the cease fire agreement by shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zones.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 9:16 pm - July 8, 2008
[Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 9:17 pm - July 8, 2008
28: He was in the driver’s seat when we got attacked and now, nearly 7 years later, Osama Bin Laden *still* has not been captured. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush and Company decided to a take a joy ride to Iraq as a way to hide their idiocy and ineptitude. The future will probably remember him as the worst 2 term president in the history of the nation. And his stated primary goal after leaving office? To command the highest speaking fee of any former president. sheesh. Good ol’ George is pretty lucky that 9/11 happened, because without those world shaking events he would have been sent home (wherever that may) to live out his life as the privileged idiot he his and the slime around him would have skulked away to other jobs.
You folks still have a good time using Bill Clinton as a punching bag, but when it came to 6 years of Republican rule in the executive and legislative branches of government, what did they do to reverse the things that Clinton did so badly? 6 years and not one (I repeat, not one) presidential veto on any piece of legislation from congress. No vetoes until the evil democrats took the majority.
Comment by Kevin — July 8, 2008 @ 10:09 pm - July 8, 2008
Um, ah, um, ah, um, ah, Obama making a point. This guy is a puppet and his speech, cliche after cliche, mindless chatter. I get a feeling Michelle wears the pants in that family. She’ll be qualified to run as well if President Um Ah gets 2 terms, just like Hillary.
President Bush has been very active in his two terms. Fighting terrorists with back stabbing democrats & some wimpy republicans on his back and trying to push domestic reform of social security and other programs has been a full slate for sure.
I believe he has been successful at more than the media gives credit. While he is ending his 2nd term he is still far from feckless.
I salute you President Bush, and I thank God & the American people Kerry didn’t get the nod.
Comment by EDinTampa — July 8, 2008 @ 10:18 pm - July 8, 2008
#33 So our friend Kevin thinks our fighting men and women have been on a joy ride in Iraq. Every once in a while they slip up and show their true feelings. I don’t think the muslim and arab women and girls freed by the brave American fighting men and women would consider the Iraq effort a joy ride Kevin. Bush 43 also wanted to open more areas for drilling 7 years ago. If the Democrats had not stopped him, we might be paying $2 for gasoline today. That’s the kind of incompetence that gets the likes of Reid Pelosi reelected by the likes of Kevin. hehehe
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 10:40 pm - July 8, 2008
#33 Bush reversed one thing that your bud Clinton did. He whooped some terrorist ass instead of sitting on his butt getting bj’s. There were 4 specific terrorist acts during Clintons 8 year vacation. He did NOTHING. Bush 43 didn’t want to be so inept. Obama will take us back to being patsies. As an American patriot I’d rather avoid that.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 8, 2008 @ 10:43 pm - July 8, 2008
My God Kevin.. I hope you have your comments saved in a text file to save yourself the effort of having to retype them day after day for years.
Get a new script already.
Comment by Vince P — July 8, 2008 @ 11:49 pm - July 8, 2008
Maintaining a forward perspective here…
A major disappointment of mine is that the Republican most qualified (on paper, at least) to be Commander-in-Chief, Richard Cheney, has been so utterly vilified by the media, academia, the activist Left and the Democratic Party (the last three virtually indistinguishable), that he was never seriously mentioned as a contender in this race. Or at least has not been mentioned as having a vital, above-the-radar, appointed or otherwise advisory role in a succeding Republican administration.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 9, 2008 @ 12:48 am - July 9, 2008
for the average american he is a failure. and you can’t change that.
Comment by markie — July 9, 2008 @ 1:10 am - July 9, 2008
The Federal Government by definition is a failure for the American People.
That is why Conservatives want it as small and limited as possible.
Whereas Leftists want it to dominate every aspect of life.
Comment by Vince P — July 9, 2008 @ 1:19 am - July 9, 2008
That is, the “average American” whose only exposure of what’s going on is through the liberal media. All part of the liberal plan to keep the masses stupid and under their thumbs.
Sieg Heil, baby!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 9, 2008 @ 3:59 am - July 9, 2008
BTW, that would be the “average Americans” who aren’t aware that the liberal media and the liberal controlled Congress is far less popular than Bush is.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 9, 2008 @ 4:01 am - July 9, 2008
Oh its much worse than that V the K, not only have Democrats vetoed and filibustered every Republican attempt to increase domestic energy supply, increase refining capacity and increase infrastructure efficiency, but unlike Republicans, who have been blocked at every turn, Democrats have had virtually all of their so-called “energy policy” enacted. Unlike Republicans energy policy, which Democrats demonized and demagogued because Cheney had the gall to meet with the people who actually produce energy, Democrats had their non-energy energy policy enacted in FULL.
Because of Clinton’s vetoes and Democrats filibusters, American energy policy of the past 30 years has been EXCLUSIVELY Democrat policy! To the extent that government can effect gas prices, which is substantially, high gas prices are exclusively Democrats fault.
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 4:02 am - July 9, 2008
1. They brought us out of the Clinton recession, also known as the dot.com bubble burst, which, not coincidentally began immediately following the ruling against Microsoft in the anti-trust lawsuit the Clinton administration brought against them.
2. Stopped the Clinton foreign policy that resulted in attacks on Americans and American interests every two years or more frequently, and gave us a foreign policy that has kept Americans and american interests safe for going on 7 years now.
3. Stopped the feckless toothless Clinton foreign policy that al Qaeda leaders have admitted made them think there would be no consequences to pay for attacking America, “the paper tiger”
4. Stopped the Clinton politics of personally destroying anyone who opposed them.
5. Stopped the rancor and lies emanating from the Clinton White House and replaced it with a professional respectful tone.
6. Stopped the Clinton policy of using the White House like a money laundering outfit and safe house for illegal activity (not to mention a whore house).
7. Stopped the Clinton policy of erecting unnecessary walls between the CIA and FBI to prevent prosecution for said money laundering (walls which the 9/11 commission confirmed were largely at fault for the governments inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks)
8. Stopped the Clinton policy of checking the polls before defending America.
Fortunately the Republican Congress was largely able to prevent Clinton from accomplishing anything of much consequence domestically.
Not only will President Bush NOT be remembered at one of the worst presidents, he will be remembered as at least a near-great if not great. Clinton, on the other hand, who started out ranked as average and whose presidential ratings by historians have been going down every year since, will eventually be remembered by history as a poor president for accomplishing next to nothing, and he will be ranked down in Harding territory as one of Americas most corrupt presidents ever.
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 4:29 am - July 9, 2008
GPW,
Send her a stack of all the articles they have published revealing national security secrets, all the articles they have published giving aid and comfort to the enemy and top it off with a copy of the study that confirmed, yes, such efforts by the media do result in more American deaths, and the address/phone number of the circulation dept.
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 4:41 am - July 9, 2008
Oh,
And as far as Bush being a disappointment — the only thing I can think of that I am disappointed with Bush over is his refusal to defend himself, and some equivocating he has done of late.
Almost everything else I expected. Yes, I have disagreed with him on immigration, prescription drug benefit, and a few other things, but thats not the same as being disappointed. The reason I am not disappointed is because I can think of nothing he has done that isn’t exactly what he told us he would do when running for office.
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 4:55 am - July 9, 2008
ILC,
Great link! I’ve seen the Anchoress’ posts to that effect before and agree with her and this author completely. Few things piss me off more than charges that Bush is a liar. He is probably the most honest person in Washington and among the most honest presidents ever. So much so that I fantasize that if I were ever to write a book, which, admittedly, I wont, it will be entitled “Every Lie of the Bush Presidency: was told by Democrats.”
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 5:38 am - July 9, 2008
I am plenty disappointed with Bush… his rampant spending, his cronyism, his push for amnesty, his complete neglect of border security, his vast expansion of the federal government role in education and health care. But I can not deny he has been effective in pursuit of his overall agenda, and continues to rack up victories against an extremely hostile Democrat congress.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2008 @ 7:16 am - July 9, 2008
I would amend that to read:
I think we make way too much of “getting out the vote.” I prefer my representative democracy to be representative of the people who care enough to vote.
Rounding up absentee ballots from folks with dementia in the old folks homes, casting ballots for the dead, herding people who can’t speak English, busing people to the polls in exchange for smokes and drinks are not my idea of an informed electorate.
Well, I guess you could say that if they have been informed how to vote that they are therefore informed.
So, when these folks are told Cheney is a failure, who gives a darn?
Obama is campaigning to the least intelligent voters who can be bused to the polls. The sin is that intelligent liberals willingly whore their integrity in order to grab the power. They all want to get their hands on other people’s money. Sponges, leeches and saprophytes is all they are.
Of course, many of the liberals want the power to impose their subjective “standards” on us while calling it morality.
Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2008 @ 11:27 am - July 9, 2008
35: Excuse me, but why are you twisting my words? Try reading the post again instead of trying to turn it into a false attack on our men and women in service. It was Bush, Cheney, et al. who decided on going into Iraq, not the individuals who serve in our armed forces. Last I checked, the fighting forces of our military don’t decide where we go into combat - that’s the so-called Commander-in-Chief’s decision.
Comment by Kevin — July 9, 2008 @ 4:42 pm - July 9, 2008
Kevin, here are your words:
Now, we all know that Bush and Cheney stayed put in Washington, D.C. It is the military that Bush sent to Iraq. So who, pray tell is taking “the joy ride to Iraq?”
I am afraid your clarity of diatribe got scrambled in your brain and you produced this gem of laughable convolution.
And by the way, please cite your factual reference for this stinker:
“Stated primary goal” you say.
Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2008 @ 5:11 pm - July 9, 2008
Try reading the post again instead of trying to turn it into a false attack on our men and women in service.
LOL….Kevin, it’s known that the Democrat Party, its syncophants like you, and your messiah Obama consider our troops to be “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and encourage their harassment by groups of leftist Democrat Party adherents.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - July 9, 2008
#50
Oh please. Quit pretending you give a crap about our military. We’re not as stupid as you are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 9, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - July 9, 2008
“So-called Commander-in-Chief?”
Is Kevin-of-the-Imminent-Gay-Holocaust implying that President Bush isn’t actually the Commander-in-Chief?
Is he really, really as ignorant and utterly as retarded as that comment would suggest? Seriously.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2008 @ 8:36 pm - July 9, 2008
#33 Kevin thinks we get joy out of using Mr Clinton as a punching bag. Have you ever seen two guys that stick their chins out allowing people to use them as punching bags like Carter and Clinton. Didn’t Bill really distinguish himself as an ex President during this recent campaign of his wife? He managed to cut his popularity amongst blacks in half. He showed himself to be a near racist. I’m one who am glad Mr Bush has served to if nothing else, to have had the White House fumigated and all soiled laundry removed. We’ve gone 7 years without interns having to lock themselves in closets to escape being molested.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 9, 2008 @ 9:26 pm - July 9, 2008
V the K
I understand how you can disagree with Bush on these issues, other than his supposed cronyism (a charge I reject), but to be disappointed implies you expected something else. He told us when he was running for office that he would implement a prescritption drug benefit, he told us about his no child left behind policy, etc… I was disappointed that he supported amnesty, I didnt expect that, but as the Anchoress has pointed out, he hasnt changed his approach to immigration, I was just ignorant. I do disagree that he has neglected border security, the facts simply dont back that up, he has enforced the borders more than any president since Eisenhower.
My point is that there is very little room for us to be disappointed in most of what hes done because with very few exceptions he’s done exactly what he told us he would do.
Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2008 @ 9:49 pm - July 9, 2008
As for the cronyism charge… Harriet Myers, Alberto Gonzales, Scott McLellan, Michael Brown, Julie Myers… need I say more?
To say he defended the borders more than any president since Eisenhower is to damn with faint praise. Bush did little or nothing to improve border security until 2006, and then only because he was interested in fooling the people into thinking he was getting serious so he could pass his Amnesty bill. Before the Potemkin raids that coincidentally began just when the Senate was considering Amnesty bills, arrests for illegally employing illegal aliens had decreased 97% under Bush since the Clinton administration.
Frankly, I think the game that Bush began is still being played in DC, and that’s “What is the absolute minimum we can do on the border to trick the rubes into letting us grant amnesty.” Also Bush lied repeatedly about what was in the Amnesty bill, and that is disappointing.
I was also very disappointed that Bush attacked opponents of the Amnesty Bill as being against what was good for America, called the Minuteman “vigilantes.” And then there is the small matter of agents Ramos and Compean… for which I will never forgive Bush.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2008 @ 10:22 pm - July 9, 2008
Pretty close to a failure. List what he did:
-lowered taxes
-fought terrorism
-started the Iraq War
-disarmed North Korea a little bit
Terrorism, North Korea, and Iraq wouldn’t have even come up without 9/11. Iraq didn’t really accomplish much because Saddam didn’t have WMDs or nukes. We just let terrorists comes in by toppling him, finally started defeating the terrorists this past year, and might end up establishing a democracy. Big deal, we could have left Saddam there no problem. Neo cons keep coming up with lies about how Saddam really was a threat, like this latest lie about how we took out the yellow cake he recently acquired, even though that yellow cake was acquired before the Gulf War and sealed down after.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — July 9, 2008 @ 11:14 pm - July 9, 2008
Oh, now onto Bush’s failures:
-social security
-gay marriage
Both issues that he failed politically to do anything to after trying.
And then an issue that he didn’t care about:
-spending
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — July 9, 2008 @ 11:15 pm - July 9, 2008
#59: the federal government should not be involved in defining marriage - it’s not in the Constitution. That’s a state issue. If we’re going to call the effort to get same-sex marriage a failure then I submit the fault lies with activist judges and people like Gavin Newsom who decided on a whim to short-circuit the citizenry. And now we’re surprised that VOTERS might want a say?
Social Security? Any meaningful reform has been rebuffed by the Dems - and that goes back a long way. “They”re going to take your social security and make you eat dry cat food” has long been a Democrat talking point.
North Korea? They’ve been working on nukes (while claiming otherwise) since at least the early 90’s (I think Bill Clinton bought that load of carp… as has GW Bush).
Lowered taxes? That’s a problem?!?!
Iraq WMDs? Are you saying that Bush was the only world leader who thought Saddam was working on WMD? If yes then what was the UN-sponsored inspection and sanction thing all about?
Yellowcake? Yup - would’ve been better to leave it in Iraq instead of handing it over to the Canadian warmongers.
Bush has been a disappointment to me (see VtK’s list) but a failure? That remains to be seen. As was pointed out earlier in the comments, many years pass before we know whether or not a presidency was a failure.
Comment by Robert — July 10, 2008 @ 12:17 am - July 10, 2008
Good summing-up.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 10, 2008 @ 2:03 am - July 10, 2008
V the K, it is not cronyism to promote someone who has become your friend after you hired them to a job you believe they are qualified to do, it is cronyism to hire someone because they are your friend even though you believe they aren’t qualified to begin with. The telltale sign is that the person is intentionally surrounded by other people to prop them up and cover for their ineptitude.
Karl Rove is a good friend of Bush’s. Was hiring him cronyism? Bush knew Dick Cheney very well before offering him the VP slot. Was that cronyism? Hardly, they were both very qualified.
I don’t know if you have ever been responsible for hiring, but the first people anyone looks to when hiring are people that already work for you or other people whose work you are already familiar with. If no one in this group fits the bill, you move on to people recommended by people whose judgment you trust, and the last thing anyone wants is to hire a completely unknown quantity. Thats why 90% of the available jobs in the job market never get advertised. And its not cronyism, its natural. Did Bush make some BAD hiring decisions? Absolutely! But thats not the same thing.
And Bush’s “potemkin” raids continue, and the fence continues to be built even though he has no intention or chance of addressing immigration again before he leaves office.
I will agree with you though that I was very disappointed in his rhetoric during the whole immigration thing.
Comment by American Elephant — July 10, 2008 @ 4:29 am - July 10, 2008
The issue is … as with Harriet and Julie Myers… that Bush continued to support them even after critics raised red flags about them. In Miers case, the Bush administration insinuated that critics of the nomination were sexist.
If you’re running a family business and you decide to hire who you know, that’s one thing. But when you’re running the entire country, I think you have an obligation to look a little harder, and not just hire one of your dad’s friend’s nephew’s fraternity brothers.
I think Bush has been a mediocre president, and I think much of the source of his mediocrity comes from his being part of the blue-blood elite that really does look down on the main sequence of working and middle class Americans. That’s my opinion, based on my analysis of his policy and rhetorical choices.
What truly amazes me, though, is that as mediocre as Bush was, both of his potential successors are orders of magnitude worse. How the hell did we manage that?
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2008 @ 7:28 am - July 10, 2008
Re: Bush’s “cronyism”… One name: George Tenet.
In other words, I’m not sure if cronyism is the right word for it. Cronyism implies that you favor the people who give you loyalty. Bush doesn’t even do that much. In some cases, Bush has been blindly, stupidly loyal to incompetents out to undermine his Administration. I don’t know what his pattern is. It’s as if he assumes that everybody he meets or finds charming, must be worth keeping (just because he met them).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 10, 2008 @ 10:20 am - July 10, 2008
#60.)
I don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage, but Bush seemed to be trying to limit it, and he failed, therefore, he was a political failure.
Failing at social security also established him as a political failure. Sure the Dems were trying to stop him, but that’s the whole point of politics. If you’re a good enough politician, you can get what you want done.
As for Saddam’s WMDs, Bush wasn’t the only one missled, and you mention the UN was looking at him for it, but they didn’t find anything investigating, and Bush didn’t give them enough time to finish investigating. Then he manufactured a lot of the intelligence. Much of the intelligence was made up by anti-Saddam Iraqi groups, and the stuff about yellowcake came directly from British intelligence, but was discredited by US intelligence.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — July 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm - July 10, 2008
Re: Bush’s “cronyism”… One name: George Tenet.
How about another: Norman Mineta.
Bush kept him on as Transportation Secretary as a Clinton Holdover, a symbolic gesture to show how bi-partisan he was, and how he was going to reach across the aisle. Mineta proved to be an incompetent disaster, the architect of TSA’s idiotic and asinine policies of treating 82 year old grandmothers as equally threatening as Islamic jihadists, and confiscation of GI Joe gun accessories less than an inch in size as “weapons.”
Norm Mineta was a paradigm of everything that was wrong with the Bush administration.
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2008 @ 12:55 pm - July 10, 2008
Bush gets wiretap authority 69-28 in the senate. Even the Obamassiah rolls over like the whining little b!tch he is. Yeah, Bush is such a major failure.
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - July 10, 2008
#65 - “I don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage, but Bush seemed to be trying to limit it, and he failed, therefore, he was a political failure.”
So using this type of libtard logic (yeah, I know, an oxymoron), if a politician undertakes a policy initiative that has at best mixed support in society, doesn’t follow it through to its end and lets it collapse on its own dead weight, then he’s a political failure?
Mmm-hmm.
I guess then that you would consider Carter and Clinton as massive political failures using that logic, no? Because both of them left office with whole agenda items that failed at one point or another.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 10, 2008 @ 3:51 pm - July 10, 2008
I don’t think Jimmy Carter was a failure… mainly because I think he came into office with an agenda to bring down America… and, boy did he ever succeed!
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2008 @ 3:59 pm - July 10, 2008
the geoerge w. bush sewage treatment plant, in san francisco, is just too good for him.
Comment by markie — July 10, 2008 @ 5:40 pm - July 10, 2008
How symbolic… George W. Bush cleaning up the filth left by liberals, and making the world a cleaner place.
Comment by V the K — July 10, 2008 @ 5:56 pm - July 10, 2008
v the k, do you think he was better or worse than his father?
Comment by American Elephant — July 10, 2008 @ 6:36 pm - July 10, 2008
at least his dad could think. it’s nothing against conservatives or nothing, but to assume that an alocholic adult child is a stellar choice for a party, is rediculous. his mom know jeb was the should have been and we would have been much better of if it had been. xo
Comment by markie — July 10, 2008 @ 8:14 pm - July 10, 2008
When S.F. isn’t making useless gestures - renaming sewer plants - it’s busy giving free plane rides home to illegals arrested for selling crack OR sending them off to San Bernadino county so that the less-enlightened residents there can deal with the crime.
A recent report stated that it costs $7,000 per month to house these creeps and eight of them just went missing (so in this single case, SF taxpayers get to pony up 56,000/month for “sanctuary”… they deserve it).
(I think markie got ripped off - his keyboard is not capable of CAPITALS.)
Comment by Robert — July 10, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - July 10, 2008
you remind me of the line in the burger king commericial: ” you do know your are a moron, don’t you??. ” have noting to say about the topic but try to divert attention so as to proclaim intelligence. lol rotf.
Comment by markie — July 11, 2008 @ 12:59 am - July 11, 2008
Everyone, give Dr. Christmas Jones in 75 a big hand.
Comment by Vince P — July 11, 2008 @ 1:15 am - July 11, 2008
v the k, do you think he was better or worse than his father?
I have been thinking this over, and it’s tough to do a side by side comparison, and I think that’s hard to do with any two presidents because they preside over such different circumstances. It is the case that Bush 43 made better SCOTUS picks than Bush 41, but it is also the case the Bush 43, in another useless gesture of bi-partisanship, resubmitted a bunch of Clinton nominations to the lower court. A gesture for which he was rewarded with… nothing. Although Bush 43 lowered taxes from the sky-high Clinton levels, they are still higher today than when his father left office. Also, “compassionate conservatism” is just a rebranding of his father’s “kinder gentler nation,” both of which implicitly concede the leftist talking point that conservatism is harsh or cruel… and I dispute that characterization of conservatism.
There is far too much of the patrician elitist in both men, and Maverick and Hussein are even worse. Maybe in my lifetime, I will see a president who doesn’t come from the ranks of the elite establishment… but I think the system is stacked against allowing that to happen.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2008 @ 7:58 am - July 11, 2008
68.) Considering that Carter fucked up the economy, fucked up foreign policy, and caused an energy crisis, I’d say he was one of the biggest failures ever.
As for Clinton, he struggled early on, but he was a great politician, and he also embarked on a lot more policy attempts than Bush. I’d say he did a better job of getting his policies accepted than Bush did.
As a conservative, I’m annoyed that Bush raised the deficit so heneously and used terrible tactics for the first four years or so of his war and has contributed to disstability in Afghanistan and Packistan by wasting time in Iraq.
The only positive things he’s done are lower taxes and fight terrorism. You don’t elect a president to accomplish two policies.
[GP Ed. Note -- Normally, the profane language used above would be edited as a violation of community terms of conduct. Because it is justly applied to Jimmy Carter, I'm letting it stand.]
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — July 11, 2008 @ 10:13 am - July 11, 2008
bushco is a failure; the worst ever. he started an immoral and illegal war which has cost 4000+ lives of US soldiers and tens - or hundreds - of thousands of iraqi lives while putting the cost on the back of future generations.
as a “corporate” ceo/president, he’s been a failure. the current recession will widen and he’ll take his fair share of the blame for it.
he’s shredded our constitution.
he’s appointed extremists to the courts.
his social policies, like no child left behind and abstinence only sex “education” are major failures.
his foreign policies, in addition to the quagmire in iraq, are pathetic; pushing his democracy platform everywhere has led to victories by hamas and hezbollah. his decisions to invade iraq - over (non-existent) WMDs and to not invade NKorea (which did have an active nuclear program) has shown iran how to work this administration.
face it, bush will be forever remembered as a man who destroyed our nation’s image and psyche. he will be remembered as the what he was, the worst president ever.
Comment by rightiswrong — July 11, 2008 @ 6:40 pm - July 11, 2008
rightiswrong, wanna back your angry screed up with some facts.
Shredded our constitution? How?
Appointed extremists to the bench? Name one.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 11, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - July 11, 2008
Here’s my faves:
So freeing millions of people from starvation, death and tyranny while stopping oil kickbacks to our “allies” and Kofi Annan is “immoral”. Got it.
And “illegal” based on what? Liberals throw that around and yet never quite seem capable of pointing out exactly which laws have been violated.
And that from the folks who continually violate the first and second amendments and Article II. The same folks who keep trying to take away the Constitutional powers of the POTUS as well as 70+ attempts to grab at the powers of Commander in Chief. The same folks who swear that infanticide is in the Constitution.
What’s more, I’d be interested in the so called “victories” of Hezbollah and Hamas.
And let’s not forget that Libya folded, NoKo was pretty much folded and leaders favorable of the U.S. have been elected in many countries.
Plus, rightiswrong seems to have forgotten that we have rolled up thousands of terrorists. We haven’t been attacked in 7 years. Unlike under the reign of his sweet sonofabitch who ignored the terrorist attacks just so he could maintain his popularity with mindless supporters like RIW.
Can’t invent a surplus if you actually bother to protect the country.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 11, 2008 @ 7:42 pm - July 11, 2008
Say, how many terrorists were pounding sand during the 90s?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 11, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - July 11, 2008
The left has mastered the art of throwing out deranged accusations against Bush that no sane person would believe, and then having those accus