Bush Says Goodbye:
Perhaps the most interesting thing about President Bush's farewell address is how few people care about President Bush's farewell address. But I thought I would open a thread on it anyway. Feel free to leave your thoughts on the Administration now coming to an end.
They chose to focus their hate on their own person, and not where it belonged, on Islamic extremists who kill their own women and children, strap bombs on their teenagers and declare that there are no gays in their country, people who riot over cartoons who think nothing of firebombing entire neighborhoods in paris, who behead people on camera and broadcast it all over the internet.
My friends, who are against 'organized' religion are strangely silent when it comes to the islamic bad guys. But they sure can hate Bush. It'll be a relief not to hear every conversation started with the phrase 'our appointed President.'
But I wish, I hope he knows that we appreciate the difficulty of the job, and the courage he has shown, in just putting his head down and keeping on, doing what is right. Perfect? No. No one ever is. But there's blame to go around. When the republicans had the majority they should have made those Goddam tax cuts permanent. Nevertheless, people will be wishing they had him back, I'll bet money on it.
People who criticize Bush must love Islamic fundamentalists. Lol. NOBODY likes Islamic fundamentalists except for themselves. They are probably the least likeable people on the planet.
I disagree with Barack Obama on many things. I am glad to see adults leading this country again.
In the 50+ years of my life this was clearly the most incompetent man to sit in the White House. I can not decide how many of the evils he inflicted on this nation were the result of his dumbth (that is dumb taken to a new level) or just pure evil. I'm glad he's gone, I only wish it were sooner. He corrupted or destroyed everything he touched. His fake support for "free enterprise" has once again given statist the ability to claim that freedom (not Bush's big government polices) are responsible for the economic crash. He ripped the Bill of Rights into pieces, he discredited his own religion (not necessarily a bad thing) and he made Americans so anxious for change that they accepted Obama as a better alternative. The Bush legacy is almost entirely negative.
But I'm eager to see how we're going to destroy this next one.
I cannot recall another president who was an object of worship and servile acquiescence. Even Clinton was merely a celebrity, which was distasteful enough. Governance replaced by unquestioning servility and praise is, I believe, unprecedented in this country. I can think of no other country in history where it did anything but devastate.
At least Bush has always had dissenters willing to take him on in the most forceful terms."
Name one who survived the cult of "loyal Bushies".
I see you've not spent much time in the South.
I think his time in office, 15 or 20 years from now, will be remembered as an enlargement of Bork's legacy. No matter how powerful or well meaning you are, the media can destroy you.
That is unless Iraq turns into another Gaza, then we will still be cursing him.
If you look at the taxation data from the Feds, Bush took the least amount out of working people's salaries.
As far as spending goes - in one day Barack managed to outspend all of the so called Republicans gone wild overruns.
I know its not right to qoute facts and stats but be it as it may the the numbers churn into absurdity on these Democratic led Bailouts, makes the tiny correcting programs Bush instituted pale in comparison.
look, it's a mild recession, just like the 5 or so we've had in the last 25 years.
After an unprecendented growth spurt.
Naturally, one party, who continually manages to damage the country, is in total power again.
Is overspending by the trillions in just weeks
An interesting observation, given that Barack still isn't President yet, and Bush strongly pushed the bank bailout (aka "Hugo Chavez meets Wall Street").
And, of course, believing that Saddam Hussein's regime or the North Korean government are evil is simplistic and wrong. Got to love that complex, nuanced, shades of gray thinking of the left.
Second, Bush's complete inability to communicate with the American people and his extraordinarily poor press strategy was a huge failing. Bush gave the fewest press conferences of any President in modern history. He had Scott McClellan as press secretary during a pivotal part of the Iraq war, and McClellan was AWFUL. I realize that the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal, but you have to find a way to work around them. Bush just...didn't. And that allowed public opinion of Iraq to drop to zero following Bush's re-election in 2004, which drug his presidency down.
He is not a cruel or evil man. He is certainly not stupid, analytical limitations not being one of his limitations. He just did not have the necessary mental and experiential tools needed to be a successful president in these times.
You made me think: that plane trip is the perfect metaphor for this Presidency, to quote from the book of Gore: "I think that God's got a sick sense of humor."
They will continue hate and blame Pres. Bush (either or both) for all of their failings and anything else that dissatisfies them. They used to have Nixon, who was blamed for everything from getting the US into Vietnam to the JFK assassination to the failures of the Carter Presidency. It got a bit difficult to continue to blame Nixon for all bad things after he died -- but there were attempts, Now we'll have Bush (and Rove) to blame for all bad things, including Obama's failures, for at least a generation. Heck, Bush/Rove is probably responsible for Hillary as SEC State. That's what great about hate and conspiracy mongering -- you just have to "feel", you don't need facts.
Its not as if this phenomenon is new to Bush. A lot of people despised Clinton as well, and our nation was in great shape throughout his presidency. Of course it is more pronounced with Bush, given all the troubles we've faced (irrespective of blame).
Then I guess you didn't notice the billboard erected for "Our Leader." And you also didn't notice the book written about "The Messiah: The Chosen One." And you also didn't notice the kids who were taught to worship a cardboard figure.
And you also didn't notice the way Bush encouraged those behaviors, by making statements like this:
I think you need to work on your "recall."
We will not witness this evenhandedness with the new administration because the media will not permit it. This honeymoon between Obama and the media sees no end in my view, especially with the convenient excuse that during this economic crisis, we need to disregard ideology, criticism, or any negative thoughts.
As with any new administration regardless of party, I am hopeful for America's future.
The last eight years have shown what an administration looks like with adults in charge. Bush has shown none of the petty vindictiveness and name calling that came out of the last administration.
From what I've seen of Obama when he is asked an uncomfortable question, his response will be similar to that of Bill Clinton. I predict much finger wagging and a put upon attitude as soon as the messiah worship wears off. It's easy to look cool when everyone is kissing your ass.
You're right--he should have been President.
4 days 2 hours 8 minutes until change.
We live at a time where the people seek a President who is both mother and father, personally concerned and capable of correcting harm caused by natural disasters and economic downturns, able to be both economic savior and world-striding warrior, capable of controlling inflation, unemployment, everyone's savings and granting free health care and eliminating all retirement woes, able to make sure all children are educationally above average, and eager to lower your taxes.
To call people unable to achieve that in a 4 year time frame incompetent is uncharitable.
Agreed. The only thing he came close to getting right, he actually screwed up royally -- Miers, whom he himself had picked -- before going back to what he should have done in the first place -- Alito, whom his advisors had been recommending.
Hope and change?
4 days 2 hours 5 minutes until you're out of excuses.
Kennedy
Now th right can gear up the ODS (we have seen flashes of it here but nothing llike on Free Republic).
4 days two hours until change.
.
.
.
True enough, not much difference 'tween 'em re the bailouts, is there?
I'm struck by how quickly we've moved into the Obama presidency. And yes, I think the liberal media boogeyman is responsible. It's all Obama all the time, and has been for most weeks since November.
In 2000, I recall Bush's cabinet picks were often stuck and being argued over into (beyond?) 2nd quarter 2001, while it seems Obama's were being skid-greased before Thanksgiving.
Just seems to be incongruous to me, although Bush vs. Gore likely did lead us to a retribution phase, while Obama has been postured as a savior for a year or so.
I agree with the Bush failings Patrick posted, particularly the communications gap. Bush hasn't a clue here.
Disagree on Patrick'sls view re Rumsfeld/ Iraq though. Biden and McCain and company squealed "he didn't have a plan", and Powell droned on about the broken pottery shop responsibility.
But he had a plan, they just didn't like that Rumsfeld wanted to cut the force to 25,000 or so within 6 months, and cut deals with shaky groups over there, and no Viceroy, and no Green Zone, and no exporting of a Beltway mentality... and ... and... and...
What do you think we've been doing the last year? Patraeus' methods in this case include a slight increase in troops and changed tactics, yes, but also strategic deals and payoffs to Runsfeld's (and yes the Saudi's) aforementioned shaky characters.
Argue Gitmo/interrogations all you'd like, but I still view his actions as of a piece with historical US military actions here (field guys tried and hung who they wanted in WWII, no ACLU or civil courts)
I think Rumsfeld had the right strategy in Iraq, Bush simply went the compassionate conservative route, and we see the results... in Iraq... in the housing bubble... the bailouts.
He's tied with Carter in my lifetime, as of now. And he could yet drop.
.
.
.
True enough, not much difference 'tween 'em re the bailouts, is there?
I'm struck by how quickly we've moved into the Obama presidency. And yes, I think the liberal media boogeyman is responsible. It's all Obama all the time, and has been for most weeks since November.
In 2000, I recall Bush's cabinet picks were often stuck and being argued over into (beyond?) 2nd quarter 2001, while it seems Obama's were being skid-greased before Thanksgiving.
Just seems to be incongruous to me, although Bush vs. Gore likely did lead us to a retribution phase, while Obama has been postured as a savior for a year or so.
I agree with the Bush failings Patrick posted, particularly the communications gap. Bush hasn't a clue here.
Disagree on Patrick'sls view re Rumsfeld/ Iraq though. Biden and McCain and company squealed "he didn't have a plan", and Powell droned on about the broken pottery shop responsibility.
But he had a plan, they just didn't like that Rumsfeld wanted to cut the force to 25,000 or so within 6 months, and cut deals with shaky groups over there, and no Viceroy, and no Green Zone, and no exporting of a Beltway mentality... and ... and... and...
What do you think we've been doing the last year? Patraeus' methods in this case include a slight increase in troops and changed tactics, yes, but also strategic deals and payoffs to Runsfeld's (and yes the Saudi's) aforementioned shaky characters.
Argue Gitmo/interrogations all you'd like, but I still view his actions as of a piece with historical US military actions here (field guys tried and hung who they wanted in WWII, no ACLU or civil courts)
I think Rumsfeld had the right strategy in Iraq, Bush simply went the compassionate conservative route, and we see the results... in Iraq... in the housing bubble... the bailouts.
He's tied with Carter in my lifetime, as of now. And he could yet drop.
Looking at the text of the Bush farewell address he refers to Dr. Tony Rehcasner, Julio Medina, Staff Sgt. Aubrey McDade and Bill Krissoff.
This rhetorical technique often shows up in state of the union addresses, and was used by both candidates during the campaign.
I am not speaking about the "[First Name] the [Profession]" phenomena, but rather the act of naming specific American citizens whose names would not otherwise be in the national dialogue.
Does anyone know where this practice started?
I'd give Obama at least two years to clean up the Augean Stables of a mess that Bush has left--a world economy in shambles (mostly caused by the US subprime debacle), exporting democracy (at the barrel of a gun) where there is no tradition of it (how Wilsonian), a morally (if not actually) corrupt Justice Department, to name a few.
I liked the address. He stood by his principles. He recognized legitimacy of opposition. He was gracious to his successor. And all in the face of overwhelming scorn and derision. To those who say they're glad to see adults back in control, do they expect Obama to be that "adult"? I don't.
Barack Obama - beyond a doubt is the leader of his party. A party which is spending more than the 350 billion that was originally asked for.
Then the man comes out with a stimulus plan that HE himself wrote for another 850 billion
And the Bush birds still try to blame Bush for the 1.2 trillion that Bush never asked for....
Lets get real....
"Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds — the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition. It's not just the retention of such key figures as Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the past year. It's the continuity of policy."
Bush certainly made mistakes — as every President does — but the level of personal villification and hatred he suffered was unwarranted. As history makes his accomplishments clear, those who spent the last 8 years suffering from BDS will know their shame.
I vote Republican because I am fiscally conservative. A Republican-dominated Congress gave me a "bridge to nowhere," and President Bush did not appropriately use his status as leader of the party to thwart such pork.
I vote Republican because I believe able-bodied people should meet their own needs. President Bush gave me the largest expansion in entitlements since LBJ.
I vote Republican because I am skeptical about the ability of human institutions to successfully impose grand schemes. President Bush gave me a war in Iraq.
I vote Republican because I believe the collection of ideas known as 'conservatism' or, if you wish, 'classical liberalism,' represents a better way for dealing with the problems of humanity. I expect the leaders of the Republican party to be able to competently articulate that vision. I have been disappointed.
Overall, I believe President Bush is a good man, and in no way deserves how he has been treated by the media and by the American people. Unfortunately, there are actions which cannot be justified, even by someone who has for eight years tried to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As a reaction to the inadequacies (real or perceived) of the Bush administration, the American people have elected one of the most dangerous ideologues ever to occupy the Oval Office. Squandered opportunities have left a great vacuum, and that vacuum will soon be filled by the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Waxman.
Oh boy. Some guy somewhere self-published a adoring book about Bush. The nation has therefore been in the grips of a cult!
Uh, no. This is much more severe. It's not Great Depressionish by any means (at least not yet) but this, in terms of severity, is definitely reminding me of the seventies.
He has done a number of very good things and some bad ones, although I suspect that I would disagree with some of the posters here about which is which.
It will be years (if not the hundred years that Bush himself thinks it will take) until we are able to assess the Bush Presidency. Just look at the Reagan Presidency: Most of my lefty friends have gotten over their former dislike for Reagan, but there was a commenter here the other day still trashing him.
His reputation will depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan work out in the long run. Simple as that. Unless, of course, the Democrats choose to do a "Hoover" on him if the economy does not respond to their ministrations.
I went back yesterday and reviewed Tuchman's "The Zimmerman Telegram" re Wilson's pre-WWI conduct, actions and personality traits then.
Wilson was driven by a pure internal compass, destructively so. If you didn't agree, you were not to be heard. Horrible foreign policy debacles resulting, with longterm implications that brought us to today's Mesopatamia situation, the Balkans, Mexico still struggling with Civil War and dollar diplomacy hangover, etc.
Plus the Japan and German wars immediately following. Reverend Wilson's work sure didn't bear much fruit, did it?
I do hope Obama does learn from this, but he's an unknown, and doesn't seem to have a bent towards limited government, and may be predisposed to the messianic notions that Wilson and perhaps Bush have demonstrated.
Seriously? You can pick anything, and you want to argue that Bush is a great president because of the current state of the economy compared to 8 years ago?!?
Okaaaaayyyyyyy…
It really did wear out the country. People who have only a casual interest in the presidency were subjected to such a steady diet of Bush is stupid, evil, corrupt etc. that it became conventional wisdom to the unengaged, and not even worth the red-faced stammering and sputtering one would receive if they tried to have an objective conversation about Bush, to the some-what informed. I lived through the 90's and saw this somewhat with my friends on the right with their views on Clinton, but it was not comparable with the utter contempt that the left has had for Bush since about 2003.
I do wonder how his presidency will be looked at 30-40 years from now, because it was a consequential presidency, unlike Clinton's or Carter's. But I see absolutely no hope for anything even resembling objectivity to be applied to Bush from academia or historians for at least 15 years. So many people are so deeply invested in despising him that it will be extraordinarily unlikely for anyone to be willing to take the heat for even appearing to give him any credit - even where due.
The speech last night wasn't grand or astonishing but it was appropriate coming from a man with terrible ratings and a penchant for simplistic speech. In my opinion it was honest and open; I enjoyed watching it.
Can you tell us exactly how he did that? (Note yesterday's FISA court ruling, and Obama's vote for the 2007 Protect America Act.)
I think this, particularly the bold portion, pretty much sums it up for me. The coarsening of political discourse over the past eight (and especially three or four) has been remarkable. The atmosphere has been poisonous. Because of my job, location, and social contacts, I encounter a lot of liberals, and the pervasiveness of Bush contempt is astonishing. Seriously, these folks seen to have a need to work a Bush-bash into every conversation. I can't have any sort of debate with them, because Bush (and by extension, conservatives) aren't just wrong, they're evil. They can't even conceive that a good-faith defense of anything that Bush does is possible.
I don't doubt that Obama is going to bring the country together. I think we're all going to get along with each other better now, at least compared to the past eight years. But that's not because of anything that Obama does; it's because Bush is gone from the political scene. We can have debates without it being tainted by astonishing personal hatred. To that extent, I'm relieved that Obama is president. I don't have to fear an anti-Bush rant wherever I go anymore.
As an aside, I do wonder how much the internet, especially weblogs, fed the phenomenon of Bush hatred. Certainly blogs provide the opportunity for cocooning with the like-minded. The DailyKos echo chamber probably helped whip up a lot of BDS, but there's no way to tell exactly how much. Perhaps the same thing will happen with Obama.
"It's easy to look cool when everyone is kissing your ass."
That's going on my wall!
Typewriters?
What planet are you living on?
There are other copies.
Excellent parody!
First, I'll never understand why the Republcians in Congress (and elsewhere) continued to support Mr. Bush--both rhetorically and practically--so long after it became clear how badly matters were going on his watch.
Second, Mr. Obama has fielded what seems to be a pretty strong team. But eight years ago, Mr. Bush fielded an impressive team too, and look how that turned out.
The fact that (a) you hyperlinked "Augean Stables," as if that were such an obscure allusion that we all needed to be enlightened; and (b) you think the American
sheeppublic will give any president a free pass for two years demonstrates to me that you are a student and not really cognizant of the real world.The more one plays the blame game while in charge, the more one loses credibility.
50+ years from now, people will relax about things. They'll remeber 1990-2010 as years of technological and economic growth spurred by the internet. They'll not really care so much about who was president. Bush v. Gore will also be one of those Presidential trivia moments.
"over his skis". I have never skied but I get the point of the remark.
So many in this administration seemed to be over their skis.
Katrina, yellow cake, the banking meltdown...
But I think, only for my own uses, the administration really went off the rails in the Terry Schiavo matter. This included, as chance would have it, the President's brother as well. It was here that the country got a peek at the lack of intellectual curiousity; the lack of respect for the rule of law; the explicit certainty that God was on their side...etc, that turned a significant number of conservative libertarians off...IMO, that is.
Being a genial, well-meaning chap who loves his wife is not enough to qualify someone for the Presidency.
I think we're all going to get along with each other better now... because Bush is gone from the political scene.
See, he even kept his promise to be a uniter, not a divider!
Mr. Obama has fielded what seems to be a pretty strong team
Aside from Joe "Honorary Williams Syndrome Victim" Biden, and Hillary "Buy One Get One Free" Clinton, I'd be inclined to agree. Even if every claim of incompetence, avarice, stupidity, venality, and cluelessness made against Bush, Cheney, and Powell/Rice were true—they'd still average-out better than Obama, Biden, Clinton.
It is a mistake to believe that these attitudes have anything to do with Bush per se. Of course, specific arguments or mistakes relating to Bush can be used. But liberals always think conservatives are evil. They always will. There is no such thing as a good faith policy disagreement with a liberal. They will always treat conservatives as evil. That's why they borked Bork, called Gingrich the Grinch, and attacked Reagan.
Bush really has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that he's in power and more conservative than them.
I don't doubt that Obama is going to bring the country together. I think we're all going to get along with each other better now, at least compared to the past eight years. But that's not because of anything that Obama does; it's because Bush is gone from the political scene.
It is true that Obama will end liberal carping, but only because the libs are in power again. It won't stop them from calling conservatives evil. They always have, and they always will, until their game is played on their terms. And the only reason why the country will "get along better" is because liberals are in power and can ignore conservative complaints. If conservatives begin to set the tone or the terms of debate again, then they'll quickly say how divisive and evil they are, and they'll use any trick in the book (including the race card).
Really, don't be naive. While Bush can be fairly attacked by anyone, BDS has nothing to do with well-informed policy disputes. And in a generation since Bork, Republicans continue to be stupid enough to take the "high road" and not respond to such attacks, allowing the media to destroy them. If I were Gingrich, I'd call Obama the Infanticide President every time I was on TV.
What Bush has done is to keep the flame against terrorism, the issue that defines his Presidency beyond anything else. I believe he hoped that this would be the rallying point for the nation, and would hold us together, as it did in the aftermath of 9/11. It hasn't worked that way.
Instead, he's leaving behind him a nation deeply divided. He's universally loathed on the left, and by all of General Gadsden's followers on the right.
You can say this for President Bush: he was a firm believer in the principles of liberty, but he has not been able to convince the American public that this is our major problem today. So we are now a polity full of discord and dissatisfaction. Bush failed in holding us together as a nation -- which I believe was what he really aimed at in the war on terrorism.
So now the voters have handed over our future to an absolutely downright crazed Congress, with 9% approval ratings, and an inexperienced President who will be tested by Reid, Pelosi, and the Old Bulls of Congress, along with all foreign challengers from Hamas to Putin to all the terrorists out there. Bush will look better in four years, but we will still be an unhappy nation.
The Schiavo thing was divisive, and Bush took a hit on it, but let's not pretend that this, or anyone's other minor hobby-horse had any meaningful influence on the 2006 and 2008 elections. Obama and the Democrats won because of the economy and Iraq war.
As a libertarian who voted for Bush twice, for lack of a better option both times, I've often wondered if the country would have been better off had Al Gore won, and we therefore had split government. The Republicans in Congress gave Bush any new government program or expansion he wanted. They ignored their core principles. This began with the prescription drug benefit and no child left behind. They didn't want to fight a Republican president. They would have had no such hesitance if it had been Al Gore trying to expand the federal government.
Bush did what he thought was right, but the country is profoundly worse off for his time in office.
You are a racist bigot.
Republican President + Republican Congress = deficit
Republican President + Democratic Congress = deficit
Democratic President + Democratic Congress = deficit
Democratic President + Republican Congress = surplus
I can live with split government. Let's get working on that!
Some of it was terrible. What was terrible was the spin. He spoke about the success in Afghanistan and Iraq. But for Afghanistan it would have been more truthful to say that Afghhanistan used to under the Taliban, it became a just government - and now things threaten to get worse again and if we mismanage things could go all the way back to the way it was before. Iraq *is* now virtually a success. But what about all those other countres where liberty did not advance? Burma, China, Zombabwe, north korea. He spoke nothing of that. And in regard to terrorism never included terrorism against Israel as part of terrorism.
And he never really explained who the people were who he introduced. He could have really given them publicity.
I don't think it's that people don't care, so much as what is there left for anybody who likes or dislikes him to say? Beyond that, there are so many pressing issues that Bush seems completely irrelevant in relation to now.
Not popular enough to win re-election in 1888 (though, in fairness, he did win a plurality of the popular vote while losing the EC by a large margin).
Having met Bush and having observed him closely during the several hours of interaction, I saw a man who cares for the US and for the people.
I cannot say the same for our current. One who will not quiet the people by proving that he holds the qualifications for the Presidency speaks volumes about the man.
Right. As has been pointed out (repeatedly and obnoxiously) Obama will have his chance to redo Roosevelt starting in just a few days.
And of course no discussion of Bush II is complete without noting that it was all Clinton's fault.
Easy. Bush is a war hero due to 9/11, and you CAN'T go up against a war hero.
Question - how many veto's did Bush issue during the first five years of his Presidency? As long as the congress knew they had carte blanche, why, they were just fine with pretty much anything Bush did. If you look back on policy, you'll find the Republican Congress dictated much of it. There were some Bush initiatives that wouldn't have gone over too well in a normal congress, such as Medicare-D, NCLB, but bribery with earmarks (thank you Tom Delay) guaranteed its passage. Republicans as a brand will be stained by this period for a long time I'm afraid.
PS. I left the party in 06 and am registered Libertarian... the only one on the list at my polling place.
I predict the Pledge of Allegiance will experience a resurgence in popularity.
Bush does seem to like to defer to Mexican interests. When the Mexican President Felipe Calderón challenged US sovereignty by announcing “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,... ” Bush remained silent. In one of his recent speeches Bush expressed extreme regret that the amnesty bill failed. This was clearly one of the major priorities of his presidency.
Good riddance.
I doubt folks will remember, the next candidate will come along, promise lots of stuff, lots of time will be wasted on blogs/TV/newspapers arguing over it, and whatever it is won't happen anyway.
Grover Cleveland, who I understand was incredibly popular at the time, is simply a footnote in Presidential trivia.
Cleveland wasn't popular. He was a minority president in 1884, lost the electoral college in 1888 while barely winning the popular vote (and still getting a minority), and didn't come close to getting a majority in 1892 (with a third party in the mix). The main reason he won in 1892 was because he wasn't Benjamin Harrison, who, with the aid of his fellow Republicans, thoroughly screwed up the economy (which promptly collapsed under Cleveland). Cleveland in 1896 was like Hoover in 1932. Really the 1888 and 1892 were people deciding which candidate they hated least.
Before Nov. 1963, JFK's "accomplishments" were the Berlin Wall, Bay of Pigs, assassination of Pres. Diem, failure to get any civil rights legislation enacted, and Missles of October. After Nov. 1963, he was a saint, especially when looking at a LBJ Presidency.
In Aug. 1864 it was questionable whether Abe Lincoln who be re-nominated by the Republican Party. In Sept. 1864 there was no reason to believe that Abe could defeat George McCellan. Then Atlanta fell (and McCellan proved to be no more competent campaigning for President than he had been campaigning in Virginia against Bobbie Lee. In March 1865, folks were asking whether re-electing Lincoln was a mistake -- at least till Richmond fell. By late April 1865, Lincoln was a saint, especially when looking at an Andrew Johnson Presidency.
Perceptions change depending on whether you study history by reading contemporary accounts or by reading the (re)writings of apologists.
95 hours 12 minutes and counting.
In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.
In fact, W. alluded to a way he could make up for the failings of his administration -- serve himself in Iraq. At 62, W. is only two years older than one of the men he honored for going to serve in Iraq, Bill Krissoff:
We see America's character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit. But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America's wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.
Some other comments:
Yet Senate Banking Committee leader Richard Shelby could not get the Hagel-Dole reform of Fannie/Freddie oversight out of his committee, even the next year when McCain jumped on the bandwagon. Not till the Dems got control of Congress did a Fannie/Freddie reform bill pass -- authored by Nancy Pelosi.
Indeed.
Hank and Peggy Hill -- another Texan couple with a well-meaning husband and a more sensible wife -- are leaving the public eye at the same time as George and Laura Bush -- coincidence?
Right-wing ideologues are trying to make this case, not "people." If FDR's policies lengthened the Great Depression, some other national leader's policies must have shortened their Great Depression. Which industrial country's policies resulted in a shorter depression, and how?
Like W.'s taking credit for his policies preventing a repeat of 9-11, the New Dealers can equally persuasively take credit for their policies preventing a subsequent collapse of the economy, until the explosion of credit default swaps on W.'s watch.
sheeppublic will give any president a free pass for two years demonstrates to me that you are a student and not really cognizant of the real world.I never said he would get a free pass, I just think it will take Obama that long to clean up the mess. Also the term you were looking for is "sheeple."
Democratic President + Republican Congress + Stock market bubble = surplus.
Revenues were increasing for a little while faster than Congress could keep up with, which isn't remotely the same thing as fiscal responsiblity.
What policies?
Revenues were increasing for a little while faster than Congress could keep up with, which isn't remotely the same thing as fiscal responsiblity.
No real argument from me.
The government is pretty much the only entity that can benefit from a bubble without the risk of getting burned. It doesn't have to time the market. It doesn't have to get in on the ground floor. It just has to sit back and collect tax revenue. Then it must recognize that what we're seeing is a bubble, and not real growth. and therefore has to save the surpluses that it's making.
Everyone knew we were in a tech stock bubble, but if you timed the market right, the fact that it was a bubble didn't prevent you from making gains and holding on to them. Everyone knew we were in a housing bubble, but if you bought and sold at the right time, you made out like a bandit. The government didn't have to worry about that. They could just enjoy the tax revenue generated by the bubble, knowing that eventually the pig-out would end. But, whoops, they treated the bubbles as real and spent like mad.
The remainder of this comment is dedicated to all those commenters who have made sweeping remarks about the disdain and loathing liberals have for President Bush.
If the Bush-Cheney view of the presidency is correct, and all (executive) power is concentrated in the President, and flows from the President, the corollary must be that all responsibility for executive branch action (or for outcomes resulting from executive branch policies, etc.) ultimately rests on the President. I make this rather simple point because the same people who defend that particular view of the presidency tend to blame administration officials for things that went wrong, stopping the buck well short of the President himself.
Case in point: President Bush is responsible for what Rumsfeld did as SecDef, including his many failings. That Rumsfeld was a disaster as SecDef is, I think, unquestionable. Secretary Gates has rolled back much of Rumsfeld's wreckage. President Bush should be given credit for doing what was necessary to fix things at DoD by appointing Secretary Gates. President Bush should be blamed for waiting so long before making that change. Take Iraq. I grant you, Iraq does appear to be turning (or turned) around. We'll see where it goes from here, but there has been significant progress made recently. But Iraq did not have to be as bad as it got. How many lives were lost, American &Iraqi alike, how much treasure expended, how much diplomatic and moral credibility lost, in the period where Rumsfeld clearly needed to go but President Bush refused to fire him? In my judgment, it was simply unreasonable to retain Rumsfeld for as long as President Bush did. It was unreasonable at the time, and it was unreasonable upon reflection. That's my judgment. I have judgments about many things that happened during President Bush's terms.
This same type of assessment can be done across the board. We can't expect perfection, but we can expect--indeed, we can, and ought to, insist--that reasonable judgments be made in a timely fashion.
Personally, I think he was a terrible President. I don't know the man, though, so I make no claim about who he is as a person, his character or his personal belief system, or anything else like that. I don't hate George W. Bush. I hate some of his policies, some of the outcomes of his policies, and what I perceive to be the damage that his administration has done to this country. I hate that the United States of America tortured detainees, and that we did makes me angry. It disgusts me. I believe President Bush is responsible for it. But I do not hate President Bush. I will be enormously relieved when his administration comes to a close. But I do not hate the man. I have vitriol for what his presidency wrought upon us. I have no vitriol for the man.
The man is not his policies. The man is not his policy outcomes. I can hate the actions and outcomes of his presidency without hating the man himself. It's called political disagreement.
As for the rest, we won this time around. In fact, we stomped you. Try to beat us next time if you don't like it. In the meantime, do us all a favor and stop whining. If you want to disagree with President-Elect Obama's policies, or political philosophy, do so. Do so vigorously. I welcome that. The whining, not so much.
If Obama reaches the end of 4 or 8 years and the same thing can be said, then I will judge his presidency a success as well. Everything else is pretty much secondary.
Oh, give me a break. You can except yourself from the hatrid of your liberal compatriots, but there's no doubt that they personally hate Bush. They live off of their hate. How many times do I have to hear of "Chimpy McBushitler" before my B.S. meter goes off the charts?
There is No. Freaking. Way. that anyone will believe that the left has been respectful of President Bush. And if this happens to Obama, that's just tough.
Another parallel between the two is their evangelical Christianity, and I think they both well illustrate Machiavelli's theory that the values of Christ are incompatible with the values of State. Anyone who takes their Imitation of Christ as seriously as Bush/Carter did will inevitably become a scapegoat, as did Christ himself.
I pray that God might work his mysterious redemption through their faith as well, but its certainly not obvious how that might happen.
Japan's Samurai, (Wikipedia defines the word as "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility"), once had a proud tradition of taking responsibility when they had erred grievously, and that wasn't by seeking job promotion.
Best of luck with that. Bush's equally sound victory over Kerry did nothing to dissuade people who have a very deeply-rooted psychological need to whine about him.
Bush won by 1 state (Ohio) in 2004, so "equally sound" seems like an overstatement.
As for Bush's critics -- yeah, the decision to invade Iraq, Katrina, the economic collapse, torture, blah blah blah, sure, these are all bad things. But on September 11th, three thousand Americans were murdered by terrorists in New York City, so it's not like his whole Presidency was a disaster, right?
As I survey the wreckage that is 2009 America, it is no comfort than in the tossup election between two men of privilege in November 1999, I avoided voting for the sociopath. What a disastrous record he compiled, by any metric.
Bad English said: Bush's equally sound victory over Kerry did nothing to dissuade people who have a very deeply-rooted psychological need to whine about him. In 2008, Obama won 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, meaning Obama won 68% of the electoral college. See here.
In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252, meaning Bush won 53% of the electoral college. See here.
Not quite "equally sound."
Why is that interesting? I don't recall large numbers of people caring about any other President's farewell address at the time it happened.
Nick
(I'm sure you can guess what prompted me to refresh my memory of this subject at that particular time.) The article is long, but here is the pertinent portion: Wikipedia has a list of similar individuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_"Lenny_Skutniks"
If I had to guess that's where it started. But I could very well be wrong.
And there's a vast space between the indisputable winner of an election by slim margins and the indisputable winner of an election by large margins. It's called a mandate.
And yes, the BUSHILTERCHIMPCHENEYHALLIBURTONINC LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!11! mantra is whining, not political dissent.
Bush was held personally responsible for the problems related to Hurricane Katrina. Does he get credit for yesterday's miracle in NYC?"
No. He gets no credit because yesterday was not a miracle. It was the result of the cooperative and capable efforts of highly trained and experienced unionized professionals at each and every level. That is, it was exactly the opposite of everything that GWB (and Ronald Reagan, for that matter) represented. Inexperienced and incompetent cronies would (as they have for the last eight years) crashed the plane with most if not all lives lost.
Finally, I am amused at those who seem to assert that GWB became president on 9.12.01, and was not president on 9.11.01 and was therefore not responsible for anything that occurred from 1.20.01 to that date. His "9/11 performance" includes the fact of and failure to prevent or mitigate the events of "9/11".
That's the basis for a politics of identity that will make Obama as much a failure as Bush. Democrats versus Republicans, Steelers vs. Browns, Giants vs. Dodgers. Yuck.
DiversityHire: No, it's the basis of a politics of... political parties...
I fail to understand the relevance. Fine, it's not "all liberals." Does that matter? Originally, you said "we won this time around. In fact, we stomped you. Try to beat us next time if you don't like it." I think it's fair to conclude that the incessent BDS of liberals probably helped set the tone for Obama's victory. So why shouldn't conservatives try that as well? What's wrong with a little ODS? It may be disagreeable, but you can't argue with success.
Being crazy isn't strictly liberal or conservative, but I think it's quite fair to say that it's mainstream for liberalism while it's not for conservatives. Nobody can compare to a liberal's street theatre, with all the nutjob signs and rantings they spew.
In any event, you plead for conservatives to stop whining while daring us to try to win again. I think the lesson is, whining works with the majority of people. I remain unconvinced that referring to Obama as the Infanticide President would be a tactical mistake.
I can sum up my view of the Bush presidency's success in one sentence: Over 7 years since 9/11 and no major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
If Obama reaches the end of 4 or 8 years and the same thing can be said, then I will judge his presidency a success as well. Everything else is pretty much secondary."
Why judge GWB on only the last 7 1/2 years? What about the first 9 months?
I not only read it, I copied and pasted it verbatim. Again, good luck with your demand to the whiners of the world. I sincerely doubt that they'll obey you.
The notion that either American political party is coherent enough in its constituency, ideology, or ethics to earn identification with what are basically its hood-winked customers is laughable. Is it a good idea for any individual to identify strongly with a brand like that? Or, for that matter, any large, loose group over which he/she has no control?
It's like saying "Whoo hoo! Best Buy really stomped Circuit City! We're so awesome!"
I agree. I think we should use the same calendar for gauging President Obama's economic performance in his first 9 months in office :)
Like Johannes Mehserle, or the Metrolink engineers in LA. Clearly unionization is key to understanding all four of these incidents, shouldn't these experienced, highly-trained professionals receive their due credit?
I am amused at those…
Who believe that everything (bad) that happened from 1/20/2001-1/20/2009 is George Bush's fault, or the previous 8 years are all Bill Clinton's fault. Or that something will magically happen on tuesday to wash that all away. It didn't happen on before, won't happen this time. Like it or not, whatever "messes" we're in is of our own making.
In that spirit, I say to those commentators whining about Obama, "We beat you."
Yes we can, and yes we did.
@Syd: none of that is going to happen, but you can keep posing absurd hypotheticals if you like. Yes, to me, preventing another major terrorist attack is the most important thing Obama can do the next 4 years.
@RPT: Since you are so much persuaded that Bush had ample time to stop 9/11 during his first nine months, I'm sure you'll no doubt agree that Clinton had simply an eternity. The truth is, neither one of them is to blame for something that at the time was inconceivable. It is only in restrospect that we imagine they could have. The important thing is that we continue to stop it from happening again. Bush has succeeded. Will Obama? Will Nancy Pelosi let him?
I think bilingualism (or tri- or mult-) is a good thing. It makes kids smarter, and gives them a chance to communicate with more people in the world, and read more things. For example, I'm sure EV can communicate, at least roughly, with people from Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia, Bulgaria, Belarussia, etc. That's cool!
Anecdotally, all the people I know who grew up speaking multiple languages all turned out really smart.
BTW what is the "American ideal" ??
John Glenn.
This is the part of cults that I fear: True believers don't need thought, complete or otherwise. They therefore do not require a coherent statement of principle. They desperately rely on faith instead. - even when that faith has already pointedly failed the faithful. And they just keep stampeding over anyone who thinks to ask the obvious questions.
Did they start off really dumb?
You can't forget something that didn't happen.
I can't think of any better example, because I am currently mesmerized, by reading many of the now over 10,000 articles on Google News about what this class act did in real time. I submit that real time is the true measure of one's grit.
Now we might compare our pols to that.
1. Right click on the (link) in the upper right hand corner of the comment.
2. Left click "Copy Link Location" (That's Firefox - I don't remember the command in IE, but it may be something like "Copy Link").
3. Select (i.e., left click and drag the mouse over) the part of your comment you want to link from.
4. Left click the "Link" button above the comment box.
5. Paste the copied link location into the prompt box.
6. Hit "Ok."
7. Remember that Preview is your friend.
I agree with the first, and strongly doubt the second. As Elliot suggested, the results may have been biased by the starting point.
The great governor of Illinois--His name escapes me just now--decided to give books to all the kids in the state. Because, you see, kids with more books do better in school, and so on.
This gets some play in "Freakonomics." But it's pretty basic. I suspect that you would find an even higher correlation if you looked at average SAT scores and the costs of the vehicles in the garage. Should Illinois buy everyone a Lambrghini Reventónn?
Thanks. In Internet Explorer it is "Copy Shortcut." But it works. I will remember it in the future when I am referencing previous posts.
Also, that Lambo idea sucks. But a Ferrari California in every garage sounds like change I can believe in.
I'll bet they could get a better deal if they bought everyone a seat in the U.S. Senate, and the SAT correlation's probably even higher.
And so conservatives are the evil, over-the-top, mean-spirited ideologues disconnected from reality ... right.
Off to search the intartubes ....
He's a leading academic authority, but as a practitioner he couldn't carry Frank Luntz's rhetorical jock strap. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
You seem to be repeating a common theme, that no one anticipated the use of hijacked airplanes as missiles. Trouble is, this theme is false.
"He's a leading academic authority"
Another sad commentary on the academy. Lakoff would get laughed out of the typical 3am Dorm bullshit session.
The particular framing that caught my attention around the time of the Enron scandal, (who flew Bushes around in the company plane), was by James Gilmore, who said that they (Republicans in office) would operate by stealth and that people wouldn't see what hit them until it was too late.
The later variation of this, significantly more refined, was reported by Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed Bush aide:
Now if anyone has an inside scoop, I would sure like to know the complete etymology of that.
control-click == right click, Hoosier.
—————
I owe you one!
So here's my gift to you: My official portrait.
"Now if anyone has an inside scoop, I would sure like to know the complete etymology of that."
Seeing as how I've seen that one particular quote paraded around the internet for several years like a prized trophy, with precious little else from where that came from, I'd say you're grasping at straws to confirm some strange prejudices.
The distinction referred to is the ancient and unremarkable one of thought/act, Aristotle/Alexander, Greece/Rome, Pope/King, et. al. The only remarkable thing is that so many seem to find it remarkable. Now Obama will act and you'll study him and the results of his actions. What's the big deal? I'd rather we were less of an Empire, but few in the academy dispute that we are, correct?
BTW, within mathematics there is some debate as to whether math is invented or discovered, and how each conception affects how it is taught/learned. Similar issues. Also Wojtyla's philosophy can be read to update Descartes as "We act, therefore we are."
I think you can tell from the picture that I am severely disabled.
And then there's the "hand thing."
I thought Chris Matthews nailed it.
Well, then you're wrong. Now can you post a link so I can find out what he said?
Nah. It goes to the very heart of my conspiracy theories. A lowly aide to Bush did not author that frame. So who did? And that is just a frame. What is the real substantive policicy the frame was constructed for? What did it evolve into after that, when it dropped off the radar screens?
When former Enron vice chairman J. Clifford Baxter agreed to inform on Enron, he was found dead in a questionable suicide. With the white hot media spotlight on Enron as the nation's scape goat at that moment, and Bush so close to Kenny Boy, Bush could not have won the election without masterful framing. Jeffery Skilling framed Baxter's "suicide" by attributing the remark to him, "They're calling us child molesters!"
Right on cue, the media went off on a different hunt, chasing that red herring, dutifully regarding it as a bigger scapegoat in, Here Thar Be Monsters! The Catholic Church witch hunt ensued and Arthur Andersen's destruction of the evidence for Enron was allowed to slide.
Oh, wait. Sorry.
I'm glad that your differentlyabledness doesn't prevent you from commenting. Given your condition, I'd suggest turning on "Speakable Items" on your wife's mac. That or getting a couple pairs of scissors and starting a landscaping/hairstyling company.
And there you have it, voilà, the Enronization of America.
Yeah, but what about the Trilateral Commission?
Even for a Lakoff enthusiast, your paranoia is impressive.
You no like my hair?
Notwithstanding, I just can't wait for next Tuesday to come, when I can start keeping score of the Obama regime.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.