Everything dies down with time. Will Bush be considered the worst President of all time? Likely not. He might be on the list but, to be honest, there have been far worse Presidents. Recent memory will fade, and while people will remember hating the man, two generations from now nobody will remember why.
Also, given that the economic crisis has almost nothing to do with Bush and far more to do with laws passed during the Clinton Administration, putting that one at his feet is as accurate as the Republicans claiming that Reagan was responsible for the boom during his Presidency. Put simply, the President can't do enough to either screw up or improve the economy to offset natural economic upturn and downturn trends.
I don't get it. Four years ago, I bet these people were totally rootin' tootin' George Bush. I just don't get why the Democrats didn't use the "waffle" routine on Republicans. "Yay Bush... Boo Bush!"
I don't get why Bush has a incredibly low approval rating but higher than that percentage voted for McCain. I really wanted to stand outside on the road, here in Western Kansas, with a sign that read "See what happened last time you voted Republican? Give Change a chance." but I never found time. =\
You live in Kansas (I used to as well). Whether you vote or not, whether you campaign or not, whether the candidate is the devil himself or not, the state will vote Republican.
If fact, it's one of many examples I use for why the American Democracy is a sham. :)
So basically what I'm hearing from liberals is that for the past 8 years the democrats in congress and the senate have been asleep and not doing anything.
You may be hearing that, but I'm guessing it's the voices in your head since it has nothing to do with this conversation.
In this post we're talking about a conservative magazine (note the use of the word "CONSERVATIVE" in really big letters) blaming Bush for a whole litany of failures.
I understand you may be trying to say that the Democrats in congress should share some of the blame because they were hanging around when all this happened. But that would be ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of that period, the Democrats held a minority in both the House and Senate and even when they were in the majority, they were stymied by filibusters and vetoes (after Bush magically found his veto pen in early 2007!).
But that's kinda what you do best: ignore the facts. Just put your blinders on, stick your fingers in your ears and carry on.
> In this post we're talking about a conservative magazine (note the use of the word "CONSERVATIVE" in really big letters) blaming Bush for a whole litany of failures.
Names can be deceiving -- for example, despite its name "The New Republic" isn't a Republican magazine. Similarly, the American Conservative is far from being a mainstream conservative magazine. Pat Buchanan was actually one of the co-founders, and he's even more to the left than Obama on foreign policy (he's recently been on the talk show circuit touting his book criticizing our going to war against Nazi Germany).
As for the magazine itself, it endorsed the Democrats in 2006 and Ron Paul in 2008.
Comments 44
"Start" wars? Not so much.
"Shred Constitution"? Still waiting for someone, anyone to demonstrate that their rights have been unlawfully abridged.
Crash economy? Again, not his policies but he does get credit for watching it happen.
Ruin reputation? Not with those whose opinion counts.
Recruit for al Qaeda? Please!
Export jobs/import workers? Not an accurate representation of the situation.
Spy on citizens? Only if they are working with terrorists.
He's still way ahead of those who had horrible one-term presidencies, like Carter.
Reply
Crash economy? Again, not his policies but he does get credit for watching it happen.
That's the funniest one of all. "He gets credit for watching it happen." Hahah.
Reply
Heck, let's start at the top. Please explain how you can believe that Bush did not start a war in Iraq.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
However, that doesn't mean they get free pass.
Reply
Also, given that the economic crisis has almost nothing to do with Bush and far more to do with laws passed during the Clinton Administration, putting that one at his feet is as accurate as the Republicans claiming that Reagan was responsible for the boom during his Presidency. Put simply, the President can't do enough to either screw up or improve the economy to offset natural economic upturn and downturn trends.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I don't get why Bush has a incredibly low approval rating but higher than that percentage voted for McCain. I really wanted to stand outside on the road, here in Western Kansas, with a sign that read "See what happened last time you voted Republican? Give Change a chance." but I never found time. =\
Reply
If fact, it's one of many examples I use for why the American Democracy is a sham. :)
Reply
What's nice about KS, though, is that it's been about 45/55 for the past few elections.
Reply
Reply
Reply
In this post we're talking about a conservative magazine (note the use of the word "CONSERVATIVE" in really big letters) blaming Bush for a whole litany of failures.
I understand you may be trying to say that the Democrats in congress should share some of the blame because they were hanging around when all this happened. But that would be ignoring the fact that for the vast majority of that period, the Democrats held a minority in both the House and Senate and even when they were in the majority, they were stymied by filibusters and vetoes (after Bush magically found his veto pen in early 2007!).
But that's kinda what you do best: ignore the facts. Just put your blinders on, stick your fingers in your ears and carry on.
Reply
Names can be deceiving -- for example, despite its name "The New Republic" isn't a Republican magazine. Similarly, the American Conservative is far from being a mainstream conservative magazine. Pat Buchanan was actually one of the co-founders, and he's even more to the left than Obama on foreign policy (he's recently been on the talk show circuit touting his book criticizing our going to war against Nazi Germany).
As for the magazine itself, it endorsed the Democrats in 2006 and Ron Paul in 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative
Reply
Leave a comment