-
Why Bush is relevant
In response to frequent queries about raising the spector of Bush during my posts, I thought I would state why, in my opinion, he is far more relevent now than he ever was in office (not saying much).
Frequent ad homium acts on Obama take the form of “worst ever”, “the *&)@#$ you libs voted for”, “with Obama’s plan, the country is circling the bowl” etc. All of these diatribes are meaningless without context. Worse than whom? compared to the *&)@#$ the right voted for? past administration policies/plans? It is therefore wholly appropriate to look back to past presidents, particularly Repubs and evaluate their performance. While we could reach back to Trickie Dick, Trickle down, or GHWB, it would seem that the underlying world parameters that Obama is facing most closely compare to Bush Jr.
Look, I don’t like it either. I would like to forget the past 8yrs. I’m certainly grateful that Bush is now in Crawford, where he can no longer be manipulated by D*ck into causing more harm, but when the righties talk hyperbole, out from the closet he’ll come (now there is an image for CardiacEvent and his homophobia) to point out their flagrant hypocrisy.
-
15 Replies
-
First, he lives in Dallas.
Second, I think the argument hurts Obama more than it helps. Yes, Bush deserves much more blame for the economic woes than Obama. It isn’t even close. That said, the foreign policy stuff? Every president has had to deal with it. Bush was handed the Iran problem, and now handed it off. North Korea too. Afghanistan was a problem before Bush, though no one realized it. Iraq is the one exception, where clearly it was Bush’s responsibility.
I think politically Obama would be better served by never talking about Bush. It doesn’t help him. No matter who or what caused the problems, they are Obama’s problems now.
-
As much as I generally take the opposite view, I would agree and, to your credit, rarely to you state/reference comparative statements as in the OP. Unfortunately, others that share your general ideology can’t seem to help themselves and then wonder why Bush is used as fodder for rebuttal.
-
Well in fairness to Bush you can’t completely evaluate him without understanding the actions of those who came before him either. For example Clinton’s repealing of the Glass-Steagall act has a lot to do with the current economic predicament. You cannot currently view Obama in anything but through the prism of what came before him either.
I do agree that given the intense partisanship behind everything, that any mention of Bush is bound to get the rabid right’s hackels up rather than aiding in the discussion-
Agree totally on Glass-Steagall…a mistake by Clinton and the Republicans.
That is my point. The time is quickly coming that Americans will not care at all who was at fault for what is going on…Obama will own it, no matter what.
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
Well in fairness to Bush you can’t completely evaluate him without understanding the actions of those who came before him either. For example Clinton’s repealing of the Glass-Steagall act has a lot to do with the current economic predicament. You cannot currently view Obama in anything but through the prism of what came before him either.
I do agree that given the intense partisanship behind everything, that any mention of Bush is bound to get the rabid right’s hackels up rather than aiding in the discussion
The irony is that Bush is now repudiated by the Right as a “Liberal” and faux-Conservative/Republican who was incompetent and screwed everything up – that is until some “Lefty” criticizes him, then he is the great action-hero Conservative and everything bad on his watch was actually caused by Clinton and Carter and all the other Dems/Liberals since Roosevelt.
Nothing like having it both ways.
-
-
-
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ….. I’m lettin Bush go, gracefully, like the nightmare I had last night. The sun’s shining, why remember the dark of night?
-
The main reason to talk about Bush is only if you are not succeeding now. If there were numerous success stories to hold up, then they wouldn’t be talking about Bush.
-
After breakfast this morning, I saved 8 million jobs. I know that I cant really prove it, but who’s to say that without my actions before lunch, 8 million people wouldn’t have lost their jobs. Obama truly is the smartest politician ever. Make claims that are literally impossible to prove/disprove.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
The main reason to talk about Bush is only if you are not succeeding now. If there were numerous success stories to hold up, then they wouldn’t be talking about Bush.
MISTRAD, I’m not sure the problem is that you don’t read the posts or it’s simply comprehension. My OP states the reason for drudging up Bush is to point to the hypocrisy of the frequent over the top, comparative statements by the right wingers on this forum. Sorry, but their intellectual dishonesty cannot go unchallenged. That’s the only reason.
Obama has, in only 8 months, succeeded in many areas, in many areas the jury is still out and in a few areas, he has disappointed those that voted for him. It is too early to tell if he will be a great, average or horrible president but, unlike the right, my mind is open. If he is sh*t, I’ll post it on this forum. If he is great, will you? Can you be honest? Or, are your metrics so slanted that no matter what he does, in the next 3 1/2 years, you’ve already judged him a failure. This is the problem with the right – no for the sake of no.
-
Liberals are scurrying to try and hide behind Bush’s pants at every turn. Instead of facing the fact that Obama’s empty rhetoric is getting us nowhere they continually try to justify Obama’s every failing by blaming Bush. The fact of the matter is that foreign leaders and allies knew that Bush meant what he said. They may not have agreed with him, but they respected him. I have no doubt that one day Bush will be vindicated from all of the vitriolic demagoguery thrown at him by the chicken hawk Democrats. He was right when he identified the Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil. He was right when he calculated that Iraq under Hussein was a destabilizing force in the heart of the Middle East. He was right in surging troops in Iraq, but not escalating Afghanistan. He was right in standing with Israel. He was right in instituting TARP. He was right when he calculated that cutting taxes would stimulate job growth and pull us out of the Clinton recession. He was right in attempting to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. He was right in instituting the Patriot act. He was right in strengthening and integrating intelligence services.
Obama has shown nothing but empty talk for a whole year. His constant idiotic utopian BS is getting old.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
The fact of the matter is that foreign leaders and allies knew that Bush meant what he said.
When all you have is a Hammer, all you see are Nails. One dimensional foreign policy is ineffectual but easy to interpret.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
They may not have agreed with him, but they respected him.
G.W. Bush? The 43rd president? HA! HA! HA! HA! They respected him! HA! HA! HA! HA!
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
I have no doubt that one day Bush will be vindicated from all of the vitriolic demagoguery thrown at him by the chicken hawk Democrats.
Not in your life time, but please, start holding your breath.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right when he identified the Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil.
Yes what a diplomatic coup. Identifying three known authoritarian regimes and making up connections that didn’t exist. Bold stroke. Really furthered negotiations wrt their nuclear weapons programs, oops, Iraq didn’t have one – see below. As I recall North Korea reconstituted their nuclear program under your Dear Leader’s watch, detonating their first nuclear device Oct 9 2006.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right when he calculated that Iraq under Hussein was a destabilizing force in the heart of the Middle East.
Was that his foundation for selling the Iraq war? Wow, you must be important, being in the inner circle (9th?) because for the rest of the country he, Dcik and co. sold Iraq as an eminent threat, accumulating WMD. Wait a minute, you still believe it don’t you? Splains everything! Look, I’ll type slow with big letters – THE STATED RATIONALE FOR THE IRAQ WAR WAS WRONG. BUSH WAS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG. PERIOD. END STOP. (note: I haven’t laid blame or run off in some conspiracy, that’s for another post…)
Hussein was far from destabilizing. He kept Iran in check for years – funded by the good ole USA. The right has a way of building up despots then being surprised when they don’t heed the call: Sadam, Noriega and let’s not forget Bin Laden.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in surging troops in Iraq, but not escalating Afghanistan.
Actually, jury is divided. Some agree that the surge was the answer. Some, however, think that it was buying off the militants. Either way, it was a cluster f*ck for, what 5-6 years, until Gates came on board. Bush valued loyalty and nepotism over competency – I give you Rummie, Dick Cheney’s mentor – alot of lives paid for that relationship.To their credit, many Repubs spoke out against Rummie, including McCain, but their criticism fell on deaf or indifferent ears.
You may be right about Afghanistan. I will await your praise for Obama if he pulls out the troops. I will not be holding my breath.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in standing with Israel.
Yeah, that really furthered the peace process. BOTH sides in that chronic conflict are culpable. If you think Israel is innocent then you need to get out more.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in instituting TARP.
He and the Democratic congress. Jury still out.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right when he calculated that cutting taxes would stimulate job growth and pull us out of the Clinton recession.
Clinton recession? Revisionist history.
From Business Week (not the ‘left wing MSM’)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm
Yes we can all see the benefit of his economic policies, or is this too, Obama’s recession? Weak!
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in attempting to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
Attempting? Repubs controlled the House, Senate and WH for, what, 6 years. Obviously a priority. The fact it wasn’t done was a political calculation made to appease big banks and cater to a constituency. Admittedly, the Dems are screwing this up as well.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in instituting the Patriot act.
This is the most curious from the right. ‘Big government = Bad.’, ‘Government using census to identify were we live to round us up.’, ‘Get the Government out of our lives’ ‘Black Helicopters are coming’ etc. But Government can spy on us. Government can suspend our liberties and freedoms without jurisprudence. Government is good.
Your twisted logic is painful. My eyes hurt.
OK, bear with me spanky, we’re getting near the end. – still holding our breath I hope.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
He was right in strengthening and integrating intelligence services.
Had to. 09/11/2001 showed serious flaws. Score one for the Big guy.
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Obama has shown nothing but empty talk for a whole year. His constant idiotic utopian BS is getting old.
President for 8 months. What does the right have against utopia – isn’t that what haven is supposed to be all about and no, this is not some obtuse reference to Obama = god. I’m not saying it will ever be achieved but, as a goal, it’s a pretty f*ing good one. The good thing for you is that a utopian society would even accept you, so you can run it down and it’s a win-win for you. And like most righties, I know your hypocrisy wont keep you from wanting in.
-
Oops, almost forgot:
09/11 – On Bush/Cheney’s watch.
Abu Ghraib – On Bush/Cheney’s watch
Katrina – On Bush/Brownie’s watch
Failure of Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, with the government takeover due to insolvency of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae and AIG and with melt down of the global financial system centered in the USA, based on credit default swaps – On Bush/Paulson’s watchYep, the Bush administration will be hailed as one of the most complete F*** ups of all time.
-
Making him pretty relevant
-
It only took 7 years for a reason to bump this thread to finally present itlself but …
Thanks to Trump toxicity on the campaign trail Bush is relevant again!
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/george-w-bush-returns-politics-aid-troubled-gop-senators-n594456]
[h1]George W. Bush Returns to Politics to Aid Troubled GOP Senators[/url][/h1]
Former President George W. Bush is diving back into politics in an effort to try to save his party’s most vulnerable senators, including those whose campaigns have become more challenging with Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, NBC News has confirmed.
In recent weeks, Bush has headlined fundraisers for two Republican senators and is committed to helping three more. He has already headlined events for Senators John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. He is committed to headlining events for Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
Bush’s office confirms that at the event for McCain, the former president stressed the importance of preserving the Republican-held Senate as a “check and balance” on the White House – a check Bush believes would be needed whether the next president is Trump or Hillary Clinton.-
[h2][link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/texas-end-of-bush-dynasty/]Is this how the Bush dynasty ends?[/link][/h2]
The secret to the Bush familys longevity in politics was its quickness to move with the country relocating from New England to Texas to Florida, while shifting from country-club moderates to brush-clearing conservatives, as well as from Episcopalians to born-again evangelicals as tastes changed.
But the GOP in the era of Donald Trump has changed too dramatically for the Bushies to extend their dynasty into the fourth generation. Seventy years after the patriarch, Prescott Bush, was first elected to the Senate in Connecticut, George P. Bush lost a race Tuesday in Texas to be the next attorney general of the Lone Star State.
This is the third defeat Republican voters have handed Bush men since Trump rode down the golden escalator in 2015. Jeb Bush, George P.s father, ended his 2016 presidential bid after getting 3 percent in Iowa, 11 percent in New Hampshire and 8 percent in South Carolina. Pierce Bush, George P.s cousin, finished third in 2020 when he ran for an open congressional seat near Houston, failing to even qualify for a runoff.
…
{T}he Bush era in Republican politics likely ended in 2009. Thats when George W. Bush left the White House, and the tea party movement soon developed as a repudiation from the right of his presidency. That movement fed, watered and foreshadowed the Trump era and a cultural tide among Republicans with which not even the Bush clan could contend.
[/QUOTE]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
