Posted on 05/22/2008 5:04:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
ping
I actually think it is a failure, but not for any of the reasons the “historians” list.
It’s a failure because Bush caved on almost every issue outside of Iraq and did so in such a way as to totally demoralize and disorganize the conservative base which allowed (somehow, I still haven’t figured out exactly how) John Stupid McCain, the stupidest Republican live, to be the party’s nominee.
Bush won two elections as a “conservative” and handed us over to the wolves.
Bush is to the Republican Party (and to conservatives) what Jimmy Carter was to the United States of America.
If Obama wins the Presidency the Bush admin. will be looked back upon with nostalgia in very short order.
You judge a President by how well his successor does.
Exactly. Any historian that tries to describe how a current presidential administration will fit into historical context is just a clueless idiot.
There's a good reason they don't want their names attached to it--so their names won't be dragged through the mud by actual historians with some context for being stupid.
You beat me to it. Bush’s failure was presiding over the destruction of the Republican Party by turning it away from conservatism.
-- snip --
the zealots in the Middle East - who saw the strong horse in Bush - will test the new president to see whether he or she is a strong or weak horse. And then the real fun will begin.
-- snip --
This is similar to the same crap “historians” published about Reagan in 1998.
1998 should have been 1988.
> Bush won two elections as a conservative and handed us over to the wolves.
Bah, rubbish! Handed over to the wolves! Serious??
The GOP did this to themselves: Bush had nothing to do with the fact that the Republican Party was disorganized, and thereby discarded several credible Conservative candidates in favor of McCain. How was that Bush’s fault?
‘Twas a self-inflicted injury, and it will be punished as such.
Sorry, I’m not buying the “Blame Bush” bleat.
It is way too early to call Bush’s presidency either a success or a failure.
I guess Ronald Reagan was an abject failure then.
This is the one that really frosts me. The top 10% of income earners paid 66% of the federal income taxes in 2005. The lowest 40% paid no income taxes. Indeed, those making less than $20,000/year actually had negative tax rates. How does the Left get away with statements saying that the "rich don't pay their fair share"...the hallmark of both Hillary's and Obama's campaigns? The GOP has done a HORRIBLE job educating the public about who pays what.
In my mind, the biggest reason Bush is viewed as a failure is because he didn't use his veto power enough. He totally lost control of spending, even while he controlled both houses. The GOP is now the Left with a different shade of lipstick. If I don't see evidence of change before November, they will lose my support. No big deal, perhaps, but I know I'm not alone in my feeling about this...
> This is similar to the same crap historians published about Reagan in 1998.
Too right! I remember all kinds of horrible things said about Reagan by all kinds of people. His critics are rather thin-on-the-ground now, and Reagan is seen as a great US President (which he was).
It will be the same deal with GWB. He has been a fine wartime President and that is how posterity will remember him.
You’re saying that Bush I was greater than Reagan?
Most of these A$$ wipes are closet communists, anyway without the cajones to be up front about it (not to mention limp-wrists)...so who gives a rat’s rearend what they think. Screw’em!!!!!!
That is absurd. He stood strong on Life (stem cells and abortion), on judges, set an historic foreign policy to respond to Islamic jihad, lowered taxes significantly leading to a period of growth that has lasted six years so far, tried to privatize social security, and denied the global warming hoax, amongst many other things.
He fell drastically short in leadership to control spending and government growth and he fought for an immigration bill that we do not like. I fault him greatly on the first of those, less so on the second because he ran on that issue twice. He has done great damage to the party in the past three years do to a sudden complete ineptness in the admin’s PR management, after successfully winning the election in ‘00 and ‘04 and winning the Senate back in ‘02. I can fault him for many things, but he has stood strong on most of the issues for almost eight full years.
I place a lot of blame on the scoundrels at the other end of Penn Avenue who spent the same period enjoying their power rather than fighting for any issues.
As president Bush is the leader of the party. His failure to demonstrate any sort of leadership in issues like spending or size of government is part of the reason why the GOP is in such sad shape. Not the only reason, mind. But a big one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.