Posted on 11/06/2008 12:50:28 PM PST by meandog
It's tempting right now to say President Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever to dis-grace the White House. But is that fair, or even accurate?
Historian renderings of a legacy are often at odds with fluctuating public opinion polls that gauge the heat of the moment. Take Truman. The man had a 22 percent approval rating toward the end of his presidency--due in large part to a highly unpopular Korean War--yet he's among the most popular presidents in history.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate and argue that it is at least in the realm of possibility that history will not lambaste Bush as the fool he's so widely assumed to be. I'll do this because it's useful, because W's reign is nearly at end, and because it might be kinda fun.
Look at what he walked into: 9/11. A presidency in its infancy presided over the most devastating foreign attack on domestic soil in this country's history and suddenly became a war-time presidency. In the wake of the attacks, Bush enjoyed a 90 percent approval rating. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 62 percent of Americans cheerleading the invasion into Iraq. The Senate and the House both approved resolutions for the invasion with wide margins.
It proved a costly blunder. But besides the fact that occupations are costly and often doomed to failure, we have learned that the American people rode a wave of emotion into Baghdad, but had neither the tolerance nor the fortitude for the prolonged conflict it would require.
If nothing else, Bush has shown massive cajones in pushing through a hugely unpopular surge that's proven incredibly successful. Whether by blind luck or through the vigilance of the Homeland Security Administration and reorganized intelligence services, we haven't seen another terrorist attack even as they continue to erupt across the globe. In that regard, it's not a huge stretch to say he's not unlike Truman, who developed the NSA, CIA and Department of Defense.
So that's my devil's advocation. Will Bush remain the punchline in history-book perpetuity, or will our collective derision soften as hindsight brings into clearer focus the narrative of his dual-term presidency?
No car bombs filled with ball-bearings and nails went off in front of a crowded grocery store or sidewalk cafe in the US during his tenure since 9/11. We'll see how long that lasts after he's gone.
Bush was a decent man in many ways, and he did some good things.
But he was a terrible communicator, a big spender, and completely unable to impose any political control. That last was his worst fault. He completely failed to broom out the top levels of government, he lost control of most of his own agencies, including the FBI and the CIA. He lost control of the Republicans in congress. He didn’t seem to understand that you can’t run a country just by being “nice.”
He made two great SCOTUS appointments, but he was as much responsible as anyone for the election of Obama, who will probably make three or four terrible SCOTUS appointments and completely undo the good Bush accomplished.
Because Bush favored the RINO way, there were no young conservatives on the scene ready to replace him. He didn’t groom anyone to be his successor.
Even the War on Terror will be seen as a disaster, if he is seen as having mismanged it politically, failed to explain it to the people, and as a result helped to elect the man who may pull out our troops, destroy our military, and get involved in misadventures worse than any clinton achieved in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Finally, he named Paulson and a gang of traitors to the treasury and the Fed. He failed to follow through on controlling the economic bubble he inherited from clinton. He didn’t have a clue what was happening when Paulson pulled his October Surprise. Dodd, Paulson, Pelosi, and Obama ran rings around him—and around McCain, when he tried to jump in.
Even last month, he kept the removal of 500 tons of yellowcake from Iraq to Canada, which would have demolished the Dem story that Saddam wasn’t working on WMDs. Why? Because it was supposedly classified “secret.” Oh, sure, that’s why it was known to everybody, including al Qaeda. The only people he kept it secret from were ignorant voters. That was just one incident, but it was absolutely typical of his absolute cluelessness as a political fighter.
W will float back up to the middle of the pack in 20 years or so. Even Nixon was belatedly praised by some historians for his foreign policy (imperfect for sure, but far superior to LBJ’s or Dhimmi Qarter’s).
It doesn’t matter what we think; we are the Fringe, and our voices mean nothing.
He will be revised by the New Order for all time.
I’m not going to read the thread because I know that it will be wall-to-wall Bush bashing, but history will treat George W. Bush very well.
I believe that President Bush tried too hard to reach out to the entire country and got no respect from either side. He was just too dam* nice.
conservative ??
1) illegal amnesty and SS benefits for illegals
2) Putting all his chips on Iraq invasion and then fighting it on the cheap and claiming we are winning when he knew we were losing to get through 2004 election
3) invester bailout bill must be passed immediately 700B
4) No vouchers left behind. He sold out vouchers.
5) bankrupting medicare with drug entitlement
6) government grows astronomically with deficit (GWB wont let them raise your taxes, HA, see 7)
7) Pelsoi Obama Reid with large majorities, lost us 2006+2008
I am not a mindnumb robot republican and never will be. That is what got us here! His screwups will give Obama/Pelosi many free passes before people get upset with their marxist insanity. Look, at least Clinton only lost democats one election 1994. This guy had to lose us two. Do it BIG!
Read on...it’s not all bad. :)
> I am not a mindnumb robot republican and never will be. That is what got us here! His screwups will give Obama/Pelosi many free passes before people get upset with their marxist insanity.
That may or may not be so. It is hardly helpful to pot-shot your own guy’s legacy, if for no other reason than it validates the opposition’s outcome: they were right to oppose Bush and elect Obama instead of giving the GOP another shot at the White House.
“I think after 4 years of Obama we will look back on the Bush years fondly.”
I think after 4 years of Obama we will look back on the Carter years fondly.
Mrs. Pierce died nearly six years before her husband. Their first two children died very young. Their only surviving child was killed at the age of 11 in a train accident two months before Pierce was inaugurated as President.
I am with you, MHT.
Bush did his best with the cards, and Osama Bin Laden dealt him an awful hand.
I think history will treat him well (if we have a history, that is!) I do not think it is fair to blame Bush for not being able to undo the turn towards socialism that started way back with FDR.
I could run on, but don’t want to get into an argument with fellow conservatives. Welfare entitlements instituted under LBJ made the “Ship of State” impossible to turn around.
No “true conservative” can do much about these, and we are going to suffer the fate of other “democracies” that have discovered how to elect people who will promise “a chicken in every pot”, even if one is too lazy to grow out the peeps.
Lincoln was not well liked until long after he was dead.
History will vindicate Bush on many issues...but not immigration.
I remember his debates with Gore and that Kerry imbecile and I actually cringed every time he spoke. To this day I cringe whenever I hear him speak.
I also firmly believe that he surrounded himself with the wrong men, something his father believed.
ug... i sure hope not.
> Going after Bush in a conservative forum IS appropriate. Going on NBC meet the press and attacking fellow republicans there is NOT.
Given that the FRee Republic is monitored regularly by the Left, and given that the media has access to anything and everything posted here, is it wise to air out dirty laundry in this forum at this time especially? How is that helpful?
All that does is give aid and comfort to the enemy.
I understand that for some people licking their open wounds in public is therapeutic, but I really do not see how it helps to move matters forward. Definitely there are some things that are broken that require fixing: assigning blame and pointing fingers isn’t going to achieve that.
Nobody likes an “I told you so”. The issues are pretty clear, and so are the problems. Tearing down the most recent GOP POTUS really isn’t part of the solution, surely.
Yes!
Bush would be a good neighbor, but he's been a disaster as President.
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.