Skip to comments.Myths and Facts About the Real Bush Record
Posted on 12/22/2008 6:02:55 AM PST by Dawebman
As the year draws to an end and President Bush enters his final month in office, there is much commentary about the Administration's record over the past eight years. Unsurprisingly, many of these stories assail and distort the President's record and recycle myths and unfounded allegations that have been leveled for the better part of his two terms. Historical accuracy requires a response to the litany of attacks leveled against President Bush, and while there's not enough space to respond to all of them, here are five of the most egregious:
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I also blame Gillespie for giving us John McCain as a candidate.
All that being said, this column of his contains some very good and relevant information regarding "some" of the attacks that have been leveled against President Bush.
I read this column very carefully because of the reasons I cite above.
More telling to me, however, are the issues that Gillespie ignores completely, including the explosion of federal spending, impotent strategy dealing first with a Republican Congress and then a hostile Democrat Congress, and immigration policy.
I have always been critical of Clinton for wasting the eight years of his term, but with the exception of the War on Terror and national security, President Bush is just as guilty of wasting eight years too.
I blame GWB for not having the “compassion” he promised with the border patrol agents. It was all talk, not walk, or as Ann Richards’ people called him “all shrub”.
Right you are, and some of the lower-level GWB court appointments have been liberal, and look at that awful prosecutor in TX, Johnny Sutton. Harriet Miers must be wondering what happened.
“Bush-bots contrive a world where he is not responsible for anything bad”
Labels and name calling put you in the category commonly found over at DU. As you accuse others of refusing to assign any blame (to Pres. Bush) you seem to assign all blame (to him). Republicans have problems because their performance has been dismal (not because of Pres. Bush) and they don’t provide a desirable alternative to the Democrats.
The article is correct on the facts. However, Prsident Bush is a neo con and does not represent conservatism and the American conservative. He has failed in that he could have used his veto pen against left wing marxist laws and provisions of Congress and he could have used his bully pulpit to support and defend real conservatives from the communist congressional led attacks and imprisonment of innocent men and politicians and military men but did not when he should and could have.
He failed in that which he did not do when he should have in defending truth and our rights because he decided to make deals with the rinos and communist liberal democrats of the political powers.
He failed in his conservative duties as the buck stop here president he could have been. It greatly dicouraged so many of us who love America and the Constitution as it is written. He also failed by trying to create a arab nation in the borders of Israel by forcing them to give up their land to the murdering terrorists by using his political power to discourage Jews and Christians who look for the Lord Jesus to set up His 1000 year rule in Israel.
He was a typical middle of the road politician, a neocon rino and the past election showed the dicouragement of those of us who want a conservative to run as a conservative.
Both the democrat marxists and the liberal rinos are blind and stupid and the works they do declare it.
“I have always been critical of Clinton for wasting the eight years of his term, but with the exception of the War on Terror and national security, President Bush is just as guilty of wasting eight years too. “
No argument there. He could have been one of our greatest Presidents. Instead, he turned into a conservative’s nightmare.
I just want Bush to go away, and for no Bush to ever again have any power in this country. Let Dems destroy the country, for a change. That’s what they excel at. Republicans have made horrible, inept Democrats, but might have been pretty good conservatives, if they’d have tried it.
Bush as president was head of Republican party, including a gift from God majority congress 5-6 years. But that gift came with a price(all blame, even if not fully deserved), and now that price is paid for by remaining republicans.
He thinks he can save his legacy since 2006 by shooting republicans and cutting deals with democrats, to earn a few words of future MSM praise. He thinks because he got re-elected, and maybe MSM future praise, he can completely destroy his party and capitalism for future and it wont hurt him. But only the few loyal Bush-bots buy that. Obama Pelosi is his legacy. We lost a popular republican governor Erhlich in 2006 because opponent ran ads with GWB pictures, as with 2008 disaster. He is poison.
The bonus to Wall street executives that he insisted on bailing out with 700B blank check looks great, gives Pelosi/Obama everything they need to convince public socialism is needed, that republicans only care about rich and corporations, their talking points for years, GWB job to convince public.
I got Bush-bot (=Hannity~bot)from this website FR.
I hear that on MSNBC alot but what does it mean?
I think GWB is a big government, big corporation, big Washington insider(like FNC special Report Roundtable), wall street elite who like democrats looks down on us. He ran as the opposite 2004, as Joe the Plumber. He has few communication skills, death for his party.,
The entire Republican “adventure” has been a debacle, starting with 1994. The Republicans (pre Bush) had a message of reform, but there was no reform. I knew it was over when they started complaining about Democrats blocking spending cuts (if they hadn’t appropriated funds spending would have been cut).
I don’t remember Pres. Bush advocating reform during his campaign, though he did make some half hearted attempts early in his presidency. The entire party has been playing defense since, at least, 1998. You can’t win by “digging in and getting pounded day after day (shaking your fist and yelling isn’t very effective either).
Things will not change until we put people in positions of power with the vision and courage to make real change (that of limited government that champions freedom and prosperity). This change will not come easily, it will be met with fierce resistance and probably violence, but the results of our current path will be even more unthinkable. You seem to have a fixation on “Bus-bot”, perhaps you should discuss that with your therapist.
I saw the 1995 republicans try to make reforms, but democrats launched an anti-Newt campaign that he played into with statements, and basically the system is naturally corrupt, they get committee seats by going along with raises and spending bills.(So I agree with you) By the time GWB got in 2000 remaining republicans were troubled,the good ones leaving(they saw handwriting on wall) , he was their new leader, and he had his spending priorities, got much of what he wanted at a big price, and here we are. Looking back impeachment was not thought out politically either.
And Bush-bots/Hannity-bots still wont admit his approval rating is more than bad luck or conspiracy
“got much of what he wanted at a big price, and here we are. Looking back impeachment was not thought out politically either”
The problem with impeachment was that it was thrust upon most of Congress, they didn’t have the courage to stop it nor the stomach to see it through. President Clinton committed much more grievous offenses (that impacted on national security) that what he was formally charged with (this was similar to a tax charge against Capone). I see the collective behavior of this country as much like an addictive personality, our behavior is destructive and will lead to the demise of the Republic unless we change our behavior.
It was ironic that the impeachent charges stemmed out of Clinton-Boxer-Murray men don't get it 1992, feminist prize, Biden's Violence against Women's act, designed to hurt men, removing due process(chargers can fish around for dirt that becomes public.) Others were punished for lying under oath after being sued , lied for privacy in personal matters. Liberals loved VAWA as long as republicans like Thomas would get hung. But Clinton turned it around and got men's sympathy, who related to him.
Two more points that define the party, now that I am thinking about this.
1. Janet Reno was on the Sunday Talk Shows and stumbled badly on “China-Gate”, she reminded me of a child trying to explain how the lamp got broke. I though this was explosive and it was like it never happened.
2. Fred Thompson folded like a cheap umbrella during his hearings (I belief this was also China-Gate). Duncan Hunter, I believe, was also holding hearings in the house ... don’t remember his endings as dramatically but they were no more productive. This was when I decided the party was not worthy of my support ... although some candidates still are.
I was disappointed by the administration’s complete abandonment of fiscal conservatism. Actually, disappointed is not the proper term, but I realize that some people still like the guy, so I’ll refrain from the more colorful terms that would adequately express how I really feel.
You don't have to believe that what he did was disastrous to see that he didn't exercise leadership in areas he he could have.
A lot of people say he is a decent guy. Maybe he is. But every President becomes an elder statesman and a lion -- a wounded lion -- in his second term. It has to do with losing energy and becoming more of a dignified figurehead, than someone who's really in charge.
Bush did some things right and had some successes. He doesn't come across as one of our more effective Presidents, though.