That's going too far. But this last year or so -- with gas hikes, inflation, a mortgage crisis, and financial failures was something the President's reputation could have done without.
Posted on 09/17/2008 8:05:54 AM PDT by meandog
CBS) For as long as he's been asked about it, George Bush has publically professed to not care much about his legacy.
"I'm reading about George Washington, still," President Bush said in 2006. "My attitude is, if they're still analyzing number one, 43 ought not to worry about it."
And why would he want to, given the long list of targets he's presented to his critics, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports.
The tragically weak response to Katrina, which will always overshadow the administration getting it right - like the last few days with Gustav.
No Child Left Behind, the president's education initiative that even some supporters concede is a failure.
An economy in shambles.
"He's in the bottom 10 to five presidents in the history of the United States," James Thurber, an American University historian, said.
But the president could take heart that none of those will be his defining issues.
"I think the assessment of President Bush begins not with Inauguration Day, but with 9/11, and then it goes to Iraq," said Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff for Ronald Reagan.
And there, even Democratic critics like Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, say the success of the surge in Iraq will help the President's legacy.
"He went to war in a deliberately cavalier way," O'Hanlon said. "But let's also be fair. Iraq now seems to be a quasi-functioning Democracy without weapons of mass destruction, without genocides against citizens or attacks against its neighbors. So to some extent, we gotta give our president his due."
Still, presidential legacies are by their very nature an exercises in comparison. If you want to understand the signature of this two-term Republican president, compare it to the last one.
"In 1988 with Reagan in the mid-50s in popularity, everybody was clamoring for a third term with Ronald Reagan. And now the only people who are talking about a third term for President Bush are the Democrats," said Duberstein.
It seems indisputable that George Bush will address the convention, greatly diminished from his previous appearances. If the first draft of history is written by reporters, the historians, like James Thurber, are about to get their turn.
"Well all presidents think that history will change perceptions of their activities," Thurber said. "I think history will be unkind to this man."
And it would seem they won't offer the president much comfort.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Like you, I like Bush the man -- though I've disagreed with him on many of his policies.
But on the one transcendant issue of our age -- the War on Terror -- he enjoys my complete support. He rallied the country, adopted a strategy of great vision and stubbornly prosecuted the war. Sure, he made mistakes. But wars never go as planned. Inevitably, they become a conflict of adjustments.
There's another important consideration, as well. It was either George W. Bush...or Algore...or John Effin Kerry. Under the circumstances, I have absolutely no regrets that Bush has been my President the last eight years.
Let’s see - an explosion in federal spending, leaving the border unsecured years AFTER 9-11, free pills for granny, billions blown in AIDS for Africa, pumping up the National Endowment for the Arts, Harriet Miers, signing McCain’s CFR bill even though he knew it to be unconstitutional... yeah his legacy isn’t exactly sterling regardless of the servile fawning that takes place on “Dose” threads.
The principles of leadership, IMO, are:
1. To have a vision and be proactive. Ronald Reagan had such vision--it was to defeat forever monolithic communism. And the way he went about it inspired the country to follow.
2. He had a vision about the economy. He knew that supply-side economics would lift the nation out of the doldrums of Carter stagflation.
3. He had a vision for the protection of the U.S. against ICBM strikes. We saw it come to fruition when the USS Lake Erie shot down a crippled satellite a couple of months ago.
I have never understood George Bush's vision. Unlike Ronald Reagan, he's been mainly reactive instead of proactive to situations. I realize a president cannot predict everything that is going to happen but it would have been a good idea to plan for the worse when you have some warning about crisis--especially when a hurricane is bearing down on a principal U.S. city that is below sea level and both the mayor and first-responder governor of the state are incompetent Democrats and fools. He didn't do it when Katrina hit, but, thankfully in both Gustav and Ike the government, was ready with relief if needed. I recall Ronald Reagan's worst moment was in Lebanon when the Marines were terror bombed in Beirut. If you'll remember he and Nancy met the plane carrying the coffins back at Dover and inspired the nation...he also was helping the Israelis kick the stuffings out of Hezbollah through back channels. And, when Moamar Quadafi put out his "Line of Death" proclamation for Libya, in another fit of Islamic terror do you remember his response?
Personally, I feel his greatest achievement would have been Iran/Contra had not a rat leaked it to the traitorous press. I mean selling Sadaam weapons to fight the Ayatollah while we watched two Islamic dictators kill each other on the sidelines and used the money from arms to defeat communists in Nicaragua. BRILLIANT!
From all I’ve read, if he let the generals fight the war, the surge never would have happened at all.
The fact is that Bush encountered what might be called a "Neville Chamberlain moment" on 9/11/2001. Just as Chamberlain had it in his power to derail the Nazis prior to WWII; and Truman had to decide whether or not to confront the Russians post-WWII, Bush had the opportunity to an ideological threat that promised to become greater with time. As Chamberlain did, Bush might have flinched then, or later. He did not: like Truman, he confronted the threat.
Bush's legacy will be defined almost entirely on that fact. History will treat him kindly.
His strategic vision of fighting the War on Terror with wars of liberation was far-seeing and brilliant. He recognized that you can't fight an idea without another, better idea. In the War on Terror, freedom is our ultimate weapon.
Bush's vision of the economy centered on lower taxes. He got them -- insofar as the politics of a then-Democrat controlled Senate would allow him.
And it was Bush's vision of rejecting the ABM treaty that brought Reagan's "Star Wars" to fruition.
No, Bush hasn't been short of vision. But, Lord, he proved utterly incapable of communicating what he was about...and why. And that is the primary difference between GWB and Reagan (let's face it, both of them spent too much).
And communications deficiencies are why other important Bush visions -- remember the Ownership Society and privatizing Social Security? -- were total flops.
Bush was far from a perfect President, but for all his faults he was the third most conservative nominee for President in my lifetime (after Goldwater and Reagan). Note that I'm not saying he was a Conservative, only that he was more conservative than any Democrat, Nixon, his dad, Bob Dole, etc.
“He will be remembered chiefly for being President during a watershed moment in human history - 9/11. He will also be remembered for the subsequent actions taken after September 11, namely the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the defeat of a deadly enemy, alQueda.”
I concur.
That's going too far. But this last year or so -- with gas hikes, inflation, a mortgage crisis, and financial failures was something the President's reputation could have done without.
Oh I get it! It’s called “He won’t do what I want and/or jump through my flaming hoops, so I don’t like him” problem isn’t it?
I shudder to think of what would happen if McCain, or even Sarah Pallin fail to jump through your flaming hoops! Some of you will turn on her in a fury!
Oh aren’t you just soooo funnnny! The problem with much of your post is: If you were president of Texas, you still wouldn’t be able to expel anyone, unless they had committed a crime against the laws in Texas. You’d have to prove it, and sorry, you can’t expel people just because you don’t like them or their politics!
I realize you’re just pulling a funny, so I’ll let you alone to indulge in your little “true conservative” fantasy world! Have fun.
I don’t recall where the Pres. ever claimed he was a pure and holy conservative in the first place! In fact, many if not most of the strongest conservatives endorsed him when he was running for office. He was good enough for them! Furthermore, if he wasn’t, why are so many obnoxious leftists tearing him down all the time? Sorry, but I think you’re full of it!
Oh and p.s.
Ronald Reagan not only had to fight the so-called leftists, but also some of the so-called “real conservatives”! Neither side gave him much peace in office!
He did inherit a lot so to speak, but that only begs the question, why would he have committed to all this non related and non essential spending? The hurricane relief shouldn’t be a federal issue IMO; arguably we should have finished up Afghanistan before Iraq was started; the recession was mostly “managed” by the fed and quite poorly IMO. They pumped in money and held down interest rates. A recession SHOULD be painful because that is the only way to get rid of it. Instead we keep putting band aids and taking pain medication to cover up the issue. Not totally Bush’s fault I’m just noting.
I’m not saying the guy is the anti-Christ, just that he has been a disappointment and that we shouldn’t settle for mediocrity. JMO
GW’s biggest legacy will be that he caused the Democrat Party to implode in that they will continue to run against him for the next 50 years. Permanent BDS!
Relax
I don’t support either. So don’t hold your breath.
Bush was a poor leader, plain and simple.
Sorry your having a tough time with that.
You guys bought this crap hook, line and sinker.
McCain....the maverick. What a load of dung.
Since when? McCain “IS” the establishment!
He is the good ol boy network.
Well, I guess we are all entitled to our own opinion! That opinion doesn’t make it a fact, now does it? No it doesn’t. You certainly have nothing to be so high and mighty about. I’m sorry YOU’RE having a tough time with that!
Why don’t you? You’re the one who has the need to argue. You’ve posted to me three times in a row! Maybe it’s you who needs to relax.
Yeah, you’d think if he was not any kind of conservative, they’d love him to pieces! They would’ve been boasting about his accomplishments and rubbing them in their opponents’ faces!
But no, he’s just not the right kind of conservative for some people. They’ll continue to lecture the rest of us “unreal” conservatives (or liberals), thinking they’ll drive us all off of “Free Republic” for good! You know, I’d swear they are liberals in disguise!
I don't have a need to argue with you or anyone else. My frustrations are certainly not with you.
I am frustrated at our government. Congress and our president are leading this country into financial disaster.
We continue to police the world to the tune of billions.
The outsourcing of good paying manufacturing continues unabated.
The influx of illegals continues, sanctuary cities allowed to do business as usual without a word from Congress.
Huge federal/trade deficits.
Congress ignoring the pending SS, Medicare entitlement crisis about to surface once again.
All the while these lame candidates spew all their sophomoric rhetoric for months. Obama this, Obama that. McCain the maverick, Palin the savior.
We need statesmen who will cut all the power grab politics and think of America first.
It just sickens me to think of how many people really buy into all this poppycock coming from this sham political process.
If McCain were such a “Maverick” how bout TERM LIMITS in the senate. hmmmmm. Because he IS big government.
Palin was picked as a political ploy to garner support from certain segments of society....doesn't that bother you?
Palin? Palin who? How did she all the sudden become the GOP sweetheart? Is she truly ready to lead the free world?
All this is designed to spoon feed the public. Guess what? It's working.
The Dems put some bone head up their like Obama....because of his appeal, charisma, communication skills. Not because of his grasp of geopolitical issues worldwide.
The amount of money pumped into this campaign (billions)is just plain criminal.
To all you die hard democrats and republicans...wake up. All the change these candidates are talking about will never materialize.
If America continues to suck on the utter of this present two party system, things will never change.
Keep fishin from the same ol pond, your gonna keep catchin the same ol big mouth bass.
Change your pond, you will then realize true change.
You must be joking or drunk!
Fuel prices at record levels...
Economy on the verge of a collapse...
A war that has no end in sight...
Foreign policy that is laughed at by the rest of the world…
Immigration crisis that has been ignored...
Capitalism before patriotism has emerged on his watch (record earnings for big oil while the American people suffer)...GWB is an embarrassment.
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.