You agree with unsubstantiated name-calling. Fantastic. How old are you?
The author sure was good at calling Bush stupid, but he never actually got around to substantiating any criticisms of Bush. What has Bush done that the author disagrees with? Why is Bush wrong? The author doesn't say. Why? Because the author can't say, lacking sufficient knowledge and/or argumentative skills.
And you "agree with this guy". Fantastic.
Look, Bush has sent the economy into the dumper...
Look, what the heck does that mean? Bush is President, not "Economy Czar". The economy does not rise or fall depending on the mood or charms of the President or how much he pleases you. Further, if you think that Bush has done something to harm the economy, then go ahead, please tell us all what Bush did, and why it was wrong, and how it harmed the economy. Details, please.
Don't just toss out cartoonish characterizations like "Bush sent the economy into the the dumper". For all the rational content of this statement you may as well be saying "Bush failed to please the Economy Gods and now they seek vengeance". Is pseudo-paganistic mysticism really the extent of your analysis, or do you have anything rational to say?
if it wasn't for his War on Terrorism, his poll ratings would be in the teens!
This may or may not be true. Counterfactual hypotheticals are not very informative. Relevance?