Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Thank you George W. Bush. For having the fortitude to fight the Islamics. For having class. For ignoring the low class attacks against you. For discerning the truth when you were surrounded by yellow dogs shouting lies. I am proud to call you my President. You have inspiered me with your true courageous leadership.
Sorry, but I don't feel like wadding through this guy's verbal diarrhea to find out the answer.
If only W was proficient in English Language....he won’t be considered such a big failure.
“Failed Presidency” and/or “failed policies” are keywords that are a sure sign of Democratic party “strategerie”.
You may dismiss as irrelevant any screeds that contain these words.
I read through about half of it, and then couldn’t stomach reading any more.
Where’s the beef?
>> The failure of the Bush presidency is the dominant fact of American politics today.
The “failure of the Bush presidency” is NOT a dominant fact.
In fact, it’s not a fact at all, it’s merely an opinion.
As an opinion, it can be argued either way; it’s far from difficult to argue against it.
When I run into that in sentence 1, I can’t help but conclude the other 67 paragraphs aren’t worth my time.
A fool may be known for his many words.
Anyone who thinks the Bush presidency is a “failed” presidency is ignorant.
History will judge Bush as a fine president. History will be kind to him.
On the other hand, history will eviscerate modern Democrats.
Drivel.
Failure in the eyes of those who wish Saddam was still running Iraq, filling his mass graves, threatening the entire middle east, torturing thousands etc etc.....
What have the Bush years been about? To answer that question, it is helpful to review Bush's leadership in light of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, for, broadly and from the beginning, Bush's issue profile has been closer to that of Reagan than has the profile of any other Republican president or nominee in the six presidential elections starting with 1988. To me, Reaganism means traditionalism on social issues, supply-side tax rate cuts in economics, and an assertive foreign policy featuring American moral leadership on behalf of a more democratic world.
In each of these three policy areas, Bush developed distinctive approaches that, while consistent with those of Reagan, were more than derivative. They represented, at least arguably, further development of the Reagan core themes, adapted to the political scene 20 years removed from the world Ronald Reagan grappled with and successfully reshaped.
Perhaps on National Defense, I would agree. The Bush Doctrine was perfect, yet once we got into Iraq it seemed to fall to the wayside.
On fiscal issues, I must disagree. The farm bill he pushed through, the educational bill were anti-Reagan.
A generation from now, there will be parades in George W. Bush’s honor in Iraq - and perhaps all across the Middle East.
I read two words and knew this was an asshole......The Bush presidency is going down in history as one of the greatest...he had guts and fough the terrorists and the democrats equally....well they are the same....
I'm going to wait for the movie.
This article is a disgrace. Bush is fit to shine Reagan’s shoes. Real cute on the author’s part when he fails to mention or shifts the blame with regards to the EXPLOSION in the size of govt, Bush’s amnesty proposals, free pills for granny, CFR and all sorts of other measures which Reagan would have found disgusting.
The author makes the Bush Presidency seem like not a failure in some respects, but ignores its biggest failing. I think Bush is as inept at domestic politics as Carter was in foreign policy. His inability to communicate, his rope-a-dope tactics when smeared and betrayed by the Demonrats, his failure to exercise any restraint on spending, his expansion of entitlements, and his globalist stance on immigration and Chinese trade cost the GOP control of Congress and gave all the momentum to the Left. His bad decisions began with selection of the aging Cheney for VP. VP is an opportunity to groom a younger man to lead the party in 8 years, not a place for an “elder statesman.” That choice led to this year’s mess, with aging “maverick” McCain left to pick up the pieces.
This “failed” Presidency has beaten the living hell out of the 2006 Democrat Congress so far. As one DUer in the Funnies observed, “It’s like we didn’t win anything”.
9,250 words of BS
sub 5% unemployment would be considered a resounding victory for a Clinton presidency. In fact, it was.
Let’s face it, the Republicans from a decade ago, who valued fiscal conservatism, have been mostly kicked out of the party by the so-called “moderates”, and President Bush is one of those moderates responsible. And the voters in this country are more than happy with this trend, as is evidenced by the more centrist Democrats being kicked out of their Party as well. Government spending is the default policy of both parties for the foreseeable future. Bush can hardly be considered a failure in this regard.