First, my eyes began to blur...then my head hurt...then my brain started to shut down...I wil prnt itt ott nd reaaad its win mi brin rebosts. Ey dhink.
The Democrats have to consider *all* Republican Presidencies failures, and they have to call *all* Republican Presidents “fools”, “idiots”, and the like, because unless they tell themselves this, over and over, some ugly truths are going to get out.
First of all, these supposedly “incompetent” men just kicked seven bells out of the Democrat contenders, repeatedly. The Democrat response to that is “they cheated”, or when really hard pressed, “they fooled the ignorant public.”
Second is that, the incredible and lasting successes of the Republicans both *against* the Democrat resistance and against our national enemies, shows up the Democrat program as being naive, confused and inferior.
Republicans run circles around Democrats in both economics and foreign policy. What little platform the Democrats embrace is centered around not just less important things, but only those that are difficult to quantify. And even then, their efforts are to “empathize” instead of solve, proclaiming that “feeling your pain” is *more* important than “ending your pain.”
Bill Clinton, for example, spent all his time in office running for office. Once he had the Presidency, his first concern was getting the entire bureaucracy and judiciary corrupted to his cause, but then continuing to run for office. His philosophy was that the federal government was there to see to his personal needs. In this way, he was no different from a mob boss.
The country, to a great extent, was left on autopilot and run by the Republican congress. Clinton’s term was not “benign neglect”, but just neglect.
If George W. Bush made any mistake, it was thinking that the Republican congress, which had acted so responsibly during Clinton’s term in office, would continue to do so once a Republican was in office.
He was wrong. Left to wisely managed the nation’s internal affairs, the Republican congress behaved atrociously, and were punished by the electorate accordingly. They lost all discipline and self-control, and their leaders let them.
Bush was off, composing a symphony of foreign policy to rival Beethoven, changing the world in ways that will last a hundred years or more, and preventing international disasters, wars and chaos.
Hopefully, in four or eight years, Jeb Bush will not be hesitant in joining the race, but will follow in the footsteps of both his father and his brother.
I don't know how American Standard can print such garbage.
The Democrats and the MSM are only engaging in their normal tactics. To prevent scrutiny of their own failed policies they create an enemy at the gates. Internationally it is the USA. Domestically it is their political enemies. In this case, George W. Bush.
Remember “The Worst Economy in 50 Years”? Then “The Republican Culture of Corruption”, then “This Failed Administration”, etc. Bush’s “failed administration” is made whole cloth from repeated assertions by the Dems and the MSM. Period. Cased closed!
The refusal of Bush and his supporters to stand up to his detractors and correct this misinformation is a mystery and frustration to us all.
"F" you and the donkeys ass you rode in on Bell.
Nope. Bush has won every fight that he's picked with Congress, from tax cuts to banning partial birth abortion to funding our troops in Iraq to missile defense deployment and use to the Patriot Act.
With less than a year remaining in his time in Office, President Bush is so successful, so powerful, that Democrats are passing his wiretap immunity for telephone companies and have already passed his Economic Stimulus plan (without so much as offering one of their own...a striking failure for the current Majority Party).
Where Bush "fails" is only in the minds of hyper-left-wing news media fanatics, who can't let a day go by without an anti-Bush article or TV program.
"It has driven every facet of Democratic political strategy since early 2006, when Democrats settled on the campaign themes that brought them their takeover of the House and Senate in November 2006."
Nope. Democrats eeked out ultra-narrow 2006 victories in the House and Senate *only* because the news media hyped a single GOP Congressional scandal about a gay Representative and a "minor" (turns out he was 19) House page boy (while simultaneously ignoring a Dem Senate candidate's gay boy porn book that he authored).
Moreover, it is instructive that the current Democratic Congress has vastly lower public approval ratings than does the President...and is choosing to run for President exclusively from that Senate.
In short, the author is clueless...easily debunked per the above and more.
For example, the idiot author of the article for this thread thinks and says that the dominant theme for Democrats is anti-war and anti-Bush, ignoring or failing to grasp Hillary Clinton's famous 3 AM "who do you want answering the White House phone after a national security crisis" campaign ad.
The guy is a friggin' lightweight. The author simply does not grasp American politics.
ANYONE who starts a piece citing an opinion as a “dominant fact” doesn’t deserve my time....
Remind folks of the activities of violent islamo-fascists all over the world. Makes sense to me.
I agree that the president should have made the tax cuts permanent before trying to fix social security. Now we have neither.
He lsot me when he compared Bush to Reagan.
Anys such comparison is wholely superficial.
Bush’s Presidency IS a failed one. But it failed because it failed to deliver its promise and because it betrayed its core constituency - conservative and right of center Americans who put this fraud in office twice.
This kind of post-mortem is to be expected from Liberals who will do everything they can to associate the idiotic policies of this man with the American conservative movement in an effort to taint us all with the same brush.
“Compassionate conservative” = “Rockefeller Republican” repackaged.
I do not accept the premise. The Bush Presidency has not failed, far from it. The so-called Republican “leadership” failed to grasp it’s moment because it was so busy covering it’s a$$, and so, from judges, to policy, to taxes this great President was left to fight alone in the wilderness of lies, manipulation, propaganda and treason that has become the culture of this country as represented by those in control of the corridors of “information”.
What are we left with ? The contrast will soon become clear and like Reagan and Truman, W will be fondly remembered as the last of his kind.
Funny, but illegal immigration wasn’t even mentioned. Bush failed more than anywhere else with his stands on illegal immigration and Globalism, with spending coming a fast third. He promised to govern as a conservative, and ended up a RINO.
See you at the signing, Horhay.
What a bunch of crap!!!!!
But I love this thread -- all the intelligent remarks about the article's long winded stupidity and G W Bush's great legacy.
Verborrhea, with chunks.
Bush’s presidency had its flaws, but compared to his predecessor (and, I fear, his successor) he accomplished much, particularly in addressing areas of sore neglect such as metastasizing global jihad and the run-down of the military.
His biggest failures came when trying to appease the Left, e.g. with the prescription-drug boondoggle and campaign-finance reform. This lesson will become increasingly clear as time goes on.
The comparisons to Reagan fail to mention vital elements, some arguably cosmetic, but others substantial. Reagan was unparalleled as a public speaker, and his aides, particularly Michael Deaver, were skilled in showcasing him. Reagan was articulate with a superb speaking voice through which his intelligence shone, a natural wit, and very likeable.
Bush comes off poorly when showcased, and lacks Reagan’s seasoned stage presence. He is woefully inarticulate, possibly the most inarticulate president in American history, or at least since the dawning of the age of mass communication. When probed in interviews, and forced to compose his replies off-the-cuff, he invariably betrays a shallow knowledge base and a jejune system of thought. The president has a limited vocabulary and clearly hasn’t spent much time reading books. He has some wit and likeability, as did Reagan, but not enough to overcome his acute intellectual deficiencies.
George Bush hasn’t worn well. People don’t respect him as a leader, and his decidedly average intellect is a big part of the reason. Leaders, and certainly heads of state, should be smarter than average.
How does the author explain W's failed tax cuts that put money in the hands of consumers and W's public opposition to capital gains tax cuts? When we did get supply side tax cuts, they came from congressman Bill Thomas, not W.
W was never supply side. He's always been Keynesian. He's an economic moron.
bump