Posted on 01/16/2009 6:31:14 PM PST by Delacon
Credit: Several key triumphs make Bush’s tenure merely a mitigated disaster. He first deserves praise for preventing another Islamofascist massacre on American soil. History will applaud the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya’s consequent de-nuclearization. Bush’s tax cuts buoyed the economy before it sailed into the twin icebergs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito will keep the Supreme Court constitutional. The D.C. voucher bill remains a school-choice milestone.
Carter: Otherwise, Bush is the Republican Jimmy Carter. This weak, ill-prepared bumbler let Washington eat him alive. Far worse, his apostasies bankrupted America and bombed the GOP into Dresden (often while an equally unprincipled, profligate Republican Congress navigated). The principled, fiscally responsible free-market/conservative movement is hobbled for its association with Bush, despite his serial violations of its tenets. The Right now must spend years scrubbing away Bush’s stain with brushes and Ajax.
Core: Alas, Bush has no philosophical core. He has a few sensible instincts: Tax cuts good. Terrorists bad. Abortion ugly. Most else is up for grabs.
In 2001, Bush initiated federal stem-cell research. By 2008, Bush nationalized private companies and steered the republic into $13.35 trillion in bailout commitments.
Bush’s instant socialism is the legacy of his Saran Wrap-deep faith in free markets. Under Bush, federal spending grew 32 percent (or 4.1 percent annually) — more quickly than inflation, Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl calculates. Absent the Iraq and Afghan wars, Homeland Security, and Katrina relief, spending swelled 26 percent, or 3.3 percent annually, after inflation.
Since 1932, only FDR expanded Washington’s share of the economy more rapidly than Bush did. The Medicare drug entitlement, No Child Left Behind, two massive farm-welfare bills, and 69,341 un-vetoed earmarks are among the ghastly monuments of “compassionate conservatism.”
Bush kicked fresh gravel into his supporters’ eyes when he kept the Education Department open, increased its budget 58 percent ahead of inflation, and then, for no apparent purpose, christened its headquarters the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building.
“More than 60 education laws were part of the vast number of legislative measures that made up the Great Society,” crowed Lynda Johnson Robb when the structure was renamed in September 2007. “But Daddy wasn’t as interested in the number of laws he helped enact as he was in the number of lives those laws help enrich.”
By signing the 822-page Energy Independence Act on Dec. 19, 2007, Bush extinguished the incandescent light bulb. This keystone of Yankee ingenuity failed in some 10,000 experiments until a perseverant Thomas Edison perfected it in 1880. Now it will become illegal in 2014. If compact-fluorescent and halogen bulbs outsell Edison’s invention, so be it. But for this quintessentially American creation to be prohibited by federal law is precisely the sort of abomination the Republican party was invented to prevent.
Communications: Bush raised the failure to communicate to a governing principle. This goes far beyond his linguistic pratfalls—such as Tuesday’s reference to helicopter pilots as “chopper drivers.” Besides not explaining its policies, the administration handed its opponents fresh truncheons with which to pound it silly.
Bush and his minions refused to detail the multifarious ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists. They even stayed quiet about Manhattan-based, Clinton-appointed U.S. District judge Harold Baer’s May 7, 2003 decision that Hussein provided “material support” to the 9/11 conspirators. In Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Judge Baer ruled that Hussein's Baathist government and the Taliban assisted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Judge Baer — who President Clinton nominated in April 1994 — ordered Hussein, Iraq’s former government, and this case’s other losing parties to pay $104 million in civil damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both murdered on September 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center. Judge Baer added: “Again, since the al-Qaeda defendants and Iraq are jointly and severally liable, they are all responsible for the payment of any judgment that may be entered.”
Rather than publicize this federal court decision, Bush & Co. instead echoed the Left’s claims that Saddam Hussein had no connection to al-Qaeda, much less September 11.
Bush covered this topic most thoroughly at Kansas State University on Jan. 23, 2006. Bush said:
[Hussein] was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror. . . . There’s a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror — because he was sponsoring terror.
When the administration found 3,894 pounds of low-enriched uranium in Iraq, Bush did not call a news conference. Instead, the Energy Department issued an almost totally ignored press release on July 6, 2004. Ditto the 606.3 tons of yellowcake uranium that the administration moved from Iraq to Canada last July. Despite the Left’s relentless charges that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s fondness for yellowcake, this development passed in near silence.
Bush’s Nov. 5, 2003 signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (a good thing) featured Bush onstage at Washington’s Constitution Hall. Behind him stood GOP lawmakers Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, James Sensenbrenner, and others — all male. The White House press and advance teams arranged this much-needed curtailment of abortion rights and yet could not place even one woman beside the president. Why were no female senators nor congresswomen near Bush? Better yet, why not surround him with pro-life moms and their infants, perhaps some who were saved through crisis-pregnancy counseling? This public-relations malpractice let the National Organization for Women use a photo of Bush and the boys as an Internet recruitment and fundraising tool.
Cheek: Bush turned the other cheek until both were bloodied beyond recognition. Too nice by half, his “new tone in Washington” unilaterally disarmed Team Bush against critics who devoured them like piranhas.
This problem began with reports that outgoing Clinton staffers had trashed the White House. Had Bush brought in news cameras to document the destruction then only verbally described in the media, Bill and Hillary would have been terminally discredited. But Bush & Co. covered up for the Clintons, perhaps thinking this would buy peace with the Left. Yeah, right.
When then-senator James Jeffords (R., Vt.) became an independent in June 2001, the Senate switched from Republican to Democratic control. The day before the hand-off, Bush included Jeffords in a Cabinet Room photo opportunity. Message: “Go ahead. Ruin Bush’s day; get a bear hug.”
Bush took heat for skipping the NAACP’s 2004 convention. He and his publicists could have detailed the repugnant “old tone” comments by NAACP leaders, such as its then-executive director Kweisi Mfume. He said Bush is “prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance.” Instead, these noxious words went unrepeated, and the notion that Bush is anti-black went unrefuted.
Bush’s lackadaisical response to Hurricane Katrina generated outrageous genocide accusations.
“George Bush is our Bull Connor,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) said on Sept. 22, 2005. “If you’re black in this country, and you’re poor in this country, it’s not an inconvenience. It’s a death sentence.”
Rather than loudly rebuff such sludge with facts (e.g., the Coast Guard rescued 33,544 Katrina survivors as soon as wind speeds allowed; between 2000 and 2003, federal anti-poverty spending grew in Orleans Parish, La., by 73.3 percent per recipient under Bush), the White House rolled over and played dead, silently confirming for many the despicable lie that Bush let blacks drown in New Orleans attics just for kicks.
Crawford: His ranch in Crawford, Texas, is the perfect place for G. W. Bush to disappear and never be heard from again.
— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
“Do you think that I will be LESS critical of the one? :)”
I most certainly hope NOT. Zero is most deserving of your sharp analytical capabilities. And we all look forward to your future posts/rants. : P
Like I tell my kids. Mommy and I aren’t fighting(often over whether or not I should go to Home Depot or not), we are trying to work out what we should do next.
As you probably can see, I have been fighting this battle on multiple fronts for a long time. I actually am more confident than ever that President Bush has exercised superb leadership. My confidence has increased as I read literally dozens of critics try to explain why they disagree. I rarely encounter evidence associated with claims of Bush critics. They have heard something repeated so it is true.
Reagan is a good counter example since many Bush critics pretend that he represents an ideal and fair standard. Reagan meets known of the criteria for success. Reagan could have much more easily chose to end illegal immigration at a time that it was still manageable. He signed Simpson Mazolli and actively created the legal term now shouted in internent conversations as an epithet for Bush Amnesty!
Amnesty was literally invented by Reagan.
NCLB is fascinating study in pathology. Bush campaigned on NCLB. It is not something liberals foisted upon him. It was an important conservative principal which attracted conservatives to vote for him in 2000. He enacted his promise into law. Since the inception of the bill, Kennedy and other liberals have complained that the law lacks sufficient funding. It lacks sufficient funding because President Bush has adhered to conservative funding principals. In the previous system, the federal funding increased without strings attached. Now schoool must report their scores and a host of other information for parents. Most importantly, it has improved educational outcomes nationally since being enacted. The idea that it is not conservative is absurd.
here again Reagan is useful. Did education spending increase under Reagan— yes, by a huge amount. Did Reagan abolish the cabined post of education just created recently by Carter— No. Its absolutely absurd. There really are no standards for people who criticize Bush as not conservative.
If there is a standard it is simply this— Bush should abolish the Federal govenrment. Having not done that then he would be respected as a conservative.
Global Warming makes me wonder if you even read any news. Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol explicitly and repeatedly even after Clinton signed and executive order agreeing to it. McCain ran his campaign on this fact which makes it bizarre that you pretend Bush agreed to capitulate to GW. Again it does not matter what practical facts I point out, because you have some ideal in mind [perhaps the assasination of Al Gore— I don’t know] having fallen short of that ideal— Bush supports Global warming policies.
Nonetheless, in the arena of comparative alternatives— which actually is what politics is. Bush is a very strong conservative leader with credentials that surpass almost any leader we could list.
Again, the best refutation is to point to Clinton’s reduction of spending— which is entirely rooted in cutting the military. Is that what Conservatives think Bush should do? Clearly and surely this cannot be the case. The nation really is truely at war and we are actually getting it for a bargain compared to any war we have fought.
“He was bad leader.” Yes that is exactly right except he was a great leader. Otherwise you have interpreted the matter perfectly well.
Wow. You are so generous in your interpretations of Reagan crushing the Soviet Union but incessantly negative in interpretating Bush who actually did crush the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saddam and Charles Taylor.
If Reagan did stop Khaddafi [the strike was supposed to kill Khadaffi] why did Khadaffi move forward and develop and extensive WMD program?
The answer is that Khadaffi continued to be involved it terror programs despite you wishful thinking. Bush actually killed thousands of terrorists instead of just talking tough and invading Grenada.
That one puzzled me a great deal when the news broke, then just faded in no time at at all.
Republicans should have learned how costly poor, and even non-existent communications from the WH, can be.
A lot of truth in the article.
And, precisely what were his views on amnesty?
Well, that illegals should have amnesty! LOL
Did he? We know Alito was not his first choice. His choice was Harriett Meirs, which caused a significant party uprising.
And, some say that Alberto Gonzalez was his first choice over Roberts, but that was thwarted less publicly.
W might not be due quite so much praise for his SCOTUS appointees, and those he forced him to change directions might deserve most of the credit.
Is it? Well, find a nice, sandy beach with deep sand in which to bury your head because it has only begun. As always, there will be endless looking back columns, and many books about the W years to come.
That flag don't represent career politicians like Bush or Obama, or any politician. That flag does not represent government, or government's twisted corrupt policies.
Why do you think the leftist and communist hate that flag?
That flag represents a united country, based on freedom and those that sacrificed and sweat for that freedom.
Put your flag back up.
Not at all what he said in a 2004 debate with Kerry. This thread's about dead, but I'll link it anyway:
Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen, and we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line. If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too. And here's where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.
There's old W in 2004, chastising Kerry for supporting amnesty for illegals, and telling us how he opposed rewarding illegal behavior, and, of course, ole W opposed amnesty for illegals and Kerry didn't.
A little more than half way down the page, and there's W using those terms specifically designed to deceive: "amnesty" and all those references to "the line" people have to stand in that is never defined.
He lied like crazy during that debate, intentionally deceiving the voters. And, at that point, the amnesty debate had not heated up, and he knew the use of those terms would fool most everyone.
This writer is spot on. The last laugh would be if the Left prosecuted him for war crimes.
On the contrary, Bush's (albeit delayed and horribly botched) response to 9-11 and the post surge phase of the WOT are to his credit. Charles Taylor, I don't really give a shit about. Never have. Never will. Although I'm sure Liberia was just as tough a foe as Grenada.
Bush also cut taxes. Other than that, he was probably the worst president since Carter.
Horribly botched?
Did he hurt too many of your Taliban friends?
Every phase was incredible. Keep in mind, every single critic was proven wrong:
Levin: 10,000 troops die in Babdad in first six months
Biden: Iraqi troops will not be trained to supervise 2005 elections
Reid: The war is lost.
I can tell you why you don’t care about Liberia. Taylor killed more than 250,000 people. He sponsored horrific human crimes in Sierra Leone. His generals killed children in ritualistic acts before battle against civilians. His troops kicked around the schools of victims in post battle soccer matches.
Grenada was never on any human rights radar. Liberia had been a long term concern by almost everyone except you of course.
Liberia was probably closer to Somalia in difficulty. Unlike Bush and Clinton, This president was willing to see it through rather than cutting and running like Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush.
Keep in mind the military action on Liberia took place while we were invading Iraq. That is a huge step up on enemies believing we cannot defend two major fronts at once. We were active in Afghan and Iraqi war fronts and the US military still took out a leader stronger than Somalia.
It is not even close. As a military leader, Bush II surpasses everyone since Truman.
Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland for one and there were others.
Gotta love those foot in the mouth Bush hatahs.
Until the surge, it WAS a quagmire. Fortunately, someone got to Bush and got him to agree to the surge.
I can tell you why you don’t care about Liberia. Taylor killed more than 250,000 people. He sponsored horrific human crimes in Sierra Leone. His generals killed children in ritualistic acts before battle against civilians. His troops kicked around the schools of victims in post battle soccer matches.
And this was our problem because?
Its our problem because we are all human.
Its our problem because the world contains WMD.
Its our problem because this is the perfect environment for terrorism.
Its our problem the modern world is not George Washington’s world. We are not and never can be isolated.
Fallujah was retaken. Armor was placed on the humvees as fast as possible. Al Sader is absolutely irrelevant to Iraqi politics which as a Martyr he would have been much more relevant.
No response is false. Our soldiers and snipers have killed thousands of their warriors. The iraqi army has done the same.
Statements like yours have killed lots of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
Rumsfeld was awesome and completely succesful. Again, all of his detractors were at every step proven wrong. No civil war. Successful elections. Low casualties. Quick capitulation by Saddam. No sustained urban warfare.
Rumsfeld made Vietnam look like a joke. The effort by you and other reactionary liberals to make Iraq into Vietnam failed.
Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland for one and there were others.
Not to nit-pick here... but, Reagan bombed the hell out of Libya AFTER the bombing of Pan Am 103.... it was one of the main reasons for sending a missile in Kadafi's tent.
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.