ADVERTISEMENT

GWB, "Do you miss me, yet"?

bucbee

All Big East
Jun 3, 2001
1,487
0
0
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/bush-come-back-bush/
http://pajamasmedia.com

‘Bush … Come Back, Bush, Come Back’
Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On September 2, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

In Why We Suddenly Miss Bush

Various polls report that George W. Bush in some states is now better liked than President Obama. Even some liberal pundits call for Bush, the now long-missed moderate, to draw on his recognized tolerance and weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque or the Arizona anti-immigration legislation. Apparently the erstwhile divider is now the healer that the healer Obama is not.

As President Obama’s polls dip, as Congress is widely disdained, and as the economy slumps, suddenly George Bush is missed. Why so? Let me list ten likely reasons.

1) The Obama record. We naturally compare Bush to his chief critic and successor Barack Obama ? and find the latter increasingly wanting as time goes by. Obama turned Bush’s misdemeanor deficits into felonious trillion-dollar annual shortfalls. He will pile up more debt than any other prior president.
Indeed, if reelected, Obama will borrow more than all previous administrations combined.

Bush was tarred in 2004 for a “jobless recovery” when unemployment hovered near 6%. It is now almost 10% and Obama still harps about “jobs saved.” Scott McClellan may have been singularly inept; we are not so sure after Robert Gibbs.

For every Brownie there is a worse Van Jones or Anita Dunn. For Katrina we have BP. Bush’s NASA did space; Obama’s seems to prefer Muslim outreach.

Bush’s prescription drug benefit was an unfunded liability; ObamaCare is a trillion-dollar financial black-hole. I could go on, but Obama’s lackluster record is improving Bush’s legacy every day.

2) Obama as Bush. Senator and then candidate Obama demagogued Bush on a variety of issues, which, as president, he simply flipped and endorsed.

Remember Bush’s gulag at Guantanamo? Or how about the terror-producing Predators? Or the need for an immediate pull-out from Iraq? Or those terrible renditions and tribunals?

In case after case of national security, Obama dropped the cheap rhetorical one-upmanship, and, when invested with the responsibility of governance, simply adopted, or even trumped, the Bush protocols.

General Petraeus, whose testimony Hillary once suggested required “a suspension of disbelief” and whom Obama cut off and did not allow to speak during his infamous 2007 Senate hearing, suddenly is to be Obama’s savior general.

Candidate Obama claimed the surge failed and all combat troops should be out of Bush’s Iraq war by March 2008. President Obama now calls Iraq a “remarkable chapter” as his vice president claims it as one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.”

In short, almost daily, Obama is following the Bush anti-terrorism policies ? the irony made worse by petulance and ingratitude in not acknowledging his debt.

3) Bush Did It. It is a uniquely American trait to shun whining and petulance. Rugged individualism and can-do optimism used to be ingrained in our national character, and even in our 11th hour have not wholly disappeared.

So the public is tiring of Obama’s Pavlovian blaming of Bush. After 20 months, it is time for the president to get a life and quit the “heads you lose/tails I win” attitude about presidential responsibility.

If he now takes credit for calm in Iraq without crediting the surge, then Obama can surely take blame for the anemic recovery ? brought on by his own bullying of business that has frightened free enterprise into stasis.

Note that Bush, unlike Clinton, has not engaged in emeritus tit-for-tat recrimination, and has kept largely quiet in dignified repose. Obama serially goes after Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck by name; Bush let the slander of a Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann go unanswered.

4) Who is the real yuppie? The media tried to paint Bush as the privileged yuppie, masquerading as the Texas rancher, idly chain-sawing on his spread. But at least Bush went to the Texas outback for vacation and got his hands dirty.

Obama’s problem is that Axelrod and Emanuel could not stage a chain-sawing task for Obama if they tried ? severe injury would surely follow.

The bowling moment in the campaign was as disastrous as the later Obama girlish first pitch. From 2001-3, presidential golf was proof of aristocratic disdain and laziness.

Suddenly from 2009-2010 ? given that Obama has hit the greens more in 20 months than Bush did in eight years ? the Ministry of Truth redefined the game as necessary egalitarian relaxation.

Given the choice, the public would probably prefer a little overdone Texas “smoke ‘em out” braggadocio to worries over the price of arugula.

5) Michelle is no Laura. Remember the narrative: conservative women are elitists who decorate, buy nice clothes, and play Barbie; liberal first ladies are doers who are independent feminists that can’t be bothered by inanities like fashion and play.

But Michelle this summer enjoyed a movable feast from Marbella to Martha’s Vineyard, in designer clothes and shades.

Laura Bush used to vacation at the national parks. Laura Bush often disagreed with her husband and sometimes offered a liberal “Oh, come on, George” to her husband’s occasional flight-suit strutting.

Michelle, in contrast, is the second half of the partisan Obama tag-team, perennially whining that “they raised the bar.” After “downright mean country” and “never before been proud,” we miss Laura Bush’s common sense and nonpartisanship. Ga-ga media talk of Michelle’s biceps, not the earthy decency reminiscent of a Laura Bush.

6) UN first; U.S. second. If Bush was a supposed “cowboy,” there at least was never doubt that his first and foremost interest was the U.S, not the “international community.”

One Obama bow was OK; one apology about genocide tolerable; one smug cast-off line that we are not exceptional understandable; one mea culpa sent to the corrupt UN human rights crowd I suppose forgivable. But add them up and we sense that our president is embarrassed about America’s history and culture ? but not quite embarrassed enough not to enjoy its material bounty to the fullest.

7) Who will criticize the critics? American elites crucified Bush. Vein-bulging Al Gore called him a liar. John Edwards and John Kerry tag-teamed him in vicious attacks. Alfred A. Knopf published a novel imagining his assassination. The Toronto Film Festival gave first prize to Death of a President, a 2006 docudrama about killing President Bush. I could go on again, but you remember the times, in which everyone from John Glenn to Garrison Keillor played the Bush Nazi/brownshirt card.

And now? John Edwards imploded in scandal. John Kerry was exposed as a tax-dodging elitist hypocrite. Al Gore, if not a sex poodle, at least is a green-con-artist of the billionaire sort, who both hyped a world-ending crisis and then profited from his rhetorical overkill by selling supposed green snake oil in the fashion of medieval penances.

CBS, the New York Times, and Newsweek now totter near financial insolvency, after showing both poor judgment and questionable ethics: from the Times’ offering a discount for the MoveOn.org “General Betray Us” ad to a Newsweek senior editor declaring Obama a “god.”

Suddenly bad things have happened to most of Bush’s loudest critics. (Note I’ll pass on the post-Bush Letterman or the post-Bush Rangel).

8. Bush’s disasters proved not quite disasters. Take the two most famous: Iraq and Katrina. Iraq is calm and can make it as a consensual state.

Kurdistan is booming, not on a genocidal watch list. We killed thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists in Anbar province. That helped to keep us safe from another 9/11-like attack.

Libya gave up its WMD. Dr. Khan shut down his nuclear franchising. American troops left Saudi Arabia. Syria got out of Lebanon.

Iraq neither attacks four of its neighbors, nor does the government there give shelter to the likes of Abu Nidal and the architect of the first World Trade bombing attempt.

Understandably, Biden and Obama now see something to claim and hope we forget their own assurances that it was either lost or to be trisected.

The BP mess (oh, how Nemesis likes to strike in the same locale!) reminded us how the federal government is inept under any president, whether during a manmade or nature-induced calamity.

Shutting down oil drilling in the Gulf may be the worst legacy of the spill. Much of Katrina’s mess, in retrospect, can be attributed as much to anemic local and state responses and an endemic New Orleans culture of dependency as to Brownie’s FEMA incompetence.

9) Bush was not corrupt and ran an especially ethical administration. Before Obama even started, we had the Blago mess (of which the final story is not yet in) and the Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, and Hilda Solis ethical lapses.

Bush condemned Republican malfeasance and kept his distance. But suddenly the culture of corruption is not so corrupt when Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, and others prove as compromised as Duke Cunningham and Larry Craig. The Chicago crowd makes the Crawford crowd look like pikers.

Bush said not a word about Obama and BP; Obama viciously attacked Bush as incompetent during Katrina. You decide.

10) Bush was authentic. He mangled his words. A liberal industry grew up around both “nuclar” and its sometimes corrective “nucular.” He strutted and talked Nascarese-like “bring ‘em on.” Much of this was excessive, but we knew at least Bush meant it. We got worried when he extemporaneously expounded for long riffs about freedom at press conferences, as his eyes rolled and he drifted from topic to topic.

He put his arm on Angela Merkel and cried out “Yo Blair.” The media told us he was a yokel; we might add: albeit an authentic one who could duck properly when under shoe attack.

But Obama? He cannot really speak off the teleprompter without pauses, repetitions, and constant self-referencing (as in “me,” “I,” “my,” etc.).

He is stiff and not comfortable with himself off the court or golf course. Bush made decisions and stuck by them; Obama the professor offers a perennial “on the one hand”/”on the other hand” mish-mash and a sorta, kinda, almost answer.

Americans would prefer to be in a foxhole with George Bush, who would swagger and announce as decider-in-chief at H-hour, “OK, pard, we’re going over the top together on this one.”

They wouldn’t want to be with Obama, who would stutter and give a long-drawn out exegesis why race and class had condemned us to such an unfair predicament, whose only solution is to go into a fetal position and condemn “them” who did this awful thing to us.

Who knows? At this rate America may play Brandon DeWilde to Bush’s Shane: Bush ? Come Back, Bush, Come Back!

Article printed from Works and Days: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/bush-come-back-bush/

http://pajamasmedia.com
 
The answer to that question is easy. Absolutely Not!!!

Whether or not you think Obama is doing a good job does not change the fact that W was a terrible President.

If anything the Presidency's of Bush & Obama make me appreciate Bill Clinton as President a hell of alot more.

Tom K
 
Send in the clowns. The Obama Clown following the Bush Clown. Both piss all over the Constitution. So did Clinton. Enough of the wannabee dictators.
 
Really, W did a terrible job.

I understand the deep recession hit, but that was the last year of his Presidency and by that time Democrats had taken control of both wings of Congress.

As late as 2007 the budget deficit was $168 billion and that is with raging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a new prescription drug program than many conservatives voted AGAINST, it is now $1.4 trillion and as late as January 2008 the unemployment rate was 4.9%, it is essentially twice that now.

The idea that he economy tanked because of President Bush is nonsense. Those were government policies behind FHA, Fannie and Freddie that go back years and include President's of both parties.

Not to mention the fact that there were no major attacks on US soil after 9/11, not an easy task.

I have many problems with President Bush, many. But your reaction is knee jerk and not based on fact.

You have to justify your vote for Obama who you crowed on this board had "great ideas" back in 2008 so to do that you continue to trash his predecessor.

And as for Clinton, go look at where the economy was before the R's took control and after.

And again I have no problem with giving President Clinton credit for a the late 90's. But let's get several things straight, a large amount of that had to do with the fact that his biggest domestic proposal, ClintonCare (the prelude to ObamaCare) was DEFEATED before it ever got voted on. Again don't think for a second that you would have seen the type of economic growth if you had the type of legislation you see coming from this Congress only 16-18 years earlier. Because Democrats hadn't changed, it just was that they did not have the type of majorities they do now nor was the Republican Party as crippled then as it was the first few years of this current administration.
 
Originally posted by michstfr:
as late as January 2008 the unemployment rate was 4.9%, it is essentially twice that now

The financial crisis didn't start until later in 2008 and most economists say the recession started in December of 2007. On Bush's watch. The unemployment rate in Jan of 2008 has absolutely nothing to do with today's situation.

Originally posted by michstfr:
Not to mention the fact that there were no major attacks on US soil after 9/11, not an easy task.

Who was president on 9/11? Did you forget? Give him credit for nothing after it, yes, but he failed to stop the big one.

I thought President Bush did an average job. Not among the greatest and not among the worst presidents. I agreed with him on some stuff and disagreed on others. I'd give him a C.
 
I hate Obama as much as the next guy. I voted for Bush twice and would vote for him again if he were up against Obama any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Obama and the Liberal Congress is the one that has added to the national debt more than every president from Washington to Reagan combined, not Bush.

But let's get real. The recession started in 2006. Whether Congress was controlled by the Democrats or not is irrelevant because no one will remember that. Bush himself added to the national debt greatly and as Steve said, pissed on the Constitution like he was a bleeding heart liberal. So do I miss Bush? Hell no. Would I rather have George W. Bush as my president over Barack Obama? Hell yes. But I don't miss him. I miss a true conservative. I miss Reagan.
 
I just don't understand the hate for Obama. What policies of his cause you to hate him?

Reagan increased the national debt to GDP ratio from 32.5% to 53.1% over the course of his 8 years in office. Only one president since the 1970s has decreased this ratio over his term: Bill Clinton (66.1% to 56.4%).

George W. Bush increased this ratio from 56.4% to 83.4%.
 
The loss of jobs to foreign soil did not start in the last 2 years of the Bush Administration but is of long standing & accellerated greatly during the Bush years. He did not see this as a problem & did nothing to combat it. The war he got us involved in Iraq for no good reason wasted how many billions of dollars. The economic collapse was under his watch, 9-11 was under his watch. What ever happened to accountability. Seems it has been replaced by finger pointing. Regardless of how one feels about Obama as President there is little doubt that George W Bush was a terrible President. You must rate him on his own accomplishments or lack thereof not his successors or presdecessors. The American Historical Society rates him as the 7th worst President ever. I think that may be too high.

As to Obama I don't know how to rate him yet. He still has a least 2 years left. His legacy will be the economy - good or bad. I just hope someone fixes it & it makes no difference to me if it is a Democrat or a Republican. Our biggest problems is that both parties feel that it is a competition against each other & forget that they were elected not to support their party but rather to do what is best for our nation.

Tom K
 
Originally posted by michstfr:
And as for Clinton, go look at where the economy was before the R's took control and after.

We were actually talking about this in another thread.
From 1993-1997 we had steady growth. (which should always be the goal)
After the 1997 tax cut, 8 points on capital gains we had a boom. The market became over-inflated and we started to slow. By Q1 2001 we stopped growing..

If you look at the overall effect on inflation adjusted gdp from the date each law went into effect... the 1993-1997 period was actually stronger than the 1997-2001 period.

Link
 
SHU09 - the financial crisis started long ago. Loan losses and nonperforming loans for banks started to go up in 2005/2006 due to the lax standards of Freddie and Fannie buying every loan up that banks created, driven by Wall St.s need for more product to pack into their CDO's/CMO's etc. It started with subprime loans for folks that should not have been in those homes at all and was funded by Fannie and Freddie and the policies of the dummy's in Congress who wanted to spur more lending going back to the Clinton Administration. McCain who I do not like actually tried to stop it and slow it down only to be turned away by the Dem Congress. Lots of fingers to be pointed at the banks, Fannie and Freddie, Congress, Rating Agencies etc.

I've studied the financial crisis and wrote a class on it that won awards. Your statement that the crisis started in 2008 is completely false as the wheels came off long before 2008.
 
Originally posted by Section112:
SHU09 - the financial crisis started long ago. Loan losses and nonperforming loans for banks started to go up in 2005/2006 due to the lax standards of Freddie and Fannie buying every loan up that banks created, driven by Wall St.s need for more product to pack into their CDO's/CMO's etc. It started with subprime loans for folks that should not have been in those homes at all and was funded by Fannie and Freddie and the policies of the dummy's in Congress who wanted to spur more lending going back to the Clinton Administration. McCain who I do not like actually tried to stop it and slow it down only to be turned away by the Dem Congress. Lots of fingers to be pointed at the banks, Fannie and Freddie, Congress, Rating Agencies etc.

I've studied the financial crisis and wrote a class on it that won awards. Your statement that the crisis started in 2008 is completely false as the wheels came off long before 2008.
Bingo!!!
 
I was referring to the stock market crash which seemed to put the downturn on the fast track.

I'll take your word for it on the events prior to 2008.
 
Originally posted by SnakeTom:
9-11 was under his watch. What ever happened to accountability. Seems it has been replaced by finger pointing.

Tom K

Interesting, because the fingers on the lead-up to 9-11 clearly point at the 8 years of Clinton and military cuts, not to mention letting Bin Laden walk out of the crosshairs on at least two occasions when Clinton was Commander in Chief.
 
You conveniently forget that W ignored warnings about al queda before 9-11 and afterward also had him in the crosshairs but did nothing. Then let al queda off the hook by diverting our resources to Iraq.

Regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes OB (and I'm not enthralled with him), GWB was a terrible President on his own merits. It's not an either/or situation. You must rate those in charge on their own accomplishment or lack thereof.

TK
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT