Whither Bush in prez history?

[DesertFox]

If Harry S Truman did it, why can’t George W. Bush?

Truman came back from the political abyss — his public approval rating sank as low as 22 percent thanks in large part to America’s entry into the Korean War and his handling of labor disputes at home — to become regarded by historians as one of the nation’s top 10 presidents. Lately, some Bush administration officials and White House associates have predicted that President Bush — mired in an unpopular war in Iraq and saddled with the low Nixon-level approval ratings — will get the Truman treatment by historians after he leaves office in January 2009.

“I think when the history is written that, in fact, it will reflect credit upon this president and his administration,” Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN’s Larry King last month.

More (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/19207.html)

[DesertFox]

Carter was a total failure. Reagan was a great. Iraq will make Bush a near great. They lie when they say he has no domestic accomplishments. NCLB forced public schools to pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing, rather than just graduating illiterates and innumerates. His tax cuts enabled the economy to expand at rates not seen since Reagan. And he brought the liberals out of their hidey holes; there can be no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that liberals hate America.

[ThomasMore]

I think history will judge GWB to be a mostly-good President in astonishingly difficult circumstances.

His steadfastness and courage will be hallmarks of his Presidency. His response to 9/11, the early conduct of the Iraq campaign, and his steady support of the Iraq reconstruction will gain him points.

His domestic policies will leave a mixed legacy, and the uneven conduct of the Iraq reconstruction leave much to be desired.

[Lubbock]

. . . And he brought the liberals out of their hidey holes . . .

You sure said a mouthful there.

If anyone is paying attention at all, they have to know that the Libs/Dems are completely deranged.

Certain ones would be supporting the War on Terror if a Dem was leading it, but have become unhinged because it's GWB. Their insanity is on display for the world to see, day in and day out.

Others have been deranged since Vietnam, but have been hiding out. Now they are out of the woodwork and have put their lunacy on display on a daily basis.

And the great thing about it is that the LeftStream Media can't cover it up.

It's just real public.

Any thinking person who is paying just a little bit of attention can't miss it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Considering the messes he inherited from BJ Clinton - a recession, a stock market crash, the terrorist threat that led to the 9/11 attacks, confiscatory tax rates - President Bush has done a remarkable job as president. Future impartial historians will have to rank him somewhere in the top tier of presidents, maybe even in the top 10.

[ThomasMore]

Considering the messes he inherited from BJ Clinton - a recession, a stock market crash, the terrorist threat that led to the 9/11 attacks, confiscatory tax rates...

I agree that GWB has done an outstanding job on all those points, and on his stellar judicial appointments.

On the other hand, his expansion of Federal programs, signing of McCain-Feingold, refusal to veto Congress's excesses, unwillingness to aggressively address our porous borders, and his inability or unwillingness to effectively make the public case for Iraq and the GWOT, temper my assessment of his Presidency.

If I could reach back to 2000 and vote again (primaries and general), I would still vote for George W. Bush.

[Lubbock]

Rush asked Karl Rove if he or the President ever got upset at the media for their lies. Rove said he did, but the President just laughed and told Rove that a hundred years from now the historians will get it right, and he and Rove will be dead.

That's the only thinking that could have allowed GWB to do the right thing and survive this going-on eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome that has gripped the Democrats and fully half of the Republicans.

The Demoocrats I can understand. They care not a whit for the nation. They care about power and protecting their own, no matter how evil or perverted. They would reather see the nation fall to Muslim Terror than protect the nation by giving GWB an inch of ground.

Republicans are still a puzzle to me.

[ThomasMore]

The Democrats...care about power...

In a nutshell, that's it.

[ThomasMore]

Republicans are still a puzzle to me.

Running for Congressman or Senator requires a clearly stated set of principles and goals, a polished presentation, and the willingness to be a salesman to your would-be constituents, the press, and those who might donate to you. "Money is the mother's milk of politics," and without donors and people willing to work at electioneering for you, the voters will never get to hear about you.

Whether corporations, unions, wealthy donors or PACs, each will ask: "What will YOU do in office for ME? I am putting up good money and workers for you: can I trust you to do what you say, 'stay bought,' and have the brains not to screw up? If you can't convince them that you know what you are doing and that their money and electioneering efforts are well spent, you won't be supported in your candidacy.

Once in office, the nature of legislation is negotiation and compromise. No law can be passed, and no money can be appropriated, unless you can sell it to a plurality of your colleagues, often on both sides of the aisle. Often your allies come from unlikely places; so do your adversaries.

Some who come to the office not only state their principles and goals clearly, but also understand, deeply believe and are committed to those principles and goals, notwithstanding the political maelstrom they find themselves in from the outset.

Others quickly become saturated with the process, focus on becoming competent dealmakers and legislators, but get cut adrift from the principles that got them elected.

The day-to-day pressures take over, being brought by financial supporters and PACs, the legislator's own staff (who are unelected and often bring their own political agendas), the press, which will get the word out about his work, and the other politicians. The politicians' daily feedback comes from these sources, so these become the gauge by which most politicians check themselves. Most respond competently to these pressures and become workmanlike dealmakers, but they slowly leave behind the principles many of the voters liked. Once in office, they enjoy doing the job, the networking, and the perks and opportunities, so they want to stay.

This corruption is insidious, because the average politician works hard at his job, uses his intelligence, and delivers a competent product. He thinks he really is "doing good," because that is what his feedback tells him. But his energies cease to be directed towards the goals he once espoused. Unless he is a very strong and independent with a clear vision of his own goals, he will get submerged in the job.

As the Republicans have become ensconced in the seats of Federal power, I believe the corruption of their ideals slowly took place. The Republican Revolution of 1994 slowly became the Republican Corruption of 2007.

Dennis Byrne wrote a great article about Dennis Hastert and this process last year: Hastert's Illinois Approach to Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/hasterts_illinois_approach_to.html).

-----

To those of you who subscribe to conspiracy theories and believe that our politicians have agendas to destroy us, I have never believed it. What I do believe is that politicians become so immersed in the day-to-day pressures and rewards that they lose sight of many dangers and walk heedlessly in dangerous directions.

Citizens must watch their government closely not because politicians aim to destroy us, but because power, by its nature, absorbs and corrupts its holders.

[Jack_Savage]

I agree that GWB has done an outstanding job on all those points, and on his stellar judicial appointments.

On the other hand, his expansion of Federal programs, signing of McCain-Feingold, refusal to veto Congress's excesses, unwillingness to aggressively address our porous borders, and his inability or unwillingness to effectively make the public case for Iraq and the GWOT, temper my assessment of his Presidency.

If I could reach back to 2000 and vote again (primaries and general), I would still vote for George W. Bush.
Insightful post. It reminds me just how tough of a job President Bush took on and the masterful job he did navigating the deep water we are in. To have a booming economy, while thwarting terrorist plans for more disaster, and standing up to all the scorn, able to joke and take his place in it all so lightly is something. Something this nation can be real proud of.

What a great thread this is. I hope someone sends these comments to him. He shows such beautiful courage.