George W. Bush: A president so bad even George H.W. Bush looks good
Posted 1 week 3 days ago byOne-term presidents aren't generally considered fondly by Americans or historians. Jimmy Carter? Even Democrats are sometimes embarrased by him. Herbert Hoover? Steered the country into Great Depression. William Howard Taft? Fat.
But you know who's getting the love? George H.W. Bush. And you know why? Because his son has made him look brilliant by comparison.
TAPPED's Mori Dinauer makes the following observation:
If George W. Bush hadn't been the
worstmost unpopular president in modern history (that is, if he hadn't been president), would PBS be running an American Experience documentary on George H.W. Bush? Seems like the elder Bush was destined to join that exclusive list of forgettable presidents until Junior suddenly made him look like a wise elder statesman by comparison.
True dat. The funny thing is, there are two paradoxical pop psychology explanations for George W.'s pursuit of and performance in the presidency: That he was trying to avenge dad, or that he was trying to one-up dad.
But the funny thing is, George W. learned the lessons of his dad's presidency too well. What looked George Sr.'s errors a decade ago turned out, with some hindsight provided by his son's experiences, not to look so bad.
* George H.W. Bush fought a righteous war against Iraq, expelling Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait -- but called off the troops without taking Hussein down or forcing a regime change. His son's war of choice, though, got bogged down.
* George H.W. Bush reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge because government deficit spending was unsustainable. This probably cost him a second term, but it also put the U.S. government on sounder fiscal footing during the Clinton years. Given a choice between the political pander or the sounder long-term approach, the son has chosen only pander.
* Both men, though, were befuddled by a slowing economy.
We now know that George H.W. Bush wasn't an awful president. Thanks to his son, we now know how bad it can get.
Thoughts
Bush Sr & Bush Jr.
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by MercyphotographyOur current President had an enourmous inferiority complex toward his father for most of his life.
Bush Sr. was not only a war hero, but he had success in his business ventures, Bush Jr never did. Bush Sr. is ( was) very bright and analytical, Bush Jr. is more impulsive and emotional.
In term of his upbringing, he had a mother and father that were cold and probably never demonstrated the kind of love a child need.
This is an example of it:When Bush Jr lost his sister during his chilhood, Barbara and his dad were playing golf and sipping their usual martinis the very same day the funeral took place...as if everything was normal.
catalytic agents
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by Anonymous41 and 43 were only catalysts. Agents of faster decline, of accelerated imperial rot. The people got the leaders that an implacable logic of their ignorance and arrogance supplied -- "those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make demented."
bipolar2
typical politican?
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by rom12921Is that what you're saying Bull Moose?
Shrub is only being his natural self
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by Bull MooseIn 2000 everyone with an ounce of common sense could see Bush boy was a spoiled little rich kid.
I could not care less about his good fortune to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but when the forces of the dark side manipulated him into a position of power, then you reap what you sow.
He was never more than an overgrown fratboy who used his daddies political and business connections.The man even profitted off public money when the Texas Rangers baseball team's stadium was built with taxpayers funds,then Bushboy sold his share of the team,making a tidy profit.
So please, Bush worshippers,spare us his accolade, the man is and has alway's been an empty suit.
Indeed
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by rom12921How do you think the federal budget rose from $1.4 trillion to $3 trilllion (+ or -)?Republicans behaving badly 2000-2006.
Re: Fair point
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by JoelWell, OK, but:
I hate to be predictable and partisan, but that period between 2000-07? That was pretty much all Republicans, all the time.
Part of me suspects gridlocked government is the best path to fiscal restraint.
Insightful
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by rom12921Spending more than you take in is a "recipe for disaster". Aren't you stating the ?
Deficit spending is not a Republican issue. The House Appropriations Committee spends most of the money. It was under Republican control for 12 of the 30 years you cite. Your assertion is predictable and partisan.
This fiscal conservative thinks Federal spending, especially the sharp increases between 2000-2007, is THE problem. The federal government spends $10,000 per person in the U.S. not including States, cities, counties and school districts.
So I ask, if $55,000 per family of four (est) is not enough to stay current, much less address the national debt & Social Security projected shortfall ($9,000,000,000,000), then what will be enough?
Re: Befuddled
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by JoelPerhaps I should've said: "Apparently ineffective."
I'm not criticizing Bush 41 for not making regime change. But it *was* a big criticism, and it was worth noting.
As for deficit spending: Amazing how blithe the "fiscal conservatives" have gotten about this. Deficit spending, when it happens, it supposed to be short-term fix to help get things in order. As a permanent way of doing business -- and that's clearly what it's been under Republican administrations the last 30 years -- it's a recipe for disaster.
Joel befuddled by partisanship
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by rom12921How can you criticize Bush 41 for not making a "regime change" (language not used at the time) and Bush 43 for doing it?
"George H.W. Bush reneged on his 'no new taxes' pledge because government deficit spending was unsustainable."
Bush 41 got what he deserved by listening to Democrats (cost 2nd term). Deficit spending is not new or unique to either Bush Admin, gov't status quo. Aslo, when have we had zero national debt?
"Both men, though, were befuddled by a slowing economy." Economic cycles come and go. They are no more "befuddled" than you are.