You don’t have to agree with everything George W. Bush ever did to agree with Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, that Bush did get it right more often than his detractors would like to admit.
Of the points Karl Rove mentions, I give Bush five out of ten – although since this is Karl Rove who’s making the points, we have to give due allowance for the spin, and for the fact that his own place in history is tied inexorably to his former boss’s. So there is no way in hell, for example, you can ever accuse Bush II of exercising spending restraint. Where was Rove when this was happening, huh?
What’s your score for GWB?
7 comments:
I think he's still bound to go down in history as America's worst president whether it's warranted or not. People criticize Obama as being all style and no substance, but George W Bush had neither, AND came across as a confused halfwit nearly every time he opened his mouth to speak.
I'll give George Bush 9 out of 10 mainly for pursuing terrorists around the world.
I would've expected something like a 2/10 for spraying taxpayer money all over the place, massive debts, crushing civil liberties etc...care to explain the 5/10?
America's worst president - Ha!
What about Pierce and Buchanan? And for that matter Polk, Taylor, Fillmore before them? Five men who let the issue of slavery fester until it provided the spark (with a little help from John Brown) that ignited the US Civil War?
Anyone who calls Bush the worst president in history (a history that stretches back over more than TWO centuries) should be branded as a jackass and run out of town on a rail.
If you don't already subscribe, the NPR intelligence squared podcast is worth a listen.
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=510184
Recently debated: Is Bush The Worst President Of The Past 50 Years?
It depends of course what you think is most important. I think G.W.'s place will depend on the outcome in the Middle East. If let's say 100 years from now democracy flourishes there, his place on the list wouldn't be that low.
If not, he only can depend on keeping America safe, which is quite as shared honour.
I'm not sure he has that many legislative accomplishments. The only changes, as far as I'm aware, were socialist. He didn't run as a conservative I know, but still, disappointing.
His last year was a disaster of course. We can start with his reception of the pope, which was a disgrace to everyone knowing the history of popery and its claims on worldy power that are very similar to what Mohammed and his followers crave.
His handling of the economy, I know, he warned about many issues, was disastrous. For a really funny take on that, watch this.
But as every economist agrees with his approach, should we fault him for agreeing with them and for not having the right instincts and insight?
But that's the hallmark of a great leader isn't it? So I give him a 6.
Bush kept 'merica safe! Safe from what exactly? Next thing some of you will be justifying his presidency on the basis that, yes indeed, the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbour again- not on his watch. Bush was on to those nasty little nips! No more surprise attacks from them.
---
A pack of statist minions striding about the media, trying to bullshit some good out of the clusterfuck the Bush regime contributed to, would be comedic if so many people didn't take it seriously enough to believe in it.
Tell the truth! His watch was a collectivist ruination. His actions (or those he presided over) did more to damage the USA and act in opposition to its founding values than Osama #1. All that remains to be seen now is whether Osama #2 does worse.
LGM
Post a Comment