Bush Is No Lincoln
At another time, in another age, George Bush might have thrived and been considered a success. It is a shame — and may ultimately prove to be disastrous — that he ended up being president during the last eight years.
In truth, the world has changed dramatically during the Bush imperium, and it is impossible to say today whether the president’s policies acted as a catalyst that hastened and magnified these changes or whether there were other, more subtle forces at work that would have brought about the upheavals we have seen regardless of who sat in the Big Chair. It is something historians must decide after time has had its way with all of us and we have long since “shuff’d off this mortal coil” and touched the face of eternity.
History certainly has a way of taking some participants by the scruff of the neck and tossing them about willy-nilly, flinging them challenges for which they are neither prepared nor capable of managing. George Bush may have made a nice president in the 1950s. Or perhaps the 1880s, when the Gilded Age was in full bloom and self indulgence was a national religion.
Not lacking in brains and possessing a confidence that bordered on arrogance, President Bush would probably have thrived in less interesting times. But the challenges that emerged beginning with the attacks on September 11, 2001, right on through today’s financial meltdown of which we still haven’t glimpsed bottom, showed a man out of his depth, lacking in judgement, unable to come to grips with the forces that were reshaping the world and America. He is not without gifts. But when a president is proved wrong by events as often and as consistently as Bush, there is little alternative but to conclude that he was the wrong man at the wrong time for America.
It can’t entirely be the fault of the press. It can’t all be the fault of the Democrats. At some point, the leadership of the president himself must be examined for clues as to why the United States is in the position we are today — a nearly broken military; a dicey and still reversible situation in Iraq; losing in Afghanistan; the enemies of freedom on the march in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, and points in between. The world is worse off and Americans are worse off because George Bush was president.
“..is little alternative but to conclude that he was the wrong man at the wrong time for America.”
So who would have been the “right” man then…..and don’t embarrass yourself by saying Gore or Kerry?
After the 9/11 attacks Job 1 for Bush was to keep the US safe from further attacks and this he succeeded in doing. In the greater scheme of things everything else pails…all economies expand and contract, global warming is showing up to be a scam afterall, etc etc. Ensuring the countries security meant that Bush’s detractors could continue to live in peace happily whining and moaning away. Without the security he brought the US would have lost untold more lives from terrorist attacks on its own soil and it would eventually have had to get itself involved militarily in the Middle East anyway no matter which appeasing tool was in charge.
Bush didn’t get too much time to focus on domestic issues because he had more serious issues involving the future of your country to deal with. How hard is that for people to grasp?
All of these comparisons between Bush and Lincoln are based on a Conservative wing that wants to see a relevance in the last eight years…This longing to make Bush more successful than he is, comes down to a basic human tendency : stubborn pride..See, it’s really HARD for so many Conservatives to lay responsibility at Bush’s doorstep after so many blindly supported him. His “achievement” is based on “keeping America safe”…This is AFTER America was attacked under his watch…Of course, the “faithful” will have none of that reality. They voted for him. They believed in him. He has that “unflinching character” that his supporters love…Unfortunately, what he does not have is COMPETENCE…The world was too fast for him and he could not keep pace..He clinged to “plain talk and plain thinking” as a badge of honor. He helped foster the “with us or against us” intimidation in Congress, which led to his party’s defeat in consecutive elections….Bush was not in Lincoln’s league. The War on Terror is minor leagues when compared to our nation’s Civil War…In fact, If Bush was President in 1860, we would no longer BE the United States of America. Let’s stop trying to rationalize incompetence.
“It can’t entirely be the fault of the press.”
No…but a constant diet of s*** sandwiches certainly doesn’t help.
This is an almost surreal experience. I’ve just read Mr. Moran’s article condemning George W. Bush’s awful presidency, and I’m about to defend Pres. Bush against Mr. Moran. What’s weird is that a couple of hours ago I read Ms. Shriver’s article likening George W. Bush to Lincoln, and I took issue with her, too.
Mr. Moran has written a pretty wide-ranging condemnation of Pres. Bush. He pretty much sets the tone for the whole article by asserting that “the world is worse off and America is worse off” because Bush was President. This is, to be sure, a debatable assertion, as he himself observes, and I think on its face it’s pretty unfair to Bush. For one thing, al-Qaeda has been trying to get at us for some time now, and their attack on 9/11 would have happened regardless of who was in the White House, liberal fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding. It’s highly doubtful that any Democratic president would have managed the economy so much better that the current economic crisis wouldn’t have occurred, given that our current woes are substantially the result of the Fannie/Freddie mess, which in turn is largely the responsibility of the Democratic party in the first place.
And there’s at least one large error on Bush’s part that Mr. Moran puts forward that, to my mind anyway, is just plain mistaken. The idea that the surge would have worked three years earlier, if only he’d had the wisdom to see what every one else sees in retrospect, is at best a very tenuous assertion. One large facet of this subject is a part that isn’t reported much in the media: Gen. Petraeus changed the way the army fought the war in Iraq, exclusive of the surge. Petraeus recognized that the tactics we were using in ’04 and ’05 weren’t working, so he devised new ones, and when he finished his formulation, he told the president he needed more troops to implement the plans. Simply throwing troops at the problem, which is what our simple-minded media has always reported we did, wouldn’t have worked, and Bush seems to have understood this. Throughout history, generals have always asked for more soldiers. Its sort of expected if you’re the commander in a theater. The worsening situation in Afghanistan isn’t precisely Bush’s fault either: a host of factors, many having to do with the lack of stability in Pakistan, have contributed a great deal. One of my favorite planks of Obama’s campaign was the assertion that the surge hadn’t worked in Iraq, so we should try one in Afghanistan. If it didn’t work one place, why should we try it someplace else? Why would a policy devised for one country work in another, very different place? The idea defies reason. But of course Obama, like Kerry and Gore before him, *sound* smart, so they must be smart. Bush sounds stupid, so he must be stupid. Appearance means so much these days that it actually trumps reality.
Bush isn’t Lincoln, I’ll agree. Lincoln was president during a different era, when leadership (I mean the intangible inspirational thing that comes from speeches and actions) meant a lot more than it does in our modern technology-driven age. Back then a general could wave his sword over his head and turn the tide of a battle. Now he would merely look a fool for trying, because tanks, planes, and artillery decide things on battlefields. Lincoln, as a result, had more to lose, but he also had more scope to perform heroics and win the Civil War. It’s important to remember that while President Bush has been accused of “trampling” the Constitution, President Lincoln suspended habeus corpus for the duration of the Civil War, and imprisoned hundreds of Confederates indefinitely after doing this. He even expelled one political opponent (Clement Vallandingham) to the Confederacy because his opposition to the war was considered too vocal. Lincoln nationalized various state and local institutions, private and public, when it suited him, and even forced a state legislature to pass laws at the point of a gun (in Maryland). When he didn’t like what the Supreme Court ruled, he simply ignored the decisions and did what he pleased. Try any of *that* today, and see how far you get!
So I don’t think the comparison is fair, and I definitely think history will be kinder to George W. Bush than his critics have been. I don’t agree with the Lincoln comparison; I think he’s much more profitably compared to Harry S. Truman. Both men were, by the end of their term in office, mired in unpopular wars, which relative political neophytes from the opposite party promised to end with vague pronouncements (“I will go to Korea”), while the wars were in both cases not of their making. Neither man was particularly popular with the press corps. Truman, for example, banned a particular newspaper correspondent from White House press conferences because the guy’s paper negatively reviewed the performance of Truman’s daughter in a stage play. It’s funny now, in retrospect, but imagine Bush banning someone over something equally obnoxious: anyone think he’d get away with it?
The elder George Bush felt a considerable amount of the same animosity when he was in office. I remember, late in his presidency, a crowd of critics chanting “Four More Months” or something similar, that being the length of time before his successor took office. The glee in their voices was evident. Now, everyone fondly remembers his administration, and almost no one can remember why he wasn’t reelected.
So my view is that George W. Bush wasn’t a great president, but he isn’t the bumbling buffoon portrayed by the media, either. He had his moments of greatness, and more than a few moments of clumsiness, too. David Letterman observed on TV tonight that if democracy spreads throughout the Middle East from Iraq, in 50 years Bush will look like a visionary. Let’s hope he’s right.
“So who would have been the “right” man then…..and don’t embarrass yourself by saying Gore or Kerry?”
The often feckless George W. Bush was the lesser of evils next to Al Gore or John Kerry. The Republicans could have indeed found someone better than Bush. Still, this does not change the fact that the Democrats chose two even worse candidates. The real question might be this: why are the voters so accepting of such mediocrity? How in heaven’s name were we forced to recently pick between the awful John McCain and the inexperienced Barack Obama?
Rick Moron auditioning for a gig at National Review. The country is at war and Rick is upset that he can’t enjoy Friday afternoon happy hour. Watch out Peggy Noonan, you have competition. Bush was far from perfect, as every president is. However, Moron falls into the all too common 21st post modern argument that everything is foreseeable, and thereby preventable. That we can control all things at all times. This misconception is magnified by 24 media coverage which has a short term mentality that can do nothing but criticize in order to get its ratings.
Funny how Manassass (I and II), Fredericksburg, Chanslerville, Cold Harbor, Wilderness, Chickamauga are all erased from Rick Moron’s assessment of greatness. To win a war by means of attrition puts Lincoln in the same category as Stalin as a great military leader.
But NR reckons so expect to see more of these ill-conceived diatribes. Rick, have a drink at Happy Hour for me, maybe 3-4 and tell your friend Peggy Noonan to go to hell while you are at it.
“The world is worse off and Americans are worse off because George Bush was president.”
1. Compared to who? What were the alternatives?
2. Causality? Yes, we are worse off. But why? “BECAUSE” of Bush? Or because of years of inattention to the growing problem of Islamic terrorism, Saddam’s thuggery (that Democrats had previously legislated to oppose), and giving loans to people who could not pay them back?
3. The “with us or against us” line is simply a lie. To the extent Bush failed, he failed BECAUSE he tried to “work with” the Democrats (farm bill, pharmaceutical benefits, education, the bail out) rather than stand up for conservative principles.
America is worse off because of mistakes that WE have made, and there will be no future for America until those sins have been cleansed.
Rick,
It might be nice if you would factor the international component into your evaluation. It adds a level of complication few in America appreciate.
Bush directs “you are either with us or you are with the terrorists” at Pakistan, and immediately European playwrights fill the feuilletons with diatribes about his arrogance, while the Obamas at home threaten attack, the right says we need more pressure on Musharraf, and the human rights activists decry our cooperation with dictators.
Foreign governments quietly cooperate with procedures to “follow the money” and are grateful to receive info from our NIA intercepts, and then a self-righteous NYT puts this on its front page. As a result, foreign governments, some of which are facing tight elections, have to go into CYA mode and fail to defend our policies. We may have to backtrack a bit to avoid bringing a more hostile government into power.
Lincoln never had to deal with hostile 24/7 news that travelled the world in seconds. He didn’t have the canonized NGOs to deal with. He probably had his armchair generals, but they didn’t have an internet to propagate their simplistic ideas.
Regarding, Bush’s lack of inquisitiveness, how do you know? I was quite impressed by the efforts he made in learning about stem cell research. I tend to think he made a lot of effort in digging down to the fundamentals of problems. Perhaps this was at a cost in overseeing details, but wasn’t Carter the detail man who missed the big picture?
Finally, perhaps more troops should have been sent to Iraq earlier, but would they have been wisely used? Or did it take time for our military to get the lay of the land and test tactics before a strategy could be developed. Would the Awakening have woken up without first-hand experience of AQ brutality? I don’t know these answers. I suspect they are unknowable.
“The world is worse off and Americans are worse off because George Bush was president.”
Change the caption to RETURN OF THE MORON
Bush turned Iraq from a genocidal dictatorship which financed, trained and harbored terrorists into a democracy which hunts down and kills Al Qaeda and celebrates Christmas as a national holiday.
If Obama is this successful with Iran I will call him a miracle worker. And he will deserve it
And I will call Moran what he is.
No Rick, you’re wrong. Bush was exactly what the world needed at this time in history. Someone that would sacrific themselves and there legacy to accomplish things that had to be accomplished.
A world with a Taliban still terrorizing a nation and a region. Saddam still threatening, or perhaps have taken action instead of just expounding his rhetoric. THAT threat was very real. So was the capability. Imagine if you would the conseguences of a WMD (he still had his scientist, he still had his labs, he still had the raw ingredients, and he still had his hate and his desire to do harm), used by himself or supplied to a terror group (Hamas?) and used against israel… what retaliation would have occured? Think big numbers here, for thats the probability.
Bush was the man we alway express as our desire for a President. One who would weight the facts and do what was right, not what was politically expedient and popular. One that wouldn’t shy away from doing or making the hard choice. One that would lead us down the hard road if that is what it takes to get to where we need to be. Bush, he did all of that. And he probably never shed a tear over the press not “liking” him.
No, the world is a far far better place due to George W. Bush. Even Obama has quietly come to know that. Too bad that is lost on you.
http://mydismalswamp.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/snakebit/
Lincoln fired generals like changing socks. someone quoted that he once asked Mcclellan if he could borrow his army, because he wasn’t doing anything with it. Mac also asked for more troops. things didn’t change till 63 and it lasted 2 more years. that army like todays army corrected itself and became quite a force. the errors that we make is to fight todays wars with yesterdays tactics. one general comes quickly to mind, and that one was General Custer. hmmm note to self Indians are not confederates. we have to learn sometimes on the run. GWB isn’t going to be judged as hard as the left wants him to be. some of those trillions of dollars are coming home in the pockets of our G.I.s. that’s some hard earned cash going into our economy.
I think President Bush did a good job fulfilling his oath to protect and serve this country. He wasn’t looking to be a popular person on the world stage which I think stood him well. He loves this country, repected and supported the troops, didn’t cower or shy away from the families who lost their loved ones in the War. He challanged the Islamic terrorists head on. He trusted the free market until the players in the free market proved untrustworthy than stepped in to help clean up the mess left behind.
I never expect perfection in another human being and in fact get very nervous when I witness American citizens who seem to be looking for a messiah in an elected official and get very very nervous when an elected official seems willing the deliver the messiah impression. We’ll see what the next four years have to bring but I think that one thing in most conservatives favor is that we see the serious challanges that lay ahead for this country and the world and we are willing to put aside our animosity toward the liberals and not be an impediment to the next Presidents ability to address these challanges. I always felt and observed that many President Bush haters never gave him that respect. I also think and feel completely confident that President Bush will hand over the Office of the President of the United States with dignity, good-will, respect and demand that all who served with him do the same. That is his legacy for now.
January 1, 2090
From an article in the online-only newspaper New York Times.
It’s hard to imagine this now, but while he was in office, George W. Bush was considered by many of his critics the worst United States President in history. The 44th US President, liberator of 60 million citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan, focal point of a unique dual-nation national holiday on Bush’s birthday, and the man responsible for the birth of democratic ideals which have now spread throughout the Middle and Near east, suffered abuse from critics in the media comparable only to that suffered by America’s 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Although their leadership styles where vastly different, and they were two very different kinds of men, they shared similar circumstances in that they presided over wars that were initially backed by large majorities of the American public who then turned upon them both with unprecedented savagery when the wars dragged on inconclusively for several years. Virtually alone, both men prosecuted their wars to ultimate victory, with enormous long-term successful consequences for all three nations.
Lincoln, of course, had much the harder job. The American Civil War ultimately cost the nation 650,000 lives, 2% of her population, an equivalent of 8 million lives today. The total American deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stood at just over 5,000 at the close of major hostilities in 2009. It became public knowledge at the end of his term in office that Bush personally visited with the families of fully a quarter of the war’s fatalities, personally composed and signed letters of condolence to the families of each soldier lost, and quietly visited the wounded in military hospitals hundreds of times. This exacted an enormous emotional toll on the 44th president, and almost certainly contributed to his death of heart disease three years into the one term-presidency of his successor, Barack Obama.
The addition of Bush’s visage on Mt. Rushmore to that of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan is expected to be completed in time for the celebration of Bush’s 150th birthday on July 6th, 2096.
Does anyone seriously think Bush or Clinton could have invaded Afghanistan, even if it could have prevented 9/11? Monday morning quarterbacks always win.
The press hates Bush, partly because he’s just like them. They keep pressing for him to admit mistakes. When’s the last time you saw the press admit they got it wrong? Why give your enemy ammunition? His domestic policy is, absent tax cuts, lib lite.
He got the main thing right. For my conservative tastes, he got almost everything else wrong. I’d still vote for him over Gore, Kerry, or Obama for that matter.
Rick Moran can continue to pine for his world of unicorns and rainbows that would have been, but for the evil Bush. An adult would know better. I’m not wsting any more of my time on this child.
To all:
I haven’t had so many people call me “moron” since I was in the third grade and all the little girls skipped rope chanting it.
They may have been more emotionally mature than my tormentors here but at least you guys can out-drool the jump-ropers any day of the week.
Rick, don’t you ever get tired of playing “Bad Cop”? I mean, if you could do it convincingly, that’d be one thing…
But this article in particular makes the enormous mistake of simply brushing off the Fifth Column media and the treasonous, Disloyal Opposition by relying on the idiotic notion that “[i]t can’t entirely be the fault of the press. It can’t all be the fault of the Democrats.”
Sorry. You’re almost completely wrong. A more honest assessment of the past 8 years would acknowledge that our present woes – both real and, especially, imagined (thanks to media misfeasance and outright propaganda) – are 95% the product of a discredited, completely biased, and hysterical press and a Democrat vendetta aimed at righting the “wrongs” caused by Al Gore’s pathetic inability to carry his own home State in 2000.
The other 5% can readily be laid at Bush’s feet for failing to communicate – to lead. His preference of dealing privately with the back-stabbing, treasonous press and the incessant attacks by those in government did nothing to improve the public’s understanding of the issues (most certainly not yours if you believe Bush was proved “wrong” in any substantial way about, well… anything). This allowed trivialities like Abu Ghraib and disinformation about GITMO to define the conflict in Iraq in the eyes of the public, and allowed self-serving, discredited liars like Joe Wilson IV to define – that is, to discredit – the overwhelming cassus belli understood by every serious, thinking person in October of 2002.
On the Lincoln-Bush comparison, your error here is simple: it is in the motivations and, more importantly, the actions of these two men where their similarities may be found – not some arbitrary measure of their respective intellectual “expansiveness”, or lack thereof. And you’ll have to pardon me, to boot, if I hesitate to accept your assessment here, in particular. The fact that this is essentially the best you can do in your “Bad Cop” role is telling.
If Lincoln truly was not the tool of the industrializing North in its efforts to subjugate the agrarian South – if he really did believe in the proposition that “all men are created equal” – then the basis for a comparison is inescapable. “War for Oil”, “Revenge for Daddy” and “Contracts for Halliburton” fantasies notwithstanding, this was precisely Bush’s motivation for the foreign policy that liberated Iraq. In the larger context of serving his Nation’s and it’s People’s interests, this was ultimately no different from Lincoln’s choice to liberate slaves and preserve the Union. Both of these men were motivated to take unpopular but necessary action: to put our Armed Forces in harm’s way for the sake of others and to protect our country and its People’s future. Both succeeded despite the brickbats they suffered at the hands of lesser individuals like yourself.
That you fail to see any of this is not a surprise, given your past silliness.
The biggest difference between Lincoln and Bush is that Lincoln knew or came to learn that war is a blunt instrument. By the end of the war Lincoln knew that the only way to see it to an end was to use overwhelming destructive force to completely break the opponent’s will to fight. Without the commitment to the use of overwhelming force the outcome of war is at best inconclusive like the still festering situation in Korea.
Bush has never shown any sign that he understands this point. From the outset of the Iraq war, he’s seen it as some kind of P.C. community outreach effort that will show the Muslim world how much we esteem and respect them. That’s the reason he was so pigheaded in implementing the surge. Bush has started a war while believing the old bumpersticker – “Arms are for hugging.”. Rather than having soldiers use force to enforce order, he thought they should be out cleaning schools and planting trees.
Nice work, drawing the parallels between these two Presidents. This article appears to be an excerpt from a book.
GW, without a doubt, had his own style. Not elevating himself above his peers, was what precipitated and enabled his criticism. I think he realized how humbled the most powerful position in the world could be, on 9/11/2001. The weight of the Free World was placed precisely on his shoulders.
I am certainly grateful that he did not put on an air of elitism. Great leaders of history have all had their defining moments. George Bush’s moment was one that greatly exceeded many of the others. I am sanguine that George can expound on what his “doctrine” would have been had not 9/11 occurred.
From the criticism he has received from the main stream media, one would think he was responsible for a war more costly and lengthy than Viet Nam.
I shall be looking for comments by Presidential Historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin to see what their perspective is.
Thanks George, for keeping me and my family safe the last seven years.
Parden me but wouldn’t it be a little difficult to completely know what President Lincoln’s legacy would be in reference to the Civil War when he was asassinated? His admonition to “Let them down easy.” we know was not followed. Those out for revenge and wanting their pound of flesh from the citizens of the South won the day and caused wounds that are still not completely healed.
I think that after victory, cleaning schools, planting trees, paving roads, repairing infrastructure might be just what President Lincoln had in mind. Can anyone imagine his opponants would say about him if his words of advise had won the day?
Mr. Moran please look closely at the history before you make the comparisons;
Both Presidents were left time-bombs by the out-going administration. Lincoln got the Civil War and Bush was left with AQ, the Taliban, an insanely corrosive mortgage-lending policy, a foreign policy that consisted of ignoring the hell out of everything until forced to take action (which of course consisted of a cruise-missle or two and little else), enemies of the country that controlled vital energy resources, the Norkos being paid to clandestinely develop nukes, Iran no-so-clandestinely doing the same, a homicidal nutjob in Iraq that was by all accounts funding terrorism and trying to build WMDs. At least Lincoln’s enemies were within easy reach.
Old Abe may have had an inquiring mind but Lincoln was busy reading up on military stategy and tactics in the middle of a war, too bad he was reading Jomini and thus sent tens of thousand of Union soldiers to their deaths trying to re-fight the Napoleonic Wars with more modern weapons. He allowed McClellan to be run out of the Wilderness after losing thousands to a Confederate force a fraction of the size of the Union one.
He was a dupe that believed the idiots from Pinkertons when they told him that the Confederates had more soldiers on the Virginia front than the last census showed possible from the entire male population of the Confederacy. He appointed and fired many political generals before he finally settled on Grant. Grant’s only change in tactics was to advance after a battle rather than retreat. He lost tens of thousands more but the grind of attrition finally exhausted the South.
Lincoln freed the slaves as a political ploy to prevent European recognition (which the constant military failings of the Union Army were close to bringing about) of the Confederacy, not out of any high-minded repudiation of slavery. Note that the Emancipation only applied to slaves held in states that were in rebellion against the Union.
Conversely Bush and Rumsfeld tried to reform the military to deal with the change in the strategic outlook that had happened since Gulf One. They were pushing hard for a lighter, more agile military that would have been far better prepared to deal with the the Taliban and AQ. Too bad the Joint Chiefs pushed back just as hard (and the vested intrests in Congress aided them) and substanially blocked those reforms. Thus we were forced to go into Afghanistan with an army designed to fight Russians in central Europe (that we did so well is a testament to the troops).
The actions taken against Iraq were against a background of waning resolution from the UN and adamant non-compliance from Saddam. All of the major intel sources said he was looking for WMDs and the Clinton Admin had passed a resolution to remove Saddam, by force if necessary. Bush went to Congress and received another resolution before taking action, in this he was supported by both Houses.
The bloody battles in Iraq that seem so pointless fulfilled two functions; we are much better at killing AQ than they are at killing us so the continuing conflict hurt them much more than it hurt us, second the Army was learning what it mant to fight this “new war”. Once that lesson was learned the results were put into place and the Surge finished the job that had already been in progress. Bush learned, Lincoln didn’t; Cold Harbor was fought with the same tactics as First Bull Run.
Bush put his future as President on the line to take action against threats that had been left to fester by the preceeding administrations. Threats that he could have largely ignored or limply reacted to the same way Bubba did. Lincoln had the Civil War thrust upon him, his only decision was to try to keep the Union together or allow it’s dissolution. Bush had to go out on a limb and make the call.
Both men made hard decisions, both made mistakes. Lincoln’s actions put a roof back on a house when it had blown off, Bush tried to do the same while trying put a roof over others to prevent worse from happening.
If W was such a bad President please name one person (that had even a faint chance of getting the job) who would have done better.
20. Anton:
Nice! If you use bold, it really ticks them off!
Interesting take on Bush, and I agree with most of the article. I do agree with Bush on one key point. History will tell the tale rather than today’s opinion-makers.
To all:
I haven’t had so many people call me “moron” since I was in the third grade and all the little girls skipped rope chanting it.
—
It’s very rare for me to call anyone a moron, but you deserve it, Moran. Your simplistic articles degrade the quality of this site. The commenters who respond to your babbling are more intelligent and better informed – as #20 illustrates.
Those little girls were wise beyond their years.
@8
“Would the Awakening have woken up without first-hand experience of AQ brutality?”
–
Surely, your question is rhetorical?
Cyber, I’m not sure that is a good idea, they seem pretty well wound-up already. All that cut-and-paste from Kos and Huffpo must be wearing them out and making them cranky.
This is a much better overview of the presidency
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206685391388221.html?mod=djemEditorialPage#articleTabs=article
Perhaps Mr. Moran does not remember waking up every day after 9/11 wondering if this would be the day the “second shoe” dropped and we were hit again.
We all KNEW we would be hit again.
We weren’t. Thank you President Bush.
As bad as Bush was, Gore would have been much worse. The best I could say for Bush was that he bought us some time.
The reason Republicans find it necessary to rehabilitate Bush in this manner is because deep down they are petrified that the likes of John McCain and George W. Bush are the best that they can manage.
Until the Right’s internal contradictions between conservatism and Americanism are resolved — in favor of Americanism, I desperately hope — that fear will be correct.
So Bush should have ignored the 16 American intelligence agencies that gave a high probability of Iraq WMDs,British and French, including a “slam dunk” on the subject by Clinton/Bush CIA director Tenet.And listened to the intellects fron San Francisco and Berkeley. Should have ignored the words of former President Clinton and let Iraq off the hook.
Yea, right.
I should change my name to Moran, you should change yours to Moron.
The Department of Health and Human Services is offering free internet prostate exams an January 20th at 12:00 P.M. If you go to http://www.Obama‘sHealthPlan.org, turn on your web cam, drop your pants and place your posterior over the key board, you shall be given this free exam. The results will be emailed to you.
Thank god! One civil war was enough.
Bush is nobody. Let’s turn the page and forget about the worst President in the History of the United States.
Rick,
Your conclusions and comparisions of the two leaders are all wrong and out of context. The modern 24/7 MSM would have eaten Lincoln alive. The civil war was FAR from well fought. The Union army was torn apart time and again by Lee’s superior leadership. Had Lee possessed the men and the resources the war would have turned out far different. Furthermore, the fact that the war was even allowed to begin would have been a sure sign of Lincoln’s failure to resolve the issue through diplomacy. Just as Bush was.
DavidN and Anton both write posts that I would have written myself.
I’d only add that I think I might see why Bush will be seen as, if not as good, at least in the same league with presidents like Reagan, Lincoln, Truman and a couple others, while Clinton will mostly be seen as inconsequential.
I think it’s because these men’s instinct, when faced with a difficult decision, was to ACT. They didn’t kick EVERY problem down the road for the next guy. When the chance came, Truman pulled the trigger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and he kept trying things till something worked in the war. Reagan stood in Berlin personally and challenged Gorby to “tear down this wall”. Bush oversaw the fastest military mobilization I’ve ever heard of in responding to 9/11, and pulled the trigger on Iraq.
All these men made strong decisions, and they all stuck to their guns even when the political winds shifted. THAT is why, even if they weren’t beloved during or immediately after their presidencies, history lionizes them (except Bush…yet).
Most Dems you talk to today look fondly, almost soppily, back at the Clinton presidency. But what did the man accomplish in 8 years? He had his chances. He could have reacted strongly to any of a long string of terrorist provocations, or Iraq breaking our cease-fire regularly. He could have made some strong, lasting changes to our domestic policies, but he settled on “don’t ask don’t tell”, i.e. mostly status quo. Every time it looked like he might do something different, he changed his mind when a focus group said he should. The country prospered during that time, but how much of it was Clinton doing anything but keeping a steady hand on the economic tiller with the Repub congresscritters’ guns in his armpit?
People say Bush is “incurious”. That’s a $5 word for “he doesn’t give a crap about some things”. Neither do I about a great many things. But I’ve spoken with a person who had a personal conversation with Bush, and this is a person I know well and whose judgement I trust. Bush came across to him as a good, decent, and yes, intelligent man. His thought was that bush wasn’t good with the press because he disliked them and therefore didn’t put much effort into making them happy. That has the ring of truth to me, because I’ve also met a CNN reporter and a Time columnist, and both struck me as prima donnas who I wouldn’t personally give an interview in 1,000 years for any reason, even if they paid me a million bucks, because by the time they got done with me I’d be worse than Hitler in the minds of anybody who ever read their dreck.
TruthHurts:
” His “achievement” is based on “keeping America safe”…This is AFTER America was attacked under his watch…Of course, ”
Yes, America was attacked on his watch, the planning for the attack was started on President Clinton’s watch and at least partly encouraged/ enabled by his incompetent handling of Iraq, Mogadishu etc.
As for Bush’s competence or lack thereof, you have failed to present any evidence to back your opinion.
I tend to agree that Lincoln is overrated. Lincoln certainly is not in the same league as proactive visionaries like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Like Bush, Lincoln was dealt a bad hand and held it all together in the face of bitter opposition – with Bush just a little better at appointing generals . Bush was a domestic disaster and Lincoln left us a domestic disaster in the form of Andrew Johnson. Lincoln is every bit as flawed as Bush. The fact that Loncoln was assassinated elevated his stature beyond his accomplishments.
So Rick Moron, the 3rd grade girls were that smart, and intimidated you!!! That I can buy.
Bush did exactly what his handlers asked of him. He frustrated any attempt to balance the budget, gave away trillions to his rich buddies, hacked the constitution to pieces, and started wars in far away lands.
His biggest mistake was his failure to delay the inevitable collapse of the “bubble” until after his eviction from the White House. That would have left Obama truly holding the bag.
Bush is not even in the same league as Lincoln. In fact, he makes Hoover and Harding look like saints.
DS
- Bush was a domestic disaster…
Hmmm…
- Complete recovery from Clinton’s 2000/2001 recession.
- Reeling from and responding to 9/11… successfully.
- Domestic security since that time – no more WTC ’93s or 9/11s.
- Seven straight years of economic growth.
- Lower taxes.
- Higher productivity.
- Unemployment lower than previous 8 years.
- Debt-to-GDP ratio lower than previous 8 years.
This is “domestic disaster” in your eyes?
Oh, wait – you’re referring to the recent effects of the post-2006 P-O-R economy and the meltdown handed to us by the Democrats’ malfeasance regarding the FM/FM credit fiasco – all of which have been either completely ignored or completely misrepresented by the anti-Bush media. Yeah, that’s domestic disaster – carefully nurtured and orchestrated to give us what we got: Obama.
Ah, the old “Bush kept America safe” rationale.
He was a good President because he kept us “safe”!
Logically, then, one might say Clinton was an even better President because a “9/11″ did not occur during either of his terms. And that George HW Bush was a better President than his son, Reagan was a better President, and yes, even Carter was a better President than George W. Bush. Afterall, no attacks on the homeland occured on their watch.
Oops! I forgot. 9/11 was Clinton’s fault!
goy,
The domestic disaster I speak if is in refernece to the growth in federal spending, border control, and public relations inpetitude that paved the way for Obama.
Compassionate conservatism? You can have it.
39. K:
You seem to have forgotten several things; the 1993 attack on the WTC, the Cole bombing, the two Embassy attacks, the barely intercepted 2000 bomb plot.
Youi seem to think that when Bubba was in charge everything was all unicorns and rainbows.
Let me ask this; If a doctor sees a tumor and does nothing about it and the next doctor finds it, and then has to do extensive life-threatening surgery to save the patient, which one is the better doctor? The one who told you “everything is just fine” or the one that said “this is going to hurt but I think we can save you”?
Though President GWB frustrated me with many of his decisions (pro bailout, support of the McCain-Kennedy-Feingold failed amnesty Bill among some, commuting or pardoning border heroes Ramos & Compean), I echo Big Al’s #10 comment.
The U.S. is, and always will be bigger than the Presidency. Her safety, ideals and continuance in being prosperous is of the utmost importance. If this requires one to lose face, no matter their standing, it will be done.
The ‘stimulus’ check citizens received during ~tax time last year, my wife and I gave that $1200.00 dollars to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Sure, we could have done something special for ourselves. Though we think we did.
As for the media having a ‘little say’ in any celeb’s good or bad appeal?
NPR was interviewing a Lincoln biographer recently (I live in Alaska and it’s the only ‘news’ radio we have.. if that’s what you call it) and asked the biographer his favorite Lincoln speech. He’d spoken of this speech (whereas Lincoln was leaving Illinois after winning the election and was enroute via railroad. His first train ride as well – my how times have changed)
My friends, no one not in my situation can appreciate my feelings of sadness at this parting, to this place, and the kindness of this people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. Now I leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return; with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that divine being who ever.”
The NPR interviewer then followed with the question, ‘Where do you see similarities of Lincoln and PE Obama’?
Can we lucidly ask of ‘similarities’? OY!
K: - … a “9/11″ did not occur during either of his terms.
Guess you forgot about that minor explosion that almost took down the WTC in ’93. Not to mention the various U.S. interests attacked by terrorists the world over throughout both of his terms.
RE: - Compassionate conservatism? You can have it.
I have to agree there. Aside from tax changes, I haven’t been happy with many of Bush’s policies – at least as he’s articulated them via the Executive. That said, those policies haven’t led to ‘domestic disaster’ by any measure. McCain would have been an even worse choice in that regard.
Fed. spending and the border are equally the responsibility of our now-perpetually inept and corrupt Congress, if not moreso. And it doesn’t seem to matter who has the majority there, unfortunately. We also agree that PR ineptitude – aka failed leadership – has been Bush’s biggest problem.
Anyway, all that is very different issue from the one Kyle-Ann raised and and Rick ham-handedly failed to rebut.
I have a lot to say on the subject so here goes. #4 DavidN – ditto! #20 Anton – ditto! #31 & #34 – Idiots!!
@38
goy,
- Complete recovery from Clinton’s 2000/2001 recession.
Not. Bush has presided over the weakest economy since Nixon, maybe since Hoover.
“President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation’s thorniest fiscal challenges.”
“The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html?nav=rss_email%2Fcomponents
Reeling from and responding to 9/11… successfully.
Not. Bush had the intelligence in hand to thwart these attacks, and failed. Rather than uniting the world to remove the threat of terrorism, he has prodded the growth of terrorism throughout the world.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_Increase_in_terror_attacks_0110.html
Domestic security since that time – no more WTC ’93s or 9/11s.
And your point? Domestic terror attacks are rare in the US.
Seven straight years of economic growth.
Tepid growth, followed by a near-complete collapse of the financial system.
Lower taxes.
Especially for the wealthy. Pay no attention to the deficit behind the curtain…
Higher productivity.
With no attendant increase in compensation. How nice.
Unemployment lower than previous 8 years.
Really? Not according to the numbers.
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
Debt-to-GDP ratio lower than previous 8 years.
Not. Even. Close.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
“The percentage of debt to GDP continued to grow until 1996, when Mr. Clinton began to get government spending under control. The US debt peaked at 67.3% of GDP under his administration. By the end of the Clinton administration this percentage had dropped to 57.6%. Debt as a percent of GDP dropped almost 10% in four years under a Democratic President with a hostile Republican Congress. Mr. Clinton showed steadfast fiscal leadership against all odds and in spite of right-wing attacks and misinformation.
Mr. Bush II inherited a shrinking government and debt in 2001. With his first budget he managed to increase the debt to GDP ratio to 60.0%, by cutting taxes but not spending. By 2004 this ratio had risen to 63.7%, as a result of additional tax cuts but no significant corresponding cuts in spending. Government estimations (which are notoriously low) predict that the debt to GDP ratio will grow to 69.3% by 2008, two percent higher than the previous peak in 1996. Mr. Bush will completely wipe out the gains we made under a fiscally responsible Democratic President.”
This is “domestic disaster” in your eyes?
Yes, it is. And there is much more where that came from.
Oh, wait – you’re referring to the recent effects of the post-2006 P-O-R economy and the meltdown handed to us by the Democrats’ malfeasance regarding the FM/FM credit fiasco – all of which have been either completely ignored or completely misrepresented by the anti-Bush media. Yeah, that’s domestic disaster – carefully nurtured and orchestrated to give us what we got: Obama.
Actually, even without the massive crash in the credit markets (which you erroneously attribute to the Democrats), Bush was still a nearly total failure for the US economy. But thanks for playing! We have some wonderful parting gifts…
Peace.
DS
Neither is Obama but based on his agenda we may have another civil war.
Bush – Needless war in Iraq
Lincoln – Necessary war – Civil War
Bush – supported Vietnam war from a safe seat
Lincoln – opposed the Mexican War
Case closed
LynnS writes:
“I think President Bush did a good job fulfilling his oath to protect and serve this country. He wasn’t looking to be a popular person on the world stage which I think stood him well. He loves this country, repected and supported the troops, didn’t cower or shy away from the families who lost their loved ones in the War. He challanged the Islamic terrorists head on. He trusted the free market until the players in the free market proved untrustworthy then stepped in to help clean up the mess left behind.”
Lynn, I think these are among the most kind and sweet (and truthful) words written on the subject of George W. Bush’s character and presidency I have read. I did not agree with the President 100% of the time but I respected the fact that he did not posture and crave the limelight like his predecessor did and, it is quite evident, his successor will.
Like many here, I believe that George Bush will be remembered kindly in history; not the greatest but among the better presidents.
@46
thegre8_1,
On what basis do you make this hare-brained prediction?
DS
K writes:
“and yes, even Carter was a better President than George W. Bush. Afterall, no attacks on the homeland occured on their watch.”
..quite true. The terrorists were busy (1) in Iran holding members of our embassy prisoners for 444 days while that doddering, incompetent peanut farmer skulked aroun d the White House in a malaise of indecision.
“..the man who could have been president, who should have been president..Hubert..Horatio..Hornblower..er..Humphrey!”
@48
Войска ПВО,
“Like many here, I believe that George Bush will be remembered kindly in history; not the greatest but among the better presidents.”
Like many here, you fail to grasp the extent and depth of damage that Bush has done to the USA. Either you are naive, or you willfully ignore the evidence. Either way, you are a danger to yourself and others.
Hopefully Bush will be the worst president we ever have – it is doubtful the Republic could survive anyone worse.
DS
Ah, yes, the old “U.S. interests attacked by terrorists the world over” routine.
Followed by that chestnut: “The coward Jimmy Carter”
Fits in nicely with the “Clinton’s to blame for 9/11″ number.
Not to mention the rousing “Bush kept us safe” finale.
Such attacts on our President is an attact on our Nation, on all the voters that elected him, on Government by the people, for the people, and of the people.
All evidence is, the attacters really hate those that stand for the will of the people.
David, Tepid economic growth? Some economists would call that a goldilocks economy (not too hot not too cold) and would further tell you (since you fell asleep in economics class) that this type of growth is the healthiest variety. The boom economies are always followed by a crash.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/CONTENT/Public/Articles/000/000/005/934wpftm.asp?pg=2
Had it not been for mismanaged home loans pushed by Clinton this house disaster would never have occured. Is you memory so short that you do not recall Clinton standing before the people bragging about how he was bringing home ownership to those which previously couldnt afford homes? Helping them realize the american dream!!! THANKS Clinton!
As I recall Congress was warned about this as well back in 2004. THANKS Congress!
Bush is a decent, God-fearing man and represents a party that is caring and compassionate — that’s why his supporters and Republicans, in general, are asking him to pardon Compean and Ramos http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=844. The traditional Grand Ole Party members and Bush care about the rights of the unborn fetus. And we also want democracy, freedom and prosperity to spread throughout the globe. And that’s a good thing.
Obama represents a party that looks the other way when its members, supporters and donors cheat (ACORN, Al Franken, Obama mocking the US Constitution, etc.), lie (Hillary dodging bullets in Bosnia, Blagojevich, Obama mocking the US Constitution, etc.), do immoral and disgraceful acts (Spitzer, John Edwards, Obama mocking the US Constitution, etc.)and actively promote hatred and bashing of America (Rev Wright, Ayers, Phleger, Michael Moore, Michele Obama, etc.). Because we know Obama is neither compassionate nor caring (remember he allowed his own poor relatives/half-brother in Kenya to continue living poorly while he’s in his $2 million mansion), we know that Obama would never pardon Ramos & Compean. Obama and his party only care about self and changing America to becoming more like them — cheating, lying, being immoral and disgraceful.
Yet, unlike how America scrutinized and villified Bush, Palin and any Republican or conservative who stands for good, traditional conservative values, America looks the other way with the Democrats and Obama, and gives those elitist, hypocrite charlatans a pass.
God help America.
Rick Moran is a moron. Pun intended. There is not a single shred of evidence or argument supporting his claims in his article. It’s basically namecalling. I haven’t seen an article this badly thought out on this site before. Couldn’t the people running PJM be a little more critical of who’s articles they feature. There are so many ridiculous claims in this article that it’s futile to even begin to pick them apart. By the time you’te done, the idiot wil have finished another obnoxious article and you can start all over again. Get rid of him.
31. Perdere Peso:
And you are so much better than G W Bush because you have your own BLOG! WOW!
For god’s sake Rick, Lincoln was bi-polar!
53. Lee Tallent:
Don’t you have any web news to post comments to in your own country?
Bush’s only real mistake was his application of “compassion” in “Compassionate Conservative.” It became just another big government money and power grab.
However, your comments about the military and its sorry state read like just one more author who has swallowed the liberal MSM narrative hook, line, and sinker. No one of authority or credibility to speak on such matters (and you are not one of them) confirms your assertions. Our military is strong, successful, and empowered by their sense of mission. Islam has a conquest mentality, so Iraq will always need vigilance; it will never be “clean.” Bush should be lauded for his resolve, not criticized for stubbornness. You’d have to go back a long way to find a Democrat Commander-In-Chief who would have fought through the difficult days to achieve our current victory. Remember…slightly more than 4000 lives lost in the entire war. Get some perspective.
Ho! Ho! Ho! These idiots think Obama’s going to be a great President because he makes better speeches than G W Bush!
These fools like smoke blown up their large intestine. Another highly qualified trait on your Democrat resume.
David S.: - Bush has presided over the weakest economy since Nixon…
Heheheh. What, according to WaPo propaganda intended to make Obama’s impending economic mushroom cloud look like a blessing? WaPo? Seriously? The mill first responsible for disseminating Joe Wilson IV’s (anonymous) misinformed opinions stemming from what he didn’t understand in Niger – just to attack the President? You’ll have to forgive me if I remain unswayed by their agenda-driven “analysis”. Until the Democrats took over Congress there was continuous GDP growth. Period. WaPo’s (et al.’s) “opinion” that it was ‘unsustainable’ ignores the reasons for the downturn: suicidal Democrat energy policies, suicidal Democrat fiscal policies and Congress’ overall stupidity and corruption (both sides).
- And your point?
What’s the matter? Can’t you read? Can’t follow the thread? It was a response to the earlier post. That was the point.
- Tepid growth …
Uh… that’s growth, bub, the antithesis of “disaster” in any serious person’s book. Far preferable to explosive or other uncontrolled growth.
- … followed by a near-complete collapse of the financial system.
Brought to you by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and their cadre of corruption, abetted by a hysteria-fomenting media.
- Especially for the wealthy.
Uh, no. Try again. Tax cuts have gone to the lower incomes. Some 50% of tax-filers don’t even pay any tax and many of those are getting federal welfare (i.e., MY money) in the form of tax credits against taxes they haven’t paid. Higher-income earners are consistently shouldering an increasing share of the tax burden each year. Guess you didn’t know (or care to know).
- With no attendant increase in compensation.
Uh… your point? I won’t even bother to ask you to explain the consistent increase in personal, disposable, inflation-adjusted income during Bush’s first six years… all while recovering from Clinton’s recession, the tech-stock nosedive and 9/11.
Really? Not according to the numbers.
Yeah – funny thing about those numbers… and how they all seem to show anomalous changes right about, oh, just post-9/11, huh. Up until the Dems took over Congress in 2006, the Bush administration had yet to see a quarterly unemployment figure as high as the highest under Clinton… all while recovering from Clinton’s recession, the tech-stock nosedive and 9/11. The averages during both administrations were 5.2% – the same – right up until the Dems’ credit crunch tanked the economy (in order to get Obama elected, of course).
- Not. Even. Close.
Really? Instead of buying into someone else’s version of reality, just go look for yourself (See Table 456). Let me know if you have problems with the simple stuff… like addition and division. (Answer Key – ’93-’99: Debt 65.4% of GDP; ’01-’07: Debt 62.6% of GDP). You sound like you could use an education on deficits and federal debt – here’s a great resource.
And please, don’t embarrass yourself by trying to make something of Clinton’s so-called “surplus”, which was nothing more than the result of outright tax theft via one of The Largest Tax Increases in U.S. History. McGourty conveniently skips over that minor point; and it’s equally telling that he leaves out the “William J. Clinton enters office” notation on this image, right before that peak in the debt-to-GDP ratio, isn’t it. Clinton’s so-called “surplus” cost America years of recovery from the early ’90s recession, and it wasn’t until the (Republican-controlled) Congress lowered the Cap. Gains tax in ’97 that the economy really started to (temporarily) recover, which Clinton falsely takes credit for. Conversely, the tax cuts that went into effect in 2001 led to the largest corporate tax revenues in U.S. history. That level of federal income would have prevailed to this day and balanced the budget, while America waged wars on two fronts, and continued to recover from Clinton’s recession, the tech-stock nosedive and the economic aftermath of 9/11. But the P-O-R economy and their aforementioned suicidal energy and fiscal policies took care of that trend.
- Bush had the intelligence in hand to thwart these attacks, and failed.
In your opinion – fed to you by… “rawstory.com”??? LOL!!!! Please.
Like you say, thanks for playing. Really.
#49 on moron drones like you
#47 Bush – got rid of Saddam HUESSIN
Clinton – put Yassar Arafat in power
CASE CLOSED
goy (16,43,61) – Nailed It,
Rick (15) – Sticks and Stones, sticks and stones…
Mr. Moran, You have completely failed to support your premise. Giving us a fit of fancy writing that knows no fact and relies on fictions of many sorts the most telling of which is the proposal that President Bush has been proven wrong by events consistently and often. This is utter nonsense, and I would suggest that a substantive investigation of the issues of note during President Bush terms would demonstrate a deep and thorough grasp of not only the issues but also of the many options for action which ones were most promising as well as most consistent with American ideals and moral certitudes.
But instead of investigating the depths and heights of a presidency filled with challenges unsought and choices unforgiving, you would skim the intestinal lining of the fruits of others efforts at bad comic parody.
Lincoln was assaulted daily by the press, the “loyal opposition”, and members of his own party for such sins as looking like a monkey, acting like a monkey, talking like a monkey. He was labled an idiot because he fancied a bit of humor here and there, and told tail or two himself. Lies, treason and greed all surrounded Uncle Sam’s feed stores, and gorged themselves in a manner not unlike our present day Senators and Representatives, and other minders of the store regardless of political party, or familial affiliation. Both presidents have been accused of acts of graft and corruption, through a press that excelled in lies and indiscretions and stories that lead to the needless spending of treasure and spilling of blood of innocents as well as the blood of our American fighting men.
If, by your sophomoric handling of the legacy of President Bush in the prosecution of the war ( it is not two or three wars…one war), the handling of the economy ( recall the Dot com bubble bust and the unemployment rate at the beginning of President Bush’s term and despite 9/11 the economic indicators within a year after assuming office?) and the overall state of the nation or the world as expressed by your article, was to piss off some folks. No doubt you have succeeded. If your intent was to write a scholarly paper or an article that investigated but one issue in a challenging way…you have missed your mark. You really ought to be ashamed Mr. Moran, for what you posted is not journalism. In my opinion Mr. Moran, it was not worth the effort to read.
I totally disagree with the author. The MSM would eat any GOP President alive right now. Bush never had a chance to succeed. Notice that Obama might actually do well because the MSM will not eat him alive.
I want to give Rick Moran a great big Thank You! This last effort has convinced me that yes, his other recent efforts do stink, and I can comfortably throw his name into the same “Don’t Bother” pile with Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker.
The only reason I would read another post by Moran would be to see if he managed to even more tedious.
Bush didn’t do enough to cut taxes, cut government regulation, take out rogue nations with an iron fist, and secure our liberties.-instead, he did a half ass job that has left us all in a worse position and our Constitution hanging by a thread.
Rick,
Just finished reading Kelly-Anne’s and your opposite column dueling banjos (or should I say, missives). Wow, two writers, same subject, differing views. Pretty interesting stuff.
Enough for me to devour both of them lickety-split.
Before I give Kelly-Anne my reaction to hers, if you don’t mind, I have a few questions and comments about yours.
First, a comment. I thought you gave George a pretty good tongue lashing, especially, when it comes to his apparent lack of curiosity, a trait that to my knowledge has never been tied to Presidential ability. If you have the study, though, I’d be interested to see it. Was Lincoln being curious when he decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Or did he believe every man is created equal? Just asking.
One thing, though, I’m curious about, specially since you seem to be the curious authority. Where has your curiosity led you?
Down a lot of untraveled highways I’ll bet.
For example, were you ever so curious about all those gadgets, controls and dials in the cockpit of jet airplanes that you decided to learn to fly one? To feel what it was like to land on an aircraft carrier? Or, did you ever wonder what it was like to run a major league baseball team, and decide to get into the business? Were you ever so interested in science, say, that you considered becoming a researcher in the hopes of maybe finding a cure for cancer or some other disease?
Oh, wait, you’re a writer. You must have been curious about journalism. How satisfying it must be to actually get published. To put thoughts and words together in interesting ways, and say things of interest for all to see.
If writers enjoy finding great new ways to say things, though, then may I be so boldly inquisitive to ask, then why, in your subhead, “The Great Emancipator had a brooding, expansive mind. Bush? Not so much,” did you used the overused line, “Not so much”.
As any two bit writer knows, it’s from the Borat movie when Borat is at a dinner party and refers to a guy’s wife as not being pretty.
“Her, not so much.” were the words Sacha Cohen, the screenwriter, came up with. Doesn’t it bug you a little that it’s used over and over again by every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to make a cheeky reference to the Borat movie? No? Yes? I mean, why use somebody else’s words when it’s a lot of fun and creative to think up your own?
Maybe it’s me, but I think writing is more interesting when the language is fresh and original.
Of course, it should be accurate, too. I mean facts are facts. Are they not? Unfortunately, in your first page you presented zero facts to back up your indictment of George Bush. None. Zilch. You filled the page with a laundry list of generalizations and speculations. Finding insights in your first page was like finding a positive article about Sarah Palin in the New York Times.
More interesting, I thought, was your page two, where you write that Bush hung onto a policy out of simple stubbornness. As I see it, his policy (not his strategery) was not giving up the fight in Iraq. Like Tony McAuliffe’s policy at Bastogne in 1944 was to fight to the last man, Bush’s policy was to not give up even when support at home was dwindling and troops in Iraq were dying. McAuliffe was more stubborn than Bush. When the Germans told him face to face to give up or die, the acting General of the 101st airborne said, “Nuts”.
Rick, my boy, those were Bush’s sentiments exactly when every nervous nelly like Harry Reid told George and the American people that the war was lost.
Lincoln changed tactics and put in generals who would attack. Bush changed tactics and put in a general whose battlefield ingenuity had to be seen to be believed.
Plus, Rick, my boy, this was at the time your buddies at Moveon and DailyPuss were writing ads with headlines that said, “General Petraeus or Betray Us”. An especially proud moment in left wing journalism. If Kelly Anne ever writes a comparison between Hugh Hewitt’s Town Hall and your Daily Rag, I’d be interested in her arguments for their differences and feel confident you can find their similarities.
So, when all is said and done, you really don’t think Kelly Anne’s comparisons between Abe and George hold water, huh. Even though Kelly Anne pretty much filled her article with facts right up to the end, and you filled yours with amorphous, ethereal like speculations and suppositions. To me, you went down the “Many said” road one to many times.
Then you make an Olympic size leap of logic. You say, Lincoln read a lot of military books to cram for the war which is your proof of Abe’s wisdom.
Then you say that “many say” George Bush, on the other hand, didn’t ask questions after meetings, evidence not only of his lack of wisdom, but the obvious differences between one Republican President, unpopular with the people who freed the slaves, and another unpopular President who is winning the war on terrorism. Remember, Ricky, no attacks on American soil since 9/11.
One thing, though, I do agree with you on. It’s the part when you called KAS, the “lovely” Kelly Anne. I thought it showed exquisite taste and insightfully curious powers of observation. So much so that I think I’ll reread your piece with a more even point of view.
Five minutes later.
Reread your piece. You’re right. Bush and Abe are alike as oil and water.
And Rick, how’d you like the Pennzoil line? I wasn’t always an opinionated blogger.
By the way, that lovely remark was a tad sexist. That’s something else apparently the two of us have in common. Oh, well, nobody’s perfect.
Um… did anyone ever say Bush was like Lincoln?
I’ve not heard President Bush (still, for a few days) compare himself to Lincoln.
I have, however, in recent days, heard a certain President Elect attempt to relate himself to Lincoln, quite a few times. He even referenced/related himself to Lincoln on the steps of the Springfield Capitol when he announced his candidacy 2 years ago next month. (Abe would be aghast at the recent course of events in Springfield…)
Lincoln was a modest man with a rather “Republican” leaning view of business (yes) and the size of government (small). Lincoln wouldn’t be spending $150 million of the peoples’ money on a party in these tough economic times.
Rick Moran is a moron. Why would anyone care what he has to say? He has no intellectual curiosity. His writing is at the level of a 5th grader. And in general he’s just pathetic.
Welcome to President Bush’s world.
Do you buy into the mainstream journalistic assertion that every Republican president for the last 100 years exibited no more than pedestrian “intellectual curiosity” while every Democrat president was brilliant either in scholarship or in politics or sometimes both? If so, what do you think the mathematical odds are that this is actually true?
True, Bush is no Lincoln (and neither was anyone else). If you are looking for similarities of style and circumstance, Harry Truman might have been a better choice.
In the article, and in one response, I read the same assertion that Lincoln was not solidly against slavery. This is simply untrue. He was a Republican. The party was founded in 1849 for the express primary purpose of ending slavery. That was just over a decade before.
Others have already done a thorough job of pointing out the complete lack of scholarship in this article, so I shall forgo further critique.
#71 tanstaafl – I must disagree on your profferred opinion of Lincoln having a contemporary view of business and government. Lincoln was a true failure in business. He simply didn’t understand it. He seemed to have no problem with crony capitalism, which is why he ended up with so many incompetent (political appointee) Generals. He also supported the Robber Baron railroad builders. He also instituted the first income tax.
The greatest distinction between the two Presidents is that Lincoln was quite willing to completely thrash the Constitution for even the smallest reasons… like Obama has expressed. It’s no wonder Lincoln is so oft mentioned by Obama, who also thinks the Constitution is flawed. Bush has shown admirable restraint in violating the Constitution, always asking first if something is legal.
And Obama is NO M.L.K. !
Actually, Mark M, I said Lincoln was pro business, without any comment on (or actual knowledge of) Lincoln’s business acumen.
Obama tends more to socialist kinds of constraints around human enterprise.
Obama’s Saturday train ride from Philly into DC retraced the path Abraham Lincoln took in 1861. He’s promised us a new “Declaration of Independence”, while I kinda like the old one, especially the part that says “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing the citizen’s life, liberty and pursuit of happines) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
It’s all a bit much, when the only real parallel between the 2 men is that Barack Obama wishes to Emancipate the people still living in slum lord Rezko’s apartments in southside Chicago and some people killing each other in the streets of our inner cities. And maybe millions of those in the country illegally, in violation of the laws of the nation.
The Presidential Oath of office is one sentence long. Works for me.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Bush > Gore/Kerry
Carter < All Other Presidents
“Who is John Galt?” Revolution coming your way! Sack the looters!
@75
Ed,
Thank goodness!
Peace.
DS
@62
goy,
– Bush has presided over the weakest economy since Nixon…
Until the Democrats took over Congress there was continuous GDP growth. Period.
Even before the Democrats took over Congress, Bush had presided over the weakest economy since Nixon.
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/
Must I spoon-feed you?
- And your point?
What’s the matter?
Domestic terror attacks are rare in the US. And your editing is sophomoric.
- Tepid growth …
Uh… that’s growth, bub, the antithesis of “disaster” in any serious person’s book. Far preferable to explosive or other uncontrolled growth.
Seven years of stunted growth is a disaster, moreso when you look at the current state of the federal budget and the real economy today.
- … followed by a near-complete collapse of the financial system.
Brought to you by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and their cadre of corruption, abetted by a hysteria-fomenting media.
Bush is the executive responsible for overseeing the regulatory agencies that supervise the financial system. But you blame the media? What are you smoking?
- Especially for the wealthy.
Tax cuts have gone to the lower incomes. Some 50% of tax-filers don’t even pay any tax and many of those are getting federal welfare (i.e., MY money) in the form of tax credits against taxes they haven’t paid. Higher-income earners are consistently shouldering an increasing share of the tax burden each year.
I hope you understand that the massive deficits of the current government are in part due to Bush’s tax cuts. When higher-income earners (hopefully) lose their payroll tax exemption, maybe your argument would make a small amount of sense. Federal taxation is much more burdensome on the lower income earner.
http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-08tax.htm
- With no attendant increase in compensation.
Uh… your point?
My point being that Americans are mostly doing worse thanks to the GOP.
-Really? Not according to the numbers.
Yeah – funny thing about those numbers…
I guess you can laugh if you’re the one administering the shaft, eh?
- Not. Even. Close.
Really? Instead of buying into someone else’s version of reality, just go look for yourself
I see Bush has erased Clinton’s improvements. Try to keep up.
And please, don’t embarrass yourself by trying to make something of Clinton’s so-called “surplus”, which was nothing more than the result of outright tax theft via one of The Largest Tax Increases in U.S. History.
So sorry. Can’t resist. Clinton passed a balanced budget. Who was the last Republican president to sign one? It must have been before I was born.
- Bush had the intelligence in hand to thwart these attacks, and failed.
In your opinion – fed to you by… “rawstory.com”??? LOL!!!! Please.
Okay. You prefer government sources? Here’s a transcript of the memo. Note the 70 ongoing investigations, and specific mention of New York and Washington DC as targets. You can be sure that anything more embarrassing was removed for “national security” reasons.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Like you say, thanks for playing. Really.
Thanks for making it so much fun. See ya around.
Peace.
DS
DavidN is right on… Mr. Moran seems to be another reporter of the left main-stream media who will change the truth, and also make perceptions to get his point across. This is awful… You did your job Mr. Moran.. We now will have another dem/lib in office. Now at least show some respect to outgoing President… He did the best he could.
Moran’s piece was certainly more objective than the fawning from the lovely Kyle-Ann Shiver. Let’s face it. The only thing Bush had in common with Lincoln was they were both Republicans.
The second paragraph of this article is meaningless waffle. Pure filler. How did you get it past the editor?
“Both men chose force of arms to defeat the forces arrayed against them.”
Eh? Have you even read an account of the war? Military action was made inevitable and was initiated by the Confederacy. Lincoln didn’t “choose” force of arms, by any interpretation.
Please stay away from articles involving historical knowledge, dunderhead.
“…a nearly broken military”
Which, only days ago, easily made its recruitment quota.
I wonder… if I have my 3 year old bang his fist on the keyboard for a while while Word is open, can I submit it as a Rick Moran piece?
I’ll guarantee that statistically, it will contain less egregious errors.
how can you compare any other president to Lincoln. 90% of all our presidents could have never filled his shoes.
@85
chado,
Bush couldn’t fill Lincoln’s shoes, but he might be able to dodge them if they were tossed at his head.
Peace.
DS
@84
HR,
The nearly broken military has had to repeatedly lower or waive their minimum standards to achieve recruiting goals. We are woefully unprepared to defend our own shores because of the resources devoted to Iraq.
Peace.
DS
David S: - Must I spoon-feed you?
Your fantasy. Welcome to it. Also, I suppose you’re eventually going to explain what significance you think this has. Comparing economies out of context, as Greenberg does, is stupid. Bush inherited a dying economy and a disastrous national security situation which led to events that further damaged the economy. Both of these were thanks to Clinton’s excessive taxation and wag-the-dog foreign policy. With help, Bush turned both of these situations around completely. You can stamp your feet and ignore that all you like, but it won’t change the facts.
- Domestic terror attacks are rare in the US.
Especially so since 9/11/01 – which was the point you couldn’t comprehend. Still can’t, apparently.
- Seven years of stunted growth is a disaster…
Changing your story now? “Tepid” growth has now morphed into “stunted” growth – just so you can baselessly and erroneously label it a ‘disaster’?? Growth is growth. Slow growth is controlled growth. Get a grip and a clue. Even your buddy Greenberg states that this rate of growth “might reflect a stochastic downshift in what the United States can expect in long-term average growth”. But of course that’s “all Bush’s fault”, right?
- Bush is the executive responsible for overseeing the regulatory agencies…
Yes, and we can just simply ignore the Dem Congress running interference for the corrupt agencies, can’t we. I’m sure things would have worked out much better if he’d simply fired the GSE management for their documented misfeasance. The entrenched media would have loved that. Yes – the media. THEY determine how the public sees these things, and how business (and ultimately, the economy) reacts to them.
- I hope you understand that the massive deficits of the current government are in part due to Bush’s tax cuts.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Without the economic stimulus (that is real stimulus, not the federal welfare kind: a check in the mail) provided by the tax cuts, we would have seen a continuation and a deepening of Clinton’s legacy: economic recession. But instead, lower taxes unleashed the economy – just like they did in ’97. Unfortunately, the windfall created by the economic boom resulting from the tax cuts – the highest recorded corporate tax receipts in U.S. History by far – inspired Congress to begin spending money like drunken sailors on a weekend pass in Saigon, on pork projects for re-election purposes. THAT is what creates massive deficits, not cutting taxes. That and sweeping, socialist entitlement programs that are not economically or Constitutionally sound. Get ready for LOTS more of that during the next four years. It’s already begun with Obama’s New New Deal “stimulus” bill.
In any case, what you, Huang and Brunet don’t seem to comprehend about mixing dollar figures and marginal rates is that higher-earning taxpayers get a larger (“skewed”) portion of the total tax cut dollars because they pay the vast majority of taxes in the first place!!! The top 5% of earners in the U.S. pay over 60% of all taxes paid!! Tax cuts are intended to benefit the productive participants in the economy, thereby stimulating economic growth overall. Tax cuts are NOT intended to redistribute wealth, or to provide more federal welfare to those who don’t pay any taxes in the first place, as you and your sources seem to think.
- My point being that Americans are mostly doing worse thanks to the GOP.
Your demonstrably uninformed opinion – not supported by facts in evidence, which you ignored.
- I see Bush has erased Clinton’s improvements.
Ah, so you really can’t add OR read. That’s not a surprise. To recap: debt-to-GDP ratio averaged lower under Bush.
So sorry. Can’t resist.
Well then consider yourself embarrassed. Except for the short three-year blip (aka “economic boom”) provided by the 1997 reduction in capital gains tax, Clinton stalled recovery from the early ’90s recession (THAT’s an example of your “stunted growth”) and pushed the country into a deeper one in order to “balance” the budget. The Largest Tax Increase in U.S. History was the reason. Anyone can balance their budget if they’re allowed to steal enough of other people’s money to do it – not to mention including SSI funds on the balance sheets. Aside from the fact that hypertaxation destroys the economy, that’s the only thing Clinton proved.
- Here’s a transcript of the memo.
A transcript of the memo? Still can’t read, I see. It was a briefing, not a “memo”. Aside from your inability to tell the difference, what exactly do you think the release of this information ever proved? Look at the date. Can you say, “fodder for the campaign” (or are you really that stupid). Did you miss the bit about “[w]e have not been able to corroborate…”? What, in your 20/20 hindsighted opinion gives you the authority to declare which of those 70 active investigations should have seen the most focus?
- Thanks for making it so much fun.
Hey, whatever masochistic motivation floats your boat. Have you considered therapy?
@88
goy,
Bush inherited a dying economy and a disastrous national security situation which led to events that further damaged the economy. Both of these were thanks to Clinton’s excessive taxation and wag-the-dog foreign policy. With help, Bush turned both of these situations around completely.
Obama inherits a much worse economy, and a drastically deteriorated national security situation. Both of these are due to the policy failures of Bush, regardless of your tortured attempts to blame Clinton for the last eight years of insanity. I will agree that Bush turned things around completely – for the worse.
Yes – the media. THEY determine how the public sees these things, and how business (and ultimately, the economy) reacts to them.
Sure. Keep on pretending that objective reality has no impact on public perceptions. I suppose the solution to our economic struggles is to simply have the media change how they report the story? Just admit that Bush screwed up, and let’s get on to fixing the problem.
Without the economic stimulus … provided by the tax cuts, we would have seen a continuation and a deepening of Clinton’s legacy: economic recession.
With the ‘economic stimulus’ provided by the tax cuts, we have seen a massive deterioration of Clinton’s legacy: the collapse of credit, and the doubling of the federal debt. What part of a balanced budget do you not understand? Clinton made some small changes to the tax code and increased tax receipts by 35%. Bush has presided over the largest increase in government debt ever, and the largest economic collapse in at least eight decades.
Tax cuts are NOT intended to redistribute wealth
Tax cuts redistribute wealth to the top income earners. That is exactly what they are intended to do. The top income earners have a responsibility which most of them understand, and which you do not. Greed is not as good as you have been led to believe.
To recap: debt-to-GDP ratio averaged lower under Bush.
This is folly. The debt-to-GDP ratio was improving under Clinton these improvements have been reversed by Bush. Using a flat average just disguises the fact that Bush is making things worse. You are being willfully dishonest. You will continue to be willfully dishonest, based on what I have seen so far.
Anyone can balance their budget
Not so. Recent Republican presidents appear to be wholly incapable.
hypertaxation destroys the economy
Hypertaxation? Now you make up your own undefined term to describe progressive taxation? There is one very simple thing that would make our tax code much more equitable: apply the payroll tax to all income. If anyone is being undertaxed, it is earners $200,000/year and above. Your contention that higher taxes destroy the economy is unsupported by any evidence at all.
What, in your 20/20 hindsighted opinion gives you the authority to declare which of those 70 active investigations should have seen the most focus?
If any of the investigations had received any focus at all from the Bush Administration, we might have prevented the events of 9/11/01.
Just a few details…
Hey, whatever masochistic motivation floats your boat. Have you considered therapy?
It is actually quite therapeutic to demonstrate repeatedly that the GOP and GWB were not friends of the USA. I find it quite entertaining that Bush lovers insist he really was concerned about the nation. He appears to have been more interested in his vacations. His legacy is proof enough.
Peace.
DS
- Obama inherits a much worse economy, …
Not really. What he inherits is the result of suicidal Dem energy and economic policies and the result of Dem corruption within the GSEs – and a lot of media hype aimed at magnifying it in your mind to “crisis” proportions (an activity that has resulted in its own self-fulfilling prophecy). Check out Jonah Goldberg’s book, as you’re obviously unfamiliar with the use of “crisis” by fascist movements… like today’s Left. Anyway, we weren’t talking about Obama.
- Sure. Keep on pretending that objective reality has no impact on public perceptions.
No pretense needed. People respond to the “reality” they’re handed by ABCNBCMSNBCFNCAPREUTERSNYTCBSCNN, regardless of how good or bad the actual objective reality is. The entrenched media’s complete misrepresentation of the war in Iraq and Katrina’s aftermath are just two examples.
- With the ‘economic stimulus’ provided by the tax cuts, we have seen a massive deterioration of Clinton’s legacy…
Deterioration of a failing economy? Hardly. The collapse of credit has been explained to you. Keep ignoring reality. Until the so-called “bailout”, the federal debt relative to GDP (the only valid reference), while lower on average, wasn’t remarkably different than the previous 8 years – despite Congress’ recent spendthrift insanity (on both sides).
- Clinton made some small changes to the tax code …
LOL!! Yeah, if you call The Largest Tax Increase in U.S. History “small changes”. What an absolutely and unabashedly ridiculous statement!
- Tax cuts redistribute wealth to the top income earners. … The top income earners have a responsibility…
Wrong again. You really don’t understand how any of this works, do you. Tax cuts don’t redistribute anything. Tax cuts allow those who earn more – and who pay higher taxes on those earnings – to keep more of what they earn. And top earners have no “responsibility” other than following the law, irrespective of any altruistic fantasies you may wish to foist upon others.
- The debt-to-GDP ratio was improving under Clinton…
Through excessive, economy-crushing taxation, which resulted in the recession that stretched from 2000 into 2001, and which was turned around the following year. All of this was already explained to you, and you failed (or just refused) to comprehend.
- Recent Republican presidents appear to be wholly incapable.
LOL!!! Intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest. Sorry, your irrelevant thesis isn’t interesting. Again: anyone can “balance” a budget by stealing enough money. And for those who understand and actually keep track of these trends, the budget was on track for balance until the Dems took over Congress and businesses started to cut back as they realized they were likely to be screwed soon after. They were. The Dems’ suicidal energy and economic policies, along with Dem corruption in the GSEs made sure of that.
- There is one very simple thing that would make our tax code much more equitable…
You just don’t get it. People earning over $150K are already paying VIRTUALLY ALL INCOME TAXES PAID. Evidence for this has already been provided, but again you choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit the leftist narrative. Presently this means that some 95M Americans are shouldering the entire federal income tax burden for all 300M+. And you think it’s “more equitable” to tax that group even more?? What you are really saying is that top earners are not contributing enough to make it possible for the feds to redistribute more wealth to those who DO NOT pay any taxes, which are some 50% of all tax filers.
- Richard Clarke will later suggest…
LOL!!! Right. This would be the same discredited moron who documented for the entire world, through his book, that he had no idea when Pan Am 103 was blown up, along with numerous other errors, right? You continue to demonstrate that you’re not a serious person, Dave.
- It is actually quite therapeutic to demonstrate repeatedly that the GOP and GWB were not friends of the USA.
Well, since you’ve yet to comprehend – let alone demonstrate – anything, your fantasy must be therapeutic.
@90
goy,
As I expected, you continue to argue, but you make no sense.
You pretend that Bush was good for the US economy – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that all bad news about Iraq and Katrina is the fault of the media – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that Bush did not preside over a massive increase in US federal debt – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that Bush bears no responsibility for the credit crisis – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that Bush tax policy would balance the budget – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that payroll taxes aren’t taxes – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that Bush had no opportunity to prevent 9/11 – in spite of the evidence.
You pretend that you can explain away the failures of the GOP – in spite of the evidence.
I comprehend completely. You will continue to pretend that all of the errors of the GOP are somehow due to the Democrats, regardless of the facts on the ground. Thankfully most Americans are not so dense that they can’t see through your BS.
Bush and his cronies just got done sodomizing the USA. I can understand your reluctance to admit it, given your allegiances. Billions in no-bid contracts, massive unemployment, corporate bailouts, stacking the Supreme Court – this administration has left scars on the country that will take a generation to heal.
You can continue to live in your fantasy world where Bush saves freedom, and budgets magically balance themselves, and nobody needs to pay taxes to support the government. The Big Lie known as Reaganomics is dead. It’s time to restore America.
Peace.
DS
- I comprehend completely.
Not so far.
@92
goy,
- I comprehend completely.
“Not so far.”
Speak for yourself.
DS
Dave, you’ve already demonstrated that you comprehend exactly squat.
I’ve responded to your points, using them and your sources to demonstrate your fantasies. You simply ignore those responses and rattle off arbitrary contradictions, with no facts to back you up. You make a lot of sophomoric claims – most either directly from the wholly discredited media or talking points of the left – claiming “evidence” that is either nonexistent, from some obscure blog post, or which comes from a disgruntled, discredited, fact-challenged, former government hack. In short, you have no idea what you’re talking about. In shorter, you’ve been suckered. Anyone with the patience to read the preceding exchange can see that.
Enjoy.
@94
goy,
To reiterate:
- Complete recovery from Clinton’s 2000/2001 recession.
Didn’t happen
- Reeling from and responding to 9/11… successfully.
Didn’t happen
- Domestic security since that time – no more WTC ’93s or 9/11s.
See above
- Seven straight years of economic growth.
Insufficient growth.
- Lower taxes.
Debt for the next generation to repay. What a thoughtful gift!
- Higher productivity.
- Unemployment lower than previous 8 years.
- Debt-to-GDP ratio lower than previous 8 years.
I have already addressed these. As I expressed above:
Prove your point or prove me right.
Peace.
DS
David S is just another Democrat who doesn’t even know why he is a Democrat but knows which team he is on, none the less. Enough said.
@96
Jim,
I’m actually a recent convert to the Democratic party. I’m a Democrat because I believe in our Constitution. I believe that the GOP agenda is a danger to the Republic.
It just so happens that Democrats also have a far superior record in government over the past century.
I believe in the New Deal, I believe in Civil Rights, and I object to wars of choice. There is no room for me in the GOP.
Peace.
DS
I think you haven’t done enough homework. Peace, brother.
@98
Jim,
There is no doubt: we all have much to learn, and we are all in this together.
Peace.
DS