George W. Bush is neither the source of all our ills nor the “worst” president in our history. He will leave office with about the same dismal approval rating as the once-despised Harry Truman. By 1953, the country loathed the departing Truman as much as it was ecstatic about newly elected national hero Dwight Eisenhower — who had previously never been elected to anything.

As for Bush’s legacy, it will be left to future historians to weigh his responsibility for keeping us safe from another Sept. 11-like attack for seven years, the now increasingly likely victory in Iraq, AIDS relief abroad, new expansions for Medicare and federal support for schools vs. the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, the error-plagued 2004-to-2007 occupation of Iraq, and out-of-control federal spending. As in the case of the once-unpopular Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge and Harry Truman, Bush’s supposedly “worst” presidency could one day not look so bad in comparison with the various administrations that followed.

But these days even that modest assessment that things aren’t that bad — or all that different from the past — may well elicit a hysterical reaction from an increasingly hysterical generation.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11084983

… ‘an increasingly hysterical generation; ‘that’s cute! …just like ‘a generation of whiners,’ I guess.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/serr8d/photochops/Barakstan.jpg

Perhaps the Dems are on to something when they say most of the electorate is too stupid to make wise decisions for their own lives. Jan’s a good poster child.

You got that right Mike, vile, partisan, hackery spit, this character is drenched in it.

Love the photo, hubby has one of the President out working on the ranch, just like HE does EVERY week end, weather permitting, on our farm. Bad weather puts him working inside, I’m a week end farmer widow. He has done a six and a half hour drive every weekend since we bought the place in 1985. He knows exactly why the President loves to cut brush.

He has two photos of President Reagan, one with his horse and another of President Reagan in a Jeep Scrambler, his favorite. Hubby restored a 82 Scrambler, it’s up on mounts in his barn in a corner by the framed photos and his “I voted for Bush bumper sticker. BTW, hubby’s barn is paneled in knotty pine, has central air, satillite tv, phone, an electronic dart board, fridge for beer, micro wave for snacks and lots of other manly stuff. Never had an animal in it though, maybe a *kitten* some day soon. Just mentioning this because I don’t want anyone to think we would display presidential photos in an undignified way and….. to tick off some of the moonbats that can’t seen to control themselves in an adult manner. >wink<

Joe Klein, a former admirer of Bush writes today-

…
The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush’s economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he’s a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating — but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit — and the auto industry — by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started — and he still could — the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.

In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html

Klein is still unforgivably late in taking six years to come to his senses, but, as always, better late than never.

Maybe we should just put up a photo of President Bush once a day on a separate post just for them so they can continue to vent their irrational, puerile rage.

Here you go, have at it. But don’t continue to bore us all to death with this crap on every single post from here to eternity:

You people have more bile than brains and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

You reality-free, analysis-insulated echochamber trapped fleas always want to retreat to the future where it’s warm and cozy, and you can burrow away in your bed of ignorance, where no one can know anything about the present in evaluating Bush’s policies:

Don’t be absurd, Jan. I actually evaluated the current term’s historical achievements. So if you want to talk about burrowed heads in ignorance, I notice you have nothing to say in response to the Bush achievements in the foreign policy. i.e.

When Bush took office, Pakistan was a nuke armed enemy, Libya was embarking on a WMD programme, Iraqis were living under a despot, and the Taliban were safely nestled in as power in Afghanistan, playing host to Bin Laden. Jihad was viewed favorably with a high percentage of the Muslim world.

When Bush took office, the 911 suicide pilots had trained under Clinton’s nose, and the N. Koreans had conned him and Albright (in two party talks) into believing they weren’t seeking nuke weapons. The global Islamic jihad movements had declared war on the US in the World Islamic Statement of 1998, including both Bin Laden (AQ) and al Zawahiri as EIJ… as well as two other major jihad movements. The jihad movement had already struck the WTC in 1993, and attacked a US warship in Yemen.

All of that has now changed to more favorable conditions and future, under President George W. Bush.

Obviously, you have a hard time recognizing achievements when you resent the POTUS….

Now, since you’re on a real roll in sprewing bile, perhaps I should point out that the only one who did the “retreat to the future where it’s warm and cozy” was you… yourself.. in post #19 who brought up the “warm and cozy” future of Bush as the worst POTUS via historians. I’m not sure just how you stupid you think we all are, girl, but I’m quite sure basic reading skills are prevalent here…. and your spin on the facts just don’t cut the mustard. I will not be accepting the blame for what you did… then turn around and accuse us of begatting the legacy madness. Chutzpah…

So we can tell by your last paragraph that what you want most from an Obama Presidency is to prosecute Bush. Yet I wonder if you would like to have seen the inner workings of the Clinton terms, where the AQ/jihad movementl global threat increased in intensity and frequency until it festered and culminated in 911?

And I wonder if you have even a snippet of curiousity about the man you have just helped put into office? Or do you just hold that “transparency” standard only for one POTUS you don’t like?

You’re desperate for some strange vengence, girl.

I’m reading here a lot of criticism here towards Obama, based on his personal life (church going habits, smoking, ect…). How do we take a stance against the Right behaving this way if we’re doing the same thing on the Left?

Just a thought.

Word,

So, historians who disagree with you are “idiots” who make you “puke?” That not a very thoughful response. I figure I got off light when you accused me of being in a “kool-aid induced stupor”

Dave,

If you read my comment in context as a response to yours:

The facts about GWB’s life (and his Administration) are out there. That you choose to view them through rose-colored glasses doesn’t change those facts.

You’ll see that I was merely keeping up with your tone.

And no…historians I disagree with aren’t idiots who make me want to puke; ones who pronounce judgment on a presidency that doesn’t have the distance of history and spout nonsense laced with BDS talking points are idiots who make me want to puke. They aren’t to be taken seriously. That you can’t see this is unbelievable to me; I can only chalk it up to your own feelings towards Bush blinding you to the ridiculousness in their partisan political assessment of the Bush presidency.

If you think you’re getting an unbiased presentation of the facts here you’re very wrong.

Dude….you’re on a frickin’ conservative blog! Duh! It’s about perspective on “the facts”. I get my daily dose of liberalism and bias from the Washington Post, NYTimes, LATimes, tv news, as well as visits to the leftside of the blogosphere. Occasionally I’ll pick up a liberal book.

You and Sanjay live in your own security bubble if you think we aren’t exposed to “your side” of things. Look through my posts and tell me how often I’ve cited from FOX, Hannity, Rush, Coulter and all the other leftwing punching dummies? If anything, at least half the time we’re citing from msm news outlets.

I can’t believe after your time here, you’d come up with such a lame charge. I’d think you know some of us here, a bit better, by now.

Sanjay on the other hand gets a pseudo-pass. Have no clue how long she’s been here, but offers responses that are just mindless drivel and pout, because I disagree with whatever point she, he, it is trying to make.

I would recommend “American Dynasty” by Kevin Philips.

Thanks. I’ll look for it the next time I go to the library, although I do have a healthy overdose of skepticism in regards to Kevin Philips.

Are all of our problems directly attributable to George Bush? No. But when he’s been running the country for eight years with his own party in control of Congress for six of those years, it beggars belief to suggest that he did not play a substantial role in a large number of the problems the nation faces at the close of his Administration.

Don’t forget that Jeffords jumped ship in 2001, voting with Democrats and turning a 50/50 split in the Senate to 49/51. Bush’s agenda came to a halt then. After the 2002 election, weak leadership in the GOP squandered the power we were given. And Democrats, over the war issue, have been wildly partisan in their opposition. Didn’t seem to upset Democrats in ‘92, ‘94, ‘96, ‘98 attacks on Iraq as well as support for the Iraqi Liberation Act in ‘98.

Conservatives see plenty of problems with the way Bush has run his presidency. But the criticism is that he hasn’t governed conservative enough. The kind of criticism coming from “your side” is just mostly hyperbolic, hyperventilating partisan hackery. With little rhyme and reason other than opposition simply because he wears the scarlet “R” by his name. I suppose it’s expected for the opposition party, out of power.

sanjay,

All I see in your responses is just bds blather and drivel. Quit frothing and grow some teeth before you go chomping at the bit.

-In regard to the public: they should wait, then they will then understand.
-In regard to the academics: they should wait, then they will apologize.
-In regard to the journalists: they should wait, then they will rewrite.
-In regard to heretical republicans: they should wait, then they will repent.

Wait. Wait. …always “wait, then you will see.” You echo clones sing to the future all alike, that’s your only refuge, where you can cling on to your collapsing ideology.

But it’s our time now; you wait.

This is politics, not physics; and as such it’s bound to a perception of playing forces that dominate and subdue to further a goal, it can get be graceful or messy: For Bush it is going to be brutal.

Bush will be taken down even further; beyond the congressional turnover in 06, beyond his invisible presidency in the past campaign season, beyond his present co-presidency with Obama, and finally down to the present, removed from the future: where all his years of tricks, deception, miscalculations, and shadow dealings will be laid out for public consumption, with a clear diagonal downward slope to failure … as a president.

… and we won’t have to wait either, it’ll start soon.

When Bush took office, Pakistan was a nuke armed enemy, Libya was embarking on a WMD programme, Iraqis were living under a despot, and the Taliban were safely nestled in as power in Afghanistan, playing host to Bin Laden. Jihad was viewed favorably with a high percentage of the Muslim world.

When Bush took office, the 911 suicide pilots had trained under Clinton’s nose, and the N. Koreans had conned him and Albright (in two party talks) into believing they weren’t seeking nuke weapons. The global Islamic jihad movements had declared war on the US in the World Islamic Statement of 1998, including both Bin Laden (AQ) and al Zawahiri as EIJ… as well as two other major jihad movements. The jihad movement had already struck the WTC in 1993, and attacked a US warship in Yemen.

All of that has now changed to more favorable conditions and future, under President George W. Bush.

But it is all Bush’s fault.

The economy had already started a downturn before Bush took office, the CRA regs were already in place for the subprime debacle under Clinton’s Treasury Sec’y, Bob Rubin… who’s busy getting a hand out for Citigroup today… and 2001 took our economy into a death spiral prematurely. Greenspan… who has spanned multiple administrations… kept the rates so low as to increase the problems with the subprime by causing runaway inflation prices on homes.

But it is all Bush’s fault.

Yep, Jan…. you may go to sleep tonight feeling you’re in good company for those who believe Bush is the worst POTUS in US history.

Then again, the world was once convinced the world was flat too.

Noble said: And if you want to see some pissed-off people full of negativity, divisiveness, and just plain mean-spirit peruse this site and then look in the mirror.

ROTFLMAO, Dave… Read back thru my posts and you’ll find not one of them are from a “pissed off, full of negativity, mean-spirit” person. It was you who started down the pointless road of assaulting the personal character of a sitting POTUS.

When you finally did add your criticism of his policies with the litany of the left, I told you to believe what you wanted, but don’t expect some prozac nod of agreement from me.

This is mean-spirted and divisive? Funny… I look in that mirror and see a cyber reflection of you. Does it piss me off? Hang no. Like I said, you’re just a bounce on my disdain meter. There was a wasp flying around the balconey about 10 minutes ago that got more of a rise out of me than you and your comments.

Gotta love this “can’t we all get alone” crap nowadays. Six years of listening to BS like you spew about a spoiled rich kid, Bush, and uneducated opinions about the haps in the world… but now we’re all just supposed to smile benignly.

And where has your “can’t we all get along” ‘tude been for the past 6-8 years?

I suggest if you want to end the divisiveness, you confine your criticisms of Bush to policy differences, and bypass your imagined visual of Bush being a privileged do nothing based on some biography you took to heart. Or perhaps we should all chip in and send you a Christmas gift of Corsi’s Obama Nation, and pronounce that the quintessential, and unbiased, biography of Obama. Get the drift?

But since you’re so hypersensitive, perhaps on my more tolerant days, I’ll tiptoe around you, and make sure I don’t hurl such offensive personal insults like “urbanite” or one demonstrating “class envy”. Since today isn’t one of those “tolerant” days, I’ll hurl another big bad insult. You’re a wuss too, Dave…. That’s another “urbanite” trait.

So, historians who disagree with you are “idiots” who make you “puke?” That not a very thoughful response. I figure I got off light when you accused me of being in a “kool-aid induced stupor”

You are in the 25% minority who approve of the President’s performance and the rest of us are kool-aid intoxicated, MSM-brainwashed fools who have not seen the light shining so brightly for you, the pure-minded. Now that’s an elitist atttitude, if I ever heard one.

And what has immunized you from the brainwashing that sanjay and I and so many others have succumbed to? Spending time here at FA? If you think you’re getting an unbiased presentation of the facts here you’re very wrong.

Here’s my earlier post that didn’t get through:

Word,

I would recommend “American Dynasty” by Kevin Philips.

Are all of our problems directly attributable to George Bush? No. But when he’s been running the country for eight years with his own party in control of Congress for six of those years, it beggars belief to suggest that he did not play a substantial role in a large number of the problems the nation faces at the close of his Administration.