The legacy of 'W'?

Same goes for all presidents in the modern era of media. I think the only president in that history to be considered nearly perfect was Kennedy and only because people feel bad for picking on a president that was assassinated.

On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?

I tend to side with Bush when it comes to many points of view. I think his political tactics suck and curse him every day for how he sold this war, and now how he has managed it. On a personal level I really think the George W Bush is a good guy. I really think he is trying to do the right things. In the end though I hope to God he is looked at as the worst president ever.

If so it would most likely mean:

That he was wrong about the threats that he sees.
That he was wrong about taking to the fight to them on their land.
That he was wrong that knocking down tyranny and building democracy in the middle east will straighten it out.

Really I feel that the only way Bush is looked at as a good President is if the next few Presidents roll back his policies and we end up getting mauled by terrorists due to that. He can only be looked at positively if it is proven that that he was right. I don't want him to ever be proven right. I'd rather us be totally safe and him looked at as terrible.

I am not a Bush basher but I am going to respond to some of these:

Yeah so he has exactly zero control over this. Giving him credit is silly. He has absolutely no impact on interest rates. Totally market and Federla Reserve driven.

Presidents get too much credit for this both ways, good and bad. The first Pres Bush got too much heat for the bad economy and Cliton and Bush both get too much credit for the good. Presidents have very little effect. Bush maybe more than others because of the tax cuts but that is debateable.


Well yes unemployemt is lower. See above. Same thing. As for lowering taxes, that is a weird one. Yes he lowered taxes and yes he lowered taxes mostly for rich people. That is because rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. He didn't really lower much in taxes for poor people because they don't pay much to begin with.

I will comment on these together since they are so closely related.
If you use those as a negative against the presidency, then they have to be a positive if they do a good job. Fact is, Bush has policies in place to help stimulate the economy and the interest rates. Sure it's not him 100%, but you can't deny he has helped the situation.

All by himself?

Considering India and Pakistan have been arch rivals since 1947 and no one has done anything about it, and had nuclear capabilities that were ignored by previous presidents (especially clinton), and India tested their first Thermonuclear weapon in May of 98 to no comments, I'm going to say yes. Sure he didn't act alone in this, but he made it a priority and put a stop to a 50 year problem. I'm sure those ill feelings are still there between the countries, but Bush and Bush alone made it a priority, and I for one and glad he did or Pakistan would have been wiped off the planet by now.

Al Queda is as strong as ever. There's not much he could have done either way. To destroy terrorists group like that will take decades at least.

Ummm what? Under Bush's term he has wiped out over 90% of the top terrorists, and a lot of them were members of Al Queda. If you think it's gettign stronger, it's likely because you had no idea how big this orginization was, which is all the more reason to thank Mr. President Bush. While you provide valuable counterpoints to most of my comments, this one was off base. Al Queda is weaker than it ever has been and will continue to weaken as long as we don't give up on the war on terror.

On the flip side, you've got someone like FDR who had the benefit of no term-limit to see his policies through. What if some two-term Presidents that followed FDR such as Ike, Reagan, and Clinton had the opportunity to spend another 6 years in office? Who knows what they could have done?


well, there is no way of knowing. I feel that Reagan's legacy would have been tarnished cause the economy had no real structure to it...the booming 80's were bound to crash and daddy bush took the blame. Ike, I'm not so sure...we could have benefited from another term of his I would imagine. Clinton most certainly would not get this high praise cause 9/11 would have happened under his tenure then all the information about him helping terrorism and ignoring intelligence about terrorism would have surfaced and killed any positive notions about him.
But you're right...who knows. Anything could have happened.

If we're going to give him credit for low unemployment and interest rate are we going to give him credit for mortgaging the future for temporary high? To be reduced to borrowing (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) from the Chinese is an absolute low.

I'm interested to know who in here manages their personal finances the way the U.S. manages it's finances.

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

History cites Harding as a particularly bad President... not so much individually, but he couldn't control the scandals within his administration. Also, "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here" is not a reassuring line from the leader of the free world.

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I think we're having a good discussion here actually. Maybe you should take the time to read the posts before passing judgment.

Yet another liberal warpath bash the President thread.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Actually, this discussion has been going pretty well. A lot of good perspectives.

As for me in judging his legacy, I can honestly say that I have experienced no change in my quality of life since Bush took over. The same can be said of my life during the Clinton era as well. Neither president caused me any degree of suffering due to whatever various policies were implemented. This is why I don't vote and I probably never will. I really could care less who's in charge as long as it's not a merciless overlord that enslaves us all to do his/her bidding.

If we're going to give him credit for low unemployment and interest rate are we going to give him credit for mortgaging the future for temporary high? To be reduced to borrowing (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) from the Chinese is an absolute low.

I'm interested to know who in here manages their personal finances the way the U.S. manages it's finances.

I tell you what...you show me how this is affect me you and the country as a whole, then that post will be of significance to me. Cause right now, it's just a number with no repercussions. Has been so for decades and decades and decades.