I have a few issues with GWB, but Obama will make that administration look like the glory years.

I do not disagree with your points, I just disagree with your engagement. His writing wasn’t “crap”, his position was just light on the realizations. Go easy, saying his diary was a bunch of crap, do so isn’t going to get you a good counter arguement. You will get a nasty arguement with that bunny showing up when things go overboard. Anyway, just trying to save this guy and help, then again what do I know. As you were, Carry on Capt.

Well…I hope you feel good about yourself! After reading your comment, I immediately ran upstairs, slammed the door and grabbed my teddy bear. I’m done sobbing now, so here’s what I’m thinking.

I won’t disagree with any of the points you brought up, especially the “Harriet” episode. I wasn’t happy about that either, but I’m happy with who we ultimately ended up with. I’d be a lot happier if the “Republicans” in the Senate could have mustered up the fortitude to employ the “Nuclear Option”…such as it was, but that didn’t happen did it? Maybe, they could have even forced the Democrats to have A REAL FILIBUSTER!!! How ’bout that!

But NO! Even THAT was too much to ask! All the libs had to do was threaten a filibuster and our usual suspects “reached across the aisle” and…you know the rest!

How many conservative judges couldn’t even get brought up for a vote because our side preferred giving foot massages to the Dems to show what good people we are?

And it wasn’t just judicial nominees, it was EVERYTHING! Bush didn’t offer conservative legislation? What do you call the Patriot Act? How about the partial privatization of Social Security…you saw how far that went! And that was with a Republican majority! “Vouchers”??? That’s a joke! Do you expect any of those fools to carry the water agains the teachers unions when you can’t even get them to stand up to a rag like the New York Times? These are the same jokers that think “torture” is pouring water on a terrorist’s head!!! They even have YOU accepting the premise and calling it “torture”.

The President doesn’t legislate, that’s the job of the “legislators” (Senate and Congress). Legislation originates in the House of Representatives…I can’t believe this…the next time you see a ten year old walking home from school, ask to borrow his civics textbook!

I’m not a lawyer representing George Bush. I’m not trying to defend his failures. Hell, I agree with almost everything you said. Who is re-writing history though? You brought up the tax cuts which, by the way, tied 50 to 50 in the final vote in the Senate thanks to three “Republican” defectors. Cheney had to break the tie…and you think there was enough steam to make them permanent? Get real.

You need to understand that the libs count on Republicans who throw a tantrum when the team doesn’t score on every kickoff return. Like it or not, Obama will run against Bush in 2012…and whichever Republican is nominated will have the Bush Presidency stapled to him (or her). There’s plenty to be disappointed about with Bush’s tenure, but i’m not going to help the libs win another election by conceding defeat on the issue of his entire presidency.

By the way…Bozo was one of my favorite shows back in the day!

Becker, you know I agree with you most of the time. The text of your reply is a pretty good summation of the reasons why Bush was abandoned, and dissidentdingo (and probably more importantly people like Mitchel and Boehner) ought to consider them. But the title of your reply?! This guy is one of us Becker, maybe a little confused, but one of us. Not time for the circular firing squad.

But frankly, I’m sick and tired of reading articles that sing the high praises of a guy who – at best – will be remembered as a very mediocre President.

We keep seeing stuff published here, like this diary, that is utterly devoid of any sense of reality in defense of former President Bush. We had a President for eight years, and a Congressional majority for the bulk of that, that failed virtually every test of real leadership. I’ve said over and over that Bush promulgated the right policies (foreign policies, not domestic which were a total disaster) at the right times. He went out of his way to get bipartisan support for them. He went out of his way to include the UN and the EU in the formation and execution of those policies. And then when politics hit the fan, he refused to defend them against utterly scurrilous charges and outright lies and even went so far as to agree with some of those lies (16 words).

His complete lack of leadership, his unwillingness to take on the political battle at home and risk some political capital when my sons Marine Corps comrades, along with the rest of the US military, were putting their lives on the line every minute of every day is unconscionable. His indefensible lack of leadership on the homefront has given us the most liberal (and anti-national security) President and Congress in history. We will see an aftermath to President Bush’s political cowardice that will make the aftermath of the Vietnam war look a a distinctive pro-military time in American history.

With respect to other points brought up by the OP in his later comment, let me expand.

I’d be a lot happier if the “Republicans” in the Senate could have mustered up the fortitude… How many conservative judges couldn’t even get brought up for a vote…
dissidentdingo you can’t push a string. The people who occupy seats in the US Senate are not, by and large, “leaders” on major national issues. If and when they “lead” they do so on wedge issues like McCain’s inexcusable positions on CFR, torture and the G14. And he got away with those exercises in personal back slapping because Bush let him. Need I remind you that GWB swore he would veto CFR in the campaign of 2000 and in his first act of political cowardice, he signed the bill and passed the buck to the SCOTUS. And, he did that at a time when his approval rating was pretty high and he could have won an override vote with a little arm twisting. Instead, he hid under his desk and passed the buck.

With respect to judicial nominees languishing for five years and more in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush said nary a word. It should have been – and could have been – a great 2×4 to beat Senate Democrats with. Instead, we got crickets from the WH and McCain – ever mindful of a void – stepped up and “saved the day” by throwing at least seven very highly qualified judicial nominees under the StraightTalkExpress and we will end up with very liberal Obama nominees – who McCain will not utter a peep about – instead. And what did Bush do? Oh yeah, nothing. He actually said that processing nominees was the business of the Senate and he didn’t feel he should get involved.

Bottom line, Republican Senators have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER shown fortitude about anything. And if think they ever will (see Hatch, Cornyn etal recently) I’ve got a bridge I can make you a really good deal on. Leadership comes from the leader of the Party or it doesn’t come at all. In our case, it didn’t come at all.

Bush didn’t offer conservative legislation?
I’ll give you the Patriot Act. I won’t give you the time of day on the exercise in mental masturbation that passed for Bush’s promotion of SS reform. After the ’04 election he didn’t even bother to convene a meeting of Republican House and Senate leaders to pull together support for a plan to reform SS. He just took his little Powerpoint presentation and went on the road. And back in DC the Republicans – who he didn’t bother to include – bailed on him when the heat got turned up by the Dems. And when the heat got turned up what did Bush do? Oh yeah, he did absolutely freaking nothing. NOTHING. Are you seeing a pattern here?

With respect to vouchers, the only way he sold that piece of legislative dung we’ve come to know as NCLB to the Republicans was that, even though it was the Teddy Kennedy Education Special, we were going to get vouchers. The base hated the damn bill even with vouchers, but he was our new President and he was reaching out to Dems in a bipartisan fashion just like we were told “the people” wanted, he was showing how he could be a “uniter not a divider” and how he was bringing a “new tone” to DC (I can’t believe I managed to get through that sentence without puking) so we went along. What happened, well, in the tradition of bipartisanship TK sliced vouchers right out of the bill pretty much on day one. And what did Bush do? You guessed it. He exercised not one whit of leadership.

The President doesn’t legislate, that’s the job of the “legislators”…
That’s a comment that I really should wake up HappyBunny to respond to. Excuse me, but the President absolutely is responsible for formulating the foundation for legislation to support the policies of his Administration. Does he write the final draft? No. Where do you think the Patriot Act came from. Hint, it didn’t come from a smoke filled room filled with Congresscritters. It came from the DoJ and was tweaked by Congress. Where do you think the AUMF came from? Budgets? NCLB? Does the Administration initiate all legislation? No. Do they initiate, or at least coordinate with Members of Congress on the legislation that is central to the implementation and execution of their policies? You bet they do. Or they are supposed to. You spend too much time time with ten year olds. You need to figure out how the real world works. And BTW, what did Bush do? Yep. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

Tax cuts…
Yep, Cheney broke the tie. And then for the next seven years Bush spent exactly zero political capital getting even one of them made permanent. He didn’t allow tax cuts to be a campaign issue, just like he didn’t allow Democrat intransigence on judicial nominees to be a campaign issue. He ran away and hid and refused to fight for the things that he told us he believed in and the things that he said were important to the country. He was absolutely AWOL in every sense of the word.

I’m not, nor have I ever, expected a “touchdown on every return”. I live in the real world. What I do expect, what I do demand as a matter of fact, is that the de facto leader of the Republican Party provide leadership on core issues and stand and fight on them. I’ll provide a couple of examples.

First of all, am I upset that SS reform didn’t get passed? No. But I am livid that Bush just mentioned it in passing, through it against the wall to see if it would stick and when it didn’t, he moved on. He never offered anything that looked like a reform program. All he did was blather about how Congress should “address the issue” while never bothering to get a single Congressman on board with the idea and offering no framework as a point of reference from which to begin discussions. He just passed the buck and we’re now left in a situation where the previously toxic subject of SS now is the political equivalent of radioactive waste (and something will likely be done about that before the subject of SS comes up again).

Second, judicial nominees. Do I expect 100% conservative nominees to blaze through the Senate? Not in this life. But I do expect the President to grab Arlen Specter by the [throat] and explain the facts of political life to him in single syllable words that are unfit for publication at RS. Dick Cheney was right on the money with respect to his comment to Pat Leahy. I expect the President to work with the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, when the Chair is of the same party as the President, to get the skids greased for every nominee and to pressure everybody necessary to get them approved. Period. Hiding under his desk in the Oval Office admiring the nice rug that Laura picked out isn’t acceptable but that’s what we got.

Third, national security. Let’s talk about the leaks of classified programs to the NYT and WaPo. We got one enraged speech about the subject and then it wasn’t brought up again. I expect the President to do everything possible to defend the security of the nation. I expect that when leaks like these occur he will turn the world over looking for the leakers and punish the crap out of everybody involved. Where was the federal grand jury? Where was the investigation? Where was the belated arrest warrant when Thomas Tamm admitted he was the leaker? Oh yeah. Nowhere.

Lets talk about forcing the Congress to vote on the Iraq war. The Dems made huge hay on this for five years. Not once did Bush – when he HAD majorities – force a vote and force the Dems to put up or shut up. Not once. All he did was dare them to defund the military and went back to admiring Laura’s rug. Sorry, no leadership there.

Or the ban on offshore drilling. Congress goes home for the summer, oil prices spike, gas is $4 – $5 a gallon. What does POTUS do? Does he call the Congress into special session to deal with energy? Does he work with the Republicans to put together a comprehensive bill to increase energy exploration and exploitation? Of course not. He does not a damn thing. Would it have worked and given us a drill everywhere bill? Of course not, but it would have at least given us a club to beat the crap of the Dems all last summer and fall going into the election. But hey, that would be politics and we can’t do that now can we?

Sorry, but George Bush’s Presidency IS a disaster. He was the right man at the right time and he had the right policies. And he ran off and refused to fight for the country and for the principles of the Party he represented and should have led. And that’s much worse than if he had been an incompetent fool who didn’t know what to do. He did know. He just refused to. I’m glad he’s gone and I hope we never see another man like him.

The argument is he should have responded to their lies with the truth. To allow untruths to become cemented as facts in the minds of the American people was not being “dignified” and “above the fray.” It was irresponsibly letting public support collapse for important policies. He owed the country better, and the troops in the field better, than to allow that to happen. It is a grave mistake to praise him for doing this, as if it was some great act of personal dignity and honor. It is not dignified and honorable to allow a thousand lies to run amok in the world without anything to counter them.

Yeah. He also laid the groundwork for Obama’s election by refusing to counter the daily trek of outright lies about his correct foreign policies. He also refused to fight for any conservative values, save his veto on ESCR. His tax cuts were a long term sham because he refused to fight to extend ANY of them.

George W. Bush is a good man. He was an utterly terrible President, completely devoid of the willingness to fight for principles or the basic understanding why he should make the fight. Unlike Jimmy Carter who pursued the wrong policies ineptly, Bush had the right policies (foreign, not domestic) and simply sat on his hands.

History may look kindly on Iraq and Afghanistan, the jury is out on both of those and will be out for a long time to come. I think history will not look kindly on his Administration overall because, by-and-large, he did a terrible job. See above for some details.