Originally posted by RelicI just finished reading this really well thought Presidential critique from Rolling Stone . I have to say it really put chills down my spine. Anyway please read the story and discuss, I'm really interested in hearing from the Bush apologist/supporters on this.
Excerpt; "According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined."
An article in Rolling Stone that trashes the President? Shocking!
Historians (read: Ivory Tower Academia) think Bush's policies are a disaster and that he will be the worst President in history? SHOCKING!
Pieces like this, that try to make speculative historical predictions are the worst kind of "pile on" elitist politics. In the 1980's, they were saying that Reagan was a mediocre President. I still remember the story...they said he didn't have the intelligence for the job and that he wouldn't really be remembered. Yet today, the American people on the whole consider Reagan to be the greatest (or near greatest) President of the 20th century, and rank him in the top 5 of all presidents. Back then, it was another group of historians
making the prediction.
Historians are not infallible and due to the world in which many of them live (liberal academia), they tend to have certain viewpoints that don't exactly match up with our current President's, or for that matter, most of the country.
All that said, we have no idea how history will judge George Bush, nor do we know what is to come in the remaining years of his administration. If anything, history teaches us that the most popular Presidents are not always considered the best Presidents year later. Relative to GWB, it's too early to tell what the outcome of issues like Iraq will be, which I argue is the single most important issue of Bush's presidency...at least for now.
Though jimmac et al will label me an apologist or kool-aid drinker, the fact is that I am not happy with Bush's second term thus far. I am concerned about our spending levels and the general expansion of non-security related spending. I don't see him taking the lead on immigration/border security either. I still don't consider him a failure in the least. Currently, the economy is at near full employment which I believe was partially caused by the Bush tax cuts. We are experiencing robust economic growth as well. I support his efforts in the WOT and his response to 9/11 in general, incuding the NSA program and operations in Afghanistan.
Iraq is currently consuming Bush's presidency, along with gas prices. People are judging the state of economy on gas prices, which makes little sense (that said, I believe we need congressional involvement on that issue). People are also tired of the Iraq situation and don't see a lot of direction, though I think there is a direction and that things are far better then is being portrayed. The mainstream media is also complicit in a lot of what we see with respect to Bush's popularity. It's a "pile on" effect as I previously alluded to. 5 years ago they were running articles called "The Rumsfeld Way" and making him (for example) into a media darling. Now, they find six retired generals to trash him for two weeks, most of whom were saying the exact opposite thing not one year ago. The old media and democratic party smell blood in the water.
In the end, we just don't know how history will judge Bush. However, I know it's great fun for some of you to gloat and revel in current events. That's OK...if it's therapeutic for you, I support it