Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

trumad

(41,692 posts)
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:14 PM Apr 2013

Not sure if you read Jennifer Rubin's latest at WAPO...

It's a mouth opening fucking doozy.

Bush is back

It took less than 4 1/2 years of the Obama presidency for President George W. Bush to mount his comeback. While doing absolutely nothing on his own behalf (he’s been the most silent ex-president in my lifetime), his approval is up to 47 percent according to The Post/ABC poll. That’s up 14 points from his final poll in office. For comparison’s sake President Obama’s RCP average is a tad over 49 percent.

Why the shift? Aside from the “memories fade” point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt). Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11. People do remember the big stuff — rallying the country after the Twin Towers attack, 7 1/2 years of job growth and prosperity, millions of people saved from AIDS in Africa, a good faith try for immigration reform, education reform and a clear moral compass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/23/bush-is-back/

Make sure you check the hilarious comments.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not sure if you read Jennifer Rubin's latest at WAPO... (Original Post) trumad Apr 2013 OP
I've never read Jennifer Rubin's latest. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #1
Oh come on--- trumad Apr 2013 #2
I find watching reruns of Jackass more entertaining geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3
"after 9/11" Enrique Apr 2013 #4
Yeah, it was just that one time... SHE IS TRULY STUPID... winstars Apr 2013 #6
... BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #5
Ah, the neocon harpy is still going at it LittleBlue Apr 2013 #7
If Bush was so awesomely awesome.... Cali_Democrat Apr 2013 #8
Checkout this "op-ed" from Stephen Knott trying to rewrite the history of the bush era... madinmaryland Apr 2013 #9

winstars

(4,213 posts)
6. Yeah, it was just that one time... SHE IS TRULY STUPID...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

I smelled the frigging fires burning downtown until late November, and I lived in the East Village. Katherine Graham is spinning in her grave for sure...

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
5. ...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 05:17 PM
Apr 2013

jimfilyaw wrote:
5:11 PM EDT

is this a joke? what kind of damned fool could spout such nonsense

Flagjedi mind trick responds:
5:12 PM EDT

uhm Rubin

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
7. Ah, the neocon harpy is still going at it
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:51 PM
Apr 2013

She's a disgusting racist and the Washington Post spreads her poison.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
8. If Bush was so awesomely awesome....
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:55 PM
Apr 2013

why did the Republicans go to such great lengths to hide him from America during the 2012 Republican convention? Why not put him out there for the world to see and discuss his magnificent record?

Why did they do their best to pretend like those 8 years never happened?

Jennifer Rubin is fucking baked.

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
9. Checkout this "op-ed" from Stephen Knott trying to rewrite the history of the bush era...
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 07:57 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-w-bush-is-victim-of-rush-to-judgment/2013/04/19/fe7e0d14-a136-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

Douchebag extraordinaire.

The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum will be dedicated Thursday at Southern Methodist University, an event that will draw all of the nation’s living presidents to Dallas. Despite the coming fanfare, many Americans consider Bush’s presidency a failure. There is little evidence that scholars, including the influential historians who pronounce the success or failure of an administration, are having second thoughts about their assessment of Bush as a failed chief executive. Unfortunately, far too many scholars revealed partisan bias and abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their rush to condemn the Bush presidency.

Many academics branded Bush a failure long before his presidency ended — and not just fringe elements of the academy, such as Ward Churchill or Howard Zinn, but also scholars from the nation’s most prestigious universities. In April 2006, Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz published an essay in Rolling Stone titled “The Worst President in History?” Wilentz argued that “George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace” in part because he had “demonized the Democrats,” hurting the nation’s ability to wage war. No other U.S. president “failed to embrace the opposing political party” in wartime, Wilentz claimed, despite numerous examples to the contrary, such as when Franklin D. Roosevelt compared his Republican opponents to fascists in 1944.

Not to be outdone, in December of that year Columbia history professor Eric Foner proclaimed Bush “the worst president in U.S. history” and argued that Bush sought to “strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta.” According to Foner, Warren Harding of Teapot Dome fame was something of a paragon of virtue next to Bush, whose administration was characterized by “even worse cronyism, corruption, and pro-business bias.”

In 2007, historian Robert Dallek was so appalled by the Bush presidency that he proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow for the “recall” of a sitting president: After securing passage of a 60 percent majority in both houses of Congress, the public would vote yes or no on removing the president and vice president from office. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a flattering election-year biography of 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, declared in 2006 that “it’s safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder” and that Bush purposely tried to “brutalize his opponents.”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who coined the term “imperial presidency” and had a tendency to apply it rather liberally to Republican presidents, at first considered Bush an “amiable mediocrity” but later saw him as a threat to not just the nation but also the planet. In 2005, Schlesinger wrote that the Bush administration was purposefully “driv[ing] toward domination of the world,” placing the constitutional system of separation of powers “under unprecedented, and at times, unbearable strain,” and was intent on “outlawing debate.” A 2010 Siena College Research Institute survey of 238 presidential scholars ranked Bush 39th out of 43, in the esteemed company of Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Harding.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Not sure if you read Jenn...