Bush was not a success when it came to Congress.

[ProSense]

Holding up Bush as a success is revisionist. Bush screwed up a lot of things, but he did so mostly through his own actions, including recess appointments. As far as Congress, he had a rough time.

His tax cuts weren't permanent. He launched the Iraq war illegaly. He had trouble getting his nominees through Congress: Spakovsky and Miers.

Nominees were withdrawn, another: Chavez. Another: Estrada.

Bush had to install Bolton, Fox and 177 others by recess appointment. That's 40 more than Clinton. So I guess Clinton was more sucessful than Bush at getting his nominees.

Epic fails: Clear Skies Initiative, Immigration reform and Social Security privatization.


Bush Success Rating at Historic Low

That's 14 percent in the House and 72 percent in the Senate.


Obama's Wins in Congress

That's a record 96.7 percent.

[Cha]

1. Thanks for your research, PS.

It was epic fail in bush's congress..only in the Orwellian nightmare was it a success.

[11 Bravo]

2. Nor was he a success when it came to wiping his own ass.

Or owning a baseball team. Or owning an oil company. Or trying to string together a coherent sentence. And I'm pretty sure the stupid sonuvabitch had a respirator on call at all times just to remind him how to breathe.

[Clio the Leo]

3. So what you're saying is the GOP NEVER manages to pass anything....

.... regardless of WHO is in office.

[depakid]

4. ...

:rofl:

Give it up- no one's buying it on either side of the aisle.

[ProSense]

5. Your comment doesn't make sense. n/t

[depakid]

6. And another point

If Obama's gotten almost EVERYTHING that he wanted- and these are the results, then he's bound to be and deserves to be a one termer.

Not the brightest spin when one looks to the logical conclusion, based on peoples' perceptions.

[ProSense]

7. "then he's bound to be and deserves to be a one termer"

Are you that obtuse?

The President, despite the pathetic attempts to claim otherwise, is doing a great job.

[depakid]

9. That's EXACTLY what a lot people will conclude

based on the results.

Since some people seem to love polls around here- there's actually one out on that point today.

Better find another angle to spin....

[ProSense]

10. Nonsense. n/t

[depakid]

14. Those who buy into cheap media polls might want to have a look at this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4272474&mesg_id=4272474

(That I don't give them much credence, based on my own professional experience, doesn't vitiate the points raised above).

[ProSense]

15. So you cite a "cheap media poll"?

"Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected, or not?"

"52 percent said the President does not deserve to be re-elected, while 44 percent"

Same poll?

Most Democratic members of Congress
All Americans 43% (deserve) 54% (do not deserve)
Registered voters 41% (deserve) 56% (do not deserve)


Most Republican members of Congress
All Americans 39% (deserve) 56% (do not deserve)
Registered voters 41% (deserve) 56% (do not deserve)

PDF

The operative (and leading word) being "deserves"

What have we learned? Not a damn thing.


The CQ ratings cited in the OP are not cheap media polls, and neither are the facts.

[depakid]

16. You can continue on with the tone deaf cherry picking -but recognize that no one's buying it

and no one's going to buy it, based on their experiences of the Bush years.

AND as mentioned above, we'd better hope that remains the case.

[ProSense]

17. "no one's buying it" If you want to argue that Bush was a success, speak for yourself

He was a miserable failure, that's why his approval sank to a 23 percent low.

As for "cherry picking," stop using words you don't understand.

[depakid]

20. He wasn't a failure at getting the Republican agenda through

though it wasn't without significant Democratic help, as many of us recall.

[ProSense]

21. What friggin Republican agenda? Bush ignored everyone, including Congress.

He was an asshole determined to destroy lives.

[depakid]

22. One actually has to wonder how old you are

Your responses at times sound like you just dropped off the back of a turnip truck... or something.

[ProSense]

23. Feel free to wonder

Doesn't change the fact that your responses are nonsensical.

[Spazito]

28. ProSense, I give you HIGH marks for trying to talk sense to posters...

like the one above when it is beyond obvious they have their talking points and cannot/will not give them up regardless of the facts. I appreciate your OPs for the information and research you do.

[depakid]

30. "regardless of the facts"

:rofl:

Yet another person who appears to have been asleep during the 2000's as Bush and the Republicans had their way on almost every single piece of legislation- no matter how egregious or unpopular- and every nominee, no matter how extreme (or, as in the case of Alito- unethical) or incompetent.

Some have short memories, I guess- or perhaps, like Republicans who they decry, fail to accept reality- or learn from past mistakes.

[Cha]

8. Your ignorance is not funny.

[depakid]

13. Hey, I was cognizant over the past 9 years...

As were a lot of other folks- so this sort of cherry picking strikes me as amusing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Success, no.

Disaster, yes.

[treestar]

12. Than you PS

How quickly we forget.

[ProSense]

18. Bush fans are everywhere.

Only a fan would try to portray the worst President ever as a success.

It's simply ludicrous to continue hyping Bush as a means to spur Obama to act.

I bet these same critics would lambaste Obama if he resorted to Bush's complete reliance on the unitary executive, especially if it didn't result in their ideal outcome.

[Jennicut]

19. Bush had to use reconciliation to pass the tax cuts, didn't he?

It is kind of funny because Obama is forced into the same situation on health care and everyone deems it a failure. With Bush, it was a "success".

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. I see your point, but....

Bush was stunningly successful with his legislative agenda.

Now the fact that his agenda was catastrophically bad for America (and the rest of the world) is another subject altogether.

If I say that Hitler had excellent political and organizational skills, it's not approving of the Holocaust.

And I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler.

Hitler was smarter.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Have to disagree with you...

Bush was stunningly successful in his dealings with Congress between 2001 and 2007. For six years, Bush never so much as threatened, much less actually used, his veto powers over legislation coming out of the Republican Congress. Immigration Reform and Social Security Privatization were intiatives that came during his second term -- too late to get through Congress before the Democrats took over.

Harriet Miers wasn't a problem with Congress so much as it was a problem with Harriet Miers. Linda Chavez is the same story -- she was employing an illegal immigrant as her live-in maid. Nobody who wants to be in the Cabinet survives that kind of story line. Most of the time, when the Bush Adminstration suffered setbacks during those years, it was from self-inflicted wounds or from actions that even Congressional Republicans could no longer stomach.

It needs to be restated...often...that for six years we had unalloyed conservatism running amok in this country. We had a Republican President and a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court that, working in complete harmony, drove this country into a ditch.

Republican Policies were given a six-year trial run, and now we see the results.

[ProSense]

25. "Bush was stunningly successful in his dealings with Congress between 2001 and 2007"

Clear Skies and Social Security failed in 2005

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. Actually...

Clear skies was all but dead before 2005 -- but several of its provisions were enacted via backdoor executive orders (and some are still in effect). Social Security Privatization was always pretty much a non-starter (Congressional Republicans may be stupid, but they can read polling data). When it didn't get enacted in 2005, privatization was deader than disco during the mid-term elections.

[ProSense]

27. "but several of its provisions were enacted via backdoor executive orders "

Which is the point made in the OP. He did things unilaterally.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. I understand your point....

But I think it's a strategic mistake to give the appearance that Bush and Congress were anything but co-conspirators in the Looting of America. It allows the next Republican Asshat to come along and say, "Bush? Oh, well, Bush got conservatism all wrong. He really screwed up. What we need is a REAL conservative in the White House."

Now THAT'S revisionist history. The simple fact is that Bush got nearly everything he ever asked for from the Republican Congress, and it was only AFTER it became obvious that their policies were a catastrophe that Republicans (like McCain) began to back-pedal from their full-throated support. And it wasn't until after the Democrats took control and slammed on the brakes that the trajectory of his administration changed.

George W. Bush issued 11 vetoes during his Administration. That's nearly three times as many as his father issued in a single term. In the past century, the only President to issue fewer vetoes was Warren Harding, who at least had the decency to die in office after only two years. Even JFK, who didn't serve a full term and had a solid Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress, issued more vetoes than Bush did.

Between 2001 and 2007, Bush got everything he wanted from what amounts to a rubber stamp Congress. Any Republican (and some Democrats) who served in the House or the Senate during that period were willing accomplices.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Bush was a foreign policy President, a really crappy one at that

He got his way in Congress on issues pertaining to terrorism and national security because fear is an incredibly powerful motivator and Democrats feared they would look weak on national security if they challenged him on those issues.

But he failed to get permanent tax cuts (he got temporary ones through reconciliation) and he failed to seriously reform entitlements which Karl Rove was really hoping to do.

If you look at Bush's legacy, it's two failed wars, taking a shit on the constitution, and short term lack of regulation that helped create a financial meltdown. He was hoping to add shredding of the social safety net to that, but he didn't get it. Most of that was done by Reagan and ever since we've just been taking little stabs at it.

[Raine1967]

33. This is a perfect example of how people twist history.

Very good post.

He was not successful and instead used backdoor ways -- illegal in MANY cases to get his agenda passed.

HE was a failure in so many ways and yet the few things he managed to do were incredibly damaging to this country. I for one am glad he did not succeed in the many ways he could have.

In particularly, privatizing Social Security. The key to all of this is that what he did was devastating, I for one am very glad he failed so much -- what we on the left need to start doing is casting a light on his failures, otherwise, he'll be canonized like Reagan has been.

The other key to all of this is that he got this done, especially AFTER 2006 with congress. We need to make it clear to OUR majority that if bush could fail so damn upward, passing this administrations agenda should be a cakewalk.

A very happy K & R. Thanks.