Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Why the Bush presidency may be remembered as a failure
Published on November 6, 2005 By Draginol In Republican

George W. Bush is on the brink of having his presidency remembered as a failure.  His poll numbers are very low -- less than 40%.  That's worse that Reagan's at the height of Iran-Contra and Clinton's during impeachment.  How did it come to this?

Simply put, Bush's character flaws and poor judgment finally passed an unspoken threshold in which people, even those inclined to support his policies, have concluded that Bush is a lost cause.

The straw that broke the camel's back was Hariet Miers. His nomination of her to the supreme court might as well have been a confession that Bush's detractors were right on some of their points: Bush is a shallow, unintelligent, old rich boy who is so far removed from ordinary people that he has few of their values.  That nomination demonstrated croneyism at its worse and given how much under the microscope modern presidents are, it revealed a mind boggling arrogance.

Sure, Miers is no longer in the running. But it doesn't matter. The damage is done.  We no longer know whether Bush is driven by what is best for the country instead of doing favors for his friends.  The reason things like Halliburton never stuck the the President (other than in the minds of the whacko left) is because it was unimaginable that the administration would be so stupid and corrupt to send deals to their friends so brazenly.  There's so many other reasonable and more likely explanations about Halliburton that the charges of excess make no sense.  But yet...now...there's that tingling of doubt.  Anyone who would appoint their own personal attorney to the supreme court...you never know... 

Then there's the botching of fiscal policy.  Conservates like tax cuts because A) the government is too inept to really help people effectively (Katrina kind of sent that message home) and hence people are better off having as much of their money as possible to spend more wisely. And In theory, tax cuts force the government to become smaller.

But look out, here comes Bush. He'll cut taxes and have party.  With Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, the conservatives should be able to institute their long-claimed desire of smaller government and effective fiscal policy.  Instead, we have deficits that bordering on insulting in that congress and the President want to throw money at everything. 

Then there's the war in Iraq.  I supported the invasion.  I am glad we went in there.  I am still glad we toppled Saddam.  The idea in a post 9/11 world that we'd allow a guy like Saddam to stay in power in a strategically vital region is nuts.  He had to go.  But he's gone now.  And over two years have passed and it's still a mess over there.  Yes yes, we're still over in Korea, Japan, and Germany and pretty much everywhere else we've ever fought a war.  But we're not having to keep 150,000 combat troops those places.  We're not having to suck down the National guard in those places.  At some point, Iraq is going to have to sink or swim on its own.  If their people don't care enough about freedom and keeping themselves from becoming a terrorist state, then there's nothing we can do about that.  Not to make too fine a point on it but it was relativley cheap to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq the first time.  The rehabilitation of Iraq is proving to be far more costly. 

Until recently, I had hoped that the administration had quietly let the Iraqi's know that they have until say next May to get their act together because at that point we would declare victory and start to bring troops back (not all of course, 10,000 here, 10,000 there).  I just don't have the confidence that Bush's team knows what they're doing over there. 

If there's any "anti-war" people reading this, don't get your hopes up that I'm coming on your side.  My complaint is that we're not being tougher.  I would have the "glass surface nation" policy if I were emperor. Deterrence may not work on terrorists but you can bet your ass that it would motivate the host countries of these terrorists to weed them out.

But on this and many other policies Bush wants to have it both ways.  Sometimes you have to make a tough decision and go all the way.  Half-way usually fails and satisfies neither contingent.

It's not so much that any of these things on its own is enough to cause me to lose faith in Bush.  It's the combination.  When put together (particularly the Miers nomination) it gives credence to the belief that Bush really is just a pampered good old boy of sub-normal intelligence who really has no business being President but is only President because the left-wing of American politics took a sanity vacation (which they're still on) and gave us no viable alternative (I mean what the hell were you left wingers thinking? Michael Moore sitting next to Carter at the DNC?? Hello! Goddam nutballs need to take your noses out of Cindy Sheehan's rear end and get your act together and realize how pathetic your party is when you can't beat someone like Bush). 

American politics has to be near the bottom it's ever been.  You have the Republicans in full corruption croney-loving mode.  And the Democrats are taking pride in their new status of being the party of victims and losers (as if that's a good thing). 

We need a viable third-party.


Comments (Page 1)
on Nov 06, 2005
Hello! Goddam nutballs need to take your noses out of Cindy Sheehan's rear end and get your act together and realize how pathetic your party is when you can't beat someone like Bush).

That is the best statement that really sums it all up.

Although it has only been waht a year since the last election.. what do you suppose will happen to either 1. boost his popularity or 2. Get rid of him?

on Nov 06, 2005
Thanks for the good read Brad.
on Nov 06, 2005
His poll numbers are very low -- less than 40%.

Little things like poll numbers don't mean smack to true believers, those are simply tools of the so-called 'left-wing media', but maybe due to the fact that you are a much more stomachable messenger you will be forgiven the content of your message...

Bush is a shallow, unintelligent, old rich boy who is so far removed from ordinary people that he has few of their values.

It's funny that Kerry is perceived as holding the same qualities; perhaps it is because he doesn't speak broken english and fails to wear his religion on his sleeve that he failed to convince the 'unwashed masses' that he had their best interests in mind or shared their values...

We no longer know whether Bush is driven by what is best for the country instead of doing favors for his friends.


I would commend you for this thought for it's originality, but in light of reality, I can only exclusively commend you for having the nuts to point this out after being an outspoken advocate of Bush during this last election.

Then there's the botching of fiscal policy.


...which some people have been pointing out for quite a while now here at JU, but because of their being labeled by the majority of JU users they have seen their valid points discarded.

With Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, the conservatives should be able to institute their long-claimed desire of smaller government and effective fiscal policy.


...so obviously, according to the majority of JU user rhetoric, we've only the 'Demoncraps' to blame. Republicans have the majority, but since the country is going to hell in a handbasket, we should blame the disorganized, nearly powerless minority for all the country's ills.

*sarcasm meter redlining*

We need a viable third-party.


Yes, we do. Unfortunately, until our people (and their apathy), our media (and their selective reporting), and our present system of democracy changes, we're still going to be stuck with the same old ass-licking back scratchers content to rely upon the masses arguing amongst themselves along partisan lines whilst our 'representatives' do whatever best suits their interests / agendae.

Thank you Draginol for getting this off your chest, perhaps it will open some doors in some otherwise closed minds.
on Nov 06, 2005
Well said, I agree with a majority of what you've said.

I think the problem the Republican party has right now is that it has too much power. With the Dems backed into a corner, they have been able to get their way. They became complacent (Hurricane Katrina for example) and then were shocked when there was an backlash. It's going to be the Republican party that undoes itself and loses the power it's gained.
I give you a lot of credit for writing this article after supporting Bush for such a long time.
on Nov 07, 2005
Better ,late than never. I feel that Bush's flaWS WERE ALWAYS OPEN TO VIEW IF ONLY ONE LOOKED. iN ANY CASE THE WAY IN WHUICH HE WENT ABOUT THE WAR IN iRAQ should have brought home the fact that he is sure tricky.
on Nov 07, 2005
Better ,late than never. I feel that Bush's flaWS WERE ALWAYS OPEN TO VIEW IF ONLY ONE LOOKED. iN ANY CASE THE WAY IN WHUICH HE WENT ABOUT THE WAR IN iRAQ should have brought home the fact that he is sure tricky.
on Nov 07, 2005
It has cost us dearly for Bush to avenge his father.
YOUR LAST LINE SAYS IT ALL!!!!
on Nov 07, 2005

I would commend you for this thought for it's originality, but in light of reality, I can only exclusively commend you for having the nuts to point this out after being an outspoken advocate of Bush during this last election.

My blog items are still here.  So feel free to go through and find where I was an "outspoken advocate of Bush" during the election.  I preferred Bush to Kerry and agreed with his policies.  But while I did support him, I was hardly what you would remotely call an "outspoken advocate".

on Nov 07, 2005
Fair enough! and YES we need a viable third party!!!

One thing I'd like to point out though. The nomination of Harriet Miers may have been the ultimate in cronyism, but the fact that it didn't work goes far to show how the system worked anyway.

People look at the presidents as if they have ultimate power. However, experience and reality show us that no president can do too much damage (or too much good for that matter), because every policy or program they propose ends up going through so many levels of scrutiny that the end product is rarely what was proposed.

The viable third party should be called the "wake up" party, because (at least for the next decade so) any party that can affect even a single digit change in any state will cause the dinosaurs to wake up and notice that neither of them matter more than the system itself.
on Nov 07, 2005
Good Blog. We need a GOP that is free of conservative control and far more moderate. I do not see a third party taking hold to the extent needed to govern. As for Bush, most of your conclusions are contained in my book (written in Dec 2003-April 2004) especially about about Bush being a spoiled out of touch rich boy. His failures are because Bush had NOTHING worth while as experience comming into office and is a front man for the wealthy conservatives. The sad thing is his failures will be with us for a long time! Glad to see your thoughts.
on Nov 07, 2005

This could just as easily be titled "How the democrats still dont have a clue".  Perhaps we do need a thrid party, or maybe just a party of ideas instead of one that uses their symbol as their politics.  I think the whole reason that the election is so close here in Va is the lack of National Politics involved.  Bush is making his first and only appearance today.  But no Prominent democrats have come to stump for Kaine. Indeed, I believe his campaign basically told them to stay away (smartest move he made too).

I am not at all happy with Bush.  But when we have no alternative, we are stuck with second best.

on Nov 07, 2005

Great article...

 

Bahu - Find the caps lock key and then buy a clue. You and folks like you are the reason that the Dems are not a valid party anymore either. Who would want  to be associated with people who sound like that?

on Nov 07, 2005

then buy a clue.

They cost $250, right?

on Nov 07, 2005
"How the democrats still dont have a clue".


Doc, it's time this phrase is laid to rest because the door swings both ways, they all don't have a clue! Until politicians stop giving favors because of contributions or family alianses or to get back at something or someone, they will not govern for the people.

Great blog Brad and I feel your disillusionment even though I didn't vote for him. The writing's on the wall and he's lucky to have gotten another four years because in the end it's all about one thing that everyone knew and is now finally admitting to,
It has cost us dearly for Bush to avenge his father.


on Nov 07, 2005

Doc, it's time this phrase is laid to rest because the door swings both ways, they all don't have a clue! Until politicians stop giving favors because of contributions or family alianses or to get back at something or someone, they will not govern for the people.

I only meant that if the Democrats had a plan, had a plank, that Bush would never have won a second term.  But since they just preach hate and obstinance, they are not gaining ground, even while Bush loses it!

I agree, and as I indicated, I am very disappointed with the Republicans.  And would really like to send my displeasure in the form of a vote.  But when I have no alternative, there is not much I can do.

Meta
Views
» 5477
Comments
» 68
Category
Sponsored Links