Discuss.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Quote :

"The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace What must our enemies be thinking? By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president. According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right. This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust." Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties. The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there. It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right. Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them. Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America." To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history. Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time. Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House. ------------------------------------------ Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004."

11/5/2008 10:45:00 AM

tl;dr

j/k

interesting

11/5/2008 10:53:23 AM

seems a little overblown but I can see the underlying point.

deserved or not, the attacks on him by the left have been relentless, even when something positive happens.

11/5/2008 10:53:29 AM

What a terrible article. It implies people are dissatisfied with Bush "just because". He made some truly terrible decisions and does deserve a large share of the blame for the mess we've put ourselves in at home and abroad.

To be clear, I only started to really hate the man after he decided to invade Iraq. I always thought he was an idiot, but at least a well meaning idiot. His decision to invade Iraq, and almost everything after, showed me that he truly was scum.

11/5/2008 10:55:39 AM

agree, but don't look for much agreement here


I think it had a lot to do with the bitterness of the 2000 election for Democrats that no matter what, Bush was NEVER going to get their respect. And when he made mistakes, they went after him hard.

Presidents deserve criticism when they make mistakes but the treatment of Bush has been outrageous in my opinion. That's why I'm personally going to make an effort, even though I don't like him at all and think he's wrong for our country, to give Obama a fair chance to try and fix the country and overlook the mistakes he's bound to make early in his presidency before I get on here and make a thread or post about how much I think he sucks.

11/5/2008 10:57:07 AM

Quote :

"deserved or not, the attacks on him by the left have been relentless, even when something positive happens."

hack hack hack...imma partisan hack...hack hack hack Is that all you do here? Look at the damn opine

Quote :

"while facing abandonment from the right."

Quote :

"alarmed Republicans"

Quote :

"alienated traditional conservatives"

Quote :

"continuously disappointing the right"

I can only imagine this outright refusal to accept reality is why people don't really pay attention to what you have to say around here.

11/5/2008 11:19:19 AM

Quote :

"This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans."

stopped reading there.

11/5/2008 11:43:14 AM

^you would

thats a good article...the treatment of the guy has been horrendous. these insane liberals hated him ever since he "stole" the 2000 election. there was nothing he could do about that.

and like i said in the other thread, he was dealing with people who freaked out and accused everyone of cheating in any election they ever came close to losing. you gotta expect that they will not have the dignity to treat a president they dont like fairly.

11/5/2008 11:52:00 AM

yeah, i would, because whoever wrote it showed that he was full of shit with that one sentence. why bother reading further?

11/5/2008 11:57:30 AM

^right

11/5/2008 11:58:47 AM

I agree with the bulk of it.

To me, the simple fact that we haven't been attacked in a major way on our home turf since 9/11 says a lot about the guy.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : turf]

11/5/2008 12:05:44 PM

Good article, take a look at the thread titled "MY President." It's along the same lines. It's sad how much hatred there is in this country for their government.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 12:06:33 PM

^ I agree...

the guy NEVER had a prayer...he was going get massacred no matter what decisions he made..

11/5/2008 12:06:51 PM

look, i'll agree that the treatment of Bush has been unfair, and probably a lot of good things from/about him have been overlooked.

But i have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy at this point considering all the things he actually has, factually and unbiasedly, fucked up

11/5/2008 12:07:09 PM

Quote :

"the guy NEVER had a prayer...he was going get massacred no matter what decisions he made.."

Do you even comprehend what you read? He had a 90% approval rating post 9/11. He NEVER had a prayer? GTFO of here.

11/5/2008 12:17:43 PM

maybe GWB should throw his haters into prison; AM I RIGHT hooksaw, afterall they just hate our freedoms

11/5/2008 12:22:38 PM

If any of you are feeling the least bit of sympathy towards him, remember how arrogant and dismissive he was of his critics as he was making all of his objectively bad decisions.

11/5/2008 12:23:08 PM

^^ if you're going to be snarky and irrelevant, can you at least be original and funny?

11/5/2008 12:24:08 PM

suck my cack....

11/5/2008 12:27:16 PM

nukular

11/5/2008 12:32:49 PM

Quote :

"Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty"

hahahah i've always loved that "emboldening the enemy" bs

11/5/2008 1:11:08 PM

I wish they would stop comparing bush to Presidents like Truman. They are nothing alike. Any hardships we have endured these past years were brought on by the same jackass that has low approval ratings.

11/5/2008 1:16:48 PM

Quote :

"hack hack hack...imma partisan hack...hack hack hack Is that all you do here? Look at the damn opine"

....

meh

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2008 1:32:39 PM

This article gives him a lot of credit for saying stuff. You can say you're reaching out all you want, but if your administration tried to viciously stifle and crush all who oppose you what you say doesn't mean anything.

11/5/2008 1:44:33 PM

yeah, which is exactly why i said this:

Quote :

"This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust." Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties."

is bullshit.

So Bush came out with some rhetoric in 2004 that said he wanted to be bi-partisan. And that was pretty much the extent of his efforts.
As I recall, within days of the 2004 election, he also declared that he had a "conservative mandate"

11/5/2008 2:06:00 PM

To have this discussion, we need to separate two fundamentally different questions:

1) Has George W. Bush been more harshly criticized than he deserves? YES

I say yes for the folowing reasons:

1) The "lunatic, leftist extremists" - They're always going to hate a powerful conservative regardless of the circumstances.

2) The 2000 election - Bush had no control over how close it was, and no he did NOT steal it. The media would have had a field day if they had uncovered any evidence that that even suggested Gore had a chance. I always thought those "Re-Defeat Bush" bumper stickers were clever, but then again it didn't occurr to me to think that some people took these literally.

3) The economy - Presidents have very little control over economic cycles, but they always take an lionshare of the credit/blame. Clinton, for all the good things he did, was not responsible for the "dot com" boom in the mid-late 90's. In turn, Bush was not responsible for the subsequent "dot come bust," which got dragged out due to the aftershock of 9/11.

4) History - Judgment on Bush and his presidency will be much more objective, relevant, and valid once we've let the dust settle in a few years, if not a decade or two. Evaluations of him now will at best be preliminary.

Now then, the 2nd question:

Does Bush deserve much of the criticism he's received during his Presidency?

Yes. Unequivocally yes, and for all the reasons previously stated in this thead.


That is all.

11/5/2008 2:56:41 PM

Quote :

"To me, the simple fact that we haven't been attacked in a major way on our home turf since 9/11 says a lot about the guy"

I don't even know where to start with this, but I might have some magic "anti-terrorism pills" I can sell you (side affects may include denial). They haven't let me down since 2001!

and let's face it, we got duped by a moron. i really feel like the majority of the people who think he's been treated unfairly say so because they don't want to admit that they made a mistake in voting for him......TWICE!

after 2000, I thought, well, he's automatically starting with less than a 50% approval rating, so he won't have much room to work with and won't be able to push his agenda around....and boy was i wrong.


after sept. 11, i was willing for us to go into afghanistan and find bin laden and bring him to justice. i didn't care for george w., but i supported that decision. it wasn't until he pulled the opie-dope on the public and went into iraq that my distaste for bush turned into absolute vitriole. and i'm not going to apologize for that (and for the record, i was mad at my fellow democrats for supporting the war - in fact, i even registered independent at the time specifically because of that decision). the man brought us into a stupid war and cost us thousands of u.s. lives by LYING to us. and when he said, "i don't know where bin laden is, and i don't really care" i started counting down the days to the next election, because i knew he had gone off the deep end.

when you make those kinds of mistakes, you should be held accountable.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 3:15:58 PM

^^well put.

11/5/2008 3:16:54 PM

Quote :

"It's sad how much hatred there is in this country for their government."

Basically because the government is so out of touch they don't give a flying shit about what is best for the country anymore

and yes, obama is out of touch as well, don't tell me it's all going to "change"

11/5/2008 3:19:33 PM

The op ed piece is terrible.

George W. Bush doubled the national debt through two wars that have led to nowhere.

George W. Bush has increased the size of government by creating an entire new department of suspicious worth. Homeland security? What was the Military's job prior?

George W. Bush has approved presidential orders to allow wiretapping of American citizens without a court order. This is an amazing pill to accept for most people, but should be especially hard for libertarians.

George W. Bush has successively eroded any confidence in his competence by praising inept leaders like Michael D. Brown (who he appointed) and John Bolton (who he also appointed).

... and the list goes on.

We can give George W. Bush a pass on the current financial crisis since thats rooted to deregulation started in the Carter era but everything else the man has earned.

11/5/2008 3:43:15 PM

^ well golly-g at least Bush didn't increase the size of gov't like those crazy liberals would have!!!

oh wait a minute.....

11/5/2008 3:56:26 PM

Quote :

"The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president."

Idiot.

Quote :

" Proposition R Bush Sewage Choice Votes Yes 63,879 30.9% No 143,087 69.1% "

(http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/)

Some proof. It lost by a landslide in San Francisco.

11/5/2008 4:21:51 PM

Quote :

"George W. Bush doubled the national debt through two wars that have led to nowhere."

Really? I was not aware that 200billion a year would double the national debt in less than 7 years. I wasn't aware that 1.7trillion in entitlements would have no effect on the national debt

11/5/2008 5:51:49 PM

President Bush's treatment of the American public has been a disgrace.

Turnabout and all that rot...

11/5/2008 5:57:13 PM

^^ Either one would have resulted in more debt:

Quote :

"Including added interest costs, McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's would add $3.3 trillion -- and that's before spending proposals are considered."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1125962320080611

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 5:57:21 PM

^ the point was that we currently spend 200b a year on the war in Iraq. we spend 1.5trillion a year on entitlements. which one do you think is bankrupting us faster?

and yes, both candidates this year sucked fiscally.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 5:59:30 PM

If only there were a thread for this. . .

message_topic.aspx?topic=504034

11/6/2008 2:33:25 AM

This article is terrible. It didn't go into any detail at all on what Bush has done while in office.

11/6/2008 6:20:46 AM

Quote :

"This article is terrible. It didn't go into any detail at all on what Bush has done while in office."

please for you to read EVERY ARTICLE ABOUT BUSH SINCE THE 2000 ELECTION

11/6/2008 6:54:56 AM

what???

11/6/2008 9:58:18 AM

Although I have disagreed with some of Bush's decisions, I certainly agree that he has recieved unfair treatment for years. Pop culture has mocked him and the far left has spewed hatred towards him.

As far as Iraq, IF there were no WMDs, the democrats where JUST as wrong as the President. Don't give me that bullshit about "Bush lied to them! WHAAAHH!!" They had the same intelligence that the white house had. The only difference was when shit hit the fan, one side wanted to tuck their tails and run, and one side didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1q9Q0OtJ4g

As far as the Patriot Act, fuck that.

11/6/2008 10:52:37 AM

i've kinda liked bush the last 2 years...first 6 kinda sucked tho

11/6/2008 10:55:36 AM

^^ You can't deny the fact that the administration provided that intelligence though. That's basically what the whole Scooter Libby trial was about. But he obstructed that investigation and then Bush let him off the hook. It's a perfectly viable argument.

I will say that Bush has been a much better President with the Democratic Congress these past 2 years. Kind of like how Clinton being a good President was largely due to the fact that the Republicans held Congress for 6 out of 8 years of his Presidency. There's just a good balance when the President isn't completely unopposed and subject to oversight. He vetoed budgets and there was a lot more give and take between him and Congress than just the take-take-take of the first 6 years. The Democrats didn't get everything they wanted done, but they did do important work and Bush was along for the ride. It's just a shame that Bush was subjected to absolutely no oversight from Congress the first 6 years.

See... I can give credit where credit is due. It's just that it's hard to find places where it's due.

11/6/2008 11:09:41 AM

I will say this, the republicans need to stop pinning all their problems on Bush if they expect to win in 2010 or 2012. Bush disappearing will not magically make people love all their bad ideas again, they have to completely rethink what their message is going to be.

11/6/2008 11:13:05 AM

They don't need to re-think their message. They need to return to what their message is SUPPOSED to be. I heard on the radio yesterday that exit polls showed people claimed they were conservative two to one over people who claimed to be liberal. Republicans need to return to fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, states rights, ect.

11/6/2008 11:24:06 AM

Quote :

"Republicans need to return to fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, states rights, ect."

this is probably the most viable thing said on TWW....period

11/6/2008 11:30:47 AM

Quote :

"Republicans need to return to fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, states rights, ect."

The problem is republicans can no longer claim dominance on those issues....

11/6/2008 11:37:34 AM

Quote :

"civil liberties"

Yeah. Might as well split the party up now and get it over with. I'd vote for the good half.

11/6/2008 11:50:43 AM

^^haha

11/6/2008 11:51:31 AM

Quote :

"There's just a good balance when the President isn't completely unopposed and subject to oversight."

What do you think about the results of the 2008 election in regards to your above post?

11/6/2008 3:10:11 PM