The Bush legacy

I remember once saying that Reagan (of whom I wasn't a huge fan) would be considered one of the best presidents ever. I got laughed at repeatedly. Meanwhile Clinton's legacy, which everyone thought would be great, is more or less in the shitter, although not as bad as Carter's.

And I'll echo my Reagan claim with Bush II, although with perhaps less high praise. The point is, history will redeem George W. Bush; maybe not completely but to a better degree than when he left. His biggest problem was perception. It was perceived that he "stole the election" when in fact this was not the case (if you still cling to the theory that the election was stolen, then you must also acknowledge that if Gore prevailed in court, he would have been perceived as having stolen the election, too. Bush barely won Fla. but won it he did. And if you want to say the whole vote was a fraud, then you have to apply that idea across the entire country. The whole system is a mess.). Anyway, perception. People didn't like Bush's attitude, the way he looked, the way talked, the way he was perceived by our so-called European allies. They called him names. Called him stupid, etc.

So what we've had is eight years of a democratic party hissy fit because their guy didn't win. So they took their ball and went home. And liberals do, after all, control the media. The drove that perception hard until it became almost fadish to hate Bush.

But he will be redeemed. With the exception of Katrina (a thin argument, but nonetheless, he was in charge) and his prodigious spending, he did nothing that most others in his shoes wouldn't have done (although most, like democrats for instance, would have waffled and done nothing). If anything, Bush was the victim of a long history of government do nothing-ism. Sitting on our hands for 40 or 50 years did will do that. From energy to terrorism to the economy, Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But at least, being a man of action, he did something.

Bush was only in office for eight years but gets blamed for things that have been in the making for 50 years. The rickety paper house that is our dependence on foreign oil, our blind eye to Islamic terror (culture), and loose, free money economic policy that began in the Clinton years -- and pushed by democrats more recently; Fannie/Freddie, CRA, etc) -- came crashing down during Bush's administration. Could have happened to Gore or Kerry, and I shudder to think what they would have done.

And you know what? The post-Katrina problems were not only Bush's fault but the fault of a century of no accountability for all the billions the US has spent propping up (or draining) the swamp city of New Orleans. Where did all that money go for levy repair and other projects? Probably in the hands of local politicians, who had NO EMERGENCY PLAN.

Bush gets blamed for so many things that have nothing to do with being a president, it's unbelievable. How about (so-called) Global Warming? He gets blamed for that. As if 8 years made things worse (when in fact the US in terms of carbon output has reduced its footprint more than the Kyoto signers in the last decade).

I just think that in the final analysis, things that were waiting to happen, they were eventual, that previous administrations turned a blind-eye to, all suddenly happened at once. Still, was also a huge spender, and bought things (medicare spend) without the funds; for that he should be criticized.

But all this and poor George gets caught holding the bag.