GEORGE W. BUSH IN RETROSPECT

I really can't be mad at George W. Bush because he never should have been president in the first place.  He was an unsuccessful business man who was repeatedly financially bailed out by someone, presumably a Saudi Prince.  The fault lies with us the electorate for electing him.  Wait, he wasn't elected by us, the Supreme Court chose him.  His opponent actually got more votes, but was done in by "hanging chads" and aggressiveness by Gays when Ohio was not ready for equality for them.

Granted there are lots of" landmines" in the way of a president becoming great.*  For example, in retrospect, Eisenhower looks pretty good.  He had positive cash flow twice in his presidential terms.  Only Clinton (Bill) has had more.  He made some fledgling moves on racial equality.   He got the interstate highway system.  Perhaps most important of all is that he showed us that sometimes the proper reaction to something is no action.

But then the Eisenhower negatives.  He overthrew a duly elected prime minister in Iran for wanting the same oil deal from BP (actually the forerunner of BP)  as Egypt got (half the profits).  Things have been downhill with Iran ever since.  And then there was the Hungarian uprising where we fomented them to revolt and then abandoned them.

But George W. Bush (Bush-43) had two absolute disasters that he plunged us into.  One was going to war in the Middle East, something we have been mired in ever since.  The other was the Great Recession  (It is not PC to use the word depression any more) because he believed that the financial industry is "self correcting" and didn't need regulation.  All of a sudden banks, as a result of the lack of regulation, stopped being staid conservative institutions and became go-go organizations.   It didn't help that he also got a tax cut during the war that was performed on the cuff. We are still mired in both disasters but have done much, much better on the recovering economy that should be called The Great Recovery.

Many pretend to see no difference between a recession and a depression.  Recessions are usually due to large buildup of inventories and recover when inventories work their way down whereas depressions are a collapse of a financial system and are self perpetuating unless something drastic is done.

There are those who say that the Great Depression was not overcome until WW-II with its enforced savings through rationing and lack of goods and a continued low birthrate.  In the Great Recession, there is no all consuming distraction such as a World War, which is a great tragedy and certainly not to be recommended.  Industry has to work its way out of the Great Recession with minor help by a congress (other than a small "stimulus program") that refused to have a major infrastructure program to help things along.

In fairness to Bush, once he recognized what he had done, he did start some action to save our financial system through the TARP Program, that Obama continued.   But a lot of damage had already been done.   Though saving the banks has been controversial, it was a key to the Great Recovery we have witnessed by President Obama.

Bush, of course did have some positives, perhaps the most important being Medicare-D (prescription drug coverage), though he left it up to the insurance industry to find a way to pay for it.  He did recognize the importance of Hispanics to our culture.  "Leave No child Behind" was well intended if much hated by the teaching community.

I will also give Bush credit for going to war in Afghanistan because we had to do something after the 9/11 (2001) attacks, even if it ended badly.  President Reagan on the other had "cut and run" from Lebanon after the Marine Barracks massacre and embassy bombings in Lebanon and Kuwait, emboldening the terrorists into believing that, if we were hit hard, we would just withdraw.

George W. Bush's two disasters, unfortunately, greatly outweigh everything else and make him a candidate for the worst president ever, certainly a big step worse than President Hoover.

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/05/land-mines-in-way-of-becoming-great.html

ATTACK YOUR OPPONENT'S STRENGTH

Carl Rove in 2004 developed what seemed to be a strange and self defeating strategy in the 2004 reelection bid of President George W. Bush against Democratic hopeful John Kerry.  that is, attack your opponent at his strength.  In Kerry's case it was to demean the value of military medals in what became known as Swift Boating.  The approach seemed to be effective though it annihilated military honors as being worthless.

So with Hillary Clinton we see the attack on the Clinton Foundation, an organization developed to try to do good.  To what extent this procedure will have on the value of non-profit organizations remains to be seen, but I hope it does not annihilate non-profits as being self service organizations.
This attack seemed to be too much for even some conservatives who came to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.*

By Christopher Ruddy,* founder of the conservative Newsmax: I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
...........................................................
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
...........................................................
But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now.  During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/

SOME MYTHS HELD BY CONSERVATIVES

Perhaps the biggest myth held by conservatives is that denigrating  Muhammad was not the trigger for the diplomatic outpost attack in Benghazi even though there were demonstrations throughout Islamic nations.  We have had two 9/11s since Benghazi that appear to have been peaceful.  Where are the embassy attacks since Benghazi?  Besides, the sainted President Reagan had two embassy attacks, both worse than Benghazi and also had the Marine Barracks disaster to boot; yet conservatives forgive him for these.

Another myth is that if we had left 10,000 or 15,000 troops in Iraq everything would be fine there.  They are apparently unaware that President Bush did exactly that in Afghanistan when he pivoted to war in Iraq.  The Taliban had been pushed into Pakistan where they regrouped and came back stronger than ever.  Only a brutal dictator can keep Iraq together.

Then there is the Red Line in Syria over poison gas.  When Obama drew the Red Line in Syria if Assad didn't comply he would bomb Assad's retreat.  Assad offered to give up his poisons weapons in exchange for not bombing him and Obama accepted it.  If conservatives wanted to say that just getting rid of the poisonous gases was insufficient, they would have a valid point, but they feel that bombing Assad would gotten rid of him.  Though undoubtedly we could have destroyed many buildings, killing Assad was unlikely.  He undoubtedly would have been in a bunker  And if we did kill Assad, wouldn't ISIS take over?  We have the example in Libya of what happens if we aid a mob in helping take out a brutal dictator.  At best you have chaos and ISIS sympathizers seem to be taking over Libya.  President George H.W. Bush realized this when he had Saddam's troops on the run in Iraq in the Kuwait War and stopped the U.S. advance.

It could be that conservatives actually know all the above and are just using their arguments for political purposes, but I suspect many really believe these myths.

OBAMA: THE DEPORTATION KING

Although President Obama strongly pursues immigration modernization, few seem to know that he is the deportation king in the meantime (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/22/us/politics/growth-in-deportations.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk&_r=0)

Although there was a steep increase in the annual number of deportations By President W. Bush, his peak year (his last year) was about 360,000 deportations, up from about 180,000 in his first year.  The first three years of the Obama administration averaged just under 400,000/yr and in 2012, the number of deportations topped that number to about 410,000.

(To enlarge picture, click on it.)